Commons Sitting of 12 March 1906

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

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 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 following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order 63 has been complied with, viz.:—Mid-Oxfordshire Gas Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS].
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in respect of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, and which the Chairman of Ways and Means had directed to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with, viz.:—Scottish Union and National Insurance Company.
  Brixham Gas (Electric Lighting) Bill; Cheltenham Gas Bill; London and South Western Railway Bill. Read a second time, and committed.
  Rochester, Chatham, and Stroud Gas Bill. Read a second time, and committed.

PETITIONS.
  LAND VALUES (ASSESSMENT AND RATING) BILL.
  Petition from Ventnor, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; From Childerditch; Scorton (two); and, Thistleton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Paper [presented 9th March] to be printed. [No. 83.]
  EAST INDIA (MINERAL CONCESSIONS).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 9th March; Mr. Charles Schwann]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Reports, No. 481 (Ceylon, Annual Report for 1904) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS (IRELAND) (MIGRATORY LABOURERS).
  Copy presented, of Report and Tables relating to Irish Migratory Agricultural and other Labourers for the year 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) (CODE 1906).
  Copy presented, of Code of Regulations for Day Schools, 1906, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3535 and 3536 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Inquiry into Charities (County of Wilts). Further Return relative thereto [ordered 9th August 1901; Mr. Griffith-Boscawen]; to be printed. [No. 84.]
  DIPLOMATIC REPORTS (COAL).
  Return ordered, "of Extracts relating to Coal from the Reports received up to the present date from His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers Abroad for 1904 and 1905, or from such Reports received since the date of the similar Return issued in October 1904 (Parliamentary Paper, No. 343, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Fenwick.)

  NATIONAL SCHOOLS (IRELAND).
  Return ordered, "showing (1) the number of National Schools in each county
  856
  in Ireland in which, according to the latest Returns, Irish is taught as an extra subject, third year's course; (2) the number of National Schools in each county in Ireland in which, according to the latest Returns, Irish is taught as an extra subject, second year's course; (3) the number of National Schools in each county in Ireland in which, according to the latest Returns, Irish is taught as an extra subject, first year's course; (4) the number of National Schools in each county in Ireland in which Irish is taught as an ordinary subject; and (5) the number of Intermediate Schools in each county in Ireland in which Irish is taught (a) in the preparatory grade; (b) in the junior grade; (c) in the middle grade; (d) in the senior grade."—(Mr. Nannetti.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Sale of Lands Charged with Loans for Piers and Harbours.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether on the sale of lands charged with the repayment of loans for piers and harbours, steps will be taken to have the lands given over to the tenants free from those charges, in accordance with the spirit of the Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that, in cases of purchase of lands upon which loans for piers and harbours are charged on the vendor's interest, the loans are redeemed out of the purchase-money. If, however, the Question is intended to refer to maintenance rates, in respect of works of the kind mentioned, such rates are, as a rule, not redeemable.

  Railway and Harbour Guarantees Paid by Kerry Ratepayers.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the total amount paid by the ratepayers of Kerry, from 31st March, 1895, to 31st March, 1905, for railway and harbour guarantees;

  857
  what is the total amount paid by the barony of Corkaguiny in the same period; what is the total valuation of the county and of the barony; what is the total amount paid by the county and by this barony for the same purposes in the year ended March, 1905, and what does it average per pound in the valuation of the whole county and of the barony; and whether he will state if there is any other barony in Ireland rated so highly for those purposes.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The total amount which was paid by the ratepayers of Kerry, from 31st March, 1895, to 31st March, 1905, for railway and harbour guarantees is £165,458 13s. 5d. The total amount similarly paid by the barony of Corkaguiny is £31,575 17s. 2d. The total valuation of the county for the year to 31st March, 1905, is £308,445 5s., and of the barony £26,110 18s. The total amount paid by the county for the same purposes during the year ended March, 1905, is £11,932 4s. 8d., the average rate per pound on the valuation being 9.32d. The amount similarly paid by the barony is £2,365 5s. 8d., an average of 21.87d. on its valuation. In all these cases deductions have been made of amounts received for refund under Section 58 (4), Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898. The Local Government Board believe that no other barony is rated so highly for the purposes mentioned.

  Extension of Railway from Clonakilty to Glandore.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the harbour of Glandore is one of the most important fishing stations on the south coast of Ireland; whether vessels from all parts of the Kingdom land fish there, but are inconvenienced by the fact that the fish has to be taken by car for a distance of about twelve miles, thus causing injury to the fish as well as delay in reaching the English market; and whether steps will be taken to connect this important fishing station by rail with Clonakilty.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Both Glandore and Union Hall, which are situated
  858
  on opposite sides of Glandore Harbour, are important centres for fishing, Union Hall being the more important town. It would doubtless serve the fishing industry if railway communication with Glandore Harbour were effected, but it would be a question for consideration whether connection with the main line at Skibbereen or with the light railway at Clonakilty would be the more suitable for the purpose. I understand that there are no funds at present available for the extension of light railways in Ireland, but, in the event of funds becoming available for the purpose, the claims of this district will be considered.

  Working of Benduff Slate Quarries.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will ask the Department of Agriculture to send an inspector to visit the slate quarries at Benduff, Roscarbery, county Cork, to report on the quality of the slate and the possibility of further development, giving special attention to the disadvantage under which the quarries at present suffer, owing to the fact that they are over ten miles from the nearest railway station; whether, seeing that those quarries at one time gave employment to over 200 men, and would do so again with proper railway and other facilities, steps will be taken to have an investigation of the needs and possibilities of the district.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Benduff slate quarry was inspected in May, 1904, by the Department's economic geologist, in compliance with an application made to them by the managing director of the quarry. The report of the inspection was communicated to the managing director for his information.

  Building of Fishing Smacks and making of Nets in Ireland.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many places there are in Ireland for the building of fishing smacks and for the manufacture of fishing nets; whether he can state how many fishing smacks and nets used by Irish fishermen are of Irish manufacture; whether application has

  859
  been made by representative men in Dingle for the establishment of a net-making industry there; and whether, considering the number of persons employed in the industry in the district, and the amount of money which is sent abroad, steps will be taken by the Department of Agriculture to help in establishing the industry there.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Department of Agriculture understand that fishing smacks have been or can be built at about a dozen places in Ireland, and that net manufactories on a large scale exist in at least three places. Net-making by hand is also carried on at fishing villages. The Department have no information as to the number of Irish-made fishing smacks and nets used by Irish fishermen. The question of starting a net-making industry at Dingle has been brought before the Department, and a promise has been made that if such a project should take practical shape the Department would give all possible assistance.

  Main Roads in County Antrim.
  MR. GLENDINNING: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Local Government Board are about to reinstate the original scheme of main roads in county Antrim; that in this they are acting against public opinion; and that the county council rejected main roads by a large majority; and whether, in the interest of outlying districts, who are compelled to pay for the up-keep of roads they never use, he will take steps to secure that main roads should be abolished.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) 1. After careful consideration of the evidence adduced at the local inquiry, the Local Government Board have decided to reinstate the original scheme of main roads in county Antrim. 2. The county council, by a majority of seventeen to nine, resolved to have no main roads in future, but there were appeals from five district councils against this decision.
  860
  There is some doubt as to the legality of a declaration to the effect that no roads should be main roads. 3. There are no means of apportioning the charge for road maintenance upon the basis of user of the roads. Where, as in Belfast rural district, road maintenance is expensive owing to a large volume of the rough traffic passing to and from a great business centre, the whole burden cannot equitably be imposed upon the ratepayers of the district immediately adjoining such centre, and as a remedy the Local Government Act of 1898, Section 8, provides for a moiety of the cost being distributed over the whole county.

  Retention of Temporary Manager of Lislea National School.
  MR. LONSDALE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education will give reasons for retaining the present temporary manager of the Lislea national school in opposition to the wishes of the people of the district, as evidenced by the memorial praying for his removal, which was sent to the Commissioners two years ago; whether he will state the date of the last visit made by the temporary manager to the school; and whether his appointment is in conformity with Rule 44 (e).
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that they appointed the Reverend Mr. Simpson as temporary manager of this school pending the appointment of a new minister of Drumhillery church, who, in the ordinary course, would be appointed manager of the school as his predecessor was. A new minister has not yet been appointed, and in the meantime the existing arrangement has worked satisfactorily, and the Commissioners do not intend to alter it until a new minister is appointed. The last visit of Mr. Simpson of which the Commissioners have a record took place on 18th October last, but a local gentleman visits the school on Mr. Simpson's behalf. The

  861
  rule to which the hon. Member intends to refer appears to be rule 40 (e). The Commissioners have riot furnished me with any observations on the final inquiry of the Question; but it would appear that any question as to the observance by the Commissioners of their own rules is a matter for their own decision.

  Sale of Synan Estate, County Limerick.
  MR. LUNDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland can he say in what way the Synan Estate, in Carnane, in the parish of Fedamore, county Limerick, stands; in which of the courts is the case at present; has the conditional order for its sale, made long before August last, as yet been made absolute; can he say whether he can assist, through the Estates Commissioners or otherwise, in facilitating the portioning of this estate for the benefit of the labourers and small farmers on the small holdings around.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Registrar of the Land Judge's Court that the matter of the estate referred to is before that court, and that the conditional order for sale has not yet been made absolute. The solicitor who is in charge of the proceedings for sale is at present negotiating with the owners with a view to having the proceedings in the Land Judge's Court dismissed, in order that the sale may be carried out through the Land Commission. If these negotiations should prove ineffective the solicitor intends, as soon as may be possible, to apply that the conditional order be made absolute.

  Treatment of John Fallon in Galway Gaol.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the correspondence between Dr. Comyn, solicitor for Patrick Ryan, Michael Green, Michael Healy, and John Fallon, prisoners in Galway Gaol, awaiting trial for having, as alleged, fired at Mr. and Mrs. Shaw Taylor on the 2nd
  862
  December, and the Prisons' Board; whether he is aware that Dr. Comyn has complained both to the local prison officials and the General Prisons Board of the isolation of John Fallon from the other prisoners, who are allowed to exercise together, whereas even in chapel he is not allowed to see them; and whether he will direct that Fallon be now treated as are the other three prisoners in the case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Answer to the first and second inquiries of the Question is in the affirmative. The action taken by the prison governor in this case is in accordance with the prison rules, which direct that prisoners awaiting trial shall be kept separate and not permitted to communicate with each other. I am informed that matters occurred in the prison which necessitated a strict observance of the rule in the case of Fallon.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants in County Clare.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many evicted tenants are in county Clare; and whether he will see, in the interests of peace and good feeling in Ireland, that every effort is made for the reinstatement of all evicted tenants on fair and reasonable terms.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received 203 applications for reinstatement from evicted tenants in county Clare. The Commissioners are about to make inquiries into the circumstances of all such applicants, and they are doing all in their power, under the provisions of the law, to proceed with the reinstatement of evicted tenants.

  Irish Estate—Uneconomic Holdings.
  MR. JOHN ROCHETo ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will consider the advisability of supplying the needs I of tenants of uneconomic holdings in

  863
  the neighbourhood of estates acquired by the; Board, before importing people from a considerable distance.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Congested Districts Board will always favourably consider the claims of tenants with uneconomic holdings on and near estates purchased by them, but the Board cannot be bound to give all that neighbouring tenants may ask, without regard to the general needs of persons elsewhere, and whose migration it may be necessary to arrange.

  Sales of the Culthurst and Skerrick Estate.
  MR. SHEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Macroom rural district council, requesting the Estates Commissioners to have the cases of the Colthurst and Skerrick tenantry, in which a dead-lock exists in the negotiations for purchase, and where extreme measures have been resorted to by the landlord, investigated with a view to a friendly settlement, and also setting forth that an inspection of the holdings in these cases is desirable for the purpose of fixing the terms of purchase, and otherwise facilitating a sale of the estates; and will he state what steps are being taken to comply with the request contained in this resolution.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not received the resolution referred to, but they have been approached with regard to the estate of Sir George Colthurst, in the neighbourhood of Macroom, with a view to their intervening to bring about a settlement and sale, and they are in correspondence with the owner on the subject.

  Irish Fanners and Importation of Foreign Cattle.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether farmers who purchased their holdings
  864
  on the basis of prices till now ruling for store cattle, and on the immunity from foot-and-mouth and other contagious diseases consequent on the exclusion of foreign cattle, which, if permitted to land, may contain latent germs of undeveloped disease, are to be held to those bargains and compelled to pay their annuities, if by any action of the Government their principal industry is materially injured; and whether steps will be taken to secure a continuance of the conditions under which the purchasers undertook to meet their obligations to the State.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The points raised in the Question are matters for argument which cannot be discussed within the limits of an Answer to a Question; but the considerations mentioned by the hon. Member are, together with others, of course, present to the mind of the Government.

  Position of Telegraph Learners.
  MR. SEAVERNS: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what steps have been taken by him to regulate and improve the position of telegraph learners.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton): I am glad to announce that I have been able to carry out a scheme which will materially improve the position of telegraph learners. The details of the scheme as regards the pay have been published to the staff in the Post Office Circular, a copy of which I will furnish to the hon. Member.

  Discharges from Portsmouth Dockyard
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will state the number of mechanics, of all classes, and labourers who have been discharged from the Portsmouth Dockyard during the present financial year, also the number of skilled labourers who have been reduced in status and wages, together with the number of officials who have been affected during the same period.

  865
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The number of mechanics, of all classes, and labourers who have been dis-

  Causes of discharge.

  Mechanics.

  Labourers.

  Total

  Skilled.

  Ordinary.

  On reduction

  522

  611

  399

  1,562

  By request

  54

  17

  29

  100

  Age and infirmity

  99

  86

  28

  213

  Losing time

  14

  10

  8

  32

  Misconduct

  10

  2

  8

  20

  Death and other causes

  38

  10

  7

  55

  Total

  767

  736

  479

  1,982

  The number of skilled labourers who have been reduced in status and wages is 338; of these 195 were reinstated as skilled labour became available. The number of officials reduced who have been affected during the same period is 48, viz.:—38 chargemen, 5 recorders, 3 inspectors, and 2 foremen.

  Subsidies for Carriage of Mails and Fish in Scotland.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will state what subsidies are paid by the Scottish Office, the Scottish Fishery Board, or by the Congested Districts Board, towards the carriage of mails or fish in the highlands and islands in Scotland; and if, in view of the difficulty Shetland experiences in getting winter fish to market, owing to the inadequacy of the mail service, assistance of a similar nature will be given there.
  (Answered by Mr. Sinclair.) No such subsidies are paid towards the carriage of mails or fish. The question of a grant from the Congested Districts Board for the improvement of the Shetland mail service was proposed in 1903 and dismissed as impracticable.
  866
  charged from Portsmouth Dockyard during the present financial year is as follows:—
  The Congested Districts Board have given a limited guarantee for a brief period, which expires in April, for the conveyance of fish from the west coast of Sutherland and Boss, as an experiment, but the wants and conditions of these districts are hardly comparable to those of Shetland.

  Letters and Parcels passing through Lerwick Post Office.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state the number of letters inwards and outwards, and parcels inwards and outwards, at Lerwick post office during the year ending 31st December, 1905, and the corresponding numbers for the year ending 31st December, 1890.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The numbers of letters and parcels dealt with in the Lerwick post office are as follows:—Year ended 31st December, 1890. Letters delivered, 826,486; Letters posted, 710,320; Parcels delivered, 24,219; Parcels posted,-23,038. Year ended 31st December, 1905. Letters delivered, 1,689,636; Letters posted, 1,209,260; Parcels delivered, 86,143; Parcels posted, 75,920.

  Sanitary Condition of Clones Railway Postal Telegraph Office.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General, if he will state when the promised alterations to the postal telegraph office at Clones railway station will be carried out and the office put in a sanitary condition for the mixed staff working there.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have not received complaint in regard to the sanitary conditions of the postal telegraph office at Clones railway station; but I have called for a Report.

  Special Rates for Betting Telegrams.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Postmaster-General if betting persons belonging to clubs have special arrangements over traders for communicating news by telegraph; whether he is aware that a dealer in bread or meat would pay £2 1s. 8d. for 100 words to each of ten customers, and that these betting persons can use the national wires, addresses free, for messages of the same length for 2s. 6d. day or night; and, if so, will he explain why this preference is given.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) Clubs are, under Section 16 of the Telegraph Act of 1868, entitled to the benefit of the very low telegraph rates accorded to Press messages; and I have no power to discriminate against a legitimate club because it is used by betting persons. I propose to consider whether the section ought not to be amended in certain respects.

  Pentonville Prison Warders—Requests for Leave.
  MR. RADFORD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that on the occasion of the visit of Inspector Pennythorne to His Majesty's prison at Pentonville, on 7th and 8th February, several officers fell out in accordance with the regulations and made certain complaints to the inspector; whether any official action has resulted; and whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to deal with such complaints.
  868
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) On the occasion referred to, four or five warders submitted a request for the grant of leave on account of their detention beyond ordinary hours on escort duty. The inspector explained to them the rule in force by which, except in special circumstances, either an allowance in money or equivalent leave is given, but not both, and the matter was understood to have ended there.

  Dublin Museum—Report of Board of Visitors.
  MR. CAMPBELL: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, why the Reports of the Board of Visitors and the Director of the Dublin Museum for the year ending 31st March, 1905, have not yet been laid before Parliament.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am requested by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury to answer this Question. The Reports in question will be published in the Fifth Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, which is in the Press and will shortly be presented to Parliament. The preceding year's Report was presented in May of last year.

  Recommendations of Departmental Committee on Forestry.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Board of Agriculture, or any other Department, intends to take any steps to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Forestry, 1902.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) It will be seen from our journal that much has already been done by the Board and by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, and I believe that the labours of the Committee and the action subsequently taken are likely to be attended with very satisfactory results so far as the development of British foresty, both in England and Scotland, is concerned. We should be

  869
  very willing, however, to consider any suggestions with which my hon. friend may favour us as to the direction in which a further advance may be made.

  "Faking" of Hams, Butter and Eggs.
  MR. JOYCE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether his attention has been called to cases of faking hams in Ireland and butter and eggs in England; and, if so, will he say what action, if any, has been taken in the matter.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) No representations have been addressed to the board as to the "faking" of hams or eggs, but if the hon. Member will communicate to me any detailed information which he may possess I shall be happy to cause inquiries to be made. With regard to butter, I would remind the hon. Member that a Select Committee of the House has been appointed to inquire into the whole subject.

  Dockyard Discharges—Age Limit of Men and Officials.
  MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the age limit is equally applicable to officials and men in dockyards when it is found necessary to curtail expenses; if not will he state the reasons why such age limit operates in the case of men and not officials.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) In carrying out the recent discharges, which were the cause and not the consequence of the reduced expenditure on the staffs of the royal dockyards, the age limit was applied equally to officials and men. Both as regards officials and men, extension of time was allowed in individual cases to permit of time for pension or gratuity being completed.

  Report of Admiral Sir A Douglas's Committee.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when he anticipates that the Report of Admiral Sir A. Douglas's Committee will be laid upon the Table.
  870
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The Report will be presented as soon as ready.

  Increased Wages in Dockyards—Provision in the Estimates.
  MR. GARDNER: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if provision is made in the Naval Estimates, circulated on March 1st, for the increased wages in dockyards as foreshadowed in his statement; and, if so, what amount of money is involved.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmnud Robertson). No special provision has been made.

  Anglo-French Agreement with the New Hebrides
  SIR GILBERT PARKER: To ask the hon. Member for Dewsbury, as representing the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will lay upon the Table of the House the terms of the Anglo-French Agreement with the New Hebrides.
  (Answered by Mr. Runciman.) The Agreement being in the nature of a Draft Convention ad referendum it would be premature to lay it before it has been fully considered by the two Governments interested.

  Arrest of Three Young Men at Kilcoonan, County Galway.
  MR. DUFFY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether he is aware that three respectable young men from Kilcoonan parish, Claren-bridge, county Galway, were arrested on February 19th, on the charge of having fired into the house of a Mr. Kearney; and whether, seeing that the police have failed to produce any evidence connecting them with the crime, and in view of the length of time they are now under remand, he will direct that the prisoners be released from prison.
  (Answered by Mr. Cherry.) The three young men referred to were arrested on February 27th last, on the charge of having, on the night of February 19th, fired into the dwelling-house of Patrick Kearney, and also of having

  871
  attacked and broken windows in the dwelling-house of Honoria Fitzgerald at Ballindereen. They were brought up at petty sessions on March 6th and remanded until the 13th inst. The remand was usual in such cases and necessary for the proper preparation of the case against the accused. There has been no unnecessary delay. It is not in my power to direct that prisoners under such circumstances should be released from prison. An application can be made on their behalf, either to the magistrates or to the King's Bench Division, that they be released on bail.

  Day Taining Colleges Attached to University Colleges.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that the authorities of the day training colleges attached to University Colleges are strongly opposed to the proposals of the Board made in the last paragraph of Circular 530, issued in July 1905; whether the changes there proposed would prevent, to a considerable extent, the day students from attending the University College classes and from proceeding to a degree, and tend to segregate them from the University students; and whether he will consider whether the changes are educationally desirable, and should be maintained.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) My attention has been called to this matter, and the Board have just issued a letter stating their position in the matter, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member. The Board have no desire to prevent suitable students from attending University college classes, or to segregate them from other students.

  Deduction from Grants to Residential Training Colleges.
  SIR G. KEKEWICH: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether deductions have been made from the grants to residential training colleges during the past year at the rate of one-fourteenth of a £1 for every day's absence of a male student and one-twenty-first of a £1 for every day's absence of a female student; whether any notice was given
  872
  to the authorities of the colleges that such deduction would be made; whether there is any authority for the proceeding in any published document issued by the Board; and what is the total sum that has been deducted from the grants.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The hon. Member has misunderstood the regulation in question, which is not as stated in the Question, but is that a deduction of £1 is made for each complete fortnight in the case of men, and complete three weeks in the case of women. The rule is a continuation, only in a less drastic form, of a rule which has always existed, and is amply justified by paragraphs 56 (v.) and (vi.) of the regulations. It did not appear necessary to make any general announcement of the modification of the rule. The total sum deducted under this rule is £260. The Board have consented to receive a deputation on this and other subjects from the principals of training colleges.

  Cost of Lunches for Children in Berlin Schools.
  MR. L. HASLAM: To ask the President of the Board of Education what is the approximate cost per child of the lunches provided for children attending the elementary schools in Berlin; what percentage of the children are considered necessitous, and therefore receive the lunches free of cost; how long has the system of providing free meals been instituted in Berlin; and are the authorities satisfied that the system of free meals is economical and advantageous to the welfare of the community.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The system has been in force now for about twenty years; all the meals given are free, but I have no information as to their cost, nor as to whether the authorities are satisfied with the system.

  Dismissal of Miss Turner by Rotherham Borough Council.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the alleged dismissal of a teacher, named Miss Turner, by the

  873
  Rotherham borough council, for insubordination, the insubordination consisting of her refusal to remove an engagement ring from her finger when ordered to do so; and, if so, by whom and for what reason was Miss Turner ordered to remove her ring, and is there any rule against female teachers wearing engagement rings; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) The Board have received a letter from Miss Turner drawing their attention to her case. She states that she received the order from one of the mistresses of the pupil teacher centre, at which she is a student. Why she was so ordered she does not state. I am afraid the case is not one in which I have power to intervene.

  Subsidy Paid to the Allan Line for Carriage of Mails to Canada.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of subsidy paid to the Allan Line for the carrying of mails to Canada; whether the subsidy is paid by His Majesty's Government or by the Canadian authorities; whether any portion of the subsidy is defrayed by His Majesty's Government, and, if so, how much; and whether any other line than the Allan Line is in receipt of a subsidy for the conveyance of mails direct to Canada.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am not aware of the amount of the subsidy. The arrangements with the Allan Line are made by the Canadian authorities; and no portion of the subsidy is paid direct by His Majesty's Government. The payment for the conveyance of mails from the United Kingdom sent by the service in question is made to the Canadian Post Office under the ordinary arrangements of the Postal Union. His Majesty's Government does not pay a subsidy to any shipping company for the conveyance of mails directly to Canada.

  Present Remuneration and Former Occupation of Inspectors and Judges under the Cattle Breeding Schemes of the Irish Department of Agriculture.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to
  874
  the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give a Return of the number, amount of salary, travelling and other allowances, former occupation of the inspectors and judges appointed under the cattle-breeding schemes of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Ireland; how many of such inspectors and judges are themselves or immediate friends concerned in breeding the class of animals scheduled under the cattle-breeding scheme of the Department; and whether he proposes to take any action to reduce the temptation to persons so interested to condemn animals as frequently as possible, so as to create a demand for the stock which they are personally interested in raising.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Inspection in connection with the Department's cattle-breeding schemes is carried out mainly by three permanent agricultural inspectors employed by the Department, none of whom are engaged in cattle breeding. The salaries of these gentlemen are borne on the Votes, and they receive the usual travelling and subsistence allowances. In Spring one additional inspector is temporarily employed when the work of the schemes is pressing. He is paid at the rate of two guineas per day for each day actually engaged on the work of inspection, together with a maintenance allowance of 15s. for a period of twenty-four hours absence from home on the business of the Department, as well as first-class railway expenses. This inspector is a breeder of pure-bred shorthorn cattle, but he is employed by the Department only for districts remote from where he lives. The Department do not believe there can be any temptation to act in the manner suggested in the Question, seeing that the demand for premium bulls has hitherto far exceeded the supply.

  Accommodation for Labourers on the Balrothery Estate.
  MR. CLANCY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a Resolution of the Balrothery (county Dublin) Rural District Council, stating that in the cases of estates purchased in the Balrothery Union, under the Land Act of 1903, no

  875
  effect has been given to Section 96 of that Act by providing accommodation for labourers; and what reply have the Estates Commissioners to make to this Resolution.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. They inform me that two estates only in this union have been purchased by the Land Commission, and that in both cases, in their opinion, there is already sufficient accommodation for labourers in the locality.

  Irish Tenders for Supplies to Irish Boards of Guardians.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Local Government Board has written to the Galway Board of Guardians, remonstrating with them, because in the matter of medicine contracts the board of guardians thought well to only consider tenders from Irish firms; and whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to throw obstacles in the way of Irish boards of guardians encouraging Irish manufactures.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board, having become aware that certain boards of guardians had adopted Resolutions that medicine contracts should be confined to Irish firms, have recently addressed a circular letter to all boards of guardians in Ireland pointing out how very detrimental such a restriction would be to the interests of the ratepayers, for whom the guardians act as trustees, and possibly to Irish industry, by provoking action in England unfavourable to Irish tenders for other articles. The circular also pointed out that it is the duty of the Local Government Board to see that no unnecessary charge is placed upon public funds, from which one-half of the expenditure upon medicine contracts is defrayed. It is not, however, the intention of the Local Government Board to place obstacles in the way of the encouragement of Irish manufactures by boards of guardians, so long as they do not neglect the paramount interest of the ratepayers. I may add that the quantity of medicinal drugs actually manufactured in Ireland
  876
  appears to be small, and that a restriction of contracts to Irish firms would not necessarily tend to encourage the industry. Out of nine Irish firms which hold medicine contracts only two are manufacturing druggists; and even these obtain many of their drugs from England.

  Repeal of Section 6 (Sub-section 1) of Local Government Amendment Act (Ireland), 1902.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether any steps will be taken to repeal Section 6, Sub-section 1, of The Local Government Amendment Act (Ireland), 1902 (2 Edward 7, c. 38); and whether requests have been received from several unions for the repeal of it on the ground of the loss caused to them.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The object of the section in question was to secure an equitable participation in the Local Taxation Grant by rich and poor unions alike. The subsequent experience of the Local Government Board has, in their opinion, proved that the legislation in question has been beneficial to the poorer unions, by preventing a diminution in the help afforded to them; and, as at present advised, His Majesty's Government do not intend to take any steps for its repeal. The Board have received requests for the repeal of the section from some unions.

  Reinstatement of Dennis McCarthy of Milltown, County Kerry.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from the Dingle District Council a Resolution asking the Estates Commissioners to intervene with a view to have Mr. Denis McCarthy, of Milltown, Dingle, county Kerry, evicted tenant on the estate of Lord Ventry, reinstated in his holding; whether an inspector will be sent to meet Lord Ventry with a view to arranging sale and reinstatement in this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received the Resolution referred

  877
  to, and that they intend in due course to make enquiries into the case of the evicted tenant in question, as also into the cases of other evicted tenants who have sent in applications.

  Allocation of Untenanted Land in Ireland.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, will His Majesty'e Government, in preparing the promised legislation for Irish workers, provide special facilities for allocating untenanted land for this purpose under Section 4 of the Land Act of 1903, and for obtaining money at low interest for the building of cottages on land so allocated; and will the limit of area on such land be widened, the qualification made to include all who do manual work, whether skilled or unskilled, and the allottee enabled to become owner like any other purchaser.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The points raised in this Question will receive careful consideration upon the drafting of the Labourers' Bill which I am to introduce. I am not, however, prepared to make any statement as to the provisions of the Bill pending its introduction.

  Destruction of Bridge at Shraheendool County Galway.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a bridge, 18 feet long by 9 feet wide, at Shraheendoo, county Galway, which was the only means of egress of Martin Fahey from his farm to the county road, was destroyed to prevent him from taking his turf to sell in Loughrea; and what steps have been taken by the police to discover and prosecute the offenders.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that on the night of the 29th January a wooden bridge at the place mentioned was destroyed, the amount of the damage being about 30s. This bridge, which has since been repaired, is used by Fahey and several other persons. The police have made, and are continuing to make, every effort to discover the offenders.

  Firing of Shots at Bookeen, County Galway.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  878
  Ireland whether he is aware that the House of John Monaghan, at Gurty-kerin, near Bookeen, county Galway, was fired into on or about 25th January last, and that at Killariff, in the same district, on 2nd January last, shots were fired into the house of Pat Kennedy; whether the police have any information as to who fired these shots; and what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of such incidents.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The facts are stated in the first paragraph of the Question. The police have not, so far, succeeded in discovering the offenders. Adequate measures are being taken to secure the safety of the persons whose houses were attacked.

  Refusal of Building Grant to School at Islandbawn, County Antrim.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the grounds on which the Commissioners of National Education have refused to make a grant towards the building of a new national school at Islandbawn, county Antrim, to take the place of the present building which they have condemned as being too small; whether he is aware that Islandbawn School has been in existence for over fifty years, that the population of the district, in the middle of which the school is situate, has quadrupled in the last ten years and is rapidly increasing, and that if Dunadry was made the centre for a school many of the children who at present use Islandbawn School would have to walk four and five miles to school; and whether, in the event of the Commissioners persisting in their refusal, he will have a special inquiry made as to the necessity of retaining Islandbawn School in its present position.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they refused to make a grant in this case because they are clearly of opinion that three schools in the locality in question, of which Islandbawn School is one, require to be superseded by a school centrally situated in relation to the school areas concerned. The Commissioners are aware that the Islandbawn School has been for a long time in existence, and that

  879
  the population of the locality is increasing. The increase, however, is not taking place in the immediate vicinty of Islandbawn School, and the Commissioners are of opinion that a central school at or near Dunadry would adequately meet the requirements of the district. The Islandbawn School is about three-quarters of a mile from the proposed school at Dunadry, and the Commissioners are satisfied that none of the pupils who attend the former school would be unduly inconvenienced by having to attend at Dunadry. The matter is one for the determination of the Commissioners, and does not call for the interference of the Government.

  Distribution of Land to Labourers—Evicted Tenants at Enniskillen.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received a Resolution from the Enniskillen Rural District Council, No. 2, and the ratepayers of the district, dealing with the question of the labourers, the evicted tenants, and those entitled under 3 Edw. VII., c. 37, Section 2 (1), to distribution of untenanted lands, and whether the request in the resolution that before the final distribution of such land takes place the views of the district council will be consulted by the Estates Commissioners will be granted.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have not received the Resolution referred to, but they will give due consideration to any representations which the Enniskillen Rural District Council may make to them.

  Tenders for Medical and Surgical Appliances for Irish Poor Law Union.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Local Government Board are seeking to compel all the Poor Law unions in Ireland to advertise for contracts for medicines and medical and surgical appliances on the 10th March, and in cases where the lowest tender be not accepted the Board now requires to be supplied with the reason for non-acceptance; and will he state if this action has his sanction, and on what Account it is taken.
  880
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Local Government Board have fixed the 10th March as the latest day on which tenders for medicine contracts can be lodged throughout Ireland, because, if a uniform date were not fixed, some firms might withhold their tenders until they, had ascertained the terms upon which rival firms were tendering in other unions, and this would obviously not be in the interests of the ratepayers. The principle embodied in the Board's regulations requiring guardians to state the reasons for non-acceptance of the lowest tender, when they take such a course, is the same as that which has received the sanction of Parliament in Section 18 of The Loca Government (Ireland) Act, 1902.†

  Constitution of Rent Fixing Authority in Ireland.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that discontent prevails amongst the farmers in county Louth respecting the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners especially since the Act of 1903 leaves the question of value to a single Sub-Commissioner; whether the Government propose that a tribunal, consisting of a lawyer and a gentleman drawn from the landlord class, shall continue as the rent-fixing authority in Ireland; what are the antecedents and qualifications of the Mr. F. H. Grierson who sits to fix fair rents at Dundalk on 19th March against forty-nine farmers; and what are the antecedents and qualifications of the assessor who would determine the value on any appeal.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that they are not aware of the existence of any discontent on this subject beyond that which it is perhaps natural to expect from disappointed litigants on either side. It is the intention of the Government to watch carefully the operation of the Act of 1903 in all respects, and I am not at present prepared to say that the provisions of that Act in regard to the fixing of rents require amendment. Mr. Grierson's antecedents and qualifications are set forth in Parliamentary Paper 151, of 1902. The assessor who may be appointed to assist in the hearing of any
  † In the case of district councils.

  881
  appeal from the decision of the Sub-Commission, of which Mr. Grierson was a member, has not yet been selected.
  MR. HALPIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenant farmers of the county of Clare, having lost confidence in the Land Commissioners to fix fair rents, are applying to the county court judge to fix them, and that the landlords are opposing the tenants in doing so; whether he will introduce a short amendment to the Land Act which will enable tenants to bring their cases before the county court judge; and whether he will state the number of land cases brought before the county court judge for the county of Clare for the past two years ending 1st March 1906.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that, during the two years ending 28th February 1906, 173 applications by tenants to fix fair rents were made to the Civil Bill Court of county Clare, as against 487 applications made to the Land Commission. Of the 173 applications referred to, 91 were transferred to the Land Commission, pursuant to Section 37 (4) of the Land Law Act, 1881. In Ireland, as a whole, applications to the Civil Bill Court are about one-tenth as numerous as those made to the Land Commission. Until the present Government has had more experience of the working of the Land Acts I am not prepared to make any statement as to amending legislation.

  Re-instatement of Evicted Tenants in Chapel Street, Boyle, County Roscommon.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a number of tenants resident in Chapel Street, Boyle, county Roscommon, Ireland, were evicted some twenty years ago by the late Colonel King-Harman from holdings in the vicinity of the town, and that this land has been converted into a grazing ranche let on the eleven months' system; and whether he can now take steps to secure the reinstatement of these evicted tenants.
  882
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they have received applications from six persons resident in Chapel Street, Boyle, claiming reinstatement as tenants who were evicted from the estate referred to. From the particulars furnished, however, the applicants do not appear to have been tenants of holdings to which the Land Law Acts apply, and their cases do not, therefore, come within the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act of 1903.

  Leitrim Rates in Aid of Works in Cavan Portion of the Union.
  MR. THOMAS SMYTH: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution adopted at a meeting of the Ballinamore Rural District Council on 22nd January 1906, protesting against the levying of a rate in aid being levied off the county Leitrim portion of the Bawnboy union in respect of works executed in the county Cavan portion of the same union, in pursuance of Section 13 of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898; and whether he will direct the Local Government Board to withhold their assent from such levy, or take such other steps as may be necessary to protect the ratepayers of county Leitrim.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the resolution in question. The Board have no power to alter the incidence of expenditure incurred in pursuance of Section 13 of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898.

  Sale of Major French's Cloonyquin Estate.
  MR. JAMES O'KELLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Major French's Cloonyquin estate was sold to the Congested Districts Board about twelve months ago; if so, whether the Board is now prepared to sell the same to the small farmers in the neighbourhood with a view to enlarging their holdings; or whether the Board, failing this, will sell the 450 acres of grass land in the lot to, say, forty respectable young men belonging to the district who are anxious to obtain holdings for themselves.

  883
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce). The Cloony-quin estate, which is situated in a non-congested district, was bought by the Congested Districts Board for the purpose of migrating to it tenants from the congested districts under the Board's charge. It was bought with funds entirely devoted to the purposes of the Congested Districts Board. It has not yet been legally vested in the Board, and until so vested the lands cannot be disposed of. The Board's powers in dealing with such estates, bought for the relief of congestion, are laid down in the seventy-fifth section of the Irish Land Act, 1903. That section directs the Board to allot the lands primarily to migrants from congested districts; and afterwards, if lands remain over, they may be distributed to small tenants in the neighbourhood. So long as the Board are permitted to substantially fulfil their primary duty in respect of such estates, they are and will continue to be anxious to meet reasonable local claims in a liberal spirit. But it is obvious that if local claims are made predominant as the Question would appear to make them, the Congested Districts Board will be prevented from fulfilling what Parliament has regarded as one of its most important duties, the relief of congestion; may be compelled to abandon the purchase of estates for purposes of migration, and with it the hope of ever solving the problem of uneconomic holdings in the West of Ireland.

  Cost of Labourers' Cottages.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Ballinasloe District Council relative to the building of labourers' cottages, also a table of charges which show that the acquiring of a cottage for a labourer since 1898 cost almost £100 more than it did previous to that date; and whether it is his intention to have the Act so amended as to abolish the extra charges at present made.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce). The resolution has been received. The proposals contained in the Labourers' Bill, which the Government are to introduce, will tend to diminish largely the incidental expenses connected with schemes for
  884
  labourers' cottages. I may, however, observe that, according to my information both the board of guardians and the rural district council in this case adopted a needlessly expensive course by making a number of schemes (18), each for a very small number of cottages, four of them embracing only one cottage each; and that in other respects they might have acted with a greater regard to economy.

  Subsidy for Lower Shannon Steamer Tourist Service.
  MR. HALPIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a subsidy can be renewed for the Lower Shannon steamer tourist service between Foynes, Tarbert, and Kilrush.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The hon. Member is mistaken in thinking that a steamer service to Foynes was subsidised. The Tarbert and Kilrush steamer service formed part of the Lower Shannon coach and steamer services which were established on 1st June, 1897, for a term of seven years, the other services being a coach service from Listowel to Tarbert, and a coach service from Enistymon to Ballyvaughan. The objects of these services were to encourage tourist traffic by providing a new through tourist route near the coast from Killarney to Galway, and to test the necessity of providing railways to Tarbert and Ballyvaughan respectively. The result was most disappointing. The losses on the services for the full subsidised period were, respectively, Listowel to Tarbert, £4,229; Tarbert to Kilrush, £3,728; Enistymon to Ballyvaughan, £1,850. The expenditure on the Tarbert and Kilrush services for the full term was £4,264, inclusive of subsidy amounting to £3,660, while the receipts were only £536. The services were withdrawn on the 31st May, 1904, and there is nothing before me to show that the Government would be justified in renewing the subsidies.

  Relief of Distress (Ireland) Acts.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state how many Relief of Distress (Ireland) Acts have been passed since the year 1879 to the present time; in how many years

  885
  has relief been given to persons threatened by famine within that period; what has been the total increase in the taxation of Ireland for Imperial and local purposes within the same period; and has there been any remission of taxation within the areas so relieved under circumstances of distress that called for the application of such Belief of Distress Acts.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Since 1879 the following Acts have been passed: Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880, Relief of Distress (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1880, Relief of Distressed Unions Ireland) Act, 1883, Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1886, Outdoor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1895, Outdoor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1898, Outdoor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1897. In addition to these measures Acts dealing with seed supply and public loans were passed during the period mentioned. Exceptional measures for the relief of distress were adopted in the following years: 1879–80,1885–6,1890–91,1894–5, 1897–8, 1904–5. The amount raised in 1879 by rates on property by local authorities was £2,619,183, and in 1903–4, £2,993,308, showing an increase of, £374,125. These figures include municipal rates. For particulars concerning Imperial taxation I beg to refer the hon. Member to Parliamentary Paper, Cd. 233, of 1905. As regards the final part of the Question, except in so far as the Government made grants in relief of local rates, no remission of ordinary taxation was allowed within the areas affected by distress.

  Delay in Hearing Fair Rent Applications.
  MR. MURPHY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what is the explanation of the fact that 21,195 fair rent applications are at present before the Land Commission waiting to be disposed of; and whether he will take any steps to enable these applications to be heard, with the view of affording the necessary relief to tenants who desire to have their rents adjusted.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that the number of applications to fix fair rents pending on 28th February was 9,378, not 21,195 as stated in the Ques-
  886
  tion, and that the outstanding cases will be disposed of as rapidly as possible
  MR. FLAVIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that notices of appeal, served five years ago, to have a fair rent fixed before the Chief Land Commissioners, are still unheard in the county of Kerry; whether he is aware that, pending the appeal, the tenants are compelled to pay the old rent; and whether he can say on what date the Chief Land Commission will hold a court in Kerry.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that the last appeal list for hearing at Killarney contained all cases in which appeals were lodged up to January, 1902. A further sitting for the hearing of appeals from county Kerry will be held during the approaching Easter or Trinity terms, but the precise date has not yet been arranged. When rents have been judicially fixed by a Sub-Commission Court, such rents are the rents payable until and unless they are varied on appeal, in which case a readjustment is made in respect of the difference.

  Police Protection of Lord Ashtown in County Galway.
  MR. JOHN ROCHE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Lord Ashtown applied for and obtained police protection about twelve months ago, on a plea that he was afraid of the tenants on the Galway estate, Cloncah, county Galway, which estate he was then trying to purchase in Judge Ross's Court; that, after the estate was sold to the Commissioners, he wanted to purchase the game on the tenants' holding, and upon his failure to secure it he had the police withdrawn; and whether he will take steps to prevent the police in Ireland from acting as gamekeepers to the local landlords.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the police authorities that it is not the fact that Lord Ashtown applied for police protection. The protection post at Clooncah, to which the

  887
  Question appears to refer, was established in 1902,but not for Lord Ashtown's protection, and this post was recently abolished when the police became satisfied that it was no longer necessary. The Inspector General informs me that there is no foundation for the suggestion that the police have acted as gamekeepers for Lord Ashtown.

  Inquiry into Working of Irish Department of Agriculture—Names of Members of Committee
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the names of the men who are to conduct an inquiry into the working of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction in Ireland; whether he can state the scope of the inquiry, the method of procedure, and the terms of reference; and how long he anticipates the inquiry will last.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The inquiry mentioned in the Question will be conducted by the following gentlemen:—Sir Kenelm Digby, K.C.B., K.C., late Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department; the hon. John Dryden, late Minister of Agriculture in Ontario; Mr. Francis Grant Ogilvie, C.B., Principal Secretary for Technology in the Board of Education; Mr. William Lawson Micks, a member of the Local Government Board for Ireland; and Mr. Stephen J. Brown, Chairman of Kildare County Council. The scope of the inquiry will be gathered from the terms of reference, which are as follows: "To inquire and report whether the provisions of the Act of 1899, constituting the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, and the methods which the Department has followed in carrying out those provisions, have been shown by experience to be well suited to the conditions of Ireland; whether any, and, if so, what, changes are desirable in these provisions and methods; and to report also upon the relations of the Department to the Council of Agriculture, to the Board of Agriculture, and to the Board of Technical Instruction; upon its relations to local statutory bodies; upon the funds at its disposal and the modes of employing them; and upon its position in regard to other departments,
  888
  especially those charged with educational functions." The method of procedure will be left to the Gentlemen forming the Committee, who will, I should think, find it desirable to visit some places in Ireland for the purpose of making inquiries on the spot, and who will doubtless give every opportunity to local authorities to communicate their views in the matter. I am unable to say at present how long the inquiry will last.

  Meetings of Irish Board of Agriculture.
  MR. DILLON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether a secret meeting of the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction has recently been held; and, if so, why its proceedings were not made public; and whether he will lay a full Report of these proceedings upon the Table of the House.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce). I think this Question is put under a slight misapprehension as to the normal character of the meetings of the Agricultural Board and of the Board of Technical Instruction, each of which consists of twelve persons only. Whenever a meeting of either of these Boards is held, notice of the fact is sent to the Press; but it has not, and never has been, the practice to publish the proceedings at any of the meetings. It does not appear desirable to lay a Report of the proceedings upon the Table of the House, because this would set a precedent, and I understand that it is thought better to adhere to the existing practice.

  Sales of Irish Estates of London Companies.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the facts that a sum of £927,009 received by the London companies from the sale of Irish estates has already been diverted from Irish purposes, and that two sums of £191,709 and of £88,918 are in danger of a like fate, he will consent to the appointment of a small Select Committee to inquire and consider what legislation or other action if any, should be taken in these matters.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce). It was, I understand, decided by the Master of the

  889
  Rolls in Ireland in 1898, that the Irish estates of the London companies were not subject to trusts for local public purposes, as was contended, but that the position of the companies in regard to these estates was the same as if they had been private individuals and not bodies corporate. This decision was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Ireland. In these circumstances, I doubt whether any such result as the hon. Member seems to desire would be attained by the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the matter as suggested.

  Irish Board of Agriculture—Appointment of Officials.
  MR. CREAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the appointment of permanent officials to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, Ireland, is by public competition; and, if not, what process of selection is adopted; and whether he will consider the advisability of having all future appointments under this Department open to public competition, so that the best talent may be secured in the interest of the country.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce). The appointment of permanent officials to the Department is governed by the regulations which apply to the Civil Service generally. All such officials must obtain certificates of qualification from the Civil Service Commissioners as the result of examination by open or limited competition, as the case may be; (1) In the cases coming under Clause 7 of the Order in Council of 4th June 1870, in which the Civil Service Commissioners may dispense with examination wholly or partly on being satisfied that the person possesses the requisite knowledge and ability for the particular post to which it is proposed to appoint him; and (2) Those special cases coming within the provisions of Section 4 of The Superannuation Act, 1859, which enables the Treasury to appoint by warrant officers with professional or other qualifications not ordinarily to be acquired in the public service. I am not aware that a necessity exists in this Department for modifying the general rules.

  Crime in Queen's County.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been called to the charge delivered by the judge of assize at Maryborough, Queen's County, on the 3rd instant, when the judge said that the calendar in no way detracted from the character which the county had long borne as an orderly and law-abiding community; can he say what was the result of the trial of the four cases that composed the calendar; and whether he can say up to what period Queen's County was proclaimed under the Crimes Act and were special juries empanelled to try alleged political offences.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce). I have read a newspaper report of the learned judge's address, which was to the effect stated. The result of the four cases comprising the calendar was that one person pleaded guilty, one was convicted, and two were acquitted. Queen's County was proclaimed, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Crimes Act, from 1st September 1902 to 6th February 1906, and I am informed that during that period a special jury was had in one case, namely, a case of incitement to murder, tried at winter assizes, 1902.

  War Office Furniture Contracts—Evasion of the Fair Wage Clause.
  MR. O'GRADY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to cases of contracts for furniture for his Department in which the fair wages clause has been evaded; whether he will see that the clause named will be rigidly enforced in future; and whether he will consider the advisability of publishing the names or title of the contracting firms before the contracts are finally signed.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Any cases to which attention has been called have been fully investigated, and I can assure my hon. friend that the War Department will spare no endeavour to secure compliance with the wages clause, as with other terms of the contract. As regards the last part of the Question.

  891
  I do not think it would be advisable to publish the names of the firms before the contracts are finally signed. A means of meeting the difficulty to which the Question points was discussed and approved in principle at the recent conference at the Admiralty, and I am taking steps to give effect to it.

  War Office Saddlery and Harness Contracts—The Fair Wages Clause.
  MR. CHIOZZA-MONEY: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been directed to the rates of wages paid by Government contractors in the saddlery and harness trade in connection with Government work; and whether, in view of the Fair Wages Resolution, he will in future make it a condition of contract in this trade that the trade union rate of wages viz., 8d. per hour, must be adhered to.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The rates of wages paid in connection with certain contracts for army saddlery are being investigated. As regards the last part of the Question, the existing clause concerning the rate of wages was introduced into contracts in accordance with the Resolution of the House of Commons, and is in conformity with it.

  Appointment of Higher Division Clerks to the War Office.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTTTo ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the Treasury intend for the future to appoint clerks of the higher division of the Civil Service to the War Office; and, if not, in what manner it is proposed to fill the posts at the War Office hitherto held by gentlemen belonging to that branch of the Civil Service.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) Representations on the subject have been made to the War Office by the Treasury and have been replied to, but no decision has yet been arrived at.

  British Consuls for Canada.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether his atten-
  892
  tion has been called to the fact that, while other countries have a total of 372 consular officers in the Dominion of Canada, Great Britain has not a single official in the Dominion whose business it is to further British trade; and whether His Majesty's Government will see their way to remedy this state of affairs in the future.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I have to refer the hon. Member to the Answer which I gave on the 22nd of February† to a similar Question from the hon. Member for South Wolverhampton.

  Reports on Irish Franciscans' MSS.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, when the Report on the MSS. of the Irish Franciscans will be published by the Historical Manuscripts Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Report on these MSS. is now in type. It is hoped to issue it in the course of next month.

  Memorial of Inspectors of Irish Board of Works.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if a memorial has been received by the Treasury from certain inspectors under the Board of Works in Ireland, and if the Treasury is disposed to consider it favourably.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The subject of the memorial was brought before the Treasury by the Board of Works, but the Treasury was not able to grant the concessions asked for.

  Overtime in the Collection Department of Irish Land Commission.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that luring the usual half-yearly overtime in the Collection Department of the Irish Land Commission, assistant clerks (new
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 502.

  893
  class) are called upon to perform work of equal value and importance to that done by the second division clerks and third class clerks, although in the case of latter classes the renumeration is exactly double that of the former, viz.: 1s. 6d. as compared with 9d. per hour; and whether he will take the necessary steps to give the assistant clerks the same remuneration.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Land Commission that the Question does not correctly represent the facts. The clerks employed on overtime duty are paid at rates authorised by the Treasury, and the duty is of a kind which assistant clerks, who form the bulk of those engaged on the work, are quite competent to perform. No clerk is employed on overtime unless he so desires.

  Promotion of Assistant Clerk to Second Division in Dublin Public Offices.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can assign any reason for the fact that in some Dublin offices assistant clerks (new class) have been promoted to the second division, whereas in other offices no such promotions have taken place; and whether he can state the number of assistant clerks (new class) promoted and the number eligible for promotion in the following Dublin offices: Local Government Board, Inland Revenue, National Education Office, General Post Office, Irish Land Commission, Department of Agriculture, Public Works Office, General Prisons Office, and Valuation Office.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The Treasury can only approve such promotions on the recommendation of the head of a department. I have no information as to number of assistant clerks (new class) eligible for promotion. The following are the numbers of assistant clerks (new class) so promoted in the departments named: Local Government Board, 2; Inland Revenue, 2; Irish Land Commission, 1; Department of Agriculture, etc., 2. In addition, three
  894
  assistant clerks not strictly speaking assistant clerks of the new class (formerly boy clerks) were so promoted, viz., Post Office, 1; Land Commission, 1; Department of Agriculture, 1.

  Telephonic Communication between War Signal Stations.
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether all the war signal stations in Great Britain are connected to the Admiralty by telephone through their head offices; and, if not, whether it is proposed to do so as soon as possible.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson) Adequate arrangements are inexistence for direct communication between the Admiralty and all war signal stations in case of mobilisation. Such arrangements can be put into force without delay.

  Landing of Argentine Cattle in Channel Islands for Shipment to England.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether at present there is anything to prevent Argentine cattle, or cattle from any other prohibitive country, being landed at one of the Channel Islands, and shipped from thence to London, where after a detention, not exceeding twelve hours and an inspection by the Board of Agriculture, they may be railed to pasture as store cattle; and, if not, whether we will take measures to prevent the importation of disease through this route for imported animals.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) It is very unlikely that the Channel Islands authorities will countenance in any way the importation of cattle into the Islands from Argentina or other prohibited countries. I propose, however, to communicate with those authorities through the Home Office on the subject, and, in the meantime, the hon. Member may rest assured that we shall take every possible means of preventing the introduction of disease into the

  895
  United Kingdom through the agency of animals brought from the Islands.

  Veterinary Inspectors of Board of Agriculture as Member of Local Veterinary Associations of Great Britain.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will explain why the veterinary inspectors of the animals division are allowed to be members of the local veterinary medical associations of Great Britain.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) I can see no objection to our veterinary inspectors being members of veterinary medical associations, which are bodies that are mainly concerned with the discussion of matters of professional and scientific interest. They may be trusted, I think, to bear in mind the limitations which naturally attach to them as members also of the public service.

  Sheep Worrying by Dogs.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has been informed that in December last Mr. H. F. Locke King, of Brooklands, Weybridge, had a valuable flock of South Down ewes worried by dogs, three being killed and twenty injured, that on the same date Colonel Annand, of Compton, Guildford, had two ewes killed and several injured, and on 21st January, Lord Rendel, of Hatchlands, Guildford, had eight ewes killed and four injured, and on 28th January, Mr. G. P. Smithson, of West Clandon, Guildford, had three ewes killed and several injured, and on 29th January the flock of Mr. Smithson's was again attacked and scattered all over the country; whether his attention has also been called to the fact that many of these ewes suffered incalculable injuries, and that many of their lambs were born dead; whether some immediate measure will be taken for the prevention of sheep-worrying by dogs; whether Excise
  896
  officers make any inquiries before 25th March as to whether owners of dogs have taken out licenses for them; whether it is the duty of a policeman to inquire if a dog is licensed or not; and if so, whether the wording of the licence can be altered, seeing that the present wording is misleading.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) We have received information as to the lamentable occurrences to which the hon. Member refers. They are by no means isolated cases, and I can only express the hope that the Bill which I have already introduced will be passed into law at no distant date, and that it will do something to mitigate what is undoubtedly a very serious evil so far as flockmasters are concerned. I am informed by the Board of Inland Revenue, with whom the enforcement of the law as to licences rests, that a large proportion of the inquiries made by their officers as to whether licences have been taken out are made before the 25th March. The police have power to inquire whether the owners of dogs are duly licensed, and they can prosecute any person who keeps a dog without a licence. This fact is indicated in a footnote to the licence, and I do not understand why the hon. Member should consider that the wording of the licence is misleading in this respect.

  Duties and Prices of Wheat.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the President of the Board of Trade at what dates the cereal year begins and ends; what were the duties on imported wheat per imperal quarter in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy respectively, during the cereal year 1904–5; what were the percentages of imported wheat in the total wheat supply of each of these countries during that period; and what were the average prices of wheat per imperial quarter in each of these countries during the same period.
  (Answered by Mr. Lloyd-George.) The cereal year for the four countries named in the Question begins approximately

  897
  in the first week of September and ends in the last week of the following August.

  United Kingdom.

  France.

  Germany.

  Italy.

  Duty on imported wheat per imperial quarter (cereal year 1904–5)

  Nil

  12s. 3d.

  7s. 7d.

  13s. 1d.

  Average price of wheat per imperial quarter (cereal year 1904–5)

  30s. 7d. (English Gazette price)

  39s. 8d. (official price)

  38s. 2d. (Berlin price)

  44s. 7d.

  30s. 10d. (Average import value)

  36s. 0d. (Breslau price)

  Percentage of imports to total supply (cereal year 1904–5)

  85·8

  2·8

  34·9

  18·6

  Postal Deliveries in the Tooman and Clooncarne Districts.
  MR. THOMAS SMYTH: To ask the Postmaster-General, if he will have the delivery of letters which leaves Johnston's Bridge post office (sub-office to Longford) for the Tooman and Clooncarne districts, at present, at 8.40 a.m., delayed until the second delivery of letters comes to Johnston's Bridge from Dromod, so that the people of the above-mentioned districts would have the benefit of the two deliveries, seeing that no extra expense will be entailed in connection with the change.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I am having inquiry made on this subject, and will acquaint the hon. Member with the result in due course.

  Vaccination Exemption Certificates—Case of Rev. H. Didcock.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEY: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether
  898
  The particulars asked for are given, below:—
  his attention has been called to the case of the Reverend H. Didcock, who was refused a certificate of exemption under The Vaccination Act, 1898, by the Northwich bench, on the ground that he was not resident within its petty sessional district; whether he is aware that the Reverend H. Didcock has subsequently been fined ten shillings by the Oakmere magistrates for failure to have his child, Dorothy Didcock, vaccinated; and whether he will issue a circular to the benches of magistrates explaining The Vaccination Act, 1898.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) My attention has been called to this case. I am advised that justices may properly refuse to entertain an application for an exemption certificate made by a person who does not reside within their district. I have already circulated to every court of summary jurisdiction a copy of the remarks made by the Lord Chief Justice exlpaining the conditions under which exemptions should be granted, and I will furnish a copy of this circular to the hon. Member.

  Members of Alien Immigration Board for London.
  MR. STUART SAMUEL: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will state the names and addresses of the persons constituting the panel of the Immigration Board of London, together with the names and emoluments of any officials appointed in connection with the Aliens Act, not being medical officers or members of the Customs House or police force.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) The names and addresses of the London Immigration Board are as follows:—Bailward, W. A., 1, Princes Mansions, Victoria Street; Boustred, George, 83, Clark Street, Commercial Road, E.; Bradford, H. W., J.P., 86, Eccleston Square, S.W.; Burnett, David, 15, Nicholas Lane, E.C.; Campbell, Colin F., 55, Bryanston Street, W.; Champernowne, F. G., 7, Bennett Street, St. James's Street, S.W.; Cohen, Leonard, Chairman, Jewish Board of Guardians, 27, Sussex Square, W.; Eickhoff, Walter, 176, Bethnal Green Road; Evans, T. J., 424, Mile End Road, E.; Francis, T. W., Dowlais House, Wanstead, Essex; Goodrich, Alfred Ordway, J.P., 352, Mile End Road, E.; Joseph, Alphonse D., 28, Holborn Viaduct, E.C.; Levisohn, H. R., Jewish Board of Guardians, 4, Wymering Mansions, Wymering Road, Elgin Avenue, W.; Martineau, P. M., J.P., Littleworth, Esher, Surrey; Miller, Thomas Hastings, J.P., Guildhall, E.C.; Morris, Bernhard, M.D., 170, Commercial Road, E.; Poulter, J. H., Barrister, 23, Westbourne Terrace, Hyde Park, W.; Stapley, Richard, 128, London Wall, E.C.; Stettauer, Carl, Jewish Board of Guardians, 49, Compayne Gardens, West Hampstead, N.W.; Swift, H. H., J.P., 45, Westbourne Terrace, Hyde Park, W.; Urwick, E. T., Poor Law Guardian, Toynbee Hall; Vallance, William, 55, Tressillian Road, Brockley, S.E.; Warren, George J., Poor Law Guardian, 20, Rhodeswell Road, E.; Willoughby, G. P., J.P., 4, Bedford Square, W.C.; Woodman, Sir George, Jewry House, 27 and 28, Old Jewry.
  900
  The names and emoluments of the officials appointed for the Act (other than those excluded in the Question, and besides the interpreters who hold no-actual appointment) are:—Clerks to the Board, Messrs. Janson, Cobb, and Pearson, 22, College Hill, E.C. Emolument to be fixed hereafter according to work entailed. Inspector under the Act, W. Haldane Porter. Salary £500 per annum, rising in eight years to £700.

  Housing Requirements—Replies of District Councils.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether it is the case that inquiries have recently been addressed to district and parish councils throughout the country, asking for a Return as to the housing requirements in their respective districts and parishes; whether any replies have yet been received; and whether in the event of such inquiries not having been made, he will consider the advisability of making them.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) Inquiries of the kind referred to were addressed to certain urban and rural district councils in 1901, and replies were duly received. I have not asked district and parish councils for a Return as to the housing requirements of their areas; but I recently addressed a circular to rural district councils relating to by-laws with respect to new streets and buildings, and I stated that the object of the circular was to secure that, whilst sanitary requirements should be strictly observed all unnecessary impediments in the development of building should be avoided.

  Revenue derived from Coal Tax.
  MR. FENWICK: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the net amount received from the Coal Tax at each shipping port in the United Kingdom since the 31st March, 1905.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The net amount received from the coal tax at each

  901
  shipping port in the United Kingdom from 1st April, 1905, to 28th February, 1906, is as follows:—

  Ports.

  Net Amount received.

  Ports.

  Net Amount received.

  Bristol Channel Ports:—

  £

  Other English Ports:—

  £

  Bristol

  990

  Dartmouth

  15

  Cardiff

  565,373

  Exeter

  4

  Gloucester

  33

  Plymouth

  76

  Llanelly

  9,908

  Southampton

  9

  Newport

  137,151

  Port Talbot

  37,748

  Total

  104

  Swansea

  71,257

  Total England and Wales

  1,648,087

  Total

  822,460

  North Western Ports:—

  Ports on the East Coast of Scotland:—

  Barrow

  13

  Aberdeen

  3

  Fleetwood

  35

  Alloa

  8,623

  Liverpool

  9,553

  Borrowstouness

  20,356

  Manchester

  4,014

  Burntisland

  66,525

  Preston

  27

  Dundee

  134

  Runcorn

  69

  Grangemouth

  40,001

  Workington

  5

  Granton

  4,460

  Kirkcaldy

  4,323

  Total

  13,716

  Kirkwall

  5

  .

  Leith

  29,917

  North Eastern Ports:—

  Lerwick

  1

  Methill

  81,757

  Amble

  15,100

  Blyth

  101,845

  Total

  256,105

  Hartlepool

  29,830

  Middlesbrough

  2,553

  Newcastle, North and South Shields

  378,976

  Ports on the West Coast of Scotland:—

  Stockton

  8

  Ardrossan

  1,996

  Sunderland

  108,018

  Ayr

  473

  Total

  636,330

  Glasgow

  66,363

  Greenock

  1,023

  Troon

  2,753

  Humber Ports:—

  Goole

  28,192

  Total

  72,608

  Grimsby

  53,939

  Hull

  76,953

  Total Scotland

  328,713

  Total

  159,084

  Other Ports on the East Coast:—

  Ports on the Coast of Ireland:—

  Belfast

  7

  Boston

  4,768

  Cork

  15

  Ipswich

  96

  Dublin

  12

  London

  6,688

  Lynn

  4,841

  Total Ireland

  34

  Total

  16,393

  Total United Kingdom

  1,976,834

  The Budget—Exchequer Aid to Local Taxation.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered, or will consider, the advisability of making provision in his coming Budget statement for some assistance, or greater financial facilities, for local authorities who desire to build houses for the people within the districts they control.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The whole question of Exchequer aid to local taxation will receive the early attention of the Government. I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at present.

  The Indian Budget.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he would consider the expediency of getting the Indian Financial Statement taken at a period earlier than the end of the session; or, in the alternative, would the Government arrange for a day for the discussion of topics of general interest affecting the people of India about the middle of the session.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The object of the hon. Member is under my consideration, and I will do my best to secure it. I hope to include with the financial statement a survey of the topics of general interest to which he refers.

  Governors of Irish Prisons.
  MR. MEEHAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that ex-military men have recently been appointed governors of Irish prisons; if he will give a Return of the number appointed, salary and emoluments in each case, and say if any of the gentlemen are in receipt of pensions from the Army; will he say if they have had any training for the position; and whether, seeing that, by reason of their inexperience, they have to depend on their subordinates for the information necessary for the efficient discharge of their duties, and that such appointments were previously made from the staff of the Irish prison service, he will discontinue the appointment of inexperienced persons, and
  904
  restore to the staff the prospect of promotion to the higher branches of the service.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) One recent case only has occurred of the appointment of an ex-military officer as governor of an Irish prison. There are, in all, four such gentleman serving. These were appointed in the years 1892, 1898, 1903, and 1906, respectively. Their present salaries are £415, £290, £170, and £310, respectively, with quarters, and one of them is in receipt of a military pension. Two of these gentlemen, including the one recently appointed, had previously been deputy governors of Irish prisons. The suggestion that such governors are necessarily dependent on their subordinates for the information necessary to the efficient discharge of their duties is not confirmed by the experience of the General Prisons' Board. The regulations which they have to enforce are clear and explicit. Promotions from subordinate positions to governorships are made when warranted, and the proportion of such promotions in Ireland is much larger than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Twenty years ago five governors, out of a total of twenty-two, had been promoted from subordinate ranks. At present eleven out of the existing eighteen governors have been so promoted.

  Amalgamation of Blackwater Male and Female Schools.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if it is the intention of the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, to amalgamate the male and female schools at Blackwater, county Wexford, on the grounds that the attendance at the female school is insufficient; if he is aware that there are at present forty-seven girls on the roll of this school, with an average attendance of twenty-seven; if he is aware that this average attendance is likely to be considerably increased in the immediate future; and if, in view of the opposition which the proposed amalgamation will meet with in the district, he will use his influence with the Education Commissioners to defer the proposed amalgamation for the

  905
  present, and until this House has had an opportunity of expressing its views upon the question of the amalgamation of male and female national schools in Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the teacher of the girls' school, in which the average attendance is under thirty, having recently resigned, it became necessary, in view of Rule 186, to ascertain whether the schools should be amalgamated. After consideration of the circumstances in connection with a report from the Board's senior inspector and a letter from the manager, the Commissioners have decided to postpone the question of amalgamation for the present, in view of the prospect of a sufficient average attendance henceforth at the girls' school. Should, however, an average of at least thirty pupils be not secured in the girls' department during the current year the question of amalgamation will be again brought forward.

  Reconstruction of Poulduff Pier, County Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, when the work of reconstruction of Poulduff Pier, county Wexford, will be commenced.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Department of Agriculture that the work of reconstructing Poulduff Pier has been in progress for some weeks.

  The Great Seal for Ireland.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, who is responsible for the designing of the new Great Seal of Ireland.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Great Seal of Ireland was, in pursuance of an Order in Council, engraved at the Royal Mint in 1903 from designs approved by a previous Order in Council. The hon. Baronet will find full information on the subject at page 16 of the Annual Report of the Deputy Master and Comptroller of the Mint for 1904 [Cd. 2588.]

  Supposed Refusal of Loan to Mr. Martin Flood of Ballyborough.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of
  906
  Ireland, if he is aware that Mr. Martin Roche, of Ballyboro, Clonroche, Enniscorthy, county Wexford, has been refused a loan of £90 by the Board of Works fox the erection of a hayshed and stable on the holding on which he lives, and which he owns in fee; if he is aware that Mr. Roche has also purchased, under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts, the adjoining holding which, together with the holding on which he resides, would afford ample security for the loan in question; and if he will give the necessary instructions to the Board of Works for the granting of the loan.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) No application from a Martin Roche for a loan can be traced. A Mr. Martin Flood of Ballyborough, Clonroche, Enniscorthy, applied for a loan in November last, and his may be the case referred to. He was the tenant, not the owner, of two holdings, and wanted to place on the smaller holding a hay barn too large for it, and to give as security also the second holding. Where there are two separate holdings, the Board have to consider only what is suitable for the one on which the works are placed, and they do not allow one holding to be burthened as security for a charge which arises on another holding. The loan was not proceeded with. Mr. Flood is in treaty for the purchase of his holdings; and, when the purchase has been completed, it may be possible to review the case, as the two holdings would then be merged in one owner.

  New School at Ferns, County Wexford—Delay in Granting Loan.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the cause of the delay, now of some years, in the making of the loan for the building of the new school at Ferns, county Wexford; if he is aware that this new school is badly needed; and if he will use his influence with the Commissioners of National Education to have the necessary funds advanced without further delay.
  (An wered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the delay in dealing with this case arises from the fact that the new

  907
  building plans and estimates for school houses, for which the manager elected to wait, have not yet been finally decided upon. The Commissioners are aware that necessity exists for a new school house in this case. The question of the revision of the plans is at present under the consideration of the Lords of the Treasury.

  Evicted Tenants—County Wexford.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the number of evicted tenants in county Wexford; the number whose cases have been settled since November, 1903; the number of cases in process of settlement; the amount of money advanced to evicted tenants in that county up to the present date, whether by way of loan or by way of grant; and whether there is any likelihood of the settlement of the evicted tenants question in the county of Wexford being accelerated in the immediate future.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners have received 198 applications from evicted tenants in this county. The number reinstated since November, 1903, to the knowledge of the Commissioners, is 77. Two cases are now in process of settlement, and inquiries will be made by the Commissioners into the remaining cases, in accordance with the recent regulations. The Commissioners have sanctioned loans amounting to £1,141, and grants amounting to £2,128 to evicted tenants reinstated in this county.

  Irish Department of Agriculture—Leaflets and Tuberculosis.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Leaflet No. 69, issued by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, dealing with the prevention of tuberculosis in cattle urges owners of tuberculous cattle, unless the same are of extraordinary value for breeding purposes, to fatten such cattle, for sale as soon as possible; and whether, in the public interest, inasmuch as the sale of tuberculous meat is held to be a criminal offence in the retailer, he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  908
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) In the leaflet in question the Department recommend the fattening of animals which are in the early stages of attack and the flesh of which is not affected, and cannot properly be described as tuberculous meat. The Department do not recommend the fattening of animals in an advanced stage of the disease. Lest there should be any ambiguity, the Department will make the wording of the passage on this point more definite. The leaflet further points out the advantages of tuberculin, by the use of which the presence of tuberculosis may be detected before the presence of the disease can be discovered by the eye.

  Re-appointment of Mr. Longan to Position of Petty Sessions' Clerk at Dungarvan.
  MR. O'SHEE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is intended to sanction the re-appointment of Mr. R. J. Longan to the position of petty sessions clerk of the Dungarvan district in view of the fact that he retired by reason of age or infirmity from the same about a year ago, and obtained a pension; whether, since his retirement, his son was appointed but failed to qualify; and whether he is aware that the father has now been reelected by the magistrates to the office in respect of which he had previously gone out on pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) Mr. R. J. Longan resigned this post on account of ill-health in 1905, and was awarded a pension. His son, Mr. P. Longan, was thereupon elected by the magistrates, but has since resigned. The magistrates have now re-elected Mr. R. J. Longan, but as this gentleman is disqualified by age, the Lord-Lieutenant was unable to approve of his appointment, and a new election has been ordered.

  Traffic Board for London.
  MR. REMNANT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government proposes to ignore the unanimous recommendation of the London Traffic Commission in favour of a Traffic Board; and, if so, what are the reasons which have led them to adopt such a course.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) The Government do not propose

  909
  to ignore the recommendations of the London Traffic Commission, but they are not as yet in a position to express an opinion on the findings of this body; and, as I have already said, I cannot hold out any hope of legislation on the question during the present session.

  Sir William Butler.
  SIR SAMUEL SCOTT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Sir William Butler has been sent out to South Africa on a mission by any department of the Government other than the War Office, or under the auspices of the Government; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of that mission.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) No mission whatever has been confided to Sir William Butler by His Majesty's Government.

  Power Bills before Parliament.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the number of Bills for the supply of power to different parts of the Metropolitan area which are before Parliament, or likely to be before Parliament in the near future, he has considered the advisability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject; and whether he is able to announce any decision in this respect.
  (Answered by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman.) There is no intention of appointing a Royal Commission on this question.

  THE ARRANGEMENT OF QUESTIONS.
  MR. DILLONon a point of order, asked as to the arrangement of Questions on the Paper. He said that for a great number of years the right of asking Questions went according to priority, according as the Questions were handed in at the table, but some years ago with the general assent of the House, but not in accordance with any Standing Order or decision of the House, and at the request of the Prime Minister, all questions put to him were grouped at the end of Question term. But now that system had extended, and all reference to priority in handing in Questions was lost
  910
  sight of. He wished to ask whether that was not a direct violation of the rights of Members as settled by ancient custom. In his own case, although he handed in a Question last Thursday and saw it numbered sixty-three, it was to-day 110 on the list. He wished to know by what right lion. Members were thus deprived of their title to put Questions?
  MR. SPEAKER: The point was raised last Thursday by the hon. Member for South Donegal, and I am afraid I can add nothing to the reply I then gave. The arrangement was made for the general convenience, and the order in which Questions are asked is directed by the Prime Minister and those sitting on the Government Bench, who are responsible for these matters. I may remind the hon. Member that I suggested also that this was a Question which seemed to me a very proper one to go before the Committee on Procedure.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: May I—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Member is now occupying the time set apart for Questions.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    British Commercial Representations in the Colonies.
    MR. WALKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the question of the appointment of British commercial representatives in Australia and New Zealand, as well as in Canada, is being considered at the present time; and what commercial agents in British Colonies, or further Colonial correspondents of the Commercial Intelligence Branch, have been appointed since the publication of Cd. 2044 in 1904.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL,): The appointment of commercial correspondents in Australia is receiving consideration. A complete list of such correspondents in the colonies, including New Zealand as they stood at the beginning of the year,

    911
    will be found on pages 584 and 585 of the issue of the Board of Trade Journal for 28th December last, and a comparison between it and the list of 1904 will show the additions which have been made. In ease the hon. Gentleman should find any difficulty in extracting the information he desires, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.
    SIR GILBERT PAEKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the increasing efforts of foreign countries, through consular and commercial representations, to develop their trade in our Colonies, will he consider the advisability of appointing British trade agents in our self-governing Colonies.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The appointment of British Trade correspondents in the self-governing Colonies is receiving the consideration of the Advisory Committee on Commercial Intelligence. Five such correspondents have already been appointed in South Africa, and steps are now being taken with a view to make similar appointments in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Since the publication of Cd. 2044 in 1904, fourteen commercial correspondents of the Board of Trade have been appointed by the Governments of various Colonies and Protectorates including Newfoundland, Ceylon, Federated Malay States, Northern and Southern Nigeria, British Central Africa, Cyprus.

    Opium Imports into South Africa.
    MR. SMEATON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether opium is imported into the Transvaal for the consumption of the Chinese coolies; if so, whence it comes; the quantity and value annually imported since the arrival of the first batch of Chinese coolies; at whose expense the drug is imported; what duty, if any, is imposed on the drug at the ports; whether the value of the opium supplied to the coolies is deducted from their wages; and through what agency the drug is distributed among the coolies.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Under Section 8 of the Ordinance of 1905, amending the Labour Importation Ordinance of 1904,
    912
    published at page 59 of Cd. 2786, the possession by and supply to labourers of opium is penalised. The Ordinance came into operation on 19th September, and opium is, therefore, not now legally imported for their consumption. I am not able to give the amount imported annually, but the amount imported for the quarter ended 30th September, 1905, is given as of the value of £5,381, the duty imposed at the ports under the Customs Convention is 10 per cent. ad valorem. The Chinese police are said by Lord Selborne to have been guilty of selling opium to the coolies, but every effort is no doubt made to put an effectual stop to any such practice.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Are the Chinese told before leaving China that they cannot get opium?
    [No Answer was returned.]

    Repatriation of Chinese Coolies.
    MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government propose to include in the expenses of the repatriation of Chinese coolies the cost of transport from ports of disembarkation in China to their several domiciles; and, if so, what proportion of the total cost it is estimated that such expenses will form; and whether the Chinese Government will be requested to reimburse His Majesty's Government for all, or any part, of such expenses; or, should it be the intention of His Majesty's Government only to pay the expenses of return to the ports, whether steps will be taken to ensure that the Chinese Government acquiesce in this arrangement, and are prepared to defray the remainder of the expense of restoring the coolie to his home.
    MR. CHURCHILL: Neither the coolies' contract nor Clause 14 of the Labour Importation Ordinance under which he can purchase repatriation provides for the cost of transport from the port of debarkation to the coolie's home. Nor does the Convention with China impose any such liability on the Chinese Government. But inasmuch as labourers who purchase under Clause 14 have presumably sufficient funds to take them

    913
    to their homes, while labourers who are assisted by His Majesty's Government have necessarily less than £17 10s., arrangements are under consideration to safeguard coolies from being landed penniless on the coast of China.

    The New Hebrides.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give an assurance that the Anglo-French Agreement in reference to the New Hebrides will not be finally concluded without the consent and approval of the Australian Government.
    MR. CHURCHILL: A draft Convention respecting the New Hebrides was recently signed by a joint Anglo-French Commission sitting in London for submission to the British and French Governments. It was then made perfectly clear that the draft Convention would be communicated to the Governments of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand, who have been informed that it will not be confirmed until His Majesty's Government have had an opportunity of considering the views of those Governments.

    Government Policy on Chinese Labour.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is the intention of the Government to discontinue Chinese labour at the expiration of the present contract, unless the Transvaal under responsible government shall agree to admit Chinese as citizens.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The policy of His Majesty's Government has already been very fully explained to the satisfaction of Parliament. His Majesty's Government are not concerned to procure for the Chinese the privileges of citizenship, but to maintain much more elementary rights.

    Colonial Conference.
    MR.
    TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the date of the next Colonial Conference has been settled; and what preparations are being made for it.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The exact date of the next Colonial Conference is not yet
    914
    fixed, but the Colonial Premiers have been asked whether early in March next would be a convenient date. The collection and analysis of the statistics and information for use at the Conference will be undertaken as soon as possible.

    Mr. Pless.
    MR. BRIDGEMAN: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state to the House what information was in the possession of the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the 15th February which led him to make inquiries as to the possibility of prosecuting Mr. Pless.
    MR. CHURCHILL: The information which was in the possession of the Secretary of State was that contained in the affidavit published at p.30 of Cd. 2819.

    Chinese Coolies and Repatriation.
    MR. EVELYN CECIL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has now received information enabling him to estimate the number of Chinese coolies in the Transvaal likely to demand repatriation at the cost of the British taxpayer.
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for North Mayo on the 6th instant.†

    Canada and the Fiscal Controversy.
    MR. MACVEAGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement in Toronto, that Canada is content to attend to her own affairs in the making of her tariff, and has no desire to interfere with the people of Great Britain in their controversy over fiscal matters; and whether these views of the Canadian Government will be made known by the Colonial Office to the delegates attending the next Colonial Conference.
    MR. CHURCHILL: I have seen a report of the speech to which the hon. Member appropriately refers, and which appears fully to confirm all that has been said by free traders of the correct and
    † See (4) Debates, cliii., 291.

    915
    disinterested attitude, consistently maintained by Canadian statesmen throughout the course of the fiscal controversy. The Canadian representative will no doubt state with perfect freedom and frankness the views of his Government on this, as on any other question that may be discussed at the Colonial Conference.

    Princess Ena's Marriage.
    MR. T. L. CORBETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to send a special embassy to Spain, in connection with the approaching wedding of His Majesty the King of Spain; and, if so, whether the expenses in connection with such embassy will be submitted by special Vote to the House of Commons.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that Question may I ask if he will bear in mind that it is put by one of the so-called loyal minority in Ireland?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RUNCIMAN,)(for SIR EDWARD GREY): The date of the wedding not having been fixed yet, the appropriate arrangements have not yet been considered. The cost of special embassies is borne by the Diplomatic and Consular Vote.

    Deserters from the Russian Army.
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the rejection of deserters from the Russian Army from this country, is he aware whether there is an arrangement or understanding between Germany and Russia to mutually surrender deserters from their respective armies; and, if he does not possess such information, will he take steps to ascertain if such an arrangement is in operation or not.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: There is no understanding between Germany and Russia for the mutual surrender of military deserters.

    Slave Selling in Morocco City.
    MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of
    916
    State for Foreign Affairs if the practice of selling slaves in the public market still continues in Morocco City; and, if so, will His Majesty's Representatives at the Algeciras Conference receive instructions to bring this matter before the delegates, with a view to combined action for its immediate abolition.
    MR. RUNCIMAN: His Majesty's Government have no recent reports from Morocco City. The appointment of a British Consular Officer in that capital is under consideration. Meanwhile, the British delegate at Algeciras was instructed some time ago to take an opportunity—which it is hoped will shortly present itself—of bringing the question of slavery before the Conference with the view to a collective expression of opinion being obtained from the representatives of all the treaty Powers. His Majesty's Government feel confident that this course will offer the best means of making the desired impression on the Sultan.

    Administration of the Aliens Act.
    MR. TREVELYAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how soon he will intimate by way of rule or otherwise to the Immigration Boards, that the proceedings of the Boards must be open to the public and the Press; and whether he is yet in a position to state precisely what other modifications of the procedure under the Aliens Act he proposes to introduce.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I am drafting a rule dealing with the admission of the Press to meetings of Immigration Boards, and in the meantime I have recommended the Boards to give reasonable facilities for the attendance of reporters. I understand that a voluntary committee is about to be formed with a view to supplying evidence to the Immigration Boards on behalf of political and religious refugees. If this committee consists—as I believe will be the case—of responsible and reliable persons, I shall be glad to give it whatever facilities I can for effecting its purpose. I have made an order restoring twenty as the number of aliens which will constitute a ship an

    917
    immigrant ship, and make her liable to inspection under the Act. I have issued a circular letter to all the Immigration Boards respecting immigrants who may claim to be seeking admission to this country on the ground that they are religious or political refugees. I quote from it the following passages:—"The Act was passed for the purpose of checking the immigration of undesirable aliens. Parliament, in the judgment of the Secretary of State, never intended that in the administration for that object of the provisions of the Act, they should be applied with a rigidity which excludes consideration whether refusal of leave to land would involve great personal hardship or suffering in the case of women and children. So, too, a man who is free from any infectious or objectionable disease may be in a critical state of health, and to refuse him leave to land might expose him to cruel hardship. Again, the statements of a man claiming to be a political or religious refugee may be insufficient or inaccurate, yet he may be exposed to serious risk from political causes if he is forced to return. Though the Secretary of State recognises that the absence of corroborative evidence frequently makes it extremely difficult for Boards to come to a decision in cases falling within the proviso to Section 1 (3) of the Act, he hopes that, having regard to the present disturbed condition of certain parts of the Continent, the benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists, may be given in favour of any immigrants who allege that they are flying from religious or political persecution in disturbed districts, and that in such cases leave to land may be given." Next, in order to prevent the possibility of any immigrant not being made aware of his right to appeal, through ignorance of the languages spoken by the interpreters, I am having a notice printed in a large number of languages stating that provision of the Act, which will be handed to immigrants rejected by the immigration officer. Finally, I have issued to all the immigration officers instruction that in all cases in which immigrants coming from the parts of the Continent which are at present in a disturbed condition, allege that they are flying from religious or political persecution, the benefit of the doubt, where any doubt exists, as to the truth of the allegation must be allowed, and leave to land must be given.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: Are we to understand that all immigrants coming from any disturbed part of the Continent, especially Russia, are to be admitted without question?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have already answered that Question.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: What disturbed places are there on the Continent at the present time?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows quite as well as I do.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDON: This is a matter of very great and far-reaching importance; and I should like if the Secretary of State would tell us whether the provisions of Clause 3, which lays down definite categories of persons to be excluded, are to be set aside in regard to these countries that are now in a disturbed state.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have nothing to add to what I have said.
    SIR W. EVANS GORDONrose again amid loud MINISTERIAL cries of "Order."
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. Notice must be given of any other Question. The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled at this time to make any statement.
    SIR W. EVANS-GORDON: I wish, Sir, to address you personally. In view of the importance of this Answer, I shall ask leave at the end of Question time to-move the adjournment of the House.
    MR. J. R. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what is the nature of proof required of immigrants under the Aliens Act to show that they are political or religious refugees.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have made inquiries of all the immigration boards on this point. At ten out of thirteen immigration ports no claim for the privileges of a refugee has come before the boards. In the remaining three

    919
    cases, Grimsby, Hull, and London, the substance of the answers was as follows:—Grimsby: The alien's word is accepted subject to cross-examination by the board, and supplemented by the board's know ledge of places where persecution, riots, etc., have taken place. Hull: The utmost latitude is exercised in accepting the alien's word. London: Latitude is exercised in the direction of accepting the alien's word. The board are guided by their general impression as to the genuineness of his story. Every case is dealt with on its own merits, but, generally speaking, any reasonable probability of the claim being genuine has sufficed to admit.
    MR. LEIF JONES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inform the House on what principle, and by whom, members are chosen from the panels to sit on immigration Boards; for what period immigration boards are constituted; and whether any instructions have been issued to secure a proper rotation of members of the panels, so that every member shall serve in due course upon the immigration hoards.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The immigration boards are summoned by the clerk, who is required by the Rules to summon every member on the list in turn, so far as practicable, provided that, where possible, a magistrate shall always be a member of the Board.
    MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what powers an immigration board is justified in regarding a deserter from the Russian forces as a criminal and not a refugee; and whether he will give such instructions as will prevent such an interpretation in future.
    MR. GLADSTONE: A deserter is not a criminal within the meaning of the Aliens Act, and I am not aware that any immigration board has taken that view.
    MR. J. R. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the immigration officer responsible for the
    920
    deportation of Alexander Onix has stated that, in his opinion, a deserter from the Russian Army was a criminal, and therefore not entitled to enter this country as a political refugee; whether any such instructions have been issued by the Home Office; and whether any steps have been taken to remove such impressions from the minds of immigration officers.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir, I am not aware that any immigration officer has expressed the opinion suggested. I understand that the interpreter engaged in the case in question is reported in the newspaper Press to have expressed some such view in an interview. But the responsibility of refusing leave to land does not rest with the interpreter. It rests with the immigration officer, and all those officers are well aware that the only crimes for which an immigrant can be excluded from this country are extradition crimes—a category which does not include military desertion. It is clear that the fact that an immigrant was a deserter could not detract from any claim he might have to the privileges of a political refugee.
    MR. STUART SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of criminals who have been refused admission to this country since the 1st January last under the operations of the Aliens Act.
    Mr. GLADSTONE: The only persons who can be excluded from this country under the Aliens Act on the ground that they are criminals are those who have been sentenced in a foreign country for a crime for which they might be extradited from this country. No such persons are known to have presented themselves for admission since the beginning of the year.
    MR. MADDISONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it were true that a young man, refused the right to land under the Aliens Act on the ground that he was consumptive, had been detained on board a ship at Milwall in a cabin eight feet by six feet since last Thursday and was to remain there till next Wednesday. If so, would the right hon. Gentleman take

    921
    steps to get the man released and to prevent a repetition of such a scandalous thing.
    MR. GLADSTONEsaid he had absolutely no power of interference under the Aliens Act. The case was decided by the immigration board, and he could not annul their decision.
    MR. MADDISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see the shipowners on the subject?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am making inquiry, and if the man can be released no doubt he will be.
    MR. LEIF JONES: By what authority is the man imprisoned in this cabin?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Under the Act. The captain is held responsible that he does not land.

    Quack Medicines.
    MR. MYER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to the frauds perpetrated upon the public by the advertising and sale of quack medicines, and the consequent loss of money sustained by the public and frequent postponement of proper remedial measures being taken by the sufferers in specific diseases; and whether the Government will take any, and, if any, what, steps either by the institution of prosecutions for fraud or obtaining money by false pretences, or by direct prohibitive legislation to deal with this matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I do not doubt that the advertisement and sale of quack medicines is often the cause of serious mischief; but it is an evil which must be met rather by the spread of education than by legislation or prosecution. The difficulties of proving fraud in such cases are, I fear, almost insuperable. If the hon. Member will refer to the proceedings in the Harness Belts case in 1894 he will understand some of the difficulties I refer to.

    Police Pensions for Ex-Soldiers.
    MR. STEPHEN COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of
    922
    State for the Home Department if, in view of the fact that men serving in the Metropolitan police who served in the Egyptian Campaign are not allowed to count towards their pension the time during which they were absent from the force upon active service, whereas those men who served in the South African Campaign are allowed to count the time towards their pension, he can arrange that service in the Egyptian Campaign shall be similarly counted for pension.
    MR. GLADSTONE: This matter is one that requires legislation, and it is dealt with in Clause 3 of the Police Superannuation Bill, now before Parliament. A special Act (the Police Reservists Act, 1902) was passed to meet the case of police called out for service in South Africa.

    Vivisection.
    MR. G. GREENWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the Return showing the number of experiments performed on living animals during the year 1904, under licences granted under the Act 39 and 40 Vic, c. 77, distinguishing painless from painful experiments; whether the sixteen experiments performed by Dr. William Bain, and recorded in the Return, in some of which septic bacilli were introduced into the interior of the gall bladders of dogs through wounds two or three inches long, made for that purpose, and in all of which one or more gall stones were also inserted into the living dogs gall bladders, and left there for periods varying from fourteen, to seventy days, and in thirteen of which a post-mortem examination proved that the gall bladders were inflamed at the time of death, should not properly have been distinguished as painful; and whether the operations described by Dr. Bain as involving the insertion of septic bacilli into wounds in dogs made by himself for that purpose are properly reported in such Return as asceptic operations.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. I am advised that the Answer to the second part is that the experiments could not properly be described as painful. Those

    923
    of the animals which the inspector saw gave no indication of pain, and the operator declares that he did not believe that the animals suffered any pain. The symptoms observed in a post-mortem examination did not indicate suffering. As to the third part of the Question I am advised that, as the actual operation was performed under aseptic conditions, it is properly described as aseptic.

    Home Office and Convicts' Petitions.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state what are the arrangements which he proposes to make by way of strengthening the staff of his Department which is charged with the duty of examining into and reporting upon the petitions of convicted persons.
    MR. GLADSTONE: As I indicated in my statement on the Vote on Account, I have made certain proposals to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has not yet had time to go fully into the matter, so I cannot make any definite statement at present. The steps to be taken will in any case depend to some extent on the question of the establishment of a Court of Criminal Appeal.

    Metropolitan Police.
    MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated additional cost which would be involved by giving to the Metropolitan police one day's rest a week, instead of the present practice of one day's rest a fortnight.
    MR. GLADSTONE: At the present rate of pay the additional cost would be not less than £150,000 a year.

    Continental Tariffs.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the new tariffs against British goods of Germany, Russia, Austria Hungary and Italy, which came into force on the 1st March have increased the difficulty of access to those markets by British traders not establishing themselves within the tariff walls; and what
    924
    steps he is taking in the interests of British labour.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No new tariff has come into force in Italy, and recent changes in the Italian Customs duties have been of the nature of reductions. The new Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian tariffs are, on the whole, higher than those which they replace, but it is too early to make any statement as to their actual effect on British trade. I deprecate the suggestion in the Question that any of these tariffs is specially directed against British goods.
    SIR HOWARD VINCENT: What steps does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take?
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I hope to be able to make a statement on this subject later on.

    Import Duty Returns.
    MR. HILLS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the recent alterations in the tariff of Germany and other European countries, he will have brought up to date the figures on page 292 and following pages of the Second Fiscal Blue-book [Cd. 2337] of 1904, showing the average incidence of foreign import duties on the principal manufactured exports of the United Kingdom.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: A Return is in preparation which will give a good deal of information as to the effect of recent changes in some of the more important Continental tariffs. As regards the particular figures referred to in the Question, I am advised that the method of index numbers by which they were arrived at, while affording a useful means of comparing the level of different tariffs at a given time, is unsuitable for measuring changes in the incidence of the same tariff over a short period of years. The reasons can be explained more fully if the hon. Member will call at the Board of Trade.

    Sugar Prices.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President to the Board of Trade what were the prices of raw sugar and of refined sugar of different grades

    925
    respectively, at the date of the passing of the Sugar Convention; and what are the prices of the same sugars at the present time.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,): In March, 1902, when the Sugar Convention was signed, the market price of 88 per cent. raw beet f.o.b. Hamburg was 6s. 6d. per cwt. In September, 1903, when the Convention came into force it had risen to 8s. 6d. (refined beet sugar f.o.b. in March, 1902, was 8s. 1d. per cwt., in September, 1903, 10s. 4d.) To-day's prices of beet and refined respectively are 8s. 4d. and 10s. 4d.

    Wage Census.
    SIR GILBERT PARKER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, when the proposed new wage census will be taken; what departures, if any, will be made from the form of schedule issued to employers for the 1886 census; whether information will be sought as to the maximum and minimum number of hours worked by the employees of the various firms; whether trade unions will he invited to make supplementary returns; and whether any steps are proposed to secure a larger percentage of returns than in 1886, when only 13½ per cent. of the schedues issued were returned.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: It is proposed that the wages census shall relate to the present year and shall be taken as soon as possible after its termination. The forms of schedule are now under consideration, but I may say that the experience gained since 1886, will be utilised to amend the forms issued to employers, care being taken to preserve the comparability of the figures so far as possible. Information as to hours of labour will be sought and trade unions will be invited to give certain information as to wages and hours. In view of the improvement of the mode of procedure and the increasing willingness of employers to furnish returns to the Department, it is confidently hoped that a much larger number of returns will be obtained than in 1886.
    MR. DAVID MACIVER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is in a position to give the House any informa-
    926
    tion with regard to the export and import trade of France, Germany, and the United States, for the purpose of comparison with the trade of this country, and particularly as to whether he has any official information showing that the export and import trade of these protectionist countries has during recent years increased much more considerably than our own.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The information asked for is contained in the "Statistical Abstract of Foreign Countries" and the "Monthly Returns of Foreign Trade and Commerce," published by the Board of Trade. In 1905 the exports of British produce from the United Kingdom increased by about 10 per cent. in value compared with 1904. The aggregate exports from France, Germany, and the United States increased by 9 per cent. The increase of imports into France, Germany, and the United States was 8 per cent. compared with an increase of 1½ per cent. in the case of the United Kingdom.

    Roumanian Commercial Treaty.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the recently concluded commercial treaty with Roumania secures substantial concessions to this country; and whether any threats of retaliation were used by the British negotiators of the treaty to secure such concessions.
    Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the Question is, Yes; and to the last part, No.

    Exports to British Possessions.
    SIR SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has any official information showing why, during the last three years, our exports to Australia and to Canada, in spite of Canada's preference to this country, have remained practically stationary; and why, if we put the East Indian trade aside, our exports to all other British possessions show a diminution of more than 6,000,000 sterling, although our exports to foreign countries show an increase of nearly 37,000,000.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The facts are virtually as stated by the hon. Member

    927
    in his question. The circumstances and prospects of British trade with Australia are at the present moment being investigated on the spot by a Commissioner sent out by the Commercial Intelligence Committee of the Board of Trade, and steps are being taken to despatch a similar mission to Canada. No doubt the reports of these Commissioners will give the information which the hon. Member seeks. The diminution referred to in the last part of the Question is more than accounted for by the falling off of exports to South Africa.

    British Exports to South Africa.
    SIR SCOTT ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if his attention has been drawn to the exports from this country to South Africa during the last three years, which includes the period of the working of the Chinese Labour Ordinance from the beginning; and whether he has any official information explaining why the value of these exports has fallen from about £25,000,000 in 1903 to about £16,000,000 at the present time.
    MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid the year 1903 being the first complete year after the restoration of peace in South Africa was naturally a year of maximum importation and therefore hardly affords a fair basis of comparison with the year just past.

    Redistribution Committee Expenditure.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he will state in what manner the £1,200 paid to the Redistribution Committee were expended; was the allowance for salary, and, if so, at what rate of salary per month were the members of the Committee paid; and, if not, was the allowance for travelling expenses; and, if so, what parts of England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland were visited.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): The expenditure was in even money as follows:—Remuneration of members of the Committee and of persons employed by them, £1,103. Travelling and incidental expenses, £93. The remuneration of two of the members of the Committee was at the rate of
    928
    five guineas for each day on which they were engaged on the work of the Committee. The third member received a payment of £200. The places visited by members of the Committee were King's Lynn, Pontefract, Taunton, Stafford and Windsor. The travelling and personal expenses of any member of the Committee when necessarily absent from home were paid.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: No part of Ireland was visited?
    MR. JOHN BURNS: Apparently not.
    MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: Although they were going to wipe out thirty seats.

    Insanitary Houses at Somers Town.
    MR. LEA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has. been called to the insanitary condition of Little Clarendon Street, Somers Town; and whether he will direct the attention of the St. Pancras Borough Council, with a view to dealing with this under the Housing of Working Classes Acts, 1890 to 1903.
    MR. JOHN BURNS: I have communicated with the Town Clerk and am informed that hitherto the property in this street has been dealt with by the Borough Council under the Public Health (London) Act, and that a large number of notices are being served from time to' time requiring the owners to maintain the property in a sanitary condition. The question of dealing with the property under the Housing of the Working Classes; Acts appears not to have been brought under the consideration of the Council. I have requested that this may be done and that the Medical Officer of Health may be instructed to report on the subject.

    Rural Auxiliary Postmen and the Committee of Inquiry.
    MR. GEORGE ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, whether rural auxiliary postmen are included in the terms of reference to the Select Committee; if not, whether he will agree to the conditions of this important class of postal servants being included within the scope of the inquiry.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have no doubt that the Committee will consider auxiliary postmen to be one of the principal classes of Post Office Servants, and therefore included in their reference.

    Bristol Post-Office Extension.
    MR. W. H. DAVIES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General when the extension of the Bristol post-office is to be proceeded with, the land for which was purchased two years ago.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I hope that it will be possible to arrange for the work to be begun during the coming financial year.

    Highland Telegraph Offices.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that in many districts in the Highlands and Islands, where the telegraph office is in the merchant's ordinary place of business, it is practically impossible to send a telegram without being overlooked by ordinary customers; and if he will, as far as possible, insist that a certain amount of privacy be ensured.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I am not aware of any general complaint on the subject. I shall be much obliged if the hon. Member will bring to my notice any specific cases which need attention.

    Savings Bank Buildings at Kensington.
    MR. STANGER: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the defective ventilation in the Savings Bank Department at Kensington; and whether he has made inquiries into the matter.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: My attention has been drawn to this matter. In view of the statement made by the Press in regard to defective ventilation, the First Commissioner of Works at once instituted an inquiry into the matter. The result of the inquiry shows that the statement is without foundation. I have personally visited the building and the ventilation appears to me excellent. I may add that the average of sick absences in the Sayings Bank Buildings is
    930
    lower than in any other branch of the Post Office.

    Post Office Committee of Inquiry.
    MR. CAIRNS: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the remuneration of postal and telegraph employees will take into-account the high cost of living in some provincial towns as compared with others; and will full inquiry be made when such cases are put forward by the employees.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It will be for the Committee to decide what evidence should be admitted.

    Telegraph Learners and the Committee of Inquiry.
    MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into the alleged grievances of the Post Office staff" will include the case of the learners.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It will not, I hope, be necessary for the Committee to deal with the case of the telegraph learners, for I am glad to announce that I have been able to carry out a scheme which will materially improve the position of telegraph learners. The details of the scheme as regards the pay have been published to the staff in the Post Office Circular, a copy of which I will forward to the hon. Member.

    Walsall Post Office Division.
    MAJOR DUNNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the revision of the telegraph staff at Walsall is yet complete; and, if so, whether he can state when the proposed benefits, resulting from the revision, will be applied to the staff.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Before settling the scheme for the revision of the indoor force at Walsall it has been necessary to consider the details at some length. These details have now been practically settled, and I hope soon to be in a position to carry out the revision.

    No Free Postage for Members of Parliament.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the

    931
    advisability of appointing a small Committee to report upon the practicability of enabling Members of Parliament to frank letters posted within the precincts of the House, and what safeguards may be necessary to prevent the system being abused.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,: No, Sir, I am not favourable to this proposal. Remembering past experience, I do not think that to revive the privilege of franking letters is either a convenient or an unobjectionable mode of easing the burden on Members, and the actual relief would be small.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: My Question asks for the appointment of a small Committee to consider the practicability of the proposal. Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree to that?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not think the House itself has expressed any desire in this matter, and I have already stated my view. I do not consider the appointment of a Committee necessary.

    Inland Revenue Promotions.
    MR. MEEHAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, in reference to the case of the second class supervisor appointed over 100 of his seniors, if he will state what were the special qualifications this officer possessed; was he given special opportunity to qualify as a specialist by being employed at the same class of work; did he, while he was still a second class supervisor, get special treatment in being retained in London district, which district many of his seniors were entitled to and anxious to get; and will an undertaking be given that if this officer be promoted to the rank of inspector when his special knowledge will be no longer required, he shall not take precedence over his official seniors who may be promoted at the same time.
    THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA,): (1) The special qualifications possessed by the officer in question are exceptional intelligence, exceptional
    932
    knowledge, and exceptional zeal. (2) He had not been given special opportunities for the display or the development of these qualities, but has utilised such opportunities as have come in his way. (3) There were no applications from his seniors for appointment to the London district in which he was retained. (4) If this officer be promoted he will take precedence, relatively to others who passed for promotion at the same time, in accordance with his relative seniority as a supervisor. The Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue will be happy to give the hon. Member any further information on this subject which he may desire.

    Scottish Local Administration.
    MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, with a view to bringing Scottish Central Boards and Commissioners into closer touch with public opinion and requirements, he will hold a departmental inquiry to report on the modifications in the existing system that may be necessary to secure for such authorities a measure of efficiency and of co-ordination corresponding to their increasing responsibilities.
    THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The proposal of the hon. Gentleman shall be borne in mind, and I appreciate its purpose, but I cannot at the present time give any undertaking in regard to it.

    Scottish Teachers' Superannuation.
    MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state how many existing teachers accepted The Superannuation Act, 1898, and how many declined to accept it; what amount existing teachers who accepted the Act will receive by way of retiring allowance, and what would be the cost to the Department of supplementing that amount by a sum sufficient to raise the retiring allowance to that considered adequate by the department for certificated teachers.
    MR. SINCLAIR: Seven thousand five hundred and sixty-two "existing teachers" accepted the Act and 3,238 declined to accept it. The retiring allowance is calculated according to the length of service in each case. It is not possible

    933
    to form the estimate asked for in the last clause of the hon. Member's Question.

    Dublin Museum.
    MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the Reports of the Board of Visitors and the Director of the Dublin Museum for the year ending 31st March, 1905, have not yet been laid before Parliament.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): The Reports in question will be published in the fifth Annual Report of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, which is in the Press, and will shortly be presented to Parliament. The preceding year's Report was presented in May of last year.

    Irish Land Commission Administration.
    MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been directed to the judgments delivered by Mr. Commissioner Finucane and Mr. Commissioner Bailey, of the Irish Land Commission, on the 17th January, 1906, in the case of the Downey-Martin Estate; whether he is aware that Mr. Commissioner Finucane stated inter alia, on that occasion, that the Crown had not, he believed, since the time of James the First, claimed the power or right to interpret the law for judicial authorities, but that power, though not explicitly claimed, was implicitly exercised in the Regulations issued by the late Government for the guidance of the Estates Commissioners in the administration by them of the Irish Land Act of 1903; and whether an opportunity will be given, by the appointment of a Select Committee of the House or otherwise, to investigate fully the circumstances attending this attempt to override and supersede the law by the late administration.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am informed that the Estates Commissioners referred to in the Question delivered a judgment stating that in their opinion the Regulations issued by the late Government for the guidance of the Commissioners went beyond the powers given to them by the Irish Land Act of 1903, but these Regulations have
    934
    now been withdrawn by the Lord-Lieutenant, and new Regulations substituted. I do not think that a necessity exists for the appointment of a Select Committee, as suggested by the hon. Member.

    Shannon Fisheries.
    MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for Limerick City, re rents Shannon Fisheries.†
    MR. McKENNA: I have explained by letter to the hon. Member the reason why I am unable to grant this Return.
    MR. JOYCE: Why not state it here?

    Parliamentary Printing and Stationery Vote.
    MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what has been the increase in the annual Vote for stationery and printing during the past ten years, as compared with the increase during the previous ten years; and whether he will consider the desirability of appointing either a Select Committee or a Departmental Committee to go through the list of Government publications, with a view to reducing their number and size; and to report as to the best means of keeping down the cost of printing and stationery in future years.
    MR. McKENNA: During the past ten years the increase has been £131,095, during the previous decade it was £138,966. I am authorised by the Prime Minister to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the possibility of reducing the number and cost of these publications.
    † MR. JOYCE: River Shannon (Rents). Return of the amount of money received by the Board of Works in Ireland as rents or compensation for redundant waters supplied for mills, or other purposes, under the provisions of the Act 2 and 3 Victoria, c. 61; the amount of money received by the said Board of Works in rents for mills, lands, fisheries, or other property (other than canals), under the said Act for the year 1866 and the year 1905; the names of the fisheries, if any, other than eel fisheries, which have been leased or sold; and the names of the lessees or purchasers, if any, of such fisheries on the Shannon between Limerick and Castle Connel.

    Dublin Museum Refreshment Room.
    MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if orders have been issued for the discontinuance of the refreshment room which has been established for the use of visitors to the Dublin Museum, and of persons attending the adjoining Institutions of Science and Art; whether the Board of Visitors have strongly protested against the discontinuance, as certain to cause the greatest inconvenience to visitors and students; and will he cause further inquiry to be made before final action is taken.
    MR. McKENNA: These orders have been given as a result of a general inquiry instituted by the Treasury into the needs of the National Library. I understand that the Board of Visitors protested to the Department of Agriculture, but that the Department did not support them, and I see no reason for any further inquiry.

    Dublin College of Science.
    MR. JAMES CAMPBELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if, notwithstanding several applications by the Board of Visitors of the Dublin Museum for an inspection of the plans for the new College of Science, which it is proposed to erect within close proximity to the Museum, such inspection has been refused; and whether he will secure to the Board of Visitors an opportunity of inspecting these plans before the building is commenced.
    MR. McKENNA: The plans referred to were approved by the responsible department, namely, the Department of Agriculture, who had due regard to the interests of the Dublin Museum. I understand that work has already begun, and in these circumstances I see no reason for suggesting that the plans should be referred to the Board of Works.

    Irish Education Grant.
    MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can say how much of the increase of £645,000 of the charge for elementary education in Great Britain is owing to the larger number of children in the schools, and how much to other causes; is he aware that for the purposes of elementary education for the coming financial year England will receive from the public
    936
    exchequer 7s. 7d. per head of population, Scotland 7s. 9¾d., and Ireland 6s. 5d.; and whether, in view of these figures, the Treasury will be prepared to consider favourably the application of the Irish Board of Education for increased necessary expenditure.
    MR. McKENNA: The matter is one that cannot conveniently or usefully be discussed by Question and Answer. I may, however, mention that I cannot admit the accuracy of the hon. Member's figures.
    MR. FLYNN: Where is the inaccuracy?
    MR. McKENNA: The discussion on the Estimates will afford a more convenient opportunity of explaining that.

    Carrigallen (Leitrim) Postal Arrangements.
    MR. T. SMITH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, owing to the inconvenience that exists in Carrigallen, county Leitrim, in not having a midday delivery of letters, he will have a second delivery of letters granted, as Carrigallen is only six miles from Killeshandra, where there is a second delivery, and consequently the extra expense would be very small.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: As the cost of the postal service now afforded at Carrigallen is already high compared with the amount of the correspondence, I regret that I am unable to grant a second delivery in the day unless the residents are prepared to bear the additional expense, which is estimated at about £27 a year.

    South African Securities.
    MR. STRAUS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the recent depreciation in the value of South African securities is due to certain mining magnates bearing shares, in other words selling with the sole intention of depressing the market and repurchasing at a lower price; and whether he proposes to bring in legislation that would put a stop to this in the future.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am not aware of the facts alleged in the

    937
    Question, nor do I see how legislation could put a stop to such practices.

    Reduction of Armaments.
    MR. ALDEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that Germany, following the example of England, has decided largely to increase her Navy, he will, in accordance with his expressed opinions on the subject by the simultaneous reduction of armament by negotiations with Foreign Powers, take the first opportunity of approaching the German Government in furtherance of this desirable object.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Perhaps my hon. friend the Member for East Finsbury will allow me to answer his Question at the same time.† I assume that the increase of the German Navy depends upon the view which the German Government take of the needs of their Empire and commerce generally. I have openly expressed my opinion in favour of a general reduction of armaments, and I can assure my hon. friend that no favourable opportunity will be lost of facilitating that result.

    French Naval Policy.
    MR. KING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if his attention has been called to the speech of the French Minister of the Marine in the Chamber, Paris, on 7th March, that, in consequence of the shipbuilding programmes of the Governments of Germany and Great Britain, the French programme would be increased by the addition of six new battleships of 18,000 tons and with a speed of 18 knots; and whether he proposes to take steps, either at the forthcoming Hague Conference or directly, to put a stop to this burdensome competition between the shipbuilding programmes of the Great Powers concerned.
    † The following is the second Question referred to by the Prime Minister:
    MR. BAKER: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the fact that Germany, following the example of Great Britain, and now France, following the examples of both Great Britain and Germany, have decided to extend their naval armaments, he will take an early opportunity of approaching these and other Foreign Powers, with a view to effecting a mutual and simultaneous reduction.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not been able to find in the report of the speech referred to which appeared in the French Journal Officiel the statement quoted by the hon. Member. As regards the attitude of His Majesty's Government on the question of the limitation of naval armaments, I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answer I have just given to the Question put by the hon. Member for the Tottenham Division of Middlesex.

    Canadian Tariffs.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, before the motion respecting the admission of Canadian store cattle is discussed, he would cause placards to be hung in the Tea Room showing the articles of British and Irish manufacture on which a tariff is imposed in the Dominion, and the amount thereof.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I think that the facts in this matter are sufficiently well known, and there is no necessity to disfigure the Tea Room.

    The Mining Disaster in France.
    MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether it is intended to give the House any opportunity of expressing its sympathy with the miners of France in the terrible disaster which has befallen them; and whether the right hon. Gentleman has any later information concerning the extent of the disaster which he could communicate to the House.
    MR. ASHLEY: I also wish to ask whether an expression of British sympathy with the victims of the disaster can be conveyed officially to the Government of the French Republic.
    SIR H. CAMBPELL-BANNERMAN: I have received notice of a similar Question from my hon. friend the Member for Rotherham, and I think I cannot do better than read the following despatch which my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday sent to our Ambassador in Paris:—"Please express to the French Government the deep concern of His Majesty's Government at the terrible disaster at Courrieres les Lens and their sympathy with the survivors." I do not know

    939
    that it would be usual or even necessary after this to contemplate any formal statement on the part of the House of its feelings in the matter. I have no later information to give the House.

    The Order of Questions.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the serious scandal which had arisen with reference to Questions; whether he was aware that to-day was the third or fourth occasion on which less than half the Questions on the paper had been reached within the allotted time; when the Government intended to make any proposals on the subject, and whether he could suggest to the Committee on Procedure that this was one of the subjects that ought to be dealt with at once by an interim Report.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No doubt the subject of Questions and the rules as to putting Questions will come under the consideration of the Committee; but with regard to the immediate state of affairs in the House, the gravity of which I fully recognise, I believe there are twelve Departments, large and small, to the heads of which Questions can be addressed in the House, and the Irish Questions will come first upon one day in the week, but hon. Members from Ireland must not expect to have that prominent position on other days of the week. This arrangement has been made for the convenience of Members and also for the saving of the time of the House.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: By what authority is this done?
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is by arrangement.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then there is no authority.
    SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid it was for the convenience of Members of the House as well as Ministers that Questions should be grouped.
    MR. JOHN REDMONDdenied that there was any arrangement by consent. He had not agreed that Irish Questions should only be taken once a week. This was an irregular arrangement, and he would ask the Prime Minister to see
    940
    that it was one of the earliest points dealt with by the Procedure Committee.
    MR. T. M. HEALYappealed to the Speaker to protect the rights of the minority, and refuse the sanction of the Chair to any arrangement to which the House had not given assent.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid this arrangement had been in force for two years—
    MR. DILLON: No; only since the beginning of the session.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It has no sanction from the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: The sentence I began, I will now continue—I say the grouping of questions is no new arrangement. Probably the best course would be to continue the system until the Procedure Committee could advise the House.

THE FISCAL DEBATE.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury two Questions with regard to business this evening. In the first place, with regard to the Motion which he has put upon the Paper for the suspension of the twelve o'clock rule, may I assume that it is not intended to prolong the debate, and that the object is merely to prevent the automatic interruption of a speech which may be in progress at the hour of twelve o'clock? The second Question is whether, having regard to the importance of the discussion raised by the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Colne Valley, and to the variety of subjects, also of great importance, raised by the Amendment on the Paper, the right hon. Gentleman has satisfied himself that it will be quite impossible to close the debate to-night.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: So far as I am able to ascertain the general feeling of the House, I think there is a desire that more than one day should be given to this discussion, and, therefore, it is not my intention to move the Motion which stands in my name; but I have two, not exactly conditions, but hopes to express. One is that we shall be allowed, if necessary, in the

941
course of the next week or two, to suspend the twelve o'clock rule at least one day oftener than we expected to do, on account of the exigencies of Supply, in consequence of the additional day being given for the purpose of this debate. In the second place, I hope we may have a division on the main question before dinner to-morrow, and that the discussion of any Amendment which may be under consideration will be brought to a close in sufficient time to enable that to be done.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: With regard to the first question or hope expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, I am quite sure we shall be glad to give him any assistance that may be really necessary in order to deal with the emergencies of Supply; but probably it would be better to address a Question on that subject to-morrow to my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, who will then be in his place. As regards the second question, I must say that I think the right hon. Gentleman is extremely sanguine if he thinks that a debate which has been given such exceptional importance by the action of the Government itself, and has raised so very many matters of the greatest possible interest, can be brought to a close by to-morrow at dinner time. I cannot give him any hope that we can help him in that direction, nor can I believe that those who have put down Amendments, whether on this side of the House or the other, would be willing that the debate should be prematurely brought to a close under these circumstances.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If that is the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, I can only fall back on my original intention and move the Motion which stands in my name.

ADMINISTRATION OF THE ALIENS ACT.
SIR W. EVANS GORDON: I wish to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of calling attention to a matter of urgent public importance—namely, the announcement by the Home Secretary that the Government intend by administrative changes to set aside the provisions of the Aliens
942
(Immigration) Act of 1905, which came into force on January 1 this year.
MR. SPEAKER: In my opinion this matter can be raised, and will properly be raised, on the consideration of the Vote on account which stands on the paper to-day. Even if it is not reached to-day or to-morrow, it will almost certainly be taken on Wednesday or Thursday. In my opinion that will offer sufficient opportunity to the hon. Member to raise the Question.

OLD-AGE PENSIONS (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
The right hon. Arthur James Balfour, for the City of London.
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
Sunday Trading, That they have come to the following Resolution, viz.: That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to inquire into the subject of Sunday Trading.
NEW BILLS.
  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Boards of Conservators of fisheries in Ireland," presented by Mr. Joyce; supported by Mr. Boland, Mr. Flavin, Mr. Halpin, Mr. O'Shee, Mr. Cullinan, and Mr. Lundon; to be read a second time upon [Monday, 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]

  MUNICIPAL POWERS BILL.
  "To enlarge the Powers of Local Authorities in respect of the purchase of land, the building of houses, and the acquisition or establishment of trading undertakings," presented by Mr. Money;

  943
  supported by Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Alden, Mr. Gooch, and Mr. Henderson; to be read a second time upon Monday, 26th March, and to be printed. [Bill 91.]

  EDUCATION (PROVISION OF MEALS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Education (Scotland) Acts, 1872 to 1893," presented by Mr. Barnes; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]
  STATUTE LAW REVISION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To further promote the Revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary," presented by The Lord Advocate; supported by Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland; to be read a second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 94.]
  SEED POTATOES SUPPLY (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To make provision with respect to loans and sales made for the purpose of the Supply of Seed Potatoes to occupiers and cultivators of land in Ireland," presented by Mr. Bryce; to be read a second time To-morrow and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

  BUTTER TRADE.
  Mr. Dalziel, Sir Edwin Cornwall, Mr. Courthope, Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Steadman, Major M'Micking, Mr. Scott, Mr. James Stuart, Mr. Osmond Williams, Sir Edward Strachey, Mr. Warner, Viscount Morpeth, Mr. Hicks Beach, Mr. Flynn, and Mr. Lundon were nominated Members of the Select Committee on the Butter Trade.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Sir Edward Strachey.)

FREE TRADE AND FISCAL REFORM.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANmoved, "That the proceedings on the Motion relating to free trade, if under discussion at 12 o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Orders (Sittings of the House)." In doing so he said—The House will allow me to say that I make this Motion with the view, pointed to by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, of preventing any abrupt termination to-night; but any inquiries I have been able to make have confirmed me in my first estimate of the feeling of the House, that there is a desire for two days discussion, and I can only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with the view, which I expressed before, as to the expediency of bringing the matter to a close decently and in order before the dinner hour to-morrow.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proceedings on the Motion relating to Free Trade, if under discussion at Twelve o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—(Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in hoping that the matter will be brought to a termination decently and in order; but I cannot hold out any hope that we on this side of the House think that one and a half day's debate will be adequate for dealing with a subject which he has, with the best intention no doubt, but gratuitously, brought forward.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 362; Noes, 113. (Division List No. 10.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Astbury, John Meir

Barnes, G. N.

Acland, Francis Dyke

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Adkins, W. Ryland

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

Baring,Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Beale, W. P.

Agnew, George William

Barker, John

Beauchamp, E.

Alden, Percy

Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

Beaumont, Hubert(Eastbourne

Armitage, R.

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Barnard, E. B.

Beck, A. Cecil

Bellairs, Carlyon

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Jowett, F W.

Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Joyce, Michael

Berridge, T. H. D.

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Kearley, Hudson, E.

Bertram, Julius

Elibank, Master of

Kekewich, Sir George

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Billson, Alfred

Erskine, David C.

Kilbride, Denis

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

Essex, R. W.

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

Boland, John

Evans, Samuel T.

Kitson, Sir James

Bottomley, Horatio

Everett, R. Lacey

Laidlaw, Robert

Branch, James

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Fenwick, Charles

Lambert George

Brodie, H. C.

Ferens, T. R.

Lamont, Norman

Brooke, Stopford

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

Law, Hugh Alexander

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

Flynn, James Christopher

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lehmann, R. C.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Fuller J. M. F.

Level, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Gardner, Col. A. (Herefordsh. S.)

Levy, Maurice

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Lewis, John Herbert

Cairns, Thomas

Gilhooly, James

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Caldwell, James

Gill, A. H.

Lough, Thomas

Cameron, Robert

Ginnell, L.

Lundon, W.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Lupton, Arnold

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Glendinning, R. G.

Lyell, Charles Henry

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Gooch, George Peabody

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Cawley, Frederick

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Chance, Frederick William

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Channing, Francis Allston

Grove, Archibald

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Cheetham, John Frederick

Gulland, John W.

Macpherson, J. T.

Cherry, R. R.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Hall, Frederick

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Clancy, John Joseph

Halpin, J.

M'Crae, George

Cleland, J. W.

Hammond, John

M'Kenna, Reginald

Clough, W.

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

M'Micking, Major G.

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Maddison, Frederick

Cogan, Denis J.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Harrington, Timothy

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

Hart-Davies, T.

Marnham, F. J.

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E, Grinst'd

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Massie, J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Cory, Clifford John

Haworth, Arthur A.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Hazleton, Richard

Menzies, Walter

Cowan, W. H.

Healy, Timothy Michael

Micklem, Nathaniel

Cox, Harold

Hedges, A. Paget

Molteno, Percy Alfred

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Helme, Norval Watson

Mond, A.

Crean, Eugene

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Crombie, John William

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen W.)

Montagu, E. S.

Crooks, William

Henry, Charles, S.

Mooney, J. J.

Crosfield, A. H.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall

Cullinan, J.

Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Dalmeny, Lord

Higham, John Sharp

Morrell, Philip

Dalziel, James Henry

Hobart, Sir Robert

Morse, L. L.

Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan

Hogan, Michael

Murphy, John

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Murray, James

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

Hooper, A. G.

Myer, Horatio

Delany, William

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset N.

Nicholls, George

Dewar John A. (Inverness-sh.

Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

Nicholson, Charles N (Donoast'r

Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancr's N.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Nolan, Joseph

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Hyde, Clarendon

Norman, Henry

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Idris, T. H. W.

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Dillon, John

Jackson, R. S.

Nuttall, Harry

Dobson, Thomas W.

Jacoby, James Alfred

O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Jardine, Sir J.

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Donelan, Captain A.

Jones,David Brynmor (Swansea

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Duckworth, James

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W)

Duffy, William J.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

946

947

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Robinson, S.

Thorne, William

O'Doherty, Philip

Robson, Sir William Snowden

Tomkinson, James

O'Dowd, John

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Torrance, A. M.

O'Hare, Patrick

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Toulmin, George

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Rose, Charles Day

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

Rowlands, J.

Verney, F. W.

O'Malley, William

Runciman, Walter

Villiers, Ernest Amherst

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Vivian, Henry

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Wadsworth, J.

Parker, James (Halifax)

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Paul, Herbert

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

Paulton, James Mellor

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wallace, Robert

Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester)

Walsh, Stephen

Pearce, William (Limehouse)

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Perks, Robert William

Sears, J. E.

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)

Seaverns, J. H.

Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n

Philipps, J. Wynfoid (Pembroke

Seddon, J.

Wardle, George J.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Seely, Major J. B.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Shackleton, David James

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Pirie, Duncan V.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Waterlow, D. S.

Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Watt, H. Anderson

Price, Robert John (Norfolk, E.

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Whitbread, Howard

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford E.)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Radford, G. H.

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.

Whitehead, Rowland

Rainy, A. Rolland

Snowden, P.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Raphael, Herbert H.

Spicer, Albert

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Rea, Russell (Gloucester

Stanger, H. Y.

Wilkie, Alexander

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Steadman, H. C.

Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Wills, Arthur Walters

Rees, J. D.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.)

Rendall, Athelstan

Straus, B, S. (Mile End)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Renton, Major Leslie

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Wodehouse, Lord (Norfolk, Mid)

Rickett, J. Compton

Sullivan, Donal

Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

Ridsdale, E. A.

Sutherland, J. E.

Young, Samuel

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

Tennant, H. J. (Berwichshire)

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Robertson, Sir G Scott (Bradf'rd

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

NOES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

Hamilton, Marquess of

Anstruther-Gray, Major

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.

Harrison-Broad ey, Col. H. B.

Ashley, W. W.

Clarke, Sir Edward (C'tyLondon

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds

Balcarres, Lord

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (CityLond.)

Courthope, G. Loyd

Hills, J. W.

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Craig, Charles Cartis (Antrim, S

Houston, Robert Paterson

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Hunt, Rowland

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Craik, Sir Henry

Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Cross, Alexander

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col W.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Dalrymple, Viscount

Kimber, Sir Henry

Bowles, G. Stewart

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Doughty, Sir George

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lee,ArthurH. (Hants., Fareham

Bull, Sir William James

Du Cros, Harvey

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan

Liddell, Henry

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.

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

Fardell, Sir T. George

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Carlile, E. Hildred

Fell, Arthur

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Magnus, Sir Philip

Castlereagh, Viscount

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East

Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

Cave, George

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Meysey-Thompson.Major E. C.

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Gordon, Sir W. Evans (T'r Ham.

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Cecil, Lord J. P. J. (Stamford)

Haddock, George R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Turnour, Viscount

Nield, Herbert

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Sandys, Lieut.- Gol. Thos. Myles

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

Parkes, Ebenezer

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Pease,Herbert Pike(Darlington

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Percy, Earl

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

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

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Rasch, Sir Frederick Carne

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

Younger, George

Rawlinson, John Frederick P.

Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Orm'kirk

Remnant, James Farquharson

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

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

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall

Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Thornton, Percy M.

FREE TRADE.
SIR JAMES KITSONrose to move the following Resolution:—"That this House, recognizing that in the recent general election the people of the United Kingdom have demonstrated their unqualified fidelity to the principles and practice of free trade, deems it right to record its determination to resist any proposal, whether by way of taxation upon foreign corn or of the creation of a general tariff upon foreign goods, to create in this country a system of protection." As an old member of the House, he congratulated the Leader of the Opposition upon taking his seat once more, and hoped that in his position of greater freedom and less responsibility the right hon. Gentleman would long enjoy a repose that would be grateful to him. The Resolution was proposed in order that the decision at the late general election might be recorded on the proceedings of the House. The situation had changed since February 14—a date generally acknowledged to be a day of reconcilation—and the Party with whom he was associated regarded the declaration made by the late Prime Minister as an absolute concession to the views advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Why was this question raised after all these years? His recollection took him back to the days before the repeal of the Corn Laws, He well remembered in 1842 seeing bands of workmen, prisoners, surrounded by cavalry, conveyed along the Leeds high road to Wakefield Jail during what were called the Plug riots. Five years later, in 1847, when the Corn Laws had been repealed, he saw bands of workmen marching along the road from Leeds to Wakefield to declare by their show of hands at Wakefield their adhesion to the principles of Corn Law repeal, and to elect Mr. Cobden as member for the
950
West Riding. Mr. Cobden was returned although at that time he was absent in St. Petersburg. He was re-elected in 1852, and then wrote—
"The feeling in the West Riding of Yorkshire is most intense amongst the working classes. They will never allow the Corn Laws to be reimposed."
What did the West Riding say to-day? The West Riding in Cobden's days had only two Members in Parliament. To-day it had nineteen county Divisions, and out of the representatives of those nineteen Divisions eighteen were Free Traders and one was a Unionist Free Trader; it had eighteen borough Divisions, represented by fourteen Free Traders, one Unionist Free Trader, and four Unionists. Following the election of 1852 there were sinister rumours during the ministry of Lord Derby as to the revival of Protection, and the re-imposition of the Corn Laws, and Cobden became very active. He wrote—
"My object is to settle the Free Trade question for ever, and to clear the ground for other questions."
It was to settle the Free Trade question for ever, and clear the ground for other questions that they proposed this Resolution to-day. In consequence of the agitation he had referred to, Mr. Villiers raised the question in this House, and he elicited from Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a declaration that no taxes on corn would be imposed. And so the matter was disposed of by Resolution in this House, and rested for half a century until now. In the course of the recent campaign, many inducements were offered to free traders owing to declarations of decline in various staple industries of the country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham told them that the cotton trade was declining, that the woollen trade was declining, and that the iron trade was going. As he

951
(Sir James) knew something of the iron trade, he might be permitted, as a representative of that declining industry, to tell the House that the total output of pig-iron in Great Britain last year was 9,500,000 tons, being an increase of 1,000,000 tons over 1904. The output for 1905 was the greatest in the history of the trade. It was idle, therefore, to tell them that the iron trade was going. On the contrary, the iron trade was still advancing, and advancing with rapid strides. On the authority of the Iron and Steel Trades Review, the editor of which was an expert on this subject, he might say that he could support the view of the President of the Local Government Board, that there would again be an expansion, as the calculations as to the furnaces in operation assured a production of no less than 10,000,000 tons in the year they were now entering. The prosperity of the iron trade was not only to be calculated on the amount of pig-iron now produced, but also upon the production in the steel trade. Whereas, over a period of fourteen years there was an increase in the production of pig-iron of 22 per cent., there was an increase in the production of steel of no less than 64 per cent. The year 1906 promised again an increase upon that quantity. Then there was shipbuilding, the output of which in 1905 showed an increase of 491,000 tons, or 20 per cent. over the production of 1904. The total world's increase was only 75,000 tons, against Great Britain's increase of 491,000 tons. The engineering record of the Glasgow Herald, in its review of the trade, said that the British horse-power produced was 1,500,000 tons, and the foreign horse-power 962,000 tons. There was a British increase of 162,000 tons, and a foreign decrease of 56,000 tons, so that it was idle again to say that the foreigners were gaining on us even in shipbuilding or in shipbuilding engineering. The imports of iron and steel, and the manufactures thereof—a question upon which their opponents laid considerable stress—which included machinery, steam engines, and locomotives, amounted to £21,180,000, showing an increase of nearly £2,000,000 on 1904. On the other hand, we exported iron and steel manufactures in 1904 to the value of £65,000,000, and in 1905 to the value of £74,000,000, or an increase
952
of £9,000,000. If we had not imported that material we could not have done the business we did, and we could not have employed the work people we did. The Board of Trade had given some careful analyses of the returns, which he thought ought to be in the possession of the House. If hon. Members analysed this total of £21,000,000 of imports, they would find that £3,500,000 of it was in motors, in which a great trade was beginning in this country—a trade which very soon would capture that which had been a creation of the continent. Again, no less than £1,000,000 of the £21,000,000 came from iron and manufactured, products of iron from Sweden, and these were absolutely necessary for the manufacture of the fine qualities of steel; so that if they placed a duty on these they would restrict the manufactures of steel for competition in the markets of the world. The Board of Trade had also furnished him with the destination of this large export of £75,000,000. Exports to foreign countries amounted to £47,900,000 and to British possessions £26,000,000, but of the latter £9,500,000 went to British India. So that in dealing with the question of Free Trade and Protection it would be seen that the foreign markets, including the markets of British India, Argentina, and others, far transcended the markets of the British Colonies. To the Argentine Republic we sent iron and products thereof, machinery and the rest, to the value of £5,500,000, and he would ask the House, if we were to give a preferential duty on corn for the benefit of Canada, what would Argentina say to us? Argentina was by far a better customer of iron and steel and manufactures thereof to us than any of the British possessions were or possibly could be. If such a preferential duty were given to the Colonies it would throw the Argentine trade into the hands of Germany, our great competitor. Hon. Members might ask why, in view of this good account of our exports, had we any unemployed? If they would examine the Board of Trade returns, and take the case of the home railways, they would find that the railways of Great Britain in the year 1900 added 734 locomotives to the rolling stock, but in 1904, owing to the diminution in

953
the home trade, they only added fifty-eight. In the year 1898 the railways of Great Britain added 25,000 waggons to their rolling stock. In 1900 they added 20,000 waggons, but in 1904 they added only 5,000. The diminution in this rolling stock commenced precisely at the period of the outbreak of the Boer war. That was the reason why railway extensions were curtailed, rolling stock orders diminished, and large numbers of our population in the home trade thrown out of employment. Many statements had been made about dumping, illustrated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham by references to steel bars and steel billets used in the manufacture of tin-plates. They could not have a better example of the value of free trade than an analysis of the figures relating to the trade in steel bars. In 1890 the McKinley tariff was established, and very quickly and entirely destroyed the tin-plate trade with the United States. The South Wales manufacturers made large sums of money out of this trade, and they devoted a large part of their profits to the installation of new machinery and the putting down of new plant in order to meet the strong competition in the markets of the world. He noticed that Sir John Jenkins, a great authority on this trade, had said that there was a regulation of prices, and the price of steel bars was £7 per ton. American competition sprang up, and 50,000 tons of steel billets in one order were sold at £4 10s. per ton, and upon this the tin-plate workers of South Wales were enabled to make a cheap tin-plate, with which they competed in the markets of the world, and what was the result? That notwithstanding the high tariffs, the United States makers of tin-plate, had to go and sue in formâ pauperis to the United States Treasury to obtain a drawback, whereas in South Africa and our Colonies we had been able to sell cheaper canned meats and tinned fruits in the markets of the world. The makers of tin boxes and similar articles now obtained a draw back from the United States customs; and last year this amounted to £438,000. So that in order to keep themselves in competition with other makers of tin-plate goods they had had to acknowledge the principle of Free Trade, without which they would have lost their industry. With regard to this question
954
of the dumping of billets, he had a letter from a shareholder in a company which manufactured tin-plates, bars, billets and blooms. The capital of this Company was £50,000 in £10 shares. The works were built in 1899–1900, and the Company did not publish or circulate a balance sheet, but he might mention that the dividend paid last year was 45 per cent. This was one of those trades which were subject to illegitimate competition. A £10 share in this Company was recently sold by auction for £38, so that before right hon. Gentlemen accepted these statements about illegitimate competition they should first carefully examine whether they were correct or not. The company he referred to was scientifically managed, and so was enabled to produce at very cheap rates. He did not think this House was interested in protecting old and obsolete concerns; they ought to be more, interested in stimulating by legitimate competition scientific management and the ability to manufacture at the lowest possible price. They were appealed to the other day by the hon. Member for Central Sheffield on behalf of his unfortunate constituents. He might say that he visited Sheffield last year and went through some of the large iron and steel works there. He visited one works where they were producing steel of the highest quality, which they were exporting in large quantities to the United States, notwithstanding the very high duty which obtained there. The proprietor informed him that Sheffield was prospering, and that the increase of its rateable value had averaged £28,000 a year for the last five years, and it only required a simple calculation to ascertain that the capital value of that amounted to something like £1,000,000 per annum. And yet the hon. Gentleman opposite talked about his unfortunate constituents. The labour employed in producing this special kind of steel was mostly skilled labour, and the workmen earned from 7s to 8s per day. That was not sweated labour, although it was a very hot job. The state of the Sheffield trade and the effects of German tariffs upon it was illustrated by the fact that large works in Sheffield were extending their borders and increasing the size of their works, thus showing how much they were afraid of the foreign tariffs which

955
the hon. Member for Central Sheffield was constantly bringing under the notice of the House. He was authorised by the Lord Mayor of Sheffield, who was a Conservative—
MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS: No, No.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Yes, he is.
SIR JAMES KITSONsaid the Lord Mayor of Sheffield had refused to ask for any share of the Queen's Unemployed Fund on the ground that the number of unemployed in Sheffield was so small as to be below the normal average; and after searching investigation by the Distress Committee, the number of unemployed in Sheffield was found to be about 400 amongst a population of 430,000.
SIR HOWARD VINCENT. The correct figure is 2,000.
SIR JAMES KITSONsaid his authority was the Lord Mayor of Sheffield. He wished to point out to the House that the hon. Member for Central Sheffield was himself the director at the present moment of a prosperous Sheffield company, which last year paid a dividend of 22½ per cent. He noticed in The Times to-day that, notwithstanding the fear of foreign tariffs, the price of £1 shares in that company now stood at £4. Therefore it was idle for the hon. Member to treat this question in the way he did. Two years ago he addressed the House upon this question when trade was not so good; he then told the House that the best thing manufacturers could do was to put their house in order, and he ventured to give a description of a continuous process of making steel. That process had now been established through several large works in this country, and it enabled native ores in large quantities to be used. Two or three members of the Tariff Commission were directors of works which were now using this process. They were, at any rate, intelligent enough for that. Upon the general question he wished to refer to the opinion expressed by Sir Wilfred Laurier who had said—
"If we want to maintain the British Empire, for my own part my firm conviction is that it
956
can be maintained upon one condition only' and that is that every component part of the Empire should be left to do the best it can for itself."
In the course of the debate upon Mr. Villiers' Motion to which he had referred Mr. Gladstone said—
"It is not demonstration we have in view by figures or reasonings; it is to bring the question to a practical issue, to reflect the sentiments of the country, and be able to speak of the doctrine of protection as a thing past and. gone."
These discussions and agitations were interfering with the ordinary course of trade and caused a restriction upon employment. He therefore moved this Resolution in order that the verdict of the Nation might to-day be recorded upon the question.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he rose to second this Resolution which, from its nature, must necessarily be controversial. Perhaps, however, he would be allowed to associate himself with the expressions of satisfaction which had fallen from the mover of the Resolution at the restoration of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to his accustomed place in the deliberations of this House. The first half of the Resolution was a declaration that they had in the main a House of Commons which had been returned pledged to the principles of free trade. It was possible that other issues might have entered into the election through which they had just passed, but he was quite willing to accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that the Fiscal question was really the only question which the electorate were deeply exercised upon at the last election. Therefore, he could not imagine that the electors went to the ballot deeply exercised upon one question and forgot to register their conviction when they elected the present House of Commons. He had no sympathy with that frame of mind at all. Those who had made the appeal to Caesar accepted, he presumed, the responsibility of the verdict which had been given. If one pulled the string of a shower-bath expecting a gentle spray and got a deluge, one was apt to be told, if he shivered, that he ought not to have pulled the string. He thought for another reason that it was better that the House of Commons should proceed to register

957
its verdict upon the main principle upon which it had been returned. They were told on excellent authority just before the general election that this House would be merely an interim House, that it would shortly disappear and give place, he supposed, to something more truly representative of British democratic art. It was perfectly true that every Parliament and every Member of every Parliament was in a certain sense an interlude. They were all interludes. He could apply that in the most exalted quarters in this House, but he refrained. If this House was indeed to be an interlude, surely it was all the more reason why they should seize the opportunity of securing a deliberate statement of its opinions on free trade before the opportunity disappeared from this transient and fleeting phantom. There was another reason, and that was that for the first time they were confronted with an Opposition which on the question of Tariff Reform was, with regard to leaders, a united Opposition. That was a good thing in every sense—good for the Party which they led, and good for the State. He hoped their union was perfect—as perfect as that of the famous double star Algol whose dual nature was only detected by the fact that one member of the system periodically eclipsed the other. In the second part of the Resolution they were asked to register their emphatic resistance to a duty on corn. He thought that was the main issue, or certainly one of the main issues, between Gentlemen on the opposite sides of the House. He and his friends objected in principle to a duty on corn for the purpose of preference. Hon. Members on the other side did not object to it as a matter of principle, and he understood that they were now prepared to adopt it, assuming, of course, that no better means could be found. He desired to call the attention of the House to the wheat movement of the last six years. He had not selected that period because of any capricious desire to use it for controversial purposes. The figures he was about to quote, though correct, he ventured to use merely as illustrations. He selected these six years because they bore testimony to the most extraordinary revolution in the supply of wheat to this country that it had ever known since it became dependent
958
on other countries for its supply. There were six countries which stood out as the principal suppliers of wheat to this country. He believed there were about seventeen countries in all from which we drew our supplies, but it was to six which were specially prominent that he was specially justified in calling attention, namely, Russia, the United States, the Argentine, British India, Australia, and Canada. He would give the House in round figures the highest and lowest imports for these six years, and he would also say something about the prices. Russia in 1901 sent us 2,500,000 cwts. of wheat, and in 1905, 24,700,000 cwts. The United States used to be spoken of as the granary of this country, but that was an expression which must certainly be modified in view of the figures he was about to quote. In 1902 the United States sent us 43,300,000 cwts. of wheat, and in 1905 the amount shrank to 6,600,000 cwts. The Argentine, which in 1902 sent us 4,300,000 cwts., sent in 1905 no less than 23,230,000 cwts. British India, which in 1900 sent us the paltry quantity of only 6,000 cwts., sent in 1904, no less than 25,500,000 cwts. Australia, which in 1903 sent us 26 cwts. in 1904 sent 10,273,000 cwts. Canada, the steadiest of all the suppliers of wheat and the least sensational of them all, in 1903 sent us 10,800,000 cwts., the highest on record, and last year the quantity shrank to 6,200,000 cwts. He mentioned these interesting figures for the purpose of proving the vicissitudes of supply and the revolution in the sources of origin which this country had experienced during the last six years. He would now say a word about the prices of imported wheat, although the prices of English wheat bore out the argument equally well. During these six years the mean price per quarter was 29s. 4½d., and the extent to which it varied was small and insignificant, notwithstanding the gigantic revolution in the sources of supply to which he had called attention. In 1900 the mean price was 29s. 1¾d., a variation from the mean of the six years of 2¾d.; in 1901, 28s. 4½d., a variation of 1s.; in 1902, 28s. 8d., a variation of 8½d.; in 1903, 29s 1¼d., a variation of 3¼d.; in 1904, 30s. 1½d., a variation of 8d.; and in 1905, 30s. 11¾d., a variation of 1s. 7¼d.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Will the hon. Gentleman state

959
what the prices were in the years when the shilling duty was put on, and taken off.
MR. AUSTIN TAYLORsaid he did not think that affected the argument. His argument was that although in the different countries of the origin of supply there were variations, the price in this country remained singularly steady. He took it that the proposition which the tariff reformers had before them was not to put a duty on wheat from everywhere, but to put a duty on wheat in such a sense as to boycott certain sources of supply and encourage others. In other words their policy, if it meant anything, was that out of these six countries Russia, the Argentine, and the United States were for some reason not to be allowed to supply us with wheat. [Cries of "Oh!"] If they wished a self-contained Empire that was of course what it meant. Our supplies were to be confined to the countries that fly the British flag. That was the policy which was challenged by this Resolution and which it was the emphatic duty of this House to challenge. He submitted that the figures which he had quoted showed that under the present system, by which everybody was allowed to manage his own business in the matter of wheat supply, did make for the most perfect security and stability in the prime article of bread for the crowded industrial population of this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham hid commended his policy to the country on a three-fold line of argument. He had commended it on the ground of security. What position more secure could be imagined than that by which they gave to neutral countries an interest in disposing to us of the surplus of their bounteous harvests? Was that the kind of illegitimate competition against which they desired to protect the country? From the point of view of the security and stability of the Empire nothing ought to be allowed which would interfere for a moment with that perfect mechanism which the figures he had given so beautifully illustrated. In regard to the ground of mutual bargain between ourselves and the Colonies, he might refer to a speech by Mr. Fisher, Minister of Agriculture in Canada. Mr. Fisher had most honestly pointed out the difference
960
between what Canada had to offer on the one hand and what we had to give on the other, and how utterly impossible it was to compare the knocking off of a few bricks from the top of a tariff wall already constructed with the entire change in our fiscal system, and, if they liked to call it so, our rooted prejudice, which was proposed when it was suggested that we should as a policy put these duties on wheat. The last ground adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was the appeal to the sentiment of Imperial unity—one to which he himself wherever he stood in this House would always respond. From that point of view the words already quoted by the mover of the Resolution were in a certain sense a sufficient answer He did not believe that the cause of Imperial unity would be imperilled if the House registered their verdict to-day that it was not in the interest of the people of this country to interfere with the food supply by artificial means. He looked to the words of Sir Wilfred Laurier who, when asked what would be the effect on his policy of the results of the recent election in Great Britain, remarked—
"I have only to say that the issue of the election in Great Britain is to the British people alone. Whatever Party is in office, we are friends of that Party. Whatever Party is in Opposition, we are friends of that Party. We want to be on good terms with the whole people of Great Britain."
Thus, though he believed that disastrous results had followed the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in some directions, there was, at any rate, this consolation, that in the great self-governing Colonies of the Empire he did not believe any bad results would follow. They would remain attached to the Empire and to the old country by ligaments which were more enduring than the bonds of material interest. They must recognise in this House—this democratic House of Parliament—he supposed the first House of Commons which had ever contained the pure milk of democracy—constituent elements more akin to the Parliaments of the great self-governing Colonies than any of its predecessors. And he ventured to hope that it might be possible—he believed it would be possible—although they were bound to reject a proposition which would interfere with the food supplies of this country, to maintain

961
the great cause of unity between the component parts of the Empire, and to travel in harmony, in good fellowship, with all who were bound together as nations in the bundle of life under the British flag—not as it was once called a mere commercial asset, but as a symbol of the living ideas which had permeated this Empire from the centre to the periphery.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, recognising that in the recent General Election the people of the United Kingdom have demonstrated their unqualified fidelity to the principles and practice of Free Trade, deems it right to record its determination to resist any proposal, whether by way of taxation upon foreign corn, or of the creation of a general tariff upon foreign goods, to create in this country a system of protection."—(Sir James Kitson.)
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think everybody will admit that the two hon. gentlemen who have just moved and seconded the Resolution which you, Mr. Speaker, have read from the Chair, have performed their task with great moderation, and that nothing has escaped them which could give just cause of offence to any Party on either side of the House, whatever their opinions may be. I have one fundamental comment to make on those two speeches, but, before I come to it, I may perhaps say incidentally that I was rather surprised at the mover of the Resolution giving us, as one of the chief arguments which had influenced him and which ought to influence the House, the history of what took place in Yorkshire in the year 1852. The hon. Gentleman gave us an account of how, on the advent of Lord Derby to power, there spread throughout the country a great feeling of uneasiness lest there was to be a reversal of the policy inaugurated by Sir Robert Peel in 1846. Mr. Cobden was greatly agitated and proceeded to stump the country, and, with that remarkable ability which he always showed when he was dealing with these matters, to do his best to prevent any return to the pre-1846 system. But, said the mover of the Motion, after all, these fears were unnecessary. Mr. Disraeli soon after made a declaration that Free Trade in corn would be maintained. That was acquiesced in by everybody concerned
962
on both sides of politics, and since then, during the past forty or fifty years, he said, this question has been at rest. The system which was thus warmly assented to by Mr. Cobden, by Mr. Gladstone, by the Peelites, by the Whig Party and by the Radical Party, left a shilling duty on corn. I understand, therefore, from the hon. Gentleman that in his view a shilling duty on corn was no interference with Free Trade, and that if there were an adequate reason for such a duty, financial or otherwise, whatever criticism he might make on that policy he would feel himself debarred from saying that it would interfere with the principles of Free Trade in food as understood by Mr. Cobden. The other observation the hon. Gentleman made which rather surprised me was that these discussions upon the fiscal system of the country, all this calling in question the established practice, do infinite harm to trade; they disturb people's minds; they upset commerce, and they interfere with enterprise. Yes, but that observation came at an unfortunate moment. It came at the end of half an hour's explanation that never has trade of this country been so prosperous.
SIR JAMES KITSON: I referred to our external trade. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh."]
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is a subtle distinction which I cannot follow. I understand that the meaning of the hon. Gentleman is that a discussion on fiscal policy stimulates and aids external trade, but is a disadvantage to internal trade. I do not know upon what theoretical or practical basis he founds that strange conclusion, but at all events we may congratulate ourselves with him that the state of trade in the country is such as to make him at all events certain that no change in our fiscal system should be adopted. But is he going to be shaken in that view if prosperity decreases and trade diminishes? Is his faith only a faith for fine weather? I remember it was only about five or six years ago that the present Prime Minister told us we were being outstripped by all our rivals. I do not know whether that fact, if it was a fact, would have any effect upon the fiscal views of the hon. Gentleman, but if it would not, if his

963
views upon what he described as free trade and what he described as protection are quite unaltered by these familiar oscillations of prosperity and adversity, why did he give us this long explanation, very interesting in itself, of the present prosperity of the country? It would have been wholly irrelevant and would have had no connection whatever with the question now before the House. I think that is the true view, and personally I do not base my view upon fiscal questions either upon the momentary prosperity or the momentary adversity of the trade of country. The hon. Gentleman takes a different view. Then why does he talk about this matter?
MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: It was to confute the arguments of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Why then did he explain that the country was never more prosperous? It could only be that it had some relevance to the Motion which Mr. Speaker was to put from the Chair. Before I come to my main criticism of the two speeches, may I thank both hon. Gentlemen for the courteous terms in which they have referred to my return to these familiar scenes? The hon. Member for the East Toxteth Division of Liverpool gave us an interesting account of the sources of food supply which have reached this country during the last five years and the price of corn during those years. I interrupted—I hope not discourteously—and ventured to ask him if he could tell us the date at which the shilling duty on corn was put on and taken off during the period he took under review. I have not had time to compare the prices, but I think you will find that unaccountably the price falls when the duty is put on and rises when it is taken off. I think he will find that the effect of that shilling duty on corn was masked by much greater and more powerful causes, which no doubt do affect the prices of wheat in this country. If the small duty on corn which was universal in its operation was completely masked by other causes at work during the same period, surely a small duty on corn which is not universal would be still more effectively masked by these same causes. I would call attention now to a common peculiarity of both speeches of
964
the hon. Gentlemen. It was that they were really not directed towards the support of the Motion now before the House; they were an attack upon the views held or supposed to be held by my right hon. friend and myself as well as by our friends on this side of the House. In other words the Motion before us is, as I have already suggested, a vote of censure upon the Opposition. This is a novel Parliamentary operation, but it is an operation with which the Government have deliberately associated themselves. The Resolution was moved, as was often the case, by an unofficial Member, but when a Government gives time to unofficial Members to move Motions of this sort, it is well understood by all familiar with Parliamentary work that it is in effect a Government proposal and that the Government are responsible for it. They are responsible for the use of the time of the House, they are responsible for the wording of the Resolution itself, and they are responsible for the object with which it is brought forward. Now I venture to say, having had some little experience in these questions, that no Government can do a more foolish thing in this world than raise unnecessary controversy. It will be their misfortune, as it has been the misfortune of every Government who preceded them, and as it will be that of every Government who are going to succeed them—if our powers of vision can look forward to so distant a period—it is the misfortune of every Government in this country that in carrying on the business, legislative or administrative, of the country it has to raise or is obliged to raise questions which carry with them the bitterest controversy. But I never yet heard of a Government which knew its business which raised an unnecessary debate, and gave up its own time, which should be devoted to its own business, to picking a quarrel with the Opposition. It is of course the business of the Opposition to pick quarrels with the Government, and I hope we shall not fall far behind our predecessors in carrying out that recognised duty. But that the Government should come to our assistance, that they should help us in our task, that they should make difficulties for themselves in the vain hope of embarrassing us, does appear to me to be the most extraordinary policy which I have ever seen in all my experience of Parliamentary life. If they like it, I do not

965
know why they should Hot continue it. I could suggest other Motions on similar lines. I do not see why the Government should not give time for the discussion of a Resolution that the people of the United Kingdom, having shown their unqualified fidelity to the principles and practice of religious liberty, are therefore solemnly determined that the education of every child should be that which the local authority desires.
We might also havea another Resolution saying that the people of this country, having shown their unqualified fidelity to the hatred of slavery, the Government had therefore determined to leave it to somebody else to decide whether slavery should be continued. I can promise the Government that if they will bring on these Motions—I have only given a rough sketch of them—they will have as interesting debates as I think I can promise them they will have on the present occasion. Now, my criticism on the two interesting and excellent speeches which have just been delivered is that both the mover and the seconder of the Resolution absolutely forgot what it was they were doing, or trying to do. They were absolutely trying to pledge the majority of the House of Commons to a policy which is to last through the time of the present Parliament. They supposed themselves to be speaking in favour of a vote of censure on my right hon. friend and myself; but if anybody will look at the Resolution they will see that it has nothing whatever to do with particular individuals or parties in this House. What it does is to require the House of Commons to pledge itself for six years to a particular policy. If that be admitted, and I do not think it can be denied, there is not a man on either side of the House who will not agree with me that the terms in which that solemn league and covenant is going to be embodied should be absolutely clear. There should be no mistake about the terms of the pledge which the House of Commons is making and which should define the action of the Government, who agree with the Resolution, and of the majority who vote for it, and make it absolutely beyond dispute what it is they are pledging themselves and the country to do or to abstain from doing during the term of this Parliament I
966
daresay the term of this Parliament will approach the legal term of Parliaments, and, at all events, without serious chance of error I may put it at six years. Therefore, this is a pledge which the House of Commons is exacting from the majority of its Members as to what they may or may not do on certain very important matters for six years to come. I think that that is an act of very great importance, involving very wide issues, and calling upon us to examine with the greatest care the terms on which this pledge is to be exacted. I will ask one or two questions of the Government as to the meaning which they attach to the pledge which they are exacting from the majority of Members. In the first place, I should like to ask whether it is by deliberate intention that the words, "or otherwise," have been omitted after the word "goods" in the last line of the Resolution. If hon. Gentlemen will take the Resolution in their hands and read it, they will see that, as it stands on the Paper, in its preamble it alleges that—
"The people of the United Kingdom have demonstrated their unqualified fidelity to the principles and practice of free trade."
They will then see, if they look at the operative part of the Resolution, that there are only two ways in which the framers of the Resolution debar the principles and practice of free trade, as they understand the words, from being violated. Is that intentional? Do they deliberately desire to affirm that? Is it their deliberate intention to allow free trade to be violated in other ways except by imposing a duty on corn or on foreign goods? [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] I accept with pleasure that irresponsible denial on some of the back benches, but this is a question which should be answered across the Table. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] At all events, one thing is plain, and that is that the Government do not know; and I must say, for I know how mistakes may occur in drafting, that considering that this Resolution has been put down by two gentlemen of great ability, that it has been the subject of arrangement with the Government, who have made themselves responsible for the terms of the Resolution and have very likely helped to draw it, it is very extraordinary that they do not know now whether the repudiation of protection during this Parliament is a repudiation which only applies to two methods of

967
carrying protection into effect or whether it does not.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman serious?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I did not believe that could be the intention, but when I saw that a gloomy silence pervaded that bench at my examination of the Resolution, I began to have some suspicion; but I am perfectly content. I am sure it was never intended, and therefore I may take it for granted, that the Government will themselves put down an Amendment to put the Resolution right. But there can be absolutely no doubt as to what the grammatical meaning is. It does shut out only two methods of carrying on what they call protection while it leaves open all the others. Is it worth while for this House to go through a debate on this Resolution as if you intended to prevent any form of protection at all? I hope the Government will make the Resolution conform to their own intentions. This, I take it, is merely a blunder. I have had to do with the drawing of too many Resolutions myself to be too severe upon such a blunder; but I think this is rather a curious one, and it is strange that it should have escaped so many vigilant eyes. I come now to what is intended by the Government when they ask the House to place the Resolution as an effective Motion upon our journals. If I understand the Resolution rightly, they regard the existence of a single import duty unbalanced by an equal Excise duty as constituting a system of protection. If they do not mean that they will again have to amend the Resolution, because they distinctly say that any tax on foreign corn does in itself constitute a system of protection. Therefore, any import tax unbalanced by an equal Excise tax is a system of protection. It is perfectly well known that we have at this moment in existence two import taxes which are not actually balanced by any system of Excise duty, the tobacco duty and the cocoa duty. I greatly regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, owing to an accident, is prevented from being here this afternoon, but, were he here, he would be the last to deny that the actual operation of the tobacco duty and the cocoa duty is to give a protective benefit to the manu-
968
facturers of finished cocoa and finished tobacco. Now, I should like to know whether the Government intend to modify that system or not? I should strongly advise them not to modify it; for it might involve them in an embarrassing controversy, but evidently, if they mean to retain those two protective duties, they must make the formal exception in this Resolution. You cannot bind the House of Commons, as you propose to bind it, not to introduce a protective system when you hold, firstly, that a single unbalanced duty constitutes a protective system, and secondly, as you must hold, that we have at this moment two import duties which have a decidedly protective effect; and, therefore, I hope the Government will inform me at once, after I have finished, whether they intend to modify the protective duties now in existence, and, if they do not, whether they will put down the requisite Amendment to the Resolution, so as to make the Resolution conform with the policy which they and their followers intend to carry out. The third point I have to ask is this, and it is of more importance than the one I have referred to. Of course, the word protection here is used in the technical sense in which the word is employed in economic discussion. It does not mean the protection which is provided by your fleets, armies, administration, and so forth. Very well. Now, if you use the word in the technical sense, there is no man acquainted with the writings of political economists who will contradict me when I say that any legislation the effect of which is to diminish the importation into this country of foreign labour is protective in the economic sense. If that be so, if you pass this Resolution as it stands you will be precluded for six years, whatever contingency may arise, from touching that question. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] My hon. friend the Member for Stepney had an Amendment on the Paper to prevent foreign labour being introduced into this country at the crisis of a strike. By this Resolution as it stands you cannot attempt to deal with a thing of that kind during the lifetime of this Parliament. One of the amiable fictions which obtained wide currency in some of the constituencies during the election was that Chinese labour was going to be introduced in order to displace either the agricultural labourer or the miner or both.

969
[MINISTERIAL cries of "Where" and "Name."] I do not myself see any signs of a great Chinese immigration, but there is' no law against it, and there is no doubt the Chinese have in large numbers invaded great industrial countries and displaced a great amount of local labour. Suppose that were to take place here, I for one should certainly not dismiss the idea of dealing with the problem by legislation. Then why dismiss the idea for six years by your Resolution? There is no economist in this House who will say that the intrepretation I have put on economic language is extravagant; and if that be so, then you ought to make your terms clear. Before you enter into this controversy you must make it obvious what you mean and what you do not mean. [An HON. MEMBER: On a half sheet of note-paper.] Again it is laid down in the Resolution that a general tariff, howsoever constituted, whatever be the object of its framers, or the method on which it is framed, by itself constitutes an invasion of free trade and a system of protection. Well, India has a general tariff. I presume, therefore, in the opinion of every gentleman who votes for this Resolution, India has a protective system. Now the financial policy of India is absolutely under the control of this House; and therefore those who think that a tariff, however framed, is necessarily protective, who admit, as they must, that India has it, and that we can regulate in this House the tariff of India, must recognise that they think one system good for India and another system good for this country. They think that protection, as they define it, is good for India and bad for this country.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: Is there not an Excise duty on cotton?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): India has no general tariff.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot imagine this House destroying the financial system of India; but, consider, every man who is going to vote for this Resolution believes in his version of free trade, not as being good relative to Great Britain alone, but as being good for all times and all places. Free
970
trade is held by these Gentlemen—it certainly was by Mr. Cobden—as an absolute doctrine, as the proper system on which to carry on the fiscal system of every country. If that be their view, they ought to say clearly whether they mean to interfere with India or with any other of our dependencies within our administrative control, or whether they do not mean to apply to those dependencies the same system which on universal grounds they think desirable for this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India interrupted me just now very courteously, and said India has not a general tariff. The term "general tariff," no doubt, like the word "protection," is ambiguous; but before asking the House to enter into this solemn league and covenant they will perhaps make it clear what they do mean by a general tariff. It is one thing to use the word in platform discussion, in private conversation, or in debate; it is another thing to put it down in a Resolution and bind the House of Commons while the House of Commons is still in being. The general tariff as used in Germany means a tariff which is general because it is applied to all countries in which an exception has not been made. The right hon. Gentleman will at all events admit that there are in India Customs imposed upon imports with no corresponding Excise excepting only, so far as I know, the case of cotton.
SIR HENRY FOWLER: And sugar.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The sugar case is a different case. I will accept sugar for the sake of argument, but the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that there are duties in India in which there has been no attempt made to put on an Excise. India, therefore, is a protective country, as defined. I must say that it is a most anomalous thing for the House, without explanation, to lay down this hard-and-fast doctrine for itself as to what is eternally right in the matter of taxation, when a country which it has in the hollow of its hand is permitted by it, and I presume is going to be permitted by it, to violate all the canons of free trade and to adopt what is described here as a system of protection. There is another point which I think every one must admit is of

971
extreme importance. You are going by this Resolution for six years to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day putting on any duty of any sort or kind, or for any purpose whatever, which has not a precisely corresponding Excise. Has the House considered what a self denying ordinance of that sort may mean? Have they considered how difficult it is to increase revenue on the present basis of taxation? Have they considered the claims which may be made—some of which will be made—upon the taxation of this country for carrying out social reforms? Have they considered the necessities which may be thrown on this country by the accidents of foreign complications? I notice that while the Government talk, no doubt very sincerely, but glibly, about protection, they are pledged to the feeding of school children, to old-age pensions, to payment of Members, to payment of election expenses; and they are considering also the desirability of increasing the remuneration of the great Civil Service of the country. They are hardly likely to get through the education debates without some further calls on the public funds. They have got to deal with the difficulties of local taxation, which in some places, at all events, are of the most tremendous description. In addition to all that, they are pledged to an addition to the Sinking Fund in order to make further provision for Debt. All these are certain calls upon the finances of the country. How about uncertain calls? Is there any man who thinks that his powers of prophecy are such that he can look forward to six years and be confident that within that period no cloud shall arise upon our political horizon, no danger menace us-from abroad, no necessity be thrown upon us for increasing military preparations—that there is no probability of war arising and all that war means? That the Government are earnestly desirous of peace I know. No Government ever have existed in this country, or ever could exist, which were not, for their own sake if not for the country's, earnestly desirous of peace. But can we always command that which we earnestly desire? Is it in the power of any Cabinet Minister, however circumspect, or any Cabinet, however cautious, to say, now at the beginning of March, 1906, "We look forward with absolute assurance and clear-sighted vision to the next six years, and we
972
promise that nothing shall arise from external causes which need occasion any heavy expenditure or any anxiety to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?" The Government which would pledge itself to such a prophecy would be a Government of charlatans; but this Government is not a Government of charlatans, and it very well knows that no such prophecy can be made. Any man who would make it would write himself down a fool or a knave. If that be so, have you got clearly before you how you are going to find the necessary money without putting on a Customs duty which shall not have an exactly corresponding Excise? It will tax the ingenuity of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and all his colleagues to find any method of raising large sums of money without widening the basis of taxation, and they will find it uncommonly difficult to widen the basis of taxation in order to meet great and growing needs without violating the principles they have laid down in this Resolution. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer seriously thinks that, by manipulating the death duties, by taxing ground values, or by any other expedient of that sort, he is going to meet the kind of need of which I am speaking, I can assure him he has not given adequate attention to what may be a most pressing subject and a most anxious matter of debate within these walls. Unless the Government are—I was going to say insane, but that would sound disrespectful—but unless they are so intent upon carrying their vote of censure against the Opposition as absolutely to forget the responsibility which has been put upon them, they will surely add some ider to this Resolution which will say that in time of great national emergency, or for some great national object, this so-called economical principle which they proclaim in the Resolution may be violated. But I see no sign of that. That is the substance of what I have got to say at the present stage of the debate. The question of what is the fiscal policy which I recommend is interesting and no doubt important; it can, however, hardly become a matter of practical constructive policy for a few years; and there are other questions even more pressing raised in the Amendment of my right hon. friend, upon the discussion of which I shall be delighted to give a full account of my

973
views on the question. But that is not the Resolution before the House. The Resolution pledges the House to a particular course of action for six years, and we cannot rationally discuss that course of action unless the Government tell us exactly what the terms in which the Resolution is couched exactly mean. I will therefore repeat my questions for their satisfaction. As to the first. With regard to the Omission of the words "or otherwise" after the word "goods" in the Resolution, I understand the Government are going to put that right. My second question is—Are they going to abolish the existing protective duties in this country, and, if not, are they going to put in any Amendment excepting them by name and explicitly? Otherwise, it is perfectly clear that the whole Resolution becomes nonsense, because the country has at this moment what they would call a system of protection in full force; and how absurd their position will be when they are asked on the Budget whether they adhere to the terms of their Resolution. The third question is—Whether they are prepared to move, or to assent to others moving, words which will make it clear that, in refusing to deal with protection, we do not refuse to deal with the protection of labour. The fourth question is—Do they propose to take any steps to abolish the protection which they say now exists in India; and, if not, whether they ought not to make a special exemption of India and other dependencies over which we have control, so as to make it clear that this House is conscious in laying down these principles that they are insular and solely for internal application. The fifth question is—Will they consent to put words into this Resolution which shall make it possible for the House, without stulifying itself, in times of great national emergency, or for the purpose of carrying out some great social reform, to broaden the basis of taxation, even though it be found practically impossible to carry out that broadening process without putting on Custom duties that shall not be exactly and nicely balanced by Excise?
These are five questions of great importance, the purport of which I have made as clear as I can, to which I hope the Government will give an immediate answer, since they must themselves feel
974
that so long as so many ambiguities lurk in the terms of their Resolution it is quite impossible for this House to conduct a debate upon it with any prospect of arriving at a clear and satisfactory conclusion.
MR. RUSSELL REAsaid that the right hon. Gentleman—
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Is no member of the Government going to reply?
MR. J. CHAMBERLAINrose and remained standing amid loud cries of "Name, name" and "Order, order" from the MINISTERIAL Benches.
MR. SPEAKER: I have called upon the hon. Member for Gloucester. [OPPOSITION cries of "Bannerman, Bannerman."]
MR. RUSSELL REAsaid that this Resolution affirmed the fidelity of the people of this country to the principles and practice of free trade. Its practice was directly attacked by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; its fundamental principles were no less directly attacked by the economic teaching of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. These two champions of protection quite understood and adopted the economic principle of the division of labour. One of them had a policy—a very clear and definite policy—but he had no theory of international exchange and finance, and it was impossible to reconcile his various speeches and arguments with any consistent theory of international exchange of products—free trade or protectionist, nationalistic or cosmopolitan. The other champion had a theory, a consistent, a logical, but, he believed, erroneous, theory of British or insular trade, but then he had no policy. He had lately—apparently unwillingly—been induced to admit that his theory might include and even lead to the policy of the other, but he still seemed to hope it would not do so. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, when he did condescend to touch upon any of the principles that did, and must, govern international trade, said—
"Surely it is a mathematical truth that if imports come into this country of manufactured goods which we can make as well as any other nation, they must displace labour."

975
And he went on to calculate from time to time how many thousands of British workmen were deprived of their living by this or that particular import. It was the utterance of this ancient and thousand times refuted fallacy that induced Professor Marshall to sign the celebrated manifesto of the sixteen professors of economic science against the right hon. Gentleman's policy. At Newcastle the right hon. Gentleman actually argued that the total stoppage of not only all our export trade, but of all production of every description at home, would result in an immediate increase of our imports to the prodigious sum of £1,918,000,000. When faced with the definite question in an abstract form, whether we pay for our imports by the produce of British labour, he would grudgingly admit it, and nine-tenths of his arguments were implicit denials of this axiomatic truth. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had, he admitted, a scientific theory of international trade. He was no vulgar hater of imports; he was only concerned with his speculations as to how they could continue to maintain the imports in the future, and continue to pay for them with the labour. But then he had no policy; the nearest thing they had got to a policy were declarations such as the following—
"He is opposed to confining our import duties to duties for revenue only."
At the same time—
"he is also opposed to imposing duties for the purpose of protecting the home producer."
"He is not opposed in principle to a tax on corn,"
but he accepted the probability that—
"the country will not tolerate a tax on food."
He was opposed to a general tariff—on 13th February, 1906, he refused to accept its necessity, but the next day, on the 14th, he accepted it in principle, if the necessity, in which he did not believe, should arise. These four general propositions constituted his policy, his whole policy, as far as it was disclosed. As an economist he understood and respected the right hon Gentleman, although he believed that his conclusions respecting British trade were curiously wrong; but as a politician and tariff reformer he had yet to begin to discover his policy. But both these Gentlemen agreed in one thing. They were both free traders; the real
976
thing, the ultimate, but distant free trade was their ideal. If they were free traders, then so was Friederich List, the great prophet of protection—the protectionists' Adam Smith. No one had given so glowing a picture of the ultimate millenium of free trade, of the wealth and prosperity, "passing the power of the most vivid imagination to conceive," as List himself. But meanwhile they were protectionists. They belonged to the school of those who "sin that grace may abound." Both these Gentlemen agreed also in this—they regarded this country as on the highway to industrial decline, to an absolute decline, and far advanced on the road of a relative decline compared with her rivals and competitors in trade. They both based their argument on the fact that other nations, particularly Germany and America, had increased not only their total national product of manufactured articles, but their exports of manufactured goods, at a greater rate and even in greater actual amount than we had done. If this was true, and if it was the result of our fiscal policy, then our policy stood condemned. Well, as a fact, it was true, the phenomenon was undeniable. They must examine and understand this phenomenon, for it lay at the basis of all the protectionist arguments. Had the increase of the manufactures of America and Germany been the consequence of their fiscal policy, and had it been at our expense? These were the questions they must answer, and the answer was not difficult. The particular direction of these American and German manufactures might have been the consequence of their fiscal policy, the amount of that development had not. It was inevitable under any fiscal system, protectionist or free trade; and it had not been at our expense on the whole; if one of our industries had suffered another had profited. In the modern industrial age the world's consumption of manufactured articles had increased ten-fold. Sixty years ago England was the workshop of the world, but the dogma that it was to be always the sole workshop of the world—that they could monopolise the infinitely expanded trade of the world—was a palpable absurdity. They could not keep the whole, but he maintained that they were keeping the first call on the trade of the world, they were keeping the best of the trade, and they were keeping

977
as much as they could do in good times. Anything beyond this—it was "a mathematical truth," as the right hon. Gentleman would say—must overflow to other nations. Germany had of late been passing through a stage of social and economic development which we passed through a generation earlier. She had been drafting into her cities a large half-employed, under-fed, under-paid, agricultural population to found her now manufacturing industries. This country no longer had this resource, it was dried up; our agricultural districts wore to-day under-peopled, and the land was crying out for labour. In this migration of population from country to town, we were at least a generation ahead of Germany, and she had just passed through what must necessarily be the most rapid period in her manufacturing growth. That was the explanation, and the sufficient explanation, of the more rapid growth of German manufactures than of our own. But bad not this growth been at our expense? It had not. We had kept, not the whole, but the best, and we had kept as much as we could do in good times. Our existing industries were sufficient to absorb all available and willing workers in good times. Take the year 1899, a year of booming trade, and a year of peace—at that time our prosperity reached saturation point, we had as much as we could hold. Every mill, factory, mine, and ship, and every man in this country, was fully employed, every employer was looking out for hands, every man had the choice of two jobs. Orders of all kinds were refused by our manufacturers; he knew by his own experience, both in his own business, and as a railway director, that orders overflowed to the foreigners because we could not take them. And yet this was a period in which notably German and American exports expanded more than our own, and the tariff reformers told them that this increase was at our expense. If this was so, they were bound to tell how we could have taken it on, what we could have done more than we did, or what we could have done better than we did. The problem of the unemployment of the willing and the fit was simply a question of mitigating and tiding over bad times; that and that only. It followed from this, that to import a trade by tariffs and taxes was
978
not a measure that would absorb the unemployed. That was to import unemployment as well as employment. This the Americans found when, at an enormous cost to other unprotected industries, they violently imported a tin plate manufacture. That he might read a full report of the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in South Wales, in which he gave this as a striking example of pure profit to America and pure loss to us, he bought a Cardiff newspaper, and in the very same issue that recorded his speech, he read these words in their market report—
"The condition of the American tin plate industry is most unsatisfactory, one half the mills being closed down, and the American Tinplate Company has reduced its quotation for plates by 20 cents on the 100 lb. box. Little business is said to be coming in from canners. Independent sheet mill owners have secured a reduction of 20 per cent. in wages."
No such state of affairs at that time or since had existed in South Wales. America had imported this unemployment, and her unemployment was always greatest in her protected industries. It was obvious that the problem of the unemployed must be attacked by other methods than tariffs. It might be said that he was an optimist. He confessed that the more study he gave to this question, the more optimistic he became. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham called himself an optimist; if he was, all he could say was that so were Jonah and Jeremiah. Let them very shortly examine the arguments against the optimistic view of the British commercial position of both the right hon. Gentlemen, of the one who did not call himself an optimist, of the Jonah, who was cast out into the deep, but after little more than three days had come back to the surface, and of Jeremiah. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were entirely statistical. They had been dealt with over and over again with particular ability and effect by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but during the two years and a half of this controversy he had been met by an even more formidable antagonist; he had been confuted most successfully by the mysterious providence whose dealings were revealed monthly by the Board of Trade. If the right hon. Gentleman said our foreign trade was failing us, and the loss was only hidden from our eyes by

979
the increase of our colonial trade, immediately the foreign exports leaped forward and restored precisely the old relative proportion between the two. If he said it was our export of manufactures that was less and the loss was hidden from our eyes by the increased shipments of coal at high prices, immediately coal exports shrunk in value, and manufactures jumped forward, and doubly made up the difference. If he said our old staple exports were declining and we were being reduced to secondary products, "pickles and jam," then, as by magic, these same "staple" exports, cotton, wool, iron and machinery bounded in advance. He had proved to be a Balaam, but a Balaam with a difference from his prototype, the old Balaam came to curse, but was constrained by a higher power to bless; the new Balaam got through his curses all fight, but his curses seemed to be the very spells that immediately brought down the blessings. He always was rather sorry for Balaam. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition were not statistical; they were pure deductive reasoning. He admitted freely that the right hon. Gentleman was a well-instructed, theoretical deductive economist. He admitted his theory, that its application to England was intelligible, that it was consistent with itself, and that the right hon. Gentleman had always consistently held it. He was possessed by a theory that oppressed him like a nightmare—it was a nightmare. It started thus, "The world except ourselves has, rightly or wrongly, insisted that industry shall run upon national, and not upon cosmopolitan lines." Therefore what could be more clear than the deduction that our industries must inevitably be gradually contracted into a like national area, whether we would or not. The whole course of the inevitable decay of British trade could be logically deduced from one or two epigrams—at least from neatly and epigramatically expressed general propositions. For example, that by foreign tariffs trade was forced to flow along channels "engineered," not by nature, but by law "and diplomacy," was undeniable. From this he deduced the conclusion that we were forced by foreign tariffs to change our industries from the channels into which they had been "engineered" into others; and then this further deduction. These
980
changes were "to trades" presumably less remunerative "than the old," that was to say from the higher to the lower. So far the right hon. Gentleman had proved the degradation of British trade by abstract reasoning. Another of his general statements was that "our large imports are a vital necessity to us, and the exports required to pay for them are not necessities to foreign nations." This also was undeniable. His deductions were, firstly, that we were therefore at a disadvantage in the business; secondly, that we must therefore purchase our imports by continually lowering, our prices; thirdly, that our imports must "therefore" become "first costly, then unattainable." He had now proved by pure deductive logic not only the degradation but the annihilation of our foreign trade. When the right hon. Gentleman addressed the British Association he asked them this question, alluding to another subject—
"Do we not here touch a series of problems with which that most unsatisfactory branch of philosophy, inductive logic, ought to deal?"
He would ask the right hon. Gentleman to put that question to himself. Let him "revise his principles in the light of experience," another of his own phrases. He would find the nationalistic system of economics and policy had failed—was failing all round. It was fighting against modern forces stronger than tariffs. His own deductions might be logical, but they did not "come off"—they did not happen, or they did not produce the results he expected. Take the last assumption first, that because our imports were necessary to us, we were at a disadvantage in the bargain, we should have constantly to reduce our prices, and that our exports would become first difficult, then unattainable. This assumption, if accurate, would by this time be susceptible of statistical proof. It had received, on the contrary, statistical disproof. The Board of Trade had shown that, although both the prices of our exports and imports had greatly decreased in thirty years, yet it was the foreigner who had reduced his prices the most. We were getting more and not less foreign goods for our goods. In this, as in the other deductive arguments of the Protectionist school, the "inevitable" consequences bad not "come off." We had not been "engineered" out of lower industries

981
into higher. We had been engineered out of some primary manufactures into some secondary and higher ones. It might not have been intended, but it had happened. Above all other trades we had been "engineered" by foreign tariffs into our lonely and unchallengeable supremacy in shipping, or rather, foreign nations had "engineered" themselves out of the very trade they most envied and most desired. Did the right hon. Gentleman know that we performed more shipping services for the celebrated group of ten protectionist countries than we did for this country itself? Thus they who might refuse out cotton and our iron were forced by the economic law from which there was no escape to accept payment for their exports to us in a form in which they would least wish to do so. Shipping was only one of the trades into which we had been "engineered"; there were other examples. Time would fail to describe the economic process by which the Protectionist policy of other nations had secured the supremacy of the "land of free imports" in the business of merchants, distributors, brokers, bankers, and insurance. To say that we were being "engineered" into inferior trades was to say that bankers, merchants, brokers, shipowners, and officers and crews, skilled engineers and machine makers, were inferior to the old furnace men and puddlers, or the naked and parboiled men he remembered in the sugar-houses in his boyhood. A survey of international commerce as it existed showed that, when a nation endeavoured to monopolise its own market for its own producers, it was forced to surrender the new and higher occupations that were essentially international. It surrendered them to us. Such a nation was fighting against great forces: material—such as the cheapening and quickening of carriage by sea and land; and moral and social—such as the increase of commercial intercourse and information, and the habit of travel; forces which made for international inter-dependence, friendship, and peace. These forces produced new trades: the trades which were the product of these forces were the higher trades; the country that secured these trades was the free-trade country. And thus the nation that held and followed the morally higher theory of trade had its reward even in this world.
982
How these higher forces worked in commerce and counteracted the lower was best illustrated by the very phenomenon on which, not only the right hon. Gentleman, but all tariff reformers most loved to dwell. It was their favourite, the most telling argument—it was that the British manufacturer, shut out of a foreign country by a tariff, took himself, his capital, his machinery, and sometimes his men, and flourished mightily abroad, instead of starving at home, to our national loss. The fact that these emigrations of capital had taken place could not be denied, but they were not so frequent now as they were in the early days of American protection. But he asked the House to notice what followed to the protected state—to notice how retribution followed, and in the end restitution too. When its protected infant industries had grown to be protected giants, when they aspired to an export trade—a "world trade"—they found that, on the whole, the best results in product for a given expenditure could be obtained in the "land of free imports," and one after another they established their works in England. They brought their German education, their American enterprise and organising power, and their capital to this country, when they established themselves on British soil, paid British taxes, and employed the highest and best paid of our working population. There could be no doubt that, during the last few years, the tide had turned, and this immigration of capitalist aliens had much exceeded the flight of British manufacturing capital to protected areas. It was one of the most conspicuous developments of English trade. It should be observed, too, that it was the very best firms who felt most strongly the attractive force of this free-trade country. It was the largest maker of electric machinery in the world that had come from America to establish itself at Rugby; it was the largest maker of mining machinery in the world which had come from Chicago and San Francisco to start near London. The Trafford Park Works of a Pittsburg firm were the largest and best equipped works of their kind in the world. Thus the protection of protectionist countries defeated itself. It drove to our shores and our service the finest products of German education and training, and the best enterprise and most highly specialised skill and capital of America,

983
to work out its full development in the "land of free imports." From every point of view British free trade stood justified—ethically, it was the path of honesty and commercial purity; politically, it was the path of safety and peace; and no less in the sphere of economics, it was the path of profit. Tariff reformers were waiting for the tide to turn—for the pendulum to swing. In his opinion great nonsense was talked about the swing of the pendulum. We had had Free Trade for sixty years, and now, for the first time the question had been again referred back to the constituencies, and it was found that the pendulum had not even begun to swing in sixty years. Did hon. Members opposite really believe that it would swing in sixty-five or seventy years? He thought they would discover that the English people occasionally made a decision that was final and irrevocable. They made such a decision in favour of the freedom of the individual conscience at the time of the Reformation, and three centuries later they made a similar kind of decision in favour of freedom of trade. After an interval of time, from the period of Cranmer and Knox, about equal to that which now separated us from the triumph of Cobden, certain Englishmen objected to the inconvenience of so many individual consciences; they thought the pendulum was swinging back from freedom to protection of conscience. They looked at the continent of Europe, as our protectionists were doing; they saw the Catholic reaction, the counter Reformation, and they thought their hour had come. Like our protectionists, they were national and patriotic; they denied that they wished to go back to the old protection of Rome. It was only to the protection of our own church, our own prelates, our own clergy. Were they right? Did they find that the pendulum had swung? They paid for their error by the Joss of their heads. We did not now deal with inconvenient politicians by so drastic a method. Our protectionists had paid for their error by the loss of their seats. Doubtless the ordinary pendulum would swing again to the side of the Conservative Party, but it was his sincere and well-grounded belief that this would not occur until that Party had purged itself of this heresy.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: When I rose a short time ago
984
I did not do so in order to continue the debate on this Resolution. I. proposed rather to call attention further to the points raised by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition, and to ask as imperatively as I might for some reply which common courtesy required from the Treasusy Benches. I am not going to follow the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, and who has made it his business to explain to the House at great length what are the views of my right hon. friend the Member for the City of London on the fiscal question, and my views. We do not accept him as our interpreter. When the proper time comes we will endeavour to explain ourselves in the Amendment we are going to propose. In the meantime we ask the Government to give us some explanation of this Resolution, which is an extraordinary Resolution, as they will find out before the end of the debate. When Mr. Villiers, at the instigation of Mr. Cobden, proposed a Resolution in the House in 1852, what happened? That Resolution was withdrawn or defeated,—I think withdrawn—and an amended Resolution was adopted on the proposition of Lord Palmerston, to which both sides of the House assented. It was a Resolution passed by common consent; but the right hon. Gentlemen opposite surely do not expect that there is any chance of having a joint acceptation of the Resolution to which they have given their support. This Resolution is drawn in a shape which under no conceivable circumstances we could accept. Its object is offensive—I mean in a Parliamentary sense—and we treat it as it is intended to be treated, as a Vote of Censure upon us. If we are to be censured, we want to know for what we are to be censured. When my right hon. friend was speaking, I observed that there was some amusement in certain quarters of the House; but I think that amusement was a little premature. I am not a new Member; I have satin the House for thirty years, and have seen many majorities—not, perhaps, so truculent as that now possessed by the Government—I have seen great majorities who thought they could ride rough-shod over small minorities.
MR. DILLON: You are catching a little of it yourselves now.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My experience is that all these attempts have utterly and ludicrously failed; and with that experience behind me, which I share with the hon. Member for East Mayo, I regard with amazement these attempts of the Party opposite to howl us down and to refuse us the explanation which we ask for in the most formal manner. My right hon. friend showed conclusively that this Resolution is pure nonsense; that as it stands it is not likely to be acted upon by the House of Commons which is going to vote upon it; and he asked that it should, at least, be put into a form from which the House at large can understand what it is they are expected to declare their opinion upon in the lobbies. The matters which my right hon. friend has called attention to are not altogether unimportant. Here is the question. It is whether this is a declaration against protection in any form or against any particular form of protection. I think the Prime Minister not very civilly asked if my right hon. friend was serious. ["Oh, oh."] I will alter that, and say the Prime Minister asked most uncivilly if my right hon. friend was serious. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Withdraw."] I will add a question: If you do not mean to distinguish in some way, why did you put these two forms of taxation into the Resolution? Why did you pick out these two particular forms of taxation, which you declare to be protective, from all the hundred other forms of taxation which are protective? I know why it was clone. This Resolution, by which this House of Commons, with its 300 Ministerial majority, is going to show its determination to the whole civilised world, is really brought forward because Gentlemen opposite have got so little to do that they must take notice of what they believe to be personal differences between my right hon. friend and myself. I am reminded that I ought to have said that the Government with its majority have not so little to do, but have so little mind to do it. They have chosen to introduce this subject—and let them make the most of it—with the object of showing that there are alleged differences between my right hon. friend and myself, and with this they occupy the attention of their great majority just returned in order to carry large social reforms and to drive the Chinese out of South Africa.
986
It appears to me that they will do the one as soon as the other. In the meanwhile they appear to be having a very good time of it. But, Sir, we will not go on with this debate without having a reply to the questions which have been asked. A most important question was asked—and it was raised during the election—with regard to the protection that now exists on two of the most prosperous trades of the country, the tobacco trade and the cocoa trade, both of which are very largely conducted by gentlemen holding the same political opinions as right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. We want to know why they should make the distinction. Are they going to make this distinction? Do you intend to treat tobacco and cocoa in the same way as other articles in the general plan? To that we have a right to have an answer. We want to know how far you are consistent in this sudden zeal to record the opinion of the House of Commons upon this abstract Resolution before the House. Then a much more important question is undoubtedly how far protection is to be allowed in the case of labour. ["Hear, hear" from MINISTERIALISTS.] I notice a cheerful explosion from hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I think they will find out that this is a very serious question before they have done. We were told in almost every constituency that I know of, by people of course who were not responsible, that Chinese labourers were going to be introduced under contract into this country. [Cries of "Oh, oh," and "Name, name."] Oh, I am not afraid, and unlike the Government I am willing to answer. You want to know where it was said; it was said in Dudley, in West Birmingham, my own constituency, and in East Worcestershire. [A MINISTERIALIST, "What, by a Conservative?"] I am not aware of any Conservatives in those two constituencies who have tried to work against their own principles. It was said by agents and others of the Ministerialist Party. Of course, it was absolutely untrue that any contract of the kind had been made or suggested, or thought of. But if you are going to press these free-trade doctrines, are you certain that such a contract may not be thought of or made by persons who may press this free-trade declaration to its logical conclusion Why on earth are we to be pledged to admit the product of the labour of the

987
lowest Chinese working at 2d. per day in his own country, and at the same time to be precluded from admitting the Chinaman who may come to do a building job, or some contract of that kind?
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: Then this matter has been thought of.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have heard nothing of the kind myself, but on the other side of the House it might logically come into contemplation.
MR. J. M. ROBERTSON: What I signified was that while the right hon. Gentleman said that it had not been thought of his own words showed that it had been.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I repeat that a project of the kind might come under contemplation. Now, what did the Lord Chancellor say the other day upon this subject?
"Think for a moment—"
at any rate, he had given some thought to the question—
"what would happen if there were an attempt to introduce 50,000 or 60,000 Chinese into this country, to compete with the standard of living which has been reached after the endeavours of generations of labour? It would not be tolerated in this country for a moment. All this sophistry would be swept away instantly; in no part of Europe would cheap Chinese labour be allowed to compete with white labour—it would not be tolerated."
Then let us take care that in this Resolution which we are to record we have some regard for the dignity of the House of Commons, and do not cause to be put upon our journals statements and declarations which we have no intention whatever of adhering to. Then there is the question of the Indian tariff. According to this declaration as it stands, that tariff is declared to be protective, and, as such, we ought at once to take steps to abolish or alter it. Do you say it is not protective?
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen to see what they are getting to. They are so anxious to put this matter aside, and seem to
988
think it is of no importance. Here the Indian tariff is already allowed to be not protective, and yet it is a tariff which places upon manufactured goods, without any corresponding excise, a certain tax or duty. That is what we are contending for. Alter the terms of your Resolution to what you mean, not what you say, and it may be that we may, as in 1852, be able to agree with you and pass the Resolution nem. con. Meanwhile, I ask the Prime Minister whether he still intends to pass without any notice the respectful request for information which was addressed to him at an earlier period by my right hon. friend.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANshook his head.
MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Then, sir, I move that this debate be now adjourned.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)
MR. DALZIELsaid they had witnessed a most extraordinary scene during the last two or three speeches, especially during that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Not only did the right hon. Gentleman seek to dominate the Government and the House when he was sitting on the Ministerial side, but he thought that when in opposition he could dictate to the Government how the debate should be conducted. He hoped the Government would conduct this debate in the interests of the House and of the subject they were discussing, and that they would not take their orders from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman has advised the Government not to take their orders from any Member sitting on this side of the House.
MR. DALZIEL: Not from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member's advice is excellent, but my right hon. friend gave no orders. He did what I am convinced would have been done in any similar case, and what has

989
been done in every similar case in my Parliamentary experience. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that so far from its being the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite that a Government may carry a debate on in its own way, and speak at its own time through the members which it itself selects, he, I think, was one of those who, with the assent of the Prime Minister, howled for an hour when a Secretary of State was endeavouring to address the House.
MR. DALZIEL: The right hon. Gentleman has pointedly referred to me. May I be allowed to explain that the circumstances were entirely different? On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman was attacked himself, and he refused to reply to the criticisms that were made.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not follow that. What happened was that there was a debate initiated by the Opposition. The Leader of the House, in the exercise of his discretion, asked one of his principal colleagues to take the first reply, reserving himself for the last word in the debate. A more legitimate proceeding cannot be imagined, and, as I say, the only result was that a Secretary of State for the first time in our Parliamentary history, and with the consent of the then Leader of the Opposition, was howled down for sixty minutes by the clock. Right hon and hon. Gentlemen are proud of the performance. Now, compare what was then asked by the Opposition to what we ask. After all, there was no question of the then Government evading the issue. I was prepared to speak, and said I was prepared to speak, and the Opposition had no right to complain of two speeches instead of one. Look at what the Government are doing now. We have, as clearly and as respectfully as we can, pointed out the difficulties and ambiguities in the Resolution which the Government themselves have made Government business. We have shown unmistakably that there are difficulties and ambiguities which require explanation and amendment. I venture to say if we are to discuss this Resolution reasonably we must know what interpretation the Government themselves put upon it. I begged the Government, in the interests of their own debate, to tell us the meaning of their own Resolution. That respectful appeal was
990
absolutely ignored by the numerous able gentlemen who sit on the bench opposite, all of whom must know what the Government mean. These cannot be new questions to the Government. They have been giving their days and nights to these economic questions for two or three years. They must know the answer which is needed. Would it not be common courtesy, and would it not be in the interests of debate to have the answer, or do they deliberately think they have a better chance of passing this Resolution in its ambiguous than in its unambiguous form? Considering that this is to bind the House during the whole time of its existence, I cannot believe that they deliberately prefer an ambiguous to an unambiguous Resolution. If it be true, it would be discreditable in the highest degree, but I cannot believe that that is the intention of the Government. In these circumstances, there never was a Motion for adjournment more justified. The hon. Gentleman below the gangway asks us "not to order the Government." We have no power to order them; we recognise our weakness. We know that, numerically at all events, we are inferior, and we accept that position with becoming philosophy. The fact that we are in a minority gives us a claim upon the Government, and when they on their own motion bring forward a Resolution of this unexampled character they should make it plain to the whole House and to the world what it is they mean. Let the Prime Minister not stultify our proceedings by compelling us to go on with this discussion in the dark. Let us know exactly what he means. He knows the answer to every one of these questions. All he has to do is to share his knowledge with the House at large, and then we shall know what it is we are going to vote upon. We shall then be delighted to shorten this discussion by withdrawing the Motion for adjournment.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I must find fault with one expression which came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. He said I made an interjection which was uncivil. [Cries of "Most uncivil."] It was not meant to be uncivil; it was not uncivil; hut it was very much to the point. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City has

991
been to the country since we last saw him. He made it rather a matter of complaint that this was a Vote of want of confidence in himself and his friends moved by us. We moved the same want of confidence a few weeks ago in the country, and the country voted the want of confidence. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, No," and "Slavery."] The right hon. Gentleman is like the old Bourbons in the oft-quoted phrase—he has learnt nothing. He conies back to this new House of Commons with the same airy graces, the same subtle dialectics, the same light and frivolous way of dealing with a great question, and he little knows the temper of the new House of Commons if he thinks that those methods will prevail here He has put some Questions to me on this Resolution. He has split it up, and tortured it, and pulled it to pieces, and he thinks he has put some posers to us.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I put no posers. I asked for information which I thought the Government could give.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It would be a very clever Government that could reconcile to each other the Questions which the right hon. Gentleman has put to us. In the first place, he finds fault with us for having selected two principal courses of policy, the establishment of a general tariff and the taxation of foreign corn. They were selected because they were the main topics or features of the policy urged before the country during the election. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no."] When the two right hon. Gentleman appeared at last to have come together it was on the ground of these two topics. In the celebrated letters which passed these were the two points which were put forward as of first importance. The right hon. Gentleman says we ought to have put in the Resolution the words "and otherwise," because the Resolution as it stands may mean that any other way of bringing in protection would be justifiable. That is the principal dilemma he puts before us. But a little time afterwards he says-"Take care what you do by driving this anti-protection doctrine too hard, because you may find yourselves afterwards obliged to introduce other methods, and this Resolution will preclude them."
992
The right hon. Gentleman says we have Colonies and a great dependency where there are protective tariffs, and that is inconsistent with this Resolution. I put it to the House whether what I have said does not show how utterly unworthy of the occasion was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He first of all rides one horse and then he rides another—two horses perfectly incapable of being ridden together. One of his arguments contradicts the other. Then he says we are to stop the proceedings in this debate, and his Amendments are not to be moved until we have answered these terrible Questions. In so far as I have referred to them, I may have answered them incidentally. I have no direct Answer to give to them. They are utterly futile, nonsensical, and misleading. They were invented by the right hon. Gentleman for the purpose of occupying time in this debate. I say, enough of this foolery! It might have answered very well in the last Parliament, but it is altogether out of place in this Parliament. The tone and temper of this Parliament will not permit it. Move your Amendments, and let us, get to business.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am not going to attempt to traverse the whole of the ground which has been gone over by my two right hon. friends, but I am going to repeat to the House two perfectly plain and pertinent Questions which have been put to the Leader of the House, and to which he has deliberately refused to give a direct Answer. The first Question was whether India has or has not at this moment a protective tariff. That is a Question of great importance in this, debate, because every time it has been put a divergent Answer has been given by the supporters of the Government.
MR. DILLON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is a Motion for the adjournment. Are we entitled to discuss the Indian question?
MR. SPEAKER: The adjournment was moved because no Answer was given when a Question was put; that is the point to which the debate is limited.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat I was addressing myself to was this

993
the Government have fathered and made themselves responsible for a Resolution which precludes the establishment of a protective system. [Several MINISTERIALISTS: In this country.] That is another point. If hon. Members wish me to discuss all the points they have raised they will keep me here a long time. We are asked to condemn the establishment of a protective system in this country, and the Leader of the Opposition asks what do they mean by a protective system, and would such a system as is now in vogue in India be protective if adopted in this country? That system includes duties on leather, paper, earthenware, tallow, manufactured tobacco, foodstuffs, such as flour, meal, and fish, coffee, cheese, cocoa, tea, and sugar and on all metal work, on pig iron, and steel in the form of bars, on cotton, hosiery, and on all other manufactured cotton goods.
AN HON. MEMBER: No wonder they have a famine.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: To complete my provisional list, there are also duties on wines and spirits, salt, petroleum, arms, ammunition, etc. Can we establish a similar system in this country without, in the opinion of the Government, establishing a protective system?
MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, is now arguing the main question. The question before the House is the adjournment, moved because certain Questions were not answered. The debate must be confined to that Motion.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I will endeavour to confine myself closely to your ruling, Sir. I think I have sufficiently for the purpose re-stated one of the Questions which my right hon. friend put. May we have the whole of these revenue duties without establishing a system of protection? I admit that all this shows the impossibility of continuing the debate without some indication from the Government of what their Resolution really means. Does it condemn the protection now given to the manufacturers of tobacco and cocoa in this country? That Question can be answered by a "yes" or "no." I say it is condemned by the Resolution. I challenge them to contra-
994
dict it. I ask them one further Question which we shall have to press, Why did the Government select these two industries from which they derived so much political and other support for special privileges?
SIR EDWIN CORNWALLsaid that it appeared to him that upon this new Motion a new Member might be permitted to express his views as to whether this debate ought to be adjourned on account of the course which it had taken. They desired to pay the greatest respect to the procedure of the House and to all the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who had so long taken part in the debates, but when he saw the Amendments on the Paper what he expected to find was that the Motion would be moved and hon. Members opposite would then put forward their Amendments. What he felt was that the debate on the Motion had been rather a quibble of words. He did not see why the Government should alter its procedure. The Government having decided not to answer the Questions put by the right hon Gentleman categorically, he took the same view. He hoped that the Government would proceed along the lines which they had adopted, and if they did they would find the new Members quite ready to support them. They wished the debate to be conducted as indicated on the Paper, and the departure asked for would not be in accordance with the custom of the House. The Government had taken the right, and the Opposition the wrong course. [Cries of "Divide, divide."]
MR. BURDETT-COUTTSsaid he entirely repudiated the suggestion that this debate rested upon a quibble of words. In addition to the Question urged by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to India, two plain Questions had been put to the Government of very grave importance to this country. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Divide, divide," and "Order, order."] One Question was whether they intended to make it impossible by the Resolution to protect the working classes of this country against the importation of Chinese indentured labour here. ["Divide, divide."] In his constituency that suggestion had been made, and it had been made in numerous other constituencies during the election and now when the

995
Government were claiming to record the decision of the electorate by a Resolution of this House they were afraid to record their own opinion with regard to this question of the possible importation of foreign labour into this country. The next question was one which concerned not this or that Party but the whole House of Commons and the country, and one of which no hon. Member of this House could deny the importance, and that was the question whether they did or did not by this Resolution deprive themselves of the power of placing duties upon imports? [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] which under circumstances of great importance and possibly of great peril to this country, they might be driven to impose. [Cries of "Divide, divide."] Those questions were not answered by the terms of the Resolution, for they were left vague and ambiguous, and therefore the Government were preferring an ambiguous to a plain Resolution. The Prime Minister repudiated the word "uncivil,"
when applied to his interruption of the Leader of the Opposition, and then proceeded to commit an outrage upon Parliamentary custom and the recognised canons of Parliamentary manners by accusing the whole of the Opposition front Bench and the Members of the Opposition of "foolery" [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh," and "Divide"] simply because they were pressing upon the Government questions answers to which were absolutely necessary to make the Resolution clear. That was something more than uncivil. He protested against the brutal tyranny of the Prime Minister's attitude. If the "tone and temper" of the Party opposite were to be judged by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman stood waving his arms to his big battalions, he would very soon find that two could play at that game.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 115; Noes, 405. (Division List, No. 11.)

AYES.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A

Anstruther-Gray Major

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Lowe, Sir Francis William

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Craik, Sir Henry

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Arnold-Forster, Rt, Hn. Hugh O

Dalrymple, Viscount

Magnus, Sir Philip

Ashley, W. W.

Dixon-Hartland Sir Fred Dixon

Marks, Harry Hananel (Kent)

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

Doughty, Sir George

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Balcarres, Lord

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Meysey-Thompson, Major E. C.

Baldwin, Alfred

Du Bros, Harvey

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Balfour, Rt Hn A. J. (City Lond.)

Duncan Robert (Lanark, Govan

Morpeth, Viscount

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Muntz, Sir Philip A.

Banner, John S. Harmood-

Fardell, Sir T. George

Nield, Herbert

Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

Fell, Arthur

Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Parkes, Ebenezer

Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks

Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

Percy, Earl

Bowles, G. Stewart

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Boyle, Sir Edward

Gordon, Sir W. Evans (T'r Ham.

Ratcliff, Major R. F.

Bridgeman, W. Clive

Haddock, George R.

Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Hambro, Charles Eric

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Burdett-Coutts, W.

Hamilton, Marquess of

Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

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

Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

Carlile, E. Hildred

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury SEdm'ds

Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Hill, Henry Staveley (Staff'sh.)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cave, George

Hills, J. W.

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C. W.

Houston, Robert Paterson

Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hunt, Rowland

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

Cecil, Lord J. P. J. (Stamford)

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Starkey, John R.

Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col W.

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm)

Keswick, William

Talbot, Rt. Hn. G. (Oxf'dUniv.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A. (Worc.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Thomson, W. Mitchell (Lanark)

Clarke, Sir Edward (City London

King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)

Thornton, Percy M.

Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

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

Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham

Turnour, Viscount

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard

Courthope, G. Loyd

Liddell, Henry

Walrond, Hon. Lionel

Williamson, G. H. (Worcester)

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Younger, George

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Gardner, Col. A (Herefordsh, S.)

Acland, Francis Dyke

Clancy, John Joseph

Gibb, James (Harrow)

Adkins, W. Ryland

Clarke, C. Goddard (Peckham)

Gilhooly, James

Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C.

Cleland, J. W.

Gill, A. H.

Agnew, George William

Clough, W.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

Alden, Percy

Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)

Glendinning, R. G.

Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

Cobbold, Felix Thornley

Glover, Thomas

Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester)

Cogan, Denis J.

Gooch, George Peabody

Ambrose, Robert

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Grant, Corrie

Armitage, R.

Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

Greenwood, Hamar (York)

Astbury, John Meir

Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd

Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Atherley-Jones, L.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Grove, Archibald

Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

Cory, Clifford John

Gulland, John W.

Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Balfour, Robert (Lanark)

Cowan, W. H.

Hall, Frederick

Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

Cox, Harold

Halpin, J.

Barker, John

Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

Hammond, John

Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

Crean, Eugene

Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

Cremer, William Randal

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Barnard, E. B.

Crombie, John William

Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Crosfield, A. H.

Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worct'r)

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cross, Alexander

Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh

Beale, W. P.

Crossley, William J.

Harrington, Timothy

Beauchamp, E.

Cullinan, J.

Hart-Davies, T.

Beaumont, W. C. B. (Hexham)

Dalmeny, Lord

Harwood, George

Beck, A. Cecil

Dalziel, James Henry

Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

Bollairs, Carlyon

Davies, David (Montgomery Co.

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Benn, John Wiiliams (Devonport

Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

Haworth, Arthur A.

Benn, W. (T'wr Hamlets, S. Geo.

Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

Hazel, Dr. A. E.

Berridge, T. H. D.

Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

Hazleton, Richard

Bertram, Julius

Delany, William

Healy, Timothy Michael

Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

Hedges, A. Paget

Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

Dickmson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.

Helme, Norval Watson

Billson, Alfred

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W)

Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire

Dillon, John

Henry, Charles S.

Boland, John

Dobson, Thomas W.

Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)

Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

Dobson, Thomas W.

Herbert,T. Arnold (Wycombe)

Brace, William

Dolan, Charles Joseph

Higham, John Sharp

Bramsdon, T. A.

Donelan, Captain A.

Hobart, Sir Robert

Branch, James

Duckworth, James

Hogan, Michael

Brocklehurst, W. D.

Duffy, William J.

Holden, E. Hopkinson

Brodie, H. C.

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Holland, Sir William Henry

Brooke, Stopford

Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

Hooper, A. G.

Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh

Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall)

Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

Bryce, Rt. Hn. James (Aberdeen

Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N.

Bryce. J. A. (Inverness Burghs

Elibank, Master of

Horniman, Emslie John

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

Horridge, Thomas Gardiner

Buckmaster, Stanley O.

Erskine, David C.

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Hyde, Clarendon

Burnyeat, J. D. W.

Essex, R. W.

Idris, T. H. W.

Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

Evans, Samuel T.

Illingworth, Percy H.

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Everett, R. Lacey

Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

Byles, William Pollard

Faber, G. H. (Boston)

Jackson, R. S.

Cairns, Thomas

Fenwick, Charles

Jardine, Sir J.

Caldwell, James

Ferens, T. R.

Jenkins, J.

Cameron, Robert

Field, William

Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Findlay, Alexander

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Jowett, F. W.

Cawley, Frederick

Flynn, James Christopher

Joyce, Michael

Chance, Frederick William

Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

Kearley, Hudson E.

Chaining, Francis Allston

Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

Cheetham, John Frederick

Fuller, J. M. F.

Kilbride, Denis

Cherry, R. R.

Furness, Sir Christopher

Kincaid-Smith, Captain

998

999

King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

O Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid

Silcock, Thomas Ball

Kitson, Sir James

O Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Laidlaw, Robert

O Brien, William (Cork)

Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.)

Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Snowden, P.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Soares, Ernest J.

Lamont, Norman

O'Doherty, Philip

Spicer. Albert

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid

O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

Stanger, H. Y.

Layland-Barratt, Francis

O'Dowd, John

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.

O'Grady, J.

Steadman, W. C.

Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

O'Hare, Patrick

Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

Lehmann, R. C.

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Strachey, Sir Edward

Lever, W. H. (Cheshire, Wirral

O'Malley, William

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Levy, Maurice

O'Mara, James

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Lewis, John Herbert

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Palmer, Sir Charles Mark

Sullivan, Donal

Lougn, Thomas

Parker, James (Halifax)

Summerbell, T.

Lundon, W.

Paul, Herbert

Sutherland, J. E.

Lupton, Arnold

Paulton, James Mellor

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Luttrell, Hugh Courteney

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe).

Lyell, Charles Henry

Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton

Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)

Lynch, H. B.

Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Pickersgill, Edward Hare

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs

Pirie, Duncan V.

Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Pollard, Dr.

Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset E.

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Price, C. E (Edinb'gh, Central

Tillett, Louis John

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Price, Elbert John (Norfolk. E.

Tomkinson, James

Macpherson, J. T.

Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.

Torrance, A. M.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

Radford, G. H.

Toulmin, George

MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E.)

Rainy, A. Rolland

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

M'Arthur, William

Raphael, Herbert H.

Verney, F. W.

M'Crae, George

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Vivian, Henry

M'Kean, John

Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

Wadsworth, J.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Reddy, M.

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

M'Micking, Major G.

Rodmond, William (Clare)

Wallace, Robert

Maddison, Frederick

Rees, J. D

Walsh, Stephen

Mallet, Charles E.

Randall, Athelstan

Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

Manfield, Harry (Northants)

Renton, Major Leslie

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston

Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

War, W. Dudley (Southampton

Marnham, F. J.

Rickett, J. Compton

Wardle, George J.

Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

Ridsdale, E. A.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Massie, J.

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Masterman, C. F. G.

Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

Waterlow, D. S.

Meehan, Patrick A.

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Watt, H. Anderson

Menzies, Walter

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Wedgwood, Josiah C.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd

Weir, James Galloway

Molteno, Percy Alfred

Robinson, S.

Whitbread, Howard

Mond, A.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Money, L. G. Chiozza

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Whitehead, Rowland

Montagu, E. S.

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Montgomery, H. H.

Rose, Charles Day

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Mooney, J. J.

Rowlands, J.

Wiles, Thomas

Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

Runciman, Walter

Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

Morley, Rt. Hon. John

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)

Morrell, Philip

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Williamson, A. (Elgin and Nairn

Morse, L. L.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

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

Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

Scarisbrick, T. T. L.

Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.

Murphy, John

Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Murray, James

Schwann, Chas. E. (Manchester

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Myer, Horatio

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Napier, T. B.

Sears, J. E.

Woodhouse, Sir J T. (Huddersf'd

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Seaverns, J. H.

Young, Samuel

Newnes, Sir George (Swansea)

Seddon, J.

Yoxall, James Henry

Nicholls, George

Seely, Major J. B.

Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncaster

Shackleton, David James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. George Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

Nolan, Joseph

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Norman, Henry

Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Nuttall, Harry

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Motion made, and Question, "Tha the debate be now adjourned,"—(Sir Alexander Acland - Hood,) put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.
MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSsaid that as a new Member he would not have presumed to intervene in this debate were it not that he represented a constituency which was dependent to a large extent on what had been described as a "ruined industry," viz., the tin-plate trade. From the early sixties, when it first came into prominence, up to 1890 the South Wales manufacturers of tin-plates had a practical monopoly of the industry; and the result was that the output doubled every ten years, and that large fortunes were rapidly acquired. In 1890 the exports from South Wales amounted to over 400,000 tons, of the annual value of something over £5,500,000, seventy-six per cent. of which was sent to the United States of America. Seeing this valuable trade in the hands of the Welsh manufacturers, the people of America determined to capture it for themselves. They thought the easiest way to do this was to put on a prohibitive tariff in order to exclude Welsh tin-plates from the American market. In 1890 the McKinley tariff was passed, and, as a result, the exports of tin-plates from South Wales to the United States dropped from 300,000 tons per annum to something like 60,000 or 70,000 tons. It would not become him to disguise for a moment the extent of the ravages and destitution which was caused by the tariff. [Sir HOWARD VINCENT: What is to be done?] He would come to that in a moment. His constituents, who had suffered in a way that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had not through the imposition of that tariff, returned an uncompromising free trader, and by an unprecedented majority told the House through him that they did not want the remedies which the hon. Member for Central Sheffield proposed, but that they were perfectly prepared to rest upon a free trade basis. No one who had studied the subject could discover any but one of three ways in which this country could have proceeded to deal with America. The first would have been to threaten to put prohibitive tariffs upon American goods coming to this country. If that were the policy of the Opposition to-day, all he could say was that we exported to
1002
America more manufactured goods than we imported from America, and we should be spiting our face by trying to cut off our nose. The next method was to protect raw materials; but what responsible statesman even on the front Opposition Bench would seriously advocate that? Were five millions of people in Lancashire who were dependent on the importation of cotton to be ruined in order to right the wrongs of some hundreds of thousands of people in South Wales who were dependent on the tin-plate industry? The only other method he could think of was to put a tax upon corn; but he did not understand that the Leader of the Opposition for a moment believed in putting a tax on corn sufficient to exclude American corn from the English market. If he did contemplate it, then it would be taxing the food of forty-two millions of people, not to benefit the tin-plate trade, but to avenge the wrong done to the people engaged in that trade. Experience showed that a tariff war was a very long business, and did not right a wrong straight away. It would not benefit the tin-plate trade of South Wales by a penny piece; and the only satisfaction, if such it could be called, would be that the whole country had been involved in its misfortunes. If a prosperous country like the United States said it would not buy in a certain market it could take that course, so long as it was willing to pay the price. Fifteen years ago South Wales was exporting to the United States £4,000,000 worth of tin-plates every year. To-day we were exporting under £1,000,000. During the last fourteen years, Americans, on the authority of Sir John Jenkin, had paid over £20,000,000 sterling in order to exclude Welsh tin-plates. Every year since the Americans had taken to manufacture nearly all the tin-plates for the American market the American consumer had had to pay £2,000,000 sterling a year more than he need have done in order to keep out Welsh tin-plates. At that rate they could exclude any manufactured goods from any market in the world. Were the people of this country prepared to pay a price like that?
And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  FREE TRADE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [12th March], "That this House, recognising that in the recent General Election the people of the United Kingdom have demonstrated their unqualified fidelity to the principles and practice of Free Trade, deems it right to record its determination to resist any proposal, whether by way of taxation upon foreign corn or of the creation of a general tariff upon foreign goods, to create in this country a system of protection."—(Sir James Kitson.)
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS, continuing his speech, said that by the mere natural play of economic forces they had compelled America to remain their best customer for tin-plates, and they were now exporting more of these goods to America than any other country, although the Americans had tried in every way they could by protectionist methods to keep our goods out. He wished to explain why it was that this industry, which a very short time ago was on the brink of ruin, recovered so quickly and so completely. Anyone who had studied the recent history of the tin-plate trade would conclude that the industry had recovered because it was carried on in a free-trade country, and that recovery would have been impossible in a protectionist country. Not only had they doubled the demand for these goods at home, but they had also captured every neutral market in the world. Why was it that protectionist American manufacturers, whose output was as great as the output here, could not compete against the manufacturers of this country in the neutral markets of the world? The open competition, which was a consequence of free trade, had led to a more economic production in this country, not by the reduction of wages, for wages had never been so high, but by up-to-date machinery, and other improved methods of manufacture. In every protectionist country the manufacturer looked wholly
  1004
  or mainly to his home markets for his profit, where he had no foreign manufacturer to fear. In 1897, when the American manufacturers were able to supply their own demands, a trust was formed to regulate the price of tin-plates by restricting the output in order that they might get inflated profits. Last year, for instance, for four months during the year, every tin-plate works was shut down in America. They had heard a great deal about the continuity of employment which protection afforded to the working classes. Last year the workmen employed in this trade in South Wales worked continuously week by week all the year round, whilst in America, where the output was as large as ours, they failed to work at all for four months in the year.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Can you tell us what wages they get?
  MR. LLEWELYN WILLIAMSsaid that they got higher wages, but the work was not continuous. What was the good of getting higher wages if for half the year they were out of employment? Besides, the American workman had to pay more for his food and for all he required; therefore, in all these respects the Welsh workmen were in a better position than the workmen across the Atlantic. The consequence was that, although the total output of the tin-plate manufacturers of America was 600,000 tons, they exported only 7,000 tons; while the South Wales manufacturers, in addition to exporting 300,000 tons to all the other countries in the word, had sent 60,000 tons to America. The House had heard a great deal about dumping. It should be remembered that steel bars were in one sense a manufactured article, but in another sense they were raw material. They were at any rate the raw material of the tin-plate industry. When steel was £7 a ton in this country the American and German manufacturers began dumping the goods at £4 10s. and £415s. a ton, and the result was that the steel manufacturers in this country had to reduce their price to £5 a ton. It was the smaller manufacturers who were more dependent upon these steel bars, and it should not be forgotten that the amount of dumped

  1005
  steel bars was comparatively small, although it was just sufficient to break down the steel monopoly in this country and keep the price at something like its natural level. It was common knowledge that in this country the demand for steel was greater than the supply. Twelve months ago there were some shares sold in one of the steel works near Swansea, and it was stated then that for the five preceding years those shares had earned an average dividend of 49½ per cent., and that did not represent all the profits, because a large amount was annually placed to the credit of a reserve fund which if taken into account would have made the average profit 71 per cent. So much for the injurious effects of dumping. It had already been pointed out that we had a great trade with Russia in wheat—that we were importing between nine and ten millions worth of grain from Russia. The effect of this was that when a tin plate manufacturer wanted to send a cargo of tin plates to Odessa he could do so much more cheaply, because the shipowner could always rely upon a return cargo to this country. In this respect the American manufacturers were placed at a disadvantage, and therefore these lower freights for our goods placed a distinct premium on British manufactures. The system of drawbacks had ensured for us the American market. It had been constantly urged that it was not the consumer that paid a tariff imposed upon an imported article but the foreigner. Apparently American protectionists by their action did not believe that. In 1896 the Standard Oil Trust found a very serious competitor in the English market in the Russian Oil Company, and they came to the conclusion that the only way in which they could compete was to do away with the tariff on the importation of tin plates. The Standard Oil Trust appealed to Congress and the system of drawbacks was established. Under this system a Welsh firm sending tin plates to America had to pay a 45 per cent. tariff and then in America these tin plates were manufactured into all sorts of cans for re-exportation to this country. When the Standard Oil Trust re-exported the Welsh tin plates in the shape of oil cans they were allowed a drawback of 99 per cent. on the original tariff. The
  1006
  result of all this was that tenders had been invited and Welsh firms had invariably captured the contracts, and they were now sending between 60,000 and 70,000 tons of tin plates to America. What measure of retaliation could have brought about that result? In this way they had compelled America to-remain their best customer without using any threats or creating any bad blood or exciting strife and without impairing the good understanding which existed between the two countries. We had compelled America, not by methods of barbarism, but by appealing to its enlightened sense of self-interest, to buy in our markets the goods they needed. The idea of a self-contained and a self-sufficient State was an old one. It was the idea that underlay the tribal system; it caused the ancient Roman to denote by the same word a stranger and an enemy; it made the Augustan poet complain that—
  "Heaven's providence in vain
  Has sever'd countries with the estranging main,
  If vessel's ne'ertheless
  With impious keels the sacred bars trangress."
  But it was not the modern idea. To the modern world the ocean was not "the estranging main," but the great highway of the world's trade and commerce. No country, however great its natural resources or however powerful; no empire, however extensive or however varied its products, could afford to live in splendid isolation from the rest of the world. Man depended upon man and country upon country. The brotherhood of man was a Christian doctrine; the solidarity of mankind was an economic truth. The upholders of the present system had never claimed for free trade that it was a perfect system or a panacea for all the evils the people of the country were suffering from. He hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board came to deal with the unemployed question he would have some remedy to propose to tide over the temporary difficulty of those men who were willing and able to work but could not find employment. Free traders had never said that the distribution of wealth in this country was what it ought to be. All that they claimed for free trade was that, in a complicated civilisation like that of England with all its Various trades,

  1007
  to allow trade to flow into its natural channels was the best system that man had yet devised for the creation of wealth. But the distribution of wealth was altogether another matter. He was glad to think that they had now in office the most democratic Cabinet and the most democratic Prime Minister that had ever ruled over the destinies of this great Empire. He hoped the Government would not meet the propaganda of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham by dry arguments drawn from political economy or by statistical abstracts derived from the Board of Trade. They could easily refute the right hon. Gentleman by those means, but this House expected more from the Government. They expected that they would see to it that the large measures of social reform which the House was returned to bring about would be carried to a definite issue before the expiration of the present Parliament. When this Parliament came to an end And they were face to face once more with their countrymen, they would meet them, erect and unafraid, confident in the knowledge that what they could they had done to ease the life and lighten the burdens of those who, humanly speaking, had no help but in them.
  MR. SNOWDENquoting from the Resolution the phrase, "the people of the United Kingdom have demonstrated their unqualified fidelity to the principles and practice of Free Trade," said that that was a matter of opinion on which they were justified in differing very considerably. There were those sitting in this House who held strongly to the opinion that they occupied their present position owing to the indignation of the country at the importation of Chinese labour into South Africa. The hon. and learned member for Waterford considered that the result of the elections was an approval by the public of Home Rule for Ireland, and with that conclusion he was not prepared to disagree. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had told them that if there was one thing to which this House was committed more than another it was retrenchment in our national
  1008
  finances. He felt sure that when the Minister for Education introduced his promised Education Bill he would claim that the Government, by the verdict of the constituencies, had received an unmistakeable mandate to repeal certain provisions in the last Act. Perhaps he would be permitted to add one more reason why he thought the constituencies at the recent election expressed an opinion very different to that expressed by the electors five or six years ago. The result of the election was not so much an expression of opinion upon any one of these particular questions as the expression of a moral indignation amongst the people at the waste and mis-management which had marked the previous years. The Liberal Party had been returned by what had been more than once described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as an enormous majority. They were returned and strengthened two-fold in numbers. He was associated with a Party which placed before the electors a definite and distinct policy, and who by that policy, and therefore the approval of the electorate, had been returned to the House with their numbers increased eight times over. If the electorate of this country expressed their opinion upon any question emphatically at the recent election it was that the energies and activities of Parliament in the future should be directed wholeheartedly, in no timorous way, to the treatment of great industrial problems. Might he say to free traders on the Ministerial side that it was upon the very existence of these evils, which sixty years of free trade had failed to mitigate or palliate, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had founded his appeal to the country? Right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal Benches took exception to the statement he had just made that sixty years of free trade had failed to mitigate to any great extent our grave industrial and social evils. They had the admission of the First Lord of the Treasury that one-third of our population—which meant nearly 40 per cent. of our working-class people—were on the verge of hunger, perpetually struggling to keep their bodies and souls

  1009
  together. It was not by the sum total of our iron exports, or tin-plate exports, or by the increase of the Board of Trade Returns that they were going to ensure the happiness and prosperity of the people. They must estimate the result of the application of sixty years of a particular policy, not by the aggregate amount of wealth it had succeeded in creating, but by the extent to which it had diffused happiness and contentment amongst the people. The Party with which he was associated, while standing as firmly as the most ardent members of the Cobden Club to the maintenance of our Free Trade policy, declined to fall down and worship this god. They were prepared to admit that there was a great deal of truth in what was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as to the changed conditions of our industries during the past sixty years. Conditions were constantly changing. They agreed with the statement that the time had come when they should take stock of our industrial position. Our industrial circumstances were not what they were sixty years ago, when we practically stood alone amongst the manufacturing nations of the world. Since then other nations had become their own producers, and to a great extent they were becoming our competitors in all the markets of the world. Sixty years had falsified the expectations that foreign restrictions upon trade would be removed. There had not been a continuous improvement in the condition of the people during the last sixty years. He was prepared to maintain a statement often made, but almost as often disputed, that the rich were getting richer and the poor poorer. The Returns of pauperism presented to the House only a week ago showed that under every head of pauperism there had been a continuous increase during the past five or six years. Turning to employment Returns, they would find a decline in the average percentage of employment since the war. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] He was glad to hear those cheers; they evidently arose from a conviction that the increase of pauperism during the past five years had been due to the war. During the last five years since the war there had been an average
  1010
  annual increase in our foreign trade of £182,000,000. During the last two years there had been an increase in the incomes assessed to income-tax of £101,000,000 a year, as compared with the two years before the war. Could those hon. Gentlemen who believed that the increase in pauperism, and the decline in wages and employment were due to the war, explain how it was that with increasing wealth, more cotton goods, more woollen goods, more boots and shoes, and more food, there should be more starvation? He wished for an explanation how it was that while there was an increased income among the people there should be this decline of employment and wages. He agreed at least with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to the extent of recognising the need for taking stock, looking round, and trying to see whether it would be possible to effect any changes in our industrial system which would enable us as an industrial nation to equip ourselves more efficiently and effectively for international competition. After that admission of agreement with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham he parted company with him. He disagreed altogether with the proposals put forward by the right hon. Gentleman to meet the present industrial condition, and as a means to enable us to meet world-wide competition more effectively. Although it was not capable of dealing as an active force with the distribution of wealth and the social evils and conditions, free trade was a necessary condition. He did not wish it to be understood by the statement he made just now that he denied that any improvement had taken place in the condition of the people. He was prepared to admit that a considerable improvement had taken place, but it was not due to free trade. It must not be forgotten that contemporaneously with the practice of free trade there had been other and active forces at work which were responsible for this improvement in the condition of the working classes of this country. Did free traders forget the Factory Acts, the co-operative movement, the Municipal Corporations Act, and trade organisation which had done so much for the working classes during the past sixty years? He did not believe that

  1011
  it was historically accurate to attribute the terrible condition of the people in the years previous to the repeal of Corn Laws entirely to protection. In the seventeen years preceding the repeal of the Corn Laws the capital wealth of this country, due chiefly to the profitable character of our manufactures, increased by £2,000,000,000. The people were poor in the days before the repeal of the Corn Laws, but not because the employers could not afford to pay higher wages. The fortunes then of manufacturers in the northern towns were made by profits of thousands per cent. His Party disagreed altogether with the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham for dealing with conditions which they in common condemned, but they recognised that this country had not that isolated position in the markets of the world which was ours in times gone by. The sooner we recognised that fact and adapted ourselves to the changed circumstances the better for the commercial and social interests of this country. What his Party proposed, however, was an extension of free trade, the freedom of industry from the protective monopolies which now put a greater burden upon British industry than any other commercial nation had to bear. Hon. Members with whom he was associated were able to answer the question which had been put that afternoon as to how the Government could meet the cost of social reforms to which they were committed. They could tell the Government where the means could be found for financing any and all of those schemes of social reform, and at the same time lighten the burden on industry, so as to enable our commerce to hold its own in the markets of the world for another twenty years to come. This country paid in national expenditure three times as much per head of the population as did our most dangerous rival, the United States. Instead of proposing schemes for dealing with these conditions, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham brought forward schemes which, if carried into effect, could only aggravate every industrial and social evil which afflicted our commerce and industries to-day. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman instead
  1012
  try to redeem some of the promises of reform he made in other days? The right hon. Gentleman might turn his attention to doing something to lessen the burden of £350,000,000 a year which landlordism placed upon the people of this country. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted our commercial men to compete better with foreigners let him turn his attention to the question of railway rates. By turning attention to that matter economies could be effected which would lighten the burden on industry twice as much as the right hon. Gentleman expected from his 10 per cent. duty on manufactured articles. They might go further and turn their attention to another still heavier burden—he referred to private ownership in coal supply and the system of mining rights and royalties. Upon every ton of steel rails manufactured in West Cumberland there was a mining royalty of 6s. a ton, and even with this burden British steel manufacturers were able to come within 3d. a ton of their Belgian competitors. In Belgium the unit of the royalty did not exceed 8d. a ton, and then, instead of going into the pocket of the useless and unnecessary landlords, as it did here, it went into the coffers of the State. During the course of the protectionist campaign this country had been asked to follow the example of Germany. Even if the condition of the German workmen as a whole were superior, which it was not, to that of British workmen, it did not follow that that condition was owing to the fact that they were living under a system of protection. Take the case of America. By the operation of a protective policy there, in the fourteen years preceding the year 1900, the cost of living in the United States had risen from 25 to 50 per cent., and in the meantime there had been practically no increase whatever in the wages paid to the workpeople. They were not justified, therefore, in saying that the condition of the workpeople in any country was due solely to its fiscal policy. By the operation of the protective tariff in America the purchasing power of the workman's wage there had been reduced by from one-third to one-half within the last fourteen years. If there were certain classes in Germany whose condition compared favourably with that of the workmen in this country it

  1013
  was not due to protection, but was in spite of protection. It was brought about by the development of the railway system, the better educational system, and other causes. While we in this country stood by free trade, we must recognise that free trade was merely a condition and not an active force. We must not be content with an increase in our trade and income-tax returns. We must recognise that grave industrial and social conditions did exist. The Government had received from the country a mandate to pass large measures of social reform dealing with such matters as the land question, the railway monopoly, the mining royalty monopoly, and to redress social inequalities by a free use of the power of taxation. The Leader of the Opposition had asked how it was possible, except by imposing a tax upon the necessaries of life, to find the means whereby schemes of social reform could be carried out. Within the last ten years a mere handful of people in this country had increased their incomes by more than £100,000,000. Unlike the 40,000,000 people referred to by the Prime Minister, that mere handful of people before their incomes were increased in this way were not on the verge of starvation. If the whole of that £100,000,000 of income had been taken by the State for the purposes of social reforms not one of that mere handful of people would have been reduced to poverty or would have been a single penny worse off than they were five or six years ago. Whether the Prime Minister liked it or not, the country had determined that proposals of that kind should receive the attention of Parliament. He had been hoping that the Liberal Party had learned wisdom during the years they had been wandering in the wilderness. He hoped the Government would turn into Acts of Parliament the beautiful sentiments contained in perorations to their speeches when in opposition. The Labour Members had been returned expressly to do something to better the lives of the common people. They wanted to put some brightness and joy into the lives of those whose days were a bitter and never-ending struggle to keep body and soul together, and who
  1014
  were ever confronted with the terrible nightmare of extreme poverty in their old age. In order to make more comfortable the declining years of the people, he implored the Government to realise their great responsibilities, and to make the very most of their opportunities, and he trusted that when the end of their term of office came they would have the joy and satisfaction of knowing that by their efforts they had done something to bring nearer to the poor people of this country the day of universal peace, righteousness, and joy.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that in whatever section of the House hon. Members might sit, or however profoundly they might differ from some of the economic views which underlay the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackburn, they would all at least desire to join in a tribute to the energy and ability displayed in the speech he had just delivered. He (Mr. Smith) confessed that he had been struck by the admissions which had been made by those hon. Members who had spoken in favour of this Resolution. He wished to ask hon. Members on the Ministerial side at the height of their triumph to consider for a moment what was the sum total of their criticism. The hon. Member for Blackburn had just told the House that the result of sixty years of free trade had been an absolute failure to ameliorate the condition of the working classes. That was a statement with regard to which the Opposition stood on common ground with the hon. Member. Where, however, they parted company with him was not on the unreasonableness of his criticisms as to the necessity of ameliorating the condition of the working classes, but when he proceeded to say that they could deal with these thirteen million people on the verge of starvation by a revision of railway rates, by unexplained dealing with mine owners, or by loose, mischievous, and predatory proposals affecting those who happened to own land. He would entreat hon. Members to make quite sure that they had cleared their minds of cant upon this question. When they heard vague and general proposals put forward at the expense of large incomes, without any precise explanation as to the

  1015
  principle upon which those incomes were to be appropriated or tapped for the service of those who had them not, he should like to make this reservation, that there were very few Members in this House, whether in Opposition or on the Benches opposite, or below the gangway, whose principal business occupation it was not to get as large an income as they honestly could. If there was one profession to which that charge could not be applied it was perhaps the profession to which he belonged. It was when one looked to see how these admissions would be followed up by some practical remedy that one became profoundly conscious of the constructive shortcomings of the Cobdenism of to-day. He was a perfectly unrepentant Member of the Tariff Reform League. He did not know how many members of the League there might be in the House; he dared say that a division might show that they were not more numerous than the representatives of the Liberal League. He had at least the satisfaction of reflecting that if tariff reform turned out not to be the winning horse they had not necessarily finally compromised their political futures. They had in hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite an admirable example of how to cut the painter of a similar league with the maximum of political advancement and the minimum of fidelity to a founder. He supposed the Resolution had been charitably designed to call attention to differences existing in the Opposition. He should have thought that they might have looked to hon. Gentlemen opposite for a little more charity. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had had analogous difficulties. The question of when a tariff became protective was no doubt difficult but not more so than the conundrum "When is a slave not a slave?" and the problem when, if ever, preferential treatment should be given to Roman Catholic schools. All great political Parties had skeletons in the cupboard, some with manacles on and some with only their hands behind their backs.† The quarrel he had with hon. Gentlemen opposite was that they showed an astonishing indelicacy in attempting to drag the skeleton of their opponents into the
  † See (4) Debates, clii., 156
  1016
  open. Not satisfied with tomahawking his colleagues in the country, they asked the scanty remnant in the House to join in the scalp dance. He did not think they could complain of the tone of a single speech which had been made from the Opposition side of the House. They were particularly pleased with the remarks which had fallen from the hon. Member for East Toxteth, for he had entered the House, not like his new colleagues, on the crest of the wave, but rather by means of an opportune dive. Every one in the House would appreciate his presence, because there could be no greater compliment paid to the House by a Member than that he should be in their midst when his heart was far away, and it must be clear to all who knew the hon. Member's scrupulous sense of honour that his desire must be at the present moment to be amongst his constituents who were understood to be at least as anxious to meet him. The Resolution before the House consisted of two parts. In the first they were asked to recognise the merits of what was described on an obscure prescriptive principle as free trade, and in the second they were invited to register the proposition that the country gave an unqualified verdict in its support. The word "unqualified" was in itself ambiguous and might have more than one meaning. If they said a man was an unqualified slave they meant that his condition could be honestly described as completely servile and not merely as semi-servile. If, on the other hand, they said a man was an unqualified medical practitioner, or an unqualified Under-Secretary, they meant that he was entitled to no particular respect, because he had not passed through the normal period of training or preparation. He suggested a priori that the word was used in the first sense in the present Motion. But perhaps it was necessary to distinguish further. When hon. Gentlemen opposite were successful at the polls it was probably used in the first sense. In the comparatively few cases in which he and his friends were successful it was used in the second. Birmingham, under circumstances which would never be effaced from the memory of hon. Gentlemen on whichever side of the House they sat, displayed the rare

  1017
  and beautiful quality of political constancy, and voted sold for tariff reform. [Laughter]. The result was sneered at in the spirit of that laughter which they had just heard as a triumph for Tammanyism, or, more profoundly analysed by an eminent Nonconformist divine, as an instance of that mysterious dispensation which occasionally permitted the ungodly to triumph. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were very much more successful controversialists than hon. Members on his side. It was far easier, if one was a master of scholarly irony and a charming literary style, to describe protection as a "stinking rotten carcase" than to discuss scientifically whether certain limited proposals were likely to prove protective in their incidence. It was far easier, if one had a strong stomach, to suggest to simple rustics, as the President of the Board of Trade did, that, if the Tories came into power they would introduce slavery on the hills of Wales.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: I did not say that.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman would no doubt be extremely anxious to forget it if he could; but, anticipating a temporary lapse of memory, he had in his hand the Manchester Guardian of January 16, 1906, which contained a report of this speech. He found the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "What would they say to introducing Chinamen at 1s. a day into the Welsh quarries? Slavery on the hills of Wales! Heaven forgive me for the suggestion!"
  He himself had no means of judging how Heaven would deal with persons who thought it decent to make such suggestions. He could only venture to express a doubt whether any honest politician would ever acquit the right hon. Gentleman of having deliberately given the impression to those he thus addressed that if the Conservative Party were returned they were in danger. The alternative construction was that the right hon. Gentleman thought it worth his while in addressing ignorant men [Cries of "No"]—in relation to the right hon. Gentleman they were ignorant; was that disputed?—to put before
  1018
  ignorant men an abstract and academic statement as to Chinese labour on the hills of Wales; and if that was not the impression they were meant to derive, why employ the fatal ambiguity of the reference to Chinese slavery as a conceivable prospect on the hills of Wales? Was even Manchester won on the free trade issue? [Cries of "Yes."] He heard hon. Gentlemen opposite say "Yes." He thought they must be from the South of England. If Manchester was won on the free trade issue, perhaps hon. Gentlemen would explain why repeated meetings were devoted to the less effective and attractive cry, and specialised speakers like Mr. Creswell brought down to discourse to the electors on the evils of Chinese slavery. He knew that owing to the eccentricities of geographical boundaries Salford was not technically a part of Manchester, but a Salford Member was near enough to wear the green turban of a pilgrimage to Cobden's Mecca. The hon. Member for Salford had stated that he was returned to the House pledged to urge insistently on the Government which had profited by a false cry the immediate repatriation of coolies on the Rand. Would he be told in that case that the electors were giving an unqualified verdict for Cobdenism, or for what was called in this Resolution free trade? He did not think that the hon. Gentleman who fought so strenuously in East Manchester would get up and tell the House that in his constituency the verdict was an unqualified one for free trade. He had some choice specimens of the bread that the hon. Member for East Manchester threw on the waters in order, he supposed, to elicit this unqualified verdict. He was reported in the Manchester Guardian of 13th January to have said that the Chinese had not been the means of bringing one single piece of white labour to the whole of South Africa. The hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to think that white labour was introduced in slabs. He said—
  "You are voting, if you vote for Mr. Balfour, for the exclusion of white labour from South Africa."
  —not for Cobdenism. The hon. Gentleman continued—
  "Where was that thing going to stop?"

  1019
  which was what they would like to know to-day.
  "Were they going to have Chinamen working in the mills at Bradford? Let the people of this division show by their votes "
  —what? Their devotion to free imports? No—
  "That they would have none of this wretched coolie labour in South Africa, and strike a blow for freedom to-morrow at the polls."
  There was an interesting point of analogy between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the "wretched coolies" of whom he had so low an opinion. To-day he was in, and they were in, and it rather looked as if they were going to remain in as long as he and his friends. It was in this way that the poorer districts of Manchester were captured—Cobden's Manchester. Did the hon. Member the Under-Secretary for the Colonies use his great and growing local influence on behalf of what in his heart and conscience he knew to be the truth? He said "on behalf of what he knew to be the truth" because the hon. Member was reported in the Manchester Guardian as having said on June 12th, 1903, that he was quite sure that supplies of native or Chinese labour would have to be obtained. He would not weary the House with the whole of the Under-Secretary's peroration. He rather thought it had been at the disposal of both Parties in the House before undertaking a provincial tour. It was all very well for the hon. Member to come to the House and state in the debate on the Address that he attempted to confine the issue at the election to the single point of Cobdenism, or to the single merits of free trade, that he had no responsibilty for an incendiary campaign. To that he replied Proximus Ucalegon ardebat, and construed it—Very close to him the hon. and learned Member for East Manchester was letting off Chinese crackers. The hon. Gentleman did not then explain that the coolie processions were merely contributions to the discussion of the problem of the unemployed or that slavery was a terminological inexactitude. He took what he could get and thanked God for it. The rôle of the receiver of stolen reputations was rather less respectable in the eyes of the man of spirit than that of the principal thief.
  1020
  He admitted that the question of cheap food was brought forward in many constituencies with great persistency and ingenuity. The hon. Member for North Paddington, with an infinitely just appreciation of his own controversial limitations, relied chiefly on an intermittent exhibition of horse sausages as a witty, graceful, and truthful sally at the expense of the great German nation. He did not understand what the Secretary of State for War meant by saying that the Liberal Party had no ideas. The Liberal League always was a drag upon the holy wheel of progress. He did not suppose that, now the fight was over, now that their strategy had been so brilliantly successful, and away from the licence of the platform and in the House, where their statements could be met and dealt with, hon. Gentlemen would deny that the immediate effect of a 2s. duty on corn would be an illimitable development of colonial acreage suitable for the growth of wheat. [Cries of, "Oh, oh," and laughter.] He was astonished to hear sounds of derisive dissent, for he rather thought that at the time when Lord Rosebery, from whom he was quoting, made that prediction to frighten the English farmer from tariff reform, hon. Gentlemen were in the same tabernacle, furrow, or whatever was the momentary rendezvous of the Party. At the moment they would recollect the other ship looked like sinking—there was a temporary slump in the "methods of barbarism" section. He ventured to ask them, in the candour of victory, Did any of them really doubt that Canada was equal, under judicious stimulation, to supplying the whole English consumption of wheat? [Cries of, "No, no."] Sir Wilfrid Laurier said it could, and hon. Gentlemen said it could not, and perhaps the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, whom he was sorry not to see in his place, would put Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the black list with Lord Milner, and refuse to protect him any longer. Did the House recollect La Fontaine's insect—the species was immaterial—which expired under the impression that it had afforded a life-long protection to the lion in whose carcass its life was spent? But there was hardly a Canadian statesman who did not go further than Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the

  1021
  direction of tariff reform. Earlier in the debate some reference was made to Mr. Fisher, and he desired to speak of Mr. Fisher's views and ability with great respect; it was not necessary to vilify any colonial politician with whom you disagreed. An official report ordered by the United States Government in 1902 found the district contributing to Winnipeg capable of supplying enough wheat to provide for the consumption of the world. If this were true, or half true, what became of the nightmare of apprehension which had made hon. Gentlemen opposite so infinitely tedious for the last few years? If an illimitable supply of Canadian corn was coming in untaxed, what became of the little loaf? Once again he recognised in hon. Gentlemen opposite their electioneering masters and he complimented them, if not on a unqualified verdict, upon an unqualified pictorial inexactitude. He must not forget that some hon. Gentleman opposite ventured upon a more ambitious line of argument, and, in doing so, permanently enriched the economic knowledge of the country. They had learned that it was not a disadvantage, but rather an advantage, that English factories should be removed abroad. He owned that hon. Gentlemen were not consistent when they did not offer a bounty to a capitalist to remove his works abroad. Let them drive from the country everybody who had work to give, and then wave banners, like the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, in the "Right to Work Committee." A fortnight ago hon. Gentlemen opposite were expressing beautiful sentiments about the feeding of starving children. If the matter had been pressed to a division he should have voted with them, but he should have done so without prejudice to his convictions as to the economic system which gave rise to the necessity. He should like to know how hon. Gentlemen opposite explained the growing poverty of the poor. [MINISTERIAL cries of "The War."] Since this House of Commons met they had heard a great deal about the war. He would suggest to hon. Gentlemen, as a humble admirer of their methods, that if they wished for targets in that matter they ought not to aim at the Opposition
  1022
  Benches, but at right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the Front Government Bench. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember that the present Secretary of State for War had said that the Boers waged the war not only with the object of maintaining their independence, but also to undermine our authority in South Africa, and the present Attorney-General had said that the war could be shown to be as just as it was inevitable, and was defensible on the grounds of freedom. The circumstances of which they complained were anterior to the war. While the only panacea which hon. Gentlemen opposite could suggest was the employment of broken-down artisans to plant trees and construct dams against the encroachment of the sea, the Unionist Party need not be discouraged by their reverses at the polls. They would say of the goddess who presided over the polls as Dryden said of Fortune in general—
  "I can enjoy her while she's kind;
  But when she dances in the wind,
  And shakes her wings, and will not stay,
  I puff the prostitute away."
  Was the verdict unqualified having regard to the aggregate number of votes polled on behalf of the Liberal Members? The votes polled at the last election for Liberal, Labour, and Nationalist candidates were 3,300,000, while those polled for tariff reform candidates and other gentlemen sitting around him were 2,500,000. He gathered that it was suggested that his figures were wrong. [Cries of "Yes."] They very probably were. He got them from the Liberal Magazine. He did not know whether the Minister of Education was responsible for them before he gave up the hecatomb line of business for the Christian toleration and charity department. He ventured to suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite that the figures he had quoted, so far as they were accurate, were not altogether discouraging to those who for the first time in the nation's history challenged the verdict of the country on the issue of tariff reform. What would hon. Gentlemen who represented Ireland say if it were suggested that they were Cobdenites? Would one of them get up to say that Cobdenism had brought prosperity or success to Ireland, or to guarantee that

  1023
  representative Irish Parliament would not introduce a general tariff on manufactured articles? The jury who gave this unqualified verdict were unaccountably silent. The spectacle of the Cobdenite hen cackling over a protectionist duckling of her own hatching in Ireland would add a partially compensating element of humour even to the prospect of Home Rule. He had heard the majority on the other side of the House described as the pure fruit of the Cobdenite tree. He should say they were begotten by Chinese slavery out of passive resistance. He read a short time ago that the Free Church Council claimed among its members as many as 200 of hon. Gentlemen opposite. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh!"]
  MR. CROOKS: He is doing no harm.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid that the Free Church Council gave thanks publicly for the fact that Providence had inspired the electors with the desire and the discrimination to vote on the right side. He did not in the least mind being cheated at cards; but he found it a trifle nauseating if his opponent then proceeded to ascribe his success to the favour of the Most High. What the future had in store for right hon. and hon. Gentleman opposite he did not know. He, however, heard that the Government proposed to deny to the Colonial Conference of 1907 free discussion on the subject which the House was now debating, so as to prevent the statement of unpalatable truths. He knew that he was the representative of an insignificant numerical minority in this House, but he ventured to warn the Government that the people of this country would never forget or forgive a Party which in the hey-day of their triumph, denied to the infant Parliament of the Empire one jot or tittle of that ancient liberty of speech which their predecessors in that House had vindicated for themselves at the point of the sword.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We have now been debating the Motion of my hon. friend the Member for Colne Valley all the afternoon and evening, and we have not ye1 heard from the other side of the House a single word in support of the merits of
  1024
  their case. When I heard the hon. Member who has just sat down proclaim himself in a very brilliant speech "an unrepentant member of the Tariff Reform League," I thought that at last we were going to have a clear announcement of the principles of fiscal reform. But the great Amendment, framed after so much consideration, has not yet been moved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is plenty of time.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, no; the right hon. Gentleman is not in command of the House now. We have been the victims for years, and it is our turn now. The last word on fiscal reform, the last compromise, the outcome of the great Valentine treaty, has not yet been forthcoming. I do not know whether the Amendment is going to be moved.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, certainly, if we get ordinary freedom of discussion.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman's ideas of freedom of discussion have altered very considerably since the time when he sat on this side of the House. I remember that his notions then were such that we could not get a debate on fiscal reform at all; and when by the fortune of the ballot we succeeded in securing an evening of three hours, the right hon. Gentleman grudged us even that, and, rather than listen to us so long, ran away. As far as I can see, fiscal reform is still running. The right hon. Gentleman was eager to make a speech on the subject; but not a word did he say about the latest development of his great theory. We have not had a syllable from the other side of the House as to their proposals.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is your Resolution.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: But there are seven Amendments on the Paper from the other side of the House. They can truly say, "We are seven"—seven different policies. Now what is the right hon. Gentleman's policy? The only indication he gave was this. The right hon.

  1025
  Gentleman said that, in his judgment, the Motion of the hon. Member for Colne Valley was a vote of censure on the Opposition. So we have got to this—that a declaration against a general tariff and taxation of food is a vote of censure on the Opposition. Now, at any rate, we have got the view of the right hon. Gentleman as to the position of affairs, but that is all we have had.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And the questions.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman, it is perfectly true, put a series of questions, and some of them were answered by the Prime Minister—[Opposition cries of "Which?"]—and some of them I propose to answer before I sit down. At any rate the right hon. Gentleman has not yet given his view. He has performed the greatest of all dialectical feats. He has gone through two elections, in the course of which he made a considerable number of speeches, and tariff reform, according to his right hon. colleague, was the chief issue of the election. He has performed all that without giving the slightest indication to the House or to the country what his views really are on this question. [An HON. MEMBER on the LABOUR Benches: That is clever.] I do not think that anyone will deny the right hon. Gentleman's ingenuity; but I do not know whether he is in favour of a tax on food or whether he favours a general tariff. He says that he could not oppose either a tax on food or a general tariff on principle, but they are not popular. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not opposed to a tax on food on principle or to a general tariff on principle. But he believed the principle was not popular, and therefore he was against it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I have done what the right hon. Gentleman has evidently not done—I have read all his speeches. What the right hon. Gentleman said was this—
  "At the present moment a tax on food, for various reasons, is unpopular, and therefore, I am against it."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said that at Sheffield.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: At Sheffield! Yes, that came from Sheffield. The right hon. Gentleman says that at the present moment a tax on food is for various reasons unpopular, but that if the con science, intellect, and conviction of the nation ever demands a tax on food then he would vote for it. This is another way of saying that if it were not unpopular he would vote for it. [An HON MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: When it becomes necessary.] That is the same thing. The only statistics that will influence the right hon. Gentleman are the statistics of the division lobby. But we are entitled to know what the view of the Opposition is. Is the Amendment that they have put down the official Amendment? If there is any scheme to protect British industries against illegitimate competition without raising the price of raw material or of food we should all vote for it; but we want to know what is that scheme, where is it? The right hon. Gentleman has at any rate said that this fiscal reform question is the first great constructive measure which the Unionist Party will devote themselves to. What is the scheme; what is the proposal? The right hon. Gentleman said there was obscurity in the Motion on the Paper. Where is the obscurity? I should have thought that the Motion of my hon. friend was perfectly clear in its declaration of the policy of the Government and of those who support them. He says that he is against a tax on food, and against a general tariff, and then the right hon. Gentleman asks why not introduce the words, "or otherwise"? Because these are the only proposals made up to the present moment. What other proposal has he got?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman forgets that he is in office. He asks me whether any other proposals have been made. I say emphatically they have—bounties, for instance.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: By whom? By what responsible person are they suggested? The only suggestion made is a vague and nebulous one by the

  1027
  right hon. Gentleman himself in favour of what he calls retaliation. How does he propose to interpret that without a general tariff and taxation of food? These are the only proposals, and I think his right hon. colleague told him over and over again, though the right hon. Gentleman has not learnt the lesson yet. The right hon Member for West Birmingham even wrote a letter to Lord Ridley a few weeks ago to tell the right hon. Gentleman that nothing would be of any good without either a general tariff or a tax on food. The right hon. Gentleman said so at Bristol, and, though he may have forgotten speeches made fifteen years ago, he surely cannot forget speeches made by himself a few months ago. The conclusion come to by the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, was that nothing would avail except a general tariff and a tax on food. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and we are absolutely agreed that no protection will be of the slightest use to our industries unless there is both taxation of food and a general tariff. Then I ask the Prime Minister [loud laughter]—force of habit, I am sorry to say, of course I mean the Leader of the Opposition—does he take that view? The Motion is as clear as words can make it, and condemns protection by a general tariff and by taxes on food.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And not on other things.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: We are condemning the scheme put forward at the last general election by the Opposition. I am not sorry there has been a discussion upon this subject.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees with us on these two points he will help us perhaps in the division lobby. I am, as I said, not sorry that there has been a discussion on this subject, because it shows that even in this Parliament the Opposition are not prepared to suggest any definite and clear scheme. They did not do it when they constituted a Government; they are not prepared to suggest an alternative
  1028
  now. That proves exactly what every defender of free trade has always stated, that the moment you begin to put protection into the shape of a definite, concrete scheme it must necessarily break down. It is all very well to say foreign tariffs are damaging our trade. What is your remedy? It is you who raised the question. What is your definite scheme? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham raised this issue, and declared that that was the issue on which the election would be fought. It was largely fought on that issue; and we are entitled to ask the House of Commons, on the first opportunity it has had since the general election, to record its conviction that a proposal of that character is injurious to the interests of British trade. The hon. Member sitting below the gangway opposite in a very eloquent speech declared that, although he was a free-trader, he did not think free trade sufficiently dealt with all the evils of our social system. I do not believe any Member sitting on this side believes that either. But we do say that free trade as a fiscal system is infinitely better than protection for the purpose of creating and accumulating wealth in the country. Distribution is a totally different matter. The hon. Member went on to schedule a number of reforms which he should like to see introduced. Some of them I agree with. Such questions as railway rates, the taxation of ground rents and values, land reform, mining royalties—all these have been put forward by hon. Members now sitting on this side for many years, and I hope before this Parliament separates that they will be dealt with and very effectively. The hon. Member, however, further said that, after sixty years of free trade, the working classes were no better off.
  MR. SNOWDENsaid he was prepared to admit there had been improvement; but still free trade had only slightly touched or modified many social evils which existed in the protection period.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: At any rate, before you change a great system which has been in operation for sixty years, which the trade of the country has adapted itself to, you ought to give overwhelming reasons for the change. Exactly the

  1029
  same thing applies to a protective system. There are industries which are based upon it; and you cannot change a protective into a free trade system without damaging those industries which are based upon protection and protection alone. So, in connection with free trade, the great industries which are dependent upon cheap material, and upon cheap half-manufactured goods, imported from foreign countries, would undoubtedly suffer, and very severely, if you changed your free-trade system, which gives cheap material for those manufactures, for a protective system, which would increase the price. Our two great manufacturing rivals are Germany and the United States of America; we send more manufactures to the world's neutral market than both of them put together. We leave Germany, this dangerous competitor, about 100 millions behind. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham seems to doubt that—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I did not.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: But is not that a very important fact? Here you have two great protective countries, one of them with double our population, the other with a population greater by 17,000,000 than ours, and still we export more manufactured goods to neutral markets than both of them put together. I think we are entitled to say that that has grown up under a free-trade system, it is due to cheap material, it is due to the cheap half-manufactured articles. Why, after all, do foreign countries buy from one country more than from another? Take China, or the Argentine Republic. In China we sell more manufactured goods than the United States, Germany, France, and Russia put together. In fact, our sale of goods to China is greater than that of the whole of Europe put together. Why, what advantage have you got if you get a preference, that which is suggested by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham? We go there on equal terms, so we do to the Argentine Republic, and so we do to all neutral markets. Why then do we sell more goods than all these great manufacturing countries put together?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman why it has happened that in the last thirty years the proportion which we sell to these neutral countries has become so much less [MINISTERIAL ironical cries of "Oh oh!"]—in proportion to the sales from protected countries.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman had really better give up statistics.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I dare say you think so.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am very glad to see he has started to withdraw some of them; the worst of it is that he withdraws the statistics, but never the deductions. So far from the proportions getting less, as a matter of fact we are increasing our exports to these neutral markets in a greater proportion than any other foreign country. Why, the increase in our ex-ports to China, is greater than the increase in the trade of Germany, of the United States, and of France put together. Really, the right hon. Gentleman had better take his statistics from the source whence he got them when a free-trader. Why do they buy? It is not because the Chinese prefer Britishers to Frenchmen and Germans.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Yes, they do.
  MR. CROOKS: Is that the reason the Rand mine owners like the Chinese?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That bias has very little to do with purchase. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever observed how very little the bias of a country influences the sales to that country. We have quarrelled—at least the right hon. Gentleman has—with most of the countries of Europe, with Russia, with France, he tried to pick a quarrel with Germany—[OPPOSITION cries of "Oh" and "When?"]—my hon. friend has forgotten the "mend your manners" speech. At that time there was considerable ill-feeling between the countries—here,

  1031
  and in France possibly, and in Germany. But if anyone studied the Board of Trade Returns of exports and imports he would find that the business transactions between those countries were not influenced in the slightest degree. It is not a thing that influences trade. Countries buy from one country in preference to another either because they get the same quality of goods at a cheaper price, or because they get a better quality of goods at the same price, or they are influenced by the current of trade and by accessibility. Now Germany has the advantage over us in European markets as far as accessibility and propinquity are concerned. She can send her trucks to almost any of the European countries without any change at all. But take the great markets of the world, the three dominant considerations which influence trade—cheapness, quality at the same price, current of trade—are all in favour of the free trade country against the protectionist. The result is that, as long as we maintain our system of free imports, not only are we holding our own in all the neutral markets of the world, but we are beating all our competitors by an increased difference. Has the right hon. Gentleman really followed the statistics with regard to our trade in South America and in China? I could give statistics to the right hon. Gentleman which show that we are enormously increasing our trade in those countries, but I have only a limited time at my disposal. [Cries of "Give them."]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Let us have the figures.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I will give the figures.
  MR. CROOKS: Are they facts or illustrations?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman wants figures. I will give him reliable figures. Take China. The value of the total exports of domestic produce from Germany in 1904—
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Oh!
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman can restrain himself—I am quoting 1904 because it is the last complete figure for Germany. If I take 1905 the disparity will be still greater, so I am taking a more favourable year to the right hon. Gentleman. In 1904 the total exports from Germany to China were £3,380,000, from France £316,000, from the United States £4,834,000, and from the United Kingdom £13,146,000, and this ran up during the last year to £17,000,000. I will take the Argentine Republic. Germany has made a special study of the Argentine Republic, and has made special efforts to capture the trade of that Republic. She does things which we would not dream of doing. She sends out commercial travellers. When I was in the Argentine Republic the general complaint was, "We get German commercial travellers everywhere, and they ask us what we want. "You Britishers don't take the least trouble to reach us. 'Here are our goods,' you say: 'take them or leave them, as you like.'" And they do take them. Well Germany has run up her trade there to £5,134,000, France £2,900,000, the United States of America £3,500,000, and in 1904 we ran up to nearly £11,000,000. What about the increase? And here comes the proportion. I am taking a ten years period. In 1895 we only sold £5,000,000 to the Argentine Republic. In 1904 we leapt up to £10,000,000—an increase of £5,000,000. No other country can show the same increase. That is the test of free trade in comparison with protection. Your tariff does not help you. Your tariff may protect your own particular market—no one denies that—but when you go outside and face your competitors armed with tariffs up to the teeth, scientific tariffs, too, more scientific than anything that has yet been suggested in this House, we beat them all without the slightest difficulty. Why? Simply because our system of free imports enables us to get the cheapest and best materials. Germany is our most formidable competitor, not because she is a greater manufacturing nation—the greatest manufacturing nation in the world is the United States of America—but, in order to compete with us, in order to be able to make up for the dearest material, Germany has

  1033
  to reduce wages. The United States tries both high tariffs and high wages, with the result that she is no competitor, practically, of ours in the neutral markets of the world. She produces twice as much as we do in the way of manufactures, and yet she sells to the world only one-third of the manufactures that we do. Why? Because she is trying dear material and dear labour. Germany sees that, in order to compete with us, she must be able to put an article on the market at something approximating the same price, and so she makes up for dear materials by cheap labour. That is why we are able to beat them. The third consideration which influences trade is the current of trade. After all, you buy from a country, and that country buys from you. It is just like a market town. The farmers come in to sell, but they remain to buy. The same thing applies to countries. All that is in our favour as a great free-trade country. Now this is what I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Take our great manufacturing industries, our textile industries, our engineering trades, our shipping—which is never mentioned. Everything else is mentioned, even pearl buttons, but shipping! de minimis non. The greatest mercantile marine the world ever saw never finds a place in a tariff reform pamphlet. How is it that we have succeeded in all these great industries? Purely because we have cheaper material, which enables us to pay higher wages, to give shorter hours, and at the same time to put our commodities on the market at a cheaper price than protectionist countries. That is the advantage we have. Now supposing we put on a tariff of 10 per cent. A 10 per cent. tariff at least means 7 per cent. put on to the cost of your material, of your food, and of your clothing. Does any one doubt that that is the inevitable effect of a purely protectionist tariff? It has been the effect of it. We are told about Germany. Do hon. Gentlemen know that during last year there were a considerable number of failures in the iron trade, and that they were all attributed to the effect of the dearness of material? Now, supposing you had a protectionist tariff in this country of 10 per cent. It would increase the price of material
  1034
  The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh, but you would increase your wages." Very well, let us look at that sum as a means of enabling us to compete in neutral markets. You put the increased price on to your material. To begin with, in order to enable your workman to get the same advantage from his wages you must increase them by at least 5 or 6 or 7 per cent. If you increased them to that extent he would receive only the same under the protectionist as he was receiving under a free trade system. By what margin can we maintain our trade in neutral markets? It is not by a margin of 12 per cent. that we are able to hold our own. It is very often by a much narrower margin; and the result will be that we shall destroy a very considerable portion of our trade in these neutral markets by the simple process of increasing the cost of production. Now the cheapness of our production enables us to capture trade. The hon. Member for Blackburn referred to the improved condition of the working classes under free trade. Well, now, I should like to give a few figures. I agree with him that if free trade simply increases our production and our imports and exports and does not bring any benefit to the workmen of this country it is not a system which is worthy of acceptance. But I think that is not giving free trade the credit which is its due. I will compare the condition of workmen twenty years ago with their condition now. I take the centres of quinquennial periods, for it is the only way of really getting a fair test. For every 87s. a workman earned then he earns 100s. now at the same job. That is an increase of 15 per cent. in his wages. Now let me take the purchasing value of his wage. Food, which cost 137s. then, costs 100s. now. That is a decrease of 40 per cent. in the price of food and an increase of 15 per cent. in wages. Surely that is a very great improvement in the condition of the working man.
  MR. RAMSAY MACDONALD: What about rent?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am coming to the rent. When you come to the clothing you find that there is not quite the same improvement. There is a reduction

  1035
  from 110 to 100, but when you come to the urban rents you find that they have gone up. Well, here is a direction in which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham might be able to do something for the workman. Let him grant taxation of ground values and ground-rents. Let him do something to let the workman get his cottage cheaper than he does now. During the last five years the price of food has gone up. There was a constant decline down to the year 1900, but in that year prices went up. To what was that attributable? To the taxation brought about by the war. That ought to have been an argument for taking taxation off food. With regard to unemployment, the fluctuations are considerably less in each successive cycle of trade. This shows that we are getting unemployment within the compass when it can be the more readily dealt with. But that is not the case in any protectionist country. The fluctuations are greater and the depressions more considerable in Germany, France, and the United States. Taking all these tests the House must come to the conclusion that free trade has succeeded. The right hon. Gentleman still believes in a tax on corn. The only industry which has been at all affected disastrously by free imports is agriculture.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: Slates.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know more about slates than the hon. Member. I represent a constituency that lives on slates, and the electors of that constituency returned me as a free importer. Agriculture is the only industry that may have been injuriously affected. But Under free trade there is always a tendency to an increase in the number of those employed in the best-paid trades. In the highly paid trades of engineering, shipbuilding, building, mining, and furniture-making there has been an increase out of all proportion to the increase of population. That is the natural tendency where you have free imports of half-manufactured goods. I was asked the other day why the flax industry had been destroyed in Yorkshire. Because it was a trade that paid low rates of wages, and as the woollen trade prospered men rushed from the trade which paid low wages to that which paid higher wages. Is
  1036
  a 2s. duty on foreign corn going to restore agriculture? Even if half the duty went into the pockets of agriculturists, it would mean only about £3,000,000. Is £3,000,000 going to save our agriculture? The right hon. Member for West Birmingham once held the office which I now hold. Then he had reliable information supplied him by some of the best and ablest civil servants the State ever had. Now, the right hon. Gentleman receives random conjectures from any one who likes to fire these things at him, and that has made him a tariff reformer. He then pleaded for great social reforms; he then realised that there was a good deal to be done. I agree with the hon. Member opposite in that. There is a good deal to be done. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham thought so then; he thinks so now. But I venture to say that the methods he is now adopting are methods which will aggravate these evils and not remedy them, and if it is not too late I appeal to him to return to his earlier and better mind on these subjects.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I do not rise to reply to the speech which has just been made, but I hope that the House will allow me to make my contribution to the debate from a somewhat different standpoint from that of the preceding speakers. I recognise that this debate is probably the only opportunity we shall have for some time of dealing with this large question of fiscal policy, and I am by no means sorry that this opportunity has been given to us for dealing with this matter frankly and fairly. It is the only opportunity we shall have for some time of discussing the matter, because the policy of the Government, naturally, will not relate to the policy which has been advocated by those who sit on the Opposition side of the House, and the Opposition will not have the opportunity for some years of making proposals. As to the policy of the late Government there was no doubt; that policy I heartily supported and upon it I based my candidature for this House. I look back upon the history of this controversy, and I want to see where the Tory Party stand with regard to this question. When this controversy began, it was practically opened, as far as the responsible Government was concerned, by the

  1037
  speech, of my right hon. friend and colleague the Member for the City of London, who said at Sheffield on the October 1st, 1903:—
  "Two other questions, and only two others, have to be asked. Will the remedy you propose be complete? To that I answer that it will not be complete even if it can be tried in its integrity, because I believe the country will not tolerate a tax on food."
  The policy then declared was the polioy of freedom to negotiate, and if necessary to retaliate against hostile tariffs. Exactly the year later at Edinburgh, my right hon. friend declared that he stood by the Sheffield programme, and said—
  "I have seen nothing to alter in what is now known, in the technical language of public controversy, as the Sheffield programme. The fiscal policy that I recommended at Sheffield is not a compromise and is not a half-way house. It is a logical, self-contained whole, defensible in itself."
  Between the dates of the speeches to which I have referred an important and formal declaration was made on behalf of the Government. In February, 1904, my right hon. friend the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent said when his right hon. friend the late Prime Minister was absent through illness—
  "I should like to state again, to my hon. friends especially, whit is the policy, as I define it, laid down by the Prime Minister. I will state it in the fewest and clearest words I can use. The principles of policy are—that the Government, when conducting negotiations with foreign Powers, should have the power, when necessary, to threaten retaliation, and when the threat is insufficient, they should have power to carry it out. The Government have no intention of taxing raw material, and their policy does not include the taxation of food. Neither do the Government propose the imposition of any taxation for the purpose of fostering a home industry which is subjected only to natural and legitimate competition."
  It was observed in the House that the statement made was that the Government programme did not include the taxation of food, and thereupon Sir Sir John Stirling Maxwell asked—
  "Is the Government opposed to the taxation of food as proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham? I understand that proposal is not part of the Government's policy, but I beg to ask whether the Government is or is not opposed to that proposal?"
  Thereupon my right hon. friend the Member for the St. Augustine's Division of Kent said—
  "I have said that the Government are opposed to any duty on raw material or food."
  1038
  That was definite and clear enough; but if there had been any doubt as to its authoritative character that doubt was soon removed, Lord Lansdowne, in the House of Lords, on February, 19th 1904, also made a clear, authoritative, and explicit declaration of the policy of the Government. He said—
  "I am afraid it would be absolutely impossible for me to say anything more distinct than that I accept Mr. Akers Douglas's statement, to which the noble and learned Lord drew my attention, and I may say that we, as a Government, and we cannot speak except as a Government, are opposed to a duty on raw materials or food stuffs. Why is it that we are told that our policy leads inevitably down an inclined plane to the Birmingham abyss? I say, on the contrary, our policy is a self-contained policy. It is quite within our power to stop short at it. It is a policy which is intelligible without the assumption that it involves anything that it does not already comprise. And I may say more; I say not only is it a self-contained policy, but I believe that instead of leading to Birmingham, it leads, if anything, in the opposite direction."
  That policy was never withdrawn or qualified in the least during the existence of the Government. It was the policy of the Unionist Government up to the very last day they held office. In that policy I believe, that policy I support, that policy I have advocated on platforms in the country, and by that policy I stand. But at that time there had been going on the advocacy of an unauthorised programme. It was advocated with great energy and courage and resource by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and he was supported very vigorously and generously by persons of large means who were interested in the increase of their commercial prosperity, and who lent themselves to the advocacy of that programme, but that policy was never accepted by the Government. It never became the official policy of the Party, nor is it now. [Cries of "Yes" and "No."] As the general election drew near the then Prime Minister became very uneasy. Formidable differences were developing in his Party, and creating great difficulties in the selection of candidates and the arrangements for the contest, and at Newcastle on November 14th, 1905, he made a most urgent appeal to his Party to forget the differences which were outside the practical politics of the hour and to associate themselves in the

  1039
  common support of a policy which all could accept. My right hon. friend added—
  "If you reject my advice, disaster will certainly overtake your cause, as it overtakes every cause whose supporters are not at one with each other."
  That emphatic appeal of the Leader of the Party met with no success at all. Cold and critical articles appeared in the principal London papers which were supposed to be supporting the Government. A Resolution was carried at the Newcastle conference not easily reconcileable with what the Prime Minister had said. A speech at Birmingham did not help the situation. Shortly afterwards, at the end of the first week in December, the Prime Minister found that the position was impossible. He resigned office. At Leeds, after he had ceased for ten days to be Prime Minister, he made his final appeal to his followers. He said—
  "Protection may be right or it may be wrong. I belong to the section of our Party which is free trade and not protect on."
  He went on to say—
  "We have no general tariff at the present time, and if a general tariff is to be constructed upon protective lines, then, as I have already told you, that seems to me to be outside the scope of the fiscal reforms which I am proposing to my countrymen for their acceptance. You do not require a general tariff, protective or non-protective, to deal with this question."
  That was the last word of the late Prime Minister before we went to the general election, and we took the verdict of the country upon that. The opinion the late Prime Minister had expressed as to the fate that would befall the Party was absolutely justified; the warning he had given to his followers in the most definite terms again and again that the country would not submit to a tax on food was proved to be absolutely true. No doubt many votes were obtained upon education and upon Chinese labour, but, although there were strong currents of popular feeling against the Party that would probably have led to their defeat apart from this question, still what turned that defeat into an absolute and irretrievable disaster was this lamentable advocacy of a tax on food. In many constituencies—I spoke in many and I know exactly what happened—the unionist candidates as the polling day came near had to put out posters "Vote for—,and no tax
  1040
  on food. The misfortune was that the very form of the disavowal reminded the voters that the question of the taxation of food was a living and real issue in the election and I am not surpaised that they preferred to vote for people whom they believed to be definitely, and as a Party, pledged against a tax upon food rather than for those who, while they disavowed it themselves, were associated with others who were making a tax on food a part of their programme. This pressure, I think, was felt in somewhat unexpected quarters. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer must have felt the pressure a little. On the 3rd of November, 1906, at Stirchley the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire said—
  "When we mention preference we are met with the old cry of the big and little loaf. That has absolutely no connection with the question before the nation. I could conceive of a very considerable preference being given to the colonies in wines and spirits, meat, dairy produce, market garden produce, and various articles other than corn which might be an advantage not only to our Colonies but to many of the smaller cultivators and workers on the land of this country."
  But that did not go far enough, for on the 18th of November, 1905, at Catshill, the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said—
  "He thought it would be possible to construct a preferential system without placing any tax on food."
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: This is an unusual proceeding, and I regret that my intervention should be necessary. I should have thought that my hon. and learned friend would have communicated to me his intention to refer to my speeches. My hon. and learned friend has accurately quoted part of what I said, but if he had told the whole truth to the House ["Oh!"] he would have added that in every speech on the subject to the electors I defended the tax on foreign corn to secure a preferential arrangement with the colonies. I said, in the terms my hon. and learned friend has quoted, that I could conceive that considerable preference could be given without putting a tax on corn, but I believe that in every speech I made I definitely announced, as I did in my address, that I was prepared to vote for a tax on foreign corn, and my constituents returned me with full knowledge of my views.
  SIR EDWARD CLARKE: I am very sorry, and offer the fullest apology to my right hon. friend for not having mentioned the fact to him, but at the same time I may mention that I made the quotation some time ago, and the words were accurately quoted; the only point was that my right hon. friend, while supporting the tax on food, did at the same time suggest that it was not essential to colonial preference. Many of my friends found before coming to the end of the election that it was impossible to maintain the tax on food, and so this part of the cargo was thrown over to save the ship, and in two many cases both cargo and ship were lost. The returns at the election were in my belief a deliberate, emphatic, and final decision against a tax on corn and meat. It is useless to suggest to poor people a tax on corn and meat and to explain to them that the taxes on tea and sugar will be reduced. They regard those taxes as war taxes, and they are looking forward to relief from them. It is impossible to argue in that way with the poor people to whom appeal has to be made. The canvasser says to the agricultural labourer, "This new tax that we are going to put on will cost you sixteen and a half farthings a week, but if we take off all these other taxes, you will be relieved of seventeen farthings a week, so that you will really have the benefit of half a farthing a week." He says to the artisan, "The cost of this tax will be nineteen farthings a week, but you will save nineteen and a half farthings a week, and so there will be a clear gain." It is not much use addressing that sort of thing to poor men. We are told that—
  "High heaven rejects the love
  Of nicely calculated more and less."
  and the working men of the country took the same ziew. There is this further point that the man to whom this is said is expecting that the taxes on tea and sugar will be taken off. He is looking forward to this relief. Do you expect him to listen with contentment or even with patience when you tell him that the taking off of those taxes will bring him no advantage because you are going to put taxes on corn and meat which will leave him no richer for the whole transaction. Sir, this unshakeable resistance was clearly
  1042
  foreseen by my right hon. friend. He warned his Party that these taxes on food were so closely associated with the bitter controversies of 1846, that their renewal would be of infinite danger to the Unionist Party. He was quite right in thinking that there was an ingrained prejudice against these taxes. In my own belief it is not a prejudice, it is not a superstition; it is an expression of a fixed and reasonable belief that by putting these taxes on corn and meat you will be making the poverty of the country pay for the increased prosperity of the most prosperous class. While I do not mind ducal landlords looking forward to increased rents and great manufacturers looking forward to an extension of their business, I do not want the poorer people of the country to pay for them. In dealing sometimes with these questions as they affect the living of the poorer classes or the middle classes, when those interests are urged they are sneered at as "bread and butter politics." But in considering these questions in the aspect of increased rents and the growth of industrial undertakings, we are told it is "Imperial expansion." I differ from my right hon. friend in this way. My right hon. friend looks upon this matter as a question of expediency merely. I look upon it as a question of principle. I am going to ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to make make a quotation from a speech of my own. Sometimes an opinion is as important in relation to the time at which it was spoken as it is in itself. On November 13th, 1903, in a speech delivered at Brighton I said—
  "As to the first of the two fiscal questions, I am heartily with Mr. Balfour and the Government in the declaration they have made, that in future we are not to be bound hand and foot by the rule that tariffs shall only be imposed for purposes of revenue, but that we are also entitled to handle tariffs and deal with them for the purpose of securing fair treatment for our trade in other lands. But when I pass to the second part of the question (the other fiscal question) a very serious difference comes into view. There is a difference, not in degree, but in substance and in character, between a tax upon foreign manufactured articles and a tax upon food. A tax upon foreign manufactured articles is to a great extent a voluntary income tax. The consumer here, who finds that by the imposition of a tax the price of the foreign manufactured article was raised, would consider whether he would spend a larger sum

  1043
  upon that article or whether he would be content with some cheaper substitute which the industry of his own country could provide for him. A tax upon manufactured articles is also a tax which falls upon people in exact proportion to their wealth. The richer people pay it, and pay it without trouble; the poorer people don't pay it at all, for to a great extent the poorer classes of this country do not employ and do not use manufactured articles from abroad, and if they do they will be able to find an economical substitute in the products of our own labour. But the moment you turn to articles of food the rule is entirely changed. The poorer a man is the larger the proportion of his income he is obliged to spend upon articles of food, and the consequence is—and this should never be forgotten in discussing a question of this kind—that whereas a tax on food would fall very lightly upon the people who are well to do, exactly as you go down the scale towards the point where poverty steps in, the heavier the burden of a tax upon food becomes. But now there are two more observations which I want to make upon this. If there is to be a tax upon food at all, there is no intelligible reason in not putting a tax upon every article of food. If, as has been said, the producer who sends the food here will have to pay the tax, then you may as well put it upon everything; for the more he pays the better. If he does not pay the tax, there is no difference in principle whatever between one article of food and another. But there is another observation I should like to place before you, and it is this. If a tax is to be put upon articles of food, there is no intelligible reason why it should not be put upon the raw material of manufacture as well. Again, if the tax is to be paid by the foreigner, it does not matter. You may just as well say let him pay the tax upon raw material as well as upon food. If it is to be paid by the people of this country, your food is the most important raw material you have got, and there is no intelligible reason that I have ever hear stated by anybody that will justify the taxation of food, and at the same time exclude the taxation of raw material. Just one word more which cannot be challenged. If you are going to deal with your colonies so as to give equal advantage to all your colonies, you must tax raw material as well as food. If some of your colonies send you food and some send you raw material, and if you are going to give advantage to all, it will be necessary to equalise the taxes all round. I say, as Mr. Loder has said, that I do not accept, and I cannot accept, the proposals to put taxes on the food of the people."
  That was a declaration made during the existence of the late Government, and it was a declaration by which I stand at the present time. Other questions have been raised. I do not stop at this time to discuss the question of retaliation, or of a general tariff. With regard to retaliation, in the sentences I have just read I expressed my entire concurrence with my Leader in the pro-
  1044
  posals he had made. I do not believe there is any real and serious difference between the two sides of the House on that subject. When this matter of retaliation was mentioned my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster discussed it in a speech at Wolverhampton on the 15th of November, 1905, and he stated three conditions on which he would not be indisposed to consider it. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Whatever views others might take of the retaliation question we ought, before consenting to any thing of the kind, to be satisfied, first, that there was a reasonable prospect of its being effective for its purpose; secondly, that it would not injure other branches of trade requiring raw materials; and, thirdly, that specific retaliatory duties must be subject to the assent of the House of Commons."
  These three condition; are perfectly acceptable to anybody. As one would suggest a tax which was not reasonably likely to be effective or would injure other industries, and the idea that the House of Commons would ever delegate to a Committee, or to any Government in power, the imposing of duties without the consent of the House is one which has never entered anyone's mind. My right hon friend the Secretary of State for India on another occasion said—
  "If a foreign country set up a tariff against the manufacturers of this country he was not at all averse to accept for a time the doctrine of 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' Yes; but he wanted to be quite sure that it was not his own eye."
  That is the lax talionis in its oldest and simplest form. I think it will be found hereafter that things are, ob-secured and discussion rendered sometimes almost meaningless by the use of terms which have half a dozen interpretations. "Protection" is one of them, and "Free Trade" another. It may not come at present, but I believe that this country will yet know how to protect itself, and that the judgment of the country will approve of steps being taken in order to make other nations understand that they cannot run to all the lengths they choose in invading and crippling our markets by putting on taxes against our goods while we leave our ports open

  1045
  to them. As to the general tariff: which people interpret in many different ways, I understand it to be a list of a large number of articles, each with its own special duty of from 5 up to 35 per cent., so as to meet competition of manufactured articles from abroad. To such a general tariff I am absolutely opposed. I can hardly imagine a Government setting to work to deal with such a tariff; and the extent to which influences—I will not say corruption, but very unpleasant influences—will be brought to bear on the Government is a thing which will bring into our commercial system evils from which we are at this moment free.
  On this matter we have had an over, whelming defeat, and the question, to my mind, now is, "What is the proper line for the Tory Party to take?" I wish to say to my friends who believe in such a policy that not only will it exclude them from office for many years; but if they adhere to it, it may imperil things which are more important than any tariff question, because they can put a tax on corn and take that tax off, but when institutions of the country are broken up they cannot be re-made. If the Church be once over-thrown or our system of religious education be destroyed it cannot be set up again, and the evil done will never be redressed. At all events it will involve a very long and embittered contest, then look at the question of Home Rule. Declarations have been made by the most important members of the present Government—declarations honestly made, and which I believe will be honestly observed—that in the present Parliament no proposals will be made to set up a Parliament in Dublin with an Executive responsible to it; but if some years hence
  1046
  we go to a general election with on the one side a Party proposing a policy of Home Rule, and on the other side a Party proposing to impose taxes on corn and meat, I believe that the people of this country will rather accept the political risks of Home Rule than submit to these odious taxes. In 1852 there was an appeal to the constituencies, which was the last election in this country which turned on the matter of a tax on corn. The Ministers were defeated, and Mr. Disraeli and Lord Derby made statements in Parliament in regard to the decisive results of that election. Mr. Disraeli said—
  "With the consent and the concurrence, not only of the House but of the whole country, it was determined that the question of protection should be left to the decision of the country to be declared by a general election. The verdict of the country has been of an unmistakable character. We have bowed to that unequivocal declaration. … We were of opinion that no opposition should be made if some resolution was brought forward which was in its character quite unequivocal as to the fact that the country had decided in favour of the system of free trade, and that it was the duty of the Government hereafter to adhere to the principle of unrestricted competition in their financial and commercial legislation."
  The language which Lord Derby used was perhaps stronger. He said—
  "The country, by a very large and undoubted majority, including a very considerable number of the representatives of the agricultural districts themselves, has declared that whether it might have been desirable or not as matter of policy, yet that in the present state of affairs they are determined not to depart from that system of legislation which has been established—that the country will not agree to the imposition of any tax on the introduction of articles of provisions."
  And there was an interesting passage a little later on in the same speech—
  "If I understand," said Lord Derby, "the meaning of the expression free trade, it is that you will not impose taxes for the purpose of protecting individuals or local interests, but that you would impose them for the purposes of revenue, and of revenue only; and that in the

  1047
  imposition of those taxes you will have especial regard to lightening the burdens which may be imposed on those articles which mainly enter into the consumption of the great mass of the community. … On the part, then, of myself and of my colleagues, I bow to the decision of the country; and having so bowed I declare, on their part and on my own, that while desirous of mitigating to the utmost of our power that unavoidable injury which the adoption of that policy has inflicted and must inflict on important classes, I do not adopt it with any reserve whatever. I adopt it frankly as the decision of the country, and I am prepared honestly and fairly to carry it out as a Minister of the Crown."
  Those were the declarations made in 1852, and from then till now the policy of the Tory Party has been that which was then declared by Mr. Disraeli and Lord Derby. These are not obsolete shibboleths or discredited declarations. They are the declarations of the leaders of the Tory Party which have been acted upon during the past half century by the leaders of the Party. For fifty years they have represented the unquestioned creed of the Tory Party. Through the thirty years of Mr. Disraeli's leader ship in our councils, through the fifteen years of Lord Salisbury, through the ten years of my right hon. friend, they have been the creed of our Party, and I stand firm to that creed to-day. The cry of the big and the little loaf had almost died out in the country. It had for years been scarcely heard except in some country constituency where probably the name of the candidate revived old antagonisms. Now that ill-omened spectre has been summoned from its grave, and I believe that a generation may pass before it will be laid to rest again. At any rate, there are some of us who will stand firm in the creed which has for so long been the creed of the Tory Party, and will resist now, and at any time, any proposal to put a tax
  1048
  on the corn or meat of the people, unless, indeed, in circumstances of so terrible a national necessity that we are compelled to sacrifices of the bitterest and deepest kind. But as a matter of administration and taxation, there are a good many of us who will never be parties to its introduction into our financial system. I hope—it is almost hoping against hope, but I do still hope—there may be found amongst those who have served in the ranks of the Tory Party for many years past many who respect the decision that has been come to by their greatest leaders and are prepared to stand by the policy which seemed to them good for the country. I do hope that the Tory Party will regain its influence, for I believe its principles are an important and even essential part of our national life. And I trust our leaders will recognise that when we are anxious to extend the area of our trade and gain for ourselves Imperial renown, we must never forget that the first duty of a statesman is to the poorest of the people, and that to every statesman worthy of the name the welfare of the people is the highest law.
  MR. BRACEsaid he was not surprised at the manœuvres that had been made to prevent the discussion of the issue of whether our system was really a free trade one; but he did not intend to take up the time of the House in debating whether it was one of free trade or of free imports. The mere matter of name was of no account, as the merits of the question constituted the touchstone. He stood there as the representative of a great organisation whose desires he wished to convey to this House, although he had no

  1049
  special interest to preserve or protect. It was because he was convinced that neither protection nor retaliation could touch the great economic questions which were now involved that he stood up as an opponent of those proposals. It had been stated by the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House that, after all, the great question which must be considered was the comfort and status of the people of a country, and that whatever other factors might be taken into account, the question of the cost of food was the prime factor to be considered by the Government of the country. The Board of Trade returns for 1902, 1903, 1904, and 1905, showed the wonderful advantage which this country enjoyed over all other countries. Did it not show that there was some sound fundamental case for our system when a corner in wheat never seriously increased the price of food in these islands? Our system protected us by making the world our granary, and that enabled us to give our people cheap food. In 1902, according to the Board of Trade Returns, the wheat imports into the United Kingdom in millions of hundredweights were: From the United States of America 43·3; Argentina 4·3; Canada 9·5; Russia 6·5; Australia 4·2; and India 8·8; altogether the total from the above and all other places was 81·0 per cent. In 1903 the imports were: United States 24·2; Argentina 14·1; Canada 10·8; Russia 17·2; Australia nil; and India 17·1, a total of 88·1 per cent. from the above and all other places. In 1904 the imports were: From the United States 7·1; Argentina 21·4; Canada 6·2; Russia 23·5; Australia 10·3; India 25·5, the total from all sources being 97·8. In 1905 the similar figures were: United States 6; Argentina 23·2; Canada 6·5; Russia 24·7;
  1050
  Australia 10·1; India 22·8; a total of 97·6. It had been asked whether our Colonies could not produce sufficient wheat to supply us, but these figures showed that instead of Canada, at all events, being able to send us more wheat she had been sending us less. He was quite aware that the proposers of the system of tariffs thought that in the event of the failure of a harvest or the establishment of a speculative corner, they could withdraw the tariff barriers, but what advantage would it be for us to withdraw the tariff barriers, when we ourselves had discouraged corn growing in the countries upon which we were dependent for a supply of wheat? Immediately the English agriculturists found that they could not grow corn at a profit they devoted a large amount of their resources to stock growing. Would not the United States of America, Argentine Republic and Russia, if their corn was shut out by a tariff wall, do the same? He said that it would be tempting Providence if this House were to depart from the present fiscal system of the country and not allow us to make the world our granary, as it was at the present time. They heard a good deal about "dumping" but we were the greatest "dumpers" in the world, as we insisted upon sending our products into every other kingdom. Of the South Wales coal trade, which he represented, nearly 80 per cent. of its output was "dumped" into other countries, not the least consumer of that coal being Germany. Last year we sent to Germany 7,600,000 tons of coal from Great Britain, and it would be as well to remember that the German market was as free to British coal as our market was for German steel bars. In 1903, the export of coal to Germany amounted to 6,100,000 tons; in 1904 it was 6,400,000 tons, and in

  1051
  1905 it was, as he had said, 7,600,000 tons. When we talked about retaliation we ought to remember that we had a particularly sensitive point here. If we talked about placing a tariff upon steel bars did the House not think the Germans would place a tariff upon British coals, which could not fail to mean a great reduction of wages and great distress. In 1904, the export of tinned plates and tinned sheets of British manufacture to Germany was 20,801 tons, the money value of which was £289,705. Last year that trade had increased to 29,706 tons, of the money value of £391,451. If we could have the use of the German steel bar as raw material for working into finished products he said that that was the kind of increase that they should like to have. They were told sometimes that trade followed the flag, but as a matter of fact trade followed the ship, and the country which possessed the greatest shipping tonnage in the world must have the greatest control over the industry of the world. If our free trade policy was so wrong as some hon. Members would have it to be, was it not remarkable that this country had been able to get control over more than half of the shipping trade of the world? We not only recognised that trade followed the ship, but the Germans did so because under the new German tariff "steam boilers for ships" were admitted free, as were also other materials in connection with ships. This one great country, whose example they were told the United Kingdom should follow, instead of increasing their taxes were abolishing the system of taxation in connection with the ship-building industry because they knew that
  1052
  England under free trade had the power of doing the shipbuilding for the whole world, including Germany. He supported the Motion before the House, not because he believed it was the only means, but because he readily joined with his hon. friend opposite in declaring that they wanted the taxation of mining royalties, ground values, and a system of nationalisation under which they would be able to place the railways on the same principle as they were in other competing countries.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS.
  Return ordered, "giving (1) two or more examples of Reports of inspectors of the Local Government Board in respect of local inquiries held in the years 1904 and 1905; (2) two or more examples of Reports taken by the official note-takers of the proceedings on petitions under the Acts to the Privy Council."—(Mr. O'Shee.)

  SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading upon Monday, 26th March, read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  And, it being after One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at six minutes after One o'clock.