Commons Sitting of 25 July 1908

Preamble
The House met at ten of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS
Gas Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords].—Read the third time and passed, with Amendments.
PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Blyth (four); Havant; and Llandiloes; to lie upon the Table.
  POOR LAW AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: From Mains and Strathmartin; and Riccarton; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copy presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Report, Annual Series, No. 4074 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  MARRIAGES, BIRTHS, AND DEATHS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Forty-fourth detailed Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Marriages, Births, and Deaths in Ireland, 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th June, 1908 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS.
  Copy presented, of Report of Proceedings by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, under the Diseases of Animals Acts, for the year 1907 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The Channel of the Gaine.
  MR. GINNELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Irish Board of Works will now, while the water is low, pile a landing-place and deepen a channel for boats at the mouth of the River Game, Lough Derrevarragh, Westmeath, in accordance with their inspector's report.
  (Answered by Mr. Hobhouse.) The Board of Works inform me that they are not aware of any report by any inspector of theirs containing the recommendation mentioned. In any case the Board have no power to do works in this district except in default of the Upper Inny

  Statement showing the monthly prices of first quality Beef per cwt., at certain markets in England and Scotland from July, 1907 to June, 1908 (compiled from Returns received from the market reporters of the Board of Agriculture).

  Month

  Scotch shortsides.

  Scotch longsides.

  English.

  U.S.A. and Canadian port killed.

  Argentine chilled hindquarters.

  American chilled hindquarters.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  London.

  1907: July

  66

  0

  59

  6

  54

  0

  55

  0

  46

  0

  56

  6

  August

  63

  6

  57

  6

  52

  6

  53

  0

  44

  6

  56

  6

  September

  63

  0

  58

  6

  53

  0

  53

  6

  48

  0

  59

  6

  October

  64

  6

  56

  6

  51

  0

  51

  6

  45

  0

  60

  0

  November

  64

  6

  57

  6

  51

  6

  52

  0

  43

  6

  59

  6

  December

  63

  0

  57

  0

  52

  6

  54

  0

  41

  6

  55

  6

  1908: January

  63

  0

  57

  0

  52

  6

  53

  6

  39

  6

  54

  0

  February

  62

  6

  56

  0

  51

  6

  52

  0

  41

  6

  53

  6

  March

  60

  6

  56

  0

  52

  0

  52

  0

  41

  0

  53

  0

  April

  63

  6

  59

  0

  54

  0

  56

  0

  49

  0

  61

  0

  May

  63

  6

  59

  0

  55

  6

  57

  0

  50

  6

  62

  0

  June

  69

  0

  62

  0

  60

  0

  60

  6

  54

  0

  64

  6

  Week ending 16th July

  70

  0

  63

  0

  57

  2

  58

  4

  44

  4

  60

  8

  Drainage Board, and neither this Board nor the Drainage Board have power to do anything beyond the maintenance and, if necessary, restoration of the works mentioned in the final award for the Upper Inny drainage district dated 4th April, 1881. This work is not one of them.

  Prices of Beef.
  Lord R. CECIL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the price of beef in the principal markets of this country during each of the past twelve months; and whether he has any official information as to comparable prices in the principal European countries.
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) Such information as the Board possess is contained in the following tables—

  Month.

  Scotch short-sides.

  Scotch long-sides.

  English.

  U.S.A. and Canadian port killed.

  Argentine chilled hindquarters.

  American chilled hindquarters.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Birmingham.

  1907: July

  53

  6

  53

  0

  45

  0

  55

  6

  August

  52

  6

  52

  0

  45

  0

  56

  0

  September

  51

  0

  49

  6

  47

  0

  57

  6

  October

  48

  6

  47

  6

  44

  0

  56

  6

  November

  48

  0

  46

  6

  43

  6

  57

  0

  December

  49

  6

  48

  0

  40

  0

  54

  0

  1908: January

  Nil

  Nil

  51

  6

  51

  0

  39

  0

  54

  0

  February

  51

  6

  50

  6

  41

  6

  54

  0

  March

  52

  6

  51

  0

  40

  6

  54

  0

  April

  55

  6

  54

  0

  48

  6

  60

  0

  May

  57

  0

  55

  6

  50

  0

  62

  0

  June

  58

  6

  55

  6

  54

  0

  66

  0

  Week ending 16th July

  57

  2

  54

  10

  44

  0

  59

  6

  Leeds.

  1907: July

  55

  6

  53

  0

  45

  0

  55

  6

  August

  53

  6

  51

  0

  44

  6

  56

  0

  September

  51

  6

  48

  0

  47

  0

  57

  6

  October

  51

  6

  46

  6

  42

  6

  57

  0

  November

  50

  0

  46

  0

  45

  0

  57

  6

  December

  51

  6

  48

  0

  38

  0

  54

  6

  1908: January

  Nil

  Nil

  52

  6

  49

  0

  39

  0

  54

  6

  February

  53

  0

  49

  6

  42

  0

  53

  6

  March

  53

  0

  50

  6

  40

  6

  53

  6

  April

  55

  0

  53

  6

  48

  0

  60

  6

  May

  57

  0

  55

  0

  50

  0

  62

  0

  June

  60

  0

  56

  0

  53

  6

  65

  6

  Week ending 16th July

  58

  4

  53

  8

  39

  8

  59

  6

  Month.

  Scotch short-sides.

  Scotch long-sides.

  English.

  U.S.A. and Canadian port killed.

  Argentine chilled hind-quarters.

  American chilled hind-quarters.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Manchester.

  1907: July

  54

  0

  53

  0

  45

  0

  55

  0

  August

  52

  6

  51

  6

  42

  0

  56

  0

  September

  49

  0

  48

  0

  44

  6

  57

  0

  October

  46

  0

  —

  41

  0

  56

  0

  November

  47

  0

  —

  39

  6

  57

  0

  December

  49

  6

  47

  6

  41

  0

  55

  0

  1908: January

  Nil

  Nil

  52

  6

  50

  0

  38

  6

  53

  6

  February

  51

  6

  49

  0

  40

  0

  53

  0

  March

  53

  6

  50

  6

  41

  0

  52

  6

  April

  56

  0

  53

  6

  47

  0

  60

  0

  May

  57

  6

  56

  6

  49

  0

  61

  0

  June

  60

  0

  56

  0

  53

  0

  64

  6

  Week ending 16th July

  58

  4

  53

  8

  39

  8

  58

  4

  Liverpool.

  1907: July

  —

  53

  0

  42

  6

  54

  0

  August

  —

  52

  0

  41

  0

  56

  0

  September

  49

  0

  50

  0

  42

  6

  56

  6

  October

  46

  6

  48

  6

  39

  0

  56

  0

  November

  46

  6

  46

  6

  39

  0

  56

  6

  December

  49

  6

  49

  6

  41

  0

  53

  6

  1908: January

  Nil

  Nil

  51

  6

  51

  6

  37

  6

  53

  0

  February

  —

  49

  6

  39

  0

  52

  6

  March

  —

  51

  6

  41

  0

  52

  6

  April

  —

  53

  6

  46

  0

  59

  6

  May

  —

  56

  6

  48

  0

  61

  0

  June

  —

  58

  6

  53

  0

  64

  6

  Week ending 16th July

  —

  53

  8

  37

  4

  58

  4

  Month.

  Scotch short-sides.

  Scotch long-sides.

  English.

  U.S.A. and Canadian port killed.

  Argentine chilled hind-quarters.

  American chilled hind-quarters.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Glasgow

  1907: July

  59

  0

  54

  0

  42

  0

  57

  0

  August

  58

  6

  52

  6

  42

  6

  54

  0

  September

  56

  6

  49

  6

  43

  6

  59

  0

  October

  55

  0

  49

  6

  44

  6

  58

  6

  November

  56

  6

  50

  0

  —

  58

  6

  December

  57

  0

  49

  6

  —

  55

  6

  1908: January

  Nil

  59

  0

  Nil

  53

  6

  38

  6

  54

  6

  February

  57

  0

  52

  0

  39

  6

  54

  6

  March

  56

  6

  51

  6

  —

  55

  0

  April

  57

  0

  54

  6

  51

  6

  60

  0

  May

  57

  0

  53

  6

  50

  0

  63

  6

  June

  58

  6

  56

  6

  53

  6

  60

  6

  Week ending 16th July

  60

  8

  56

  0

  51

  4

  63

  0

  Edinburgh

  1907: July

  59

  6

  52

  0

  46

  6

  57

  0

  August

  56

  0

  51

  6

  —

  56

  6

  September

  51

  0

  48

  0

  —

  58

  6

  October

  51

  6

  —

  44

  6

  57

  6

  November

  51

  0

  —

  43

  6

  58

  0

  December

  53

  6

  —

  39

  6

  56

  0

  1908: January

  Nil

  55

  6

  Nil

  52

  6

  40

  6

  55

  6

  February

  57

  0

  50

  6

  41

  0

  54

  6

  March

  55

  0

  50

  6

  43

  0

  54

  0

  April

  54

  0

  —

  49

  0

  61

  6

  May

  56

  6

  —

  51

  6

  63

  6

  June

  58

  6

  —

  52

  6

  67

  0

  Week ending 16th July

  59

  6

  56

  0

  44

  4

  60

  8

  Month.

  Scotch short-sides.

  Scotch long-sides.

  English.

  U.S.A. and Canadian port killed.

  Argentine chilled hindquarters.

  American chilled hindquarters.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  Per cwt.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  Dundee.

  1907: July

  58

  6

  55

  0

  —

  57

  0

  August

  56

  0

  —

  44

  6

  57

  0

  September

  52

  0

  48

  0

  44

  6

  58

  6

  October

  51

  6

  —

  45

  0

  58

  6

  November

  53

  0

  44

  6

  45

  6

  59

  0

  December

  55

  6

  —

  —

  56

  0

  1908: January

  Nil

  56

  0

  Nil

  —

  42

  0

  55

  6

  February

  55

  0

  51

  6

  43

  0

  54

  6

  March

  55

  0

  —

  42

  0

  55

  0

  April

  54

  6

  —

  49

  6

  61

  6

  May

  56

  0

  —

  50

  6

  63

  6

  June

  58

  6

  —

  57

  6

  66

  6

  Week ending 16th July

  58

  4

  —

  44

  4

  60

  8

  Statement showing the average monthly prices of Beef per 8 lbs. in London, Paris, and Berlin from July, 1907, to June, 1908:—

  Month.

  Average monthly price per 8 lbs.

  London.*

  Paris.†

  Berlin.‡

  1907.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  s.

  d.

  July

  3

  2

  4

  2½

  4

  9½

  August

  3

  1

  4

  2½

  4

  9¾

  September

  3

  2

  4

  2½

  4

  9¾

  October

  2

  8¼

  4

  3½

  4

  9½

  November

  2

  10¾

  4

  2½

  4

  9¾

  December

  2

  11

  4

  2½

  4

  9½

  1908.

  January

  3

  1½

  4

  4¼

  4

  9

  February

  3

  1¾

  4

  3

  4

  7¼

  March

  3

  1¾

  4

  0¾

  4

  5½

  April

  3

  3½

  4

  0¾

  4

  6¾

  May

  3

  4

  4

  4¼

  4

  3½

  June

  3

  7½

  4

  4¼

  4

  5¼

  * Mean of the prices of four qualities of English beef.

  † Mean of three qualities.

  ‡ Mean of twelve qualities.

  Equalisation of London Rates.
  MR. DOBSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what is the total amount that has been specially raised from the more wealthy districts of London and transferred to the poorer districts in relief of their rates under the Act of 1893 for the greater equalisation of rates in London.
  (Answered by Mr. John Burns.) The net amount levied and distributed under the London (Equalisation of Rates) Act, 1894, up to 31st March, 1907, was £3,289,152.

  Londonderry Post Office.
  MR. BARRIE: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that up till 1896 the staff at Londonderry Post Office was divided, i.e., separate staffs for postal and telegraphic work maintained; that after the Report of the Tweedmouth Commission only one staff was maintained for both branches; that, this change proving unsatisfactory, the divided system was reverted to in 1903; and that during recent months the dual system has again been introduced, notwithstanding its previous failure in Londonderry and in other large centres, and whether, seeing that the Hobhouse Committee, 1907, recommended that offices such as Londonderry should have a divided staff, he will reconsider the matter in the interests of local efficiency.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It is the practice to have a divided staff only at those offices where the volume of work and the conditions under which it is done renders specialisation inevitable, and the Parliamentary Committee did not recommend any change in this respect. The necessary conditions do not obtain at Londonderry, where amalgamation is desirable not only in the interests of the service but also in those of the staff, as a more equitable distribution of the early and late duties is thus rendered possible, and the hours of attendance can otherwise be made less irksome than if the staff were divided. The amalgamation of the staff at Londonderry was decided upon in May, 1906, as a result of the recommendations of a Departmental Committee. The matter was very carefully considered so recently as January last, and I see no reason for altering the decision which was then given.

  Post Office Territorials.
  Mr.GIBBS: To ask the Postmaster-General if an order has recently been issued to those Post Office servants who are members of the Territorial Army that the cost of providing substitutes during their absence in camp is to be provided out of their civil pay.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The practice that prevailed under the Volunteer system, i.e., that the cost of providing substitutes, if any, was defrayed from the civil pay of the absent officer is continued under the Territorial scheme. If there is any saving the balance is paid to the officer absent at camp, while any excess cost is borne by the State.

  Spitalfields Market.
  MR. W. PEARCE: To ask Mr. Attorney-General if his attention has been directed to the delay in the proceedings instituted by the Corporation of London to acquire Spitalfields Market; if he is aware of the urgency of the matter; and if an amended statement of claim has been presented for his approval.
  (Answered by Sir W. Robson.) I recognise that the action relating to Spitalfields Market, which is under the control of the Corporation of London, should be brought to trial as soon as possible, but regard must be had to the complicated nature of the case and care taken that all the facts are placed before the Court. Application has recently been made for my approval of an amended statement of claim. I have no reason to believe that there has been undue delay in the proceedings.

  Meat Trade Trust Inquiry.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a representative of Ireland on the Departmental Committee he proposes to appoint to inquire into the question of the alleged control by certain trusts of the meat trade; and whether any question will be referred to such Committee affecting the importation of Canadian cattle.

  611
  (Answered by Mr. Churchill.) I am reluctant to add to the numbers of the Committee by the appointment of representatives of special interests or views. It is a Departmental Committee. Its reference is strictly limited to the specific financial and economic aspects of the question, and it does not extend to recommendations affecting the conditions of the importation of cattle. If in these circumstances my hon. and learned friend still presses for the appointment of an Irish representative perhaps he will communicate with me again.

  Ex-Detective-Constable Cosgrove, R.I.C.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can explain the circumstances under which Detective-constable John Cosgrove, of Belfast, was discharged on pension from the police force; whether any charge was preferred against him; and, if so, whether any and, if so, what opportunity was afforded him of meeting the charge; whether Cosgrove was entitled to his maximum pension if he had been allowed to remain in the force twelve months longer; whether it was charged against him that he had no cases for the preceding twelve months; whether men are still in the service in Belfast who had no cases for double that period; how long was Cosgrove on the promotion list; why was he not promoted; why was he appointed to the crime special staff if unfit for promotion; did any prejudice exist in the minds of his superior officers towards him and whether he will have special inquiries made into this case.
  (Answered by Mr. Birrell.) Constable Cosgrove, who had served for upwards of twenty-eight years, was reported by his superior officers as being inefficient and unsuitable for further police duty, and the Inspector-General in pursuance of his statutory powers, called upon him to retire on pension. The constable was not charged with any offence against discipline. If he had remained in the force until he had served for twenty-nine years he would have been entitled to his maximum pension of £46 16s. per annum, which is but 9s. 5d. per annum more than that actually awarded to him. It was not charged against him that he had no cases
  612
  during the preceding twelve months. He was at one time on the promotion list, but was passed over by the late Commissioner in 1905 as being unfit for promotion. It was the same Commissioner who appointed him to the crime special staff, presumably because he considered him suitable to be tried in that capacity. No prejudice existed against the constable in the minds of his superior officers. No further inquiries seem to be necessary.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Labour in the Transvaal Mines.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state how many Whites, Chinese Coolies, and Natives were enployed in the Transvaal mines when the present Government came into office and on 1st July last, respectively.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS (Flintshire; for Colonel SEELY): At the end of December. 1905, there were 18,159 Whites, 93,831 Natives and 47,267 Chinese employed. On 30th June last there were 21,636 Chinese. The figures for Whites and Natives to that date have not vet been received. The average numbers for May were: Whites, 18,011; Natives, 145,007.

  Great Britain and Siam.
  MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to give information with regard to the new agreement with Siam.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): No new agreement has yet been concluded with Siam, and I cannot say what progress can be made till His Majesty's Minister, who is now on his way home, has returned and till various points which require investigation have been discussed with him, and His Majesty's Government have had an opportunity of considering them.
  MR. CARLILE: When is the Minister expected to arrive?
  SIR EDWARD GREY: He is due home soon, but it is obvious the Government will not be able as a whole to consider this question for some time, and presumably we shall not be able to settle it till the autumn.

  The Arrest of Mr. Luxenburg.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay Papers setting out the correspondence that has passed with the Russian Government in reference to the wrongful arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Luxenburg.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: I will deal with this matter in my reply to the Question put down by the hon. Member for Monday next.

  Alleged Burning of Crofters' Houses.
  Mr. MORTONasked the Secretary for Scotland whether there was any truth in the Report that crofters' houses had been burned in the parish of Creich, Sutherland, by the sheriff officer; and that, in consequence, great excitement prevailed.
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): The only information at my disposal on this subject is contained in a telegram from the chief constable of the county, who says. "Wire received. Local constable reports me crofter's house burned by sheriff officer acting under decree of Court."
  Mr. MORTON: Who is the landlord?
  Mr. SINCLAIR: I am not aware of his name. If the hon. Gentleman wishes any further information perhaps he will put down a Question.

  Suppression of Vermin.
  Mr. MOORE: I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) if his attention has been called to the Report and Draft Bill published by the Society for the Suppression of Vermin; and if he proposes on behalf of the Department by regulation, or circular, or otherwise to take steps to stamp out the rat pest in
  614
  Ireland, or in any event to limit its increase.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,): My attention has been called to the Report and Draft Bill in Question. We are very anxious to take all the steps necessary for this admirable purpose
  CAPTAIN CRAIG. Has the right hon. Gentleman consulted the President of the Board of Trade on the matter?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Irish University Grants.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the total capitalised amount of the grants to be made under the Universities Bill towards the new University to be established for Roman Catholics in Dublin and its three constituent colleges in Dublin, Cork, and Galway, and the affiliated college of Maynooth.
  MR. BIRRELL: The capitalisation of the amount of the annual grant made to the University college is a sum which anybody can do for himself.

  Cattle-drives in Antrim and Down.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state how many cases of cattle-driving have been brought to the notice of the police in the counties of Down and Antrim during the past three years.
  MR. BIRRELL: My attention has not been drawn to this matter. I must ask for notice.

  Orange Demonstrations.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the number of cases brought to the notice of the police of serious offences arising out of the recent annual demonstration in Ireland in celebration of the memory of King William of Orange.
  MR. BIRRELL: My attention has not been called to this matter.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 300,000 loyal Irishmen took part in this demonstration?
  MR. BIRRELL: I am not.

  The Vatican and the Irish University.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the action of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Dublin and Maynooth. the Roman Catholic laity of Ireland have hitherto been forbidden to enter for the Arts course in any of the three Queen's Colleges of Belfast, Cork, or Galway; and whether he proposes to obtain the assent of the Vatican or its representatives in this country to the Roman Catholic laity attending the new Roman Catholic University to be established in Dublin before the Lord-Lieutenant names the appointed day for dissolving the Royal University and before any of the sum voted by Parliament is spent on erecting the new college for Roman Catholics in Dublin.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have no such intention.

  Cranagill Orange Lodge Procession.
  MR. MOORE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the road from Cranagill to Annaghmore station, in the county of Armagh, has from time immemorial been used by all persons on their lawful avocations; if he is aware that on 13th July last the members of the Cranagill Orange lodge were prevented by the police from passing along this road; if he is aware that six Nationalists from this district were sentenced by Mr. Justice Dodd, at the recent Armagh assizes, to two months imprisonment for attacking members of the Orange Order; and if he will state on what grounds the members of this lodge were debarred from their accustomed use of this highway.
  MR. BIRRELL: I must ask for notice
  MR. MOORE: But notice has been given.
  MR. BIRRELL: I have not obtained the information.
  MR. MOORE: That is a different thing. The right hon. Gentleman shoud ask for a postponement.

  Debates on Irish Matters.
  CAPTAIN CRAIG: I beg to ask the Prime Minister what day he intends to give, before the adjournment, for a discussion on the state of lawlessness now existing in the South and West of Ireland, necessitating an increased charge of £72,000 a year for extra police, the questions of cattle-driving, boycotting, firing outrages, and other forms of intimidation.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. ASQUITH,): The Government do not intend to give any further opportunity for the discussion of Irish affairs other than what may be afforded on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
MR. GORDONmoved that the Bill be read a third time that day three months. He said he was not at all forgetful of the way in which the Bill had been received by the House, nor was he at all under, estimating the opposition which his Motion was likely to receive. He was as deeply interested in the welfare of Ireland as any Member of that House, and he honestly and earnestly believed that the Bill would be injurious to the true welfare and prosperity of Ireland. He felt, therefore, that it was his duty at every legitimate opportunity, and by every legitimate means, to endeavour to prevent its becoming law. He recognised the necessity for some improvement in University education in Ireland, but there was something that might be worse than to leave it even in its present condition. He thought this Bill would

617
make matters worse. It ignored many important matters which the Legislature ought to bear in mind in dealing with such a question. He believed that every man who was really interested in the welfare of Ireland must realise that of all the parts of His Majesty's Dominions, it was the place in which dissensions and disagreements were most accentuated, not alone in political matters, but that there was a vital difference of opinion in reference to the relations of that country to the Empire, and, above all, keenly accentuated racial and religious differences. Wise legislation should have for its object the getting rid, as far as possible, of all those differences which in any way interfered with the material prosperity of the country, and nothing should be done either to accentuate or to perpetuate them. It was of great importance that the young men of the country should be brought together as early as possible, and to respect and tolerate each others' differing views. How could they teach them those principles of toleration and mutual respect if from the very start in life they showed them that there was something so different between the different people in Ireland that they could not even receive their instruction in the same class-rooms? He thought that that was deplorable, and it was a very serious step for anyone to take in connection with Ireland to create three purely denominational institutions in Ireland. There could be no doubt about it. One body iii Ireland, who had asked for one of these Universities, had always sought a denominational University, a purely Roman Catholic University, under Roman Catholic control. The other two Universities, once that was established, would be powerless to preserve their non-sectarian character. How could they do it if they created a University which would take all the youth of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland? Could there be anything more calculated to perpetuate and accentuate the religious and other differences which existed between the different sections of His Majesty's subjects in Ireland? He deplored it. Gentlemen in that House might think that was a narrow-minded, bigoted view, held by a few Unionist Members, but he unhesitatingly dis-
618
claimed that, and he did not think that the people who knew him would describe him as a narrow-minded bigot or as unwilling to treat fairly his fellow-countrymen. He had the advantage of being educated in a college where most of the students were Roman Catholics; he was educated in Galway, where a large body—the majority—were Roman Catholics, and they lived a pleasant and a happy life there. No questions were raised as to differences of religious opinion, or which could be regarded as being unfair to any one denomination. But was that what this Bill was going to do? Queen's College was one of the constituent colleges of the old Queen's University; it was undenominational and non-sectarian in foundation. It was a place where no tests existed, and where no questions were asked of any student or professor as to his religious views. It was at first accepted by the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, but after a little while it was rejected and banned by them. And why? Because it was undenominational and non-sectarian, and because they could not have that control which they had always asserted they were entitled to in all matters connected with education. Why did they accept this Bill? They were accepting it because they knew, and every man of commonsense knew, that it was in truth and in fact what they wanted to have when they rejected the Queen's University—a purely denominational and sectarian University under ecclesiastical dogmas and control. Let men use their common-sense and draw inferences from facts. No man would venture to say that the Queen's University was not purely undenominational and a good sound teaching University, which also provided what a good many Nonconformists in this country were so anxious about. It provided that each religious body should have its own dean of residence at its own expense if it wished. Why was this Bill accepted and that banned? Those who were loud in their denunciations of denominationalism in England were forcing upon Ireland and the Irish people the most denominational system of University education that existed in the world, and they were doing

619
it at the public expense. Let them face the issue. They were voting public money to create a University which was purely denominational and under ecclesiastical control. He thought that, apart from the inferences they could draw from the history of education in Ireland, they could see from the Bill itself that it was denominational and intended to be so. It provided for the inclusion of the students of a purely theological seminary. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was wise in creating a good teaching University, although it might inflict some hardships perhaps on some of the extern students, but what was he also doing? Let them remember that they were voting £10,000 a year of public money to endow a University. The Bill provided directly or indirectly, speaking of the University of Dublin, for the bringing in of the students of a theological seminary over which the University had no control whatever, which was purely denominational, and they were giving those students the same advantages, the same rights, and the same privileges in their teaching and undenominational University that the students in each of the constituent colleges would enjoy. That was to say, that to the extent of £10,000 a year, given to the University directly for University purposes, they were endowing the theological college at Maynooth, which had already received between £300,000 and £400,000 of public money. The right hon. Gentleman said yesterday almost in terms: "if you pass the Amendment before the House providing that the students in that theological seminary who wish to graduate in the new University should at least attend two sessions in one of the constituent colleges, it would wreck the Bill. "That was to say that from the first, and he knew it, the vital question in the Bill was that this theological seminary should have all the benefits which they were asked to give to a purely undenominational University to be created in Ireland. He did not see what answer there was to that. If that was a vital question in the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman knew it. Let them remove all these disguises and look at the naked facts. How could the right hon. Gentleman get out of it, that the £10,000 a year for the Dublin University was to be at the disposal of students
620
educated in this theological seminary in the same way that it would be at the disposal of students educated in the constituent colleges, but that there wa, no control over them? What was more as the Bill now stood, the new college to be erected in Dublin was to be built out of public money, £150,000 being the sum. Lecture rooms would come into existence out of public money, and the right hon. Gentleman had put in a provision that this new college would have its class-rooms used for the purposes of theological education. If they wanted to have the power of granting a theological degree by the teaching of theology, it would be done at the mere expense, so far as those who wanted it were concerned, of the payment of the salary of the professor, who would have his buildings, his class rooms, and his annual expenditure all coming from the public purse, except the mere salary. which might not be a large one. That was a nice state of affairs for an institution which was regarded as being undenominational. His point was that it was not at all what soma right hon. Gentlemen opposite thought. He was dealing with what was presented in that House as an undenominational University, and why should they not have it put straight and clear? The next point was with regard to what had occurred yesterday, about which, to those who knew the facts, there was something really ludicrous. The right hon. Gentleman had put into the Bill a provision enabling chapels to be erected inside the grounds of these colleges. As he understood, a deputation of Members of that House, who apparently were getting a little bit alarmed, waited or the right hon. Gentleman, and wanted him to consider this matter. And then the Chief Secretary, with a show of reluctance, agreed, as a great concession, to strike out the provision about erecting chapels and places of worship inside the college grounds. What were the facts? Really the right hon. Gentleman had been long enough in Dublin to know the locality of this particular college; he must know that adjoining the present Catholic University college—that was its full name—was the University Chapel, which was one of the best known Roman Catholic chapels in Dublin. If

621
it was not absolutely adjoining, it was also in the closest proximity to the new buildings of the Royal University. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh," and MINISTERIAL laughter.] He understood his hon. friends from Ireland perhaps a little better than most Members of that House. There was no one appreciated, as he had to appreciate, when he met him as an antagonist, the great readiness of his hon. and learned friend the Member for North Louth in turning away attention from any particular point. But the point here was not the question of these places of worship being where they were. He thought it was quite right to have them near the colleges. Who could for one moment quarrel with that? The point was that the right hon. Gentleman knew that the chapel was practically part of the new college, when he made this concession. That was the true state of affairs. In every stage of the Bill, in the statement on the Second Reading, in the statements made in Committee, and in the farcical dealing with Amendments on the Paper, in every way possible it had been sought to impress upon them that this measure was unsectarian and undenominational, and that it was absolutely free from ecclesiastical control, of which no one would be so willing to see every semblance removed as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. Surely, hon. Members who sat on the other side of the House, even at that last hour, would recognise the situation they were bringing about, in view of the position they occupied when they were dealing with education in England. They should remember, when they were helping to create a denominational University for Ireland, how in this country they poured the vials of their wrath against people who were the real owners of the schools having anything to do with their management and control. He was opposed to this Bill in principle for the reasons he had given. He did not want to he misunderstood. He hoped he was a loyal enough son of Ireland to wish that if the Bill did become law his fears about it might turn out to be groundless, and that the right hon. Gentleman and those who were helping him to pass the Bill would be able to say that it had conferred the benefits which they who were on the other side
622
of the House honestly believed that it would confer. But he implored them to say first, whether it was a wise, right, or proper thing to perpetuate those differences which unhappily existed in Ireland. Although he was met some times with jeers by friends from Ireland—he did not think that he was jeered outside—he would say honestly, that Presbyterian as he was he was as much opposed, as he had frequently stated in that House, to the establishment of a Presbyterian University as he was to the establishment of a Roman Catholic University in Ireland. To his mind the same principle applied to both, and to all denominational Universities established or sought to be established. Ho thought that they were going on wrong lines and on wrong principles, lines and principles which made for the perpetuation of dissensions and differences, and were at the same time a retrograde step in University education.
*MR. BARRIEin seconding the Amendment, said his hon. and learned friend had referred to the fact that they were regarded as a narrow and bigoted section from the North of Ireland, but he thought it well to remind the House how far that was from being correct. He desired to quote the utterance of one who in the campaign of the last general election was the militant high priest of the Radical Party, now responsible for this Bill. He referred to Dr. John Clifford, who in a speech delivered in London said—
"When he turned over the pages of past history, he read some very sinister interventions in human affairs on the part of the Church. To-day in connection with the Irish Universities Bill, it was said the Bill could not pass if the Pope of Rome objected. For himself, he hoped the Pope would object, as he could not help regarding the Irish Universities Bill as a betrayal of Liberal principles, and with all the strength of his nature he was bound to protest against it."
He thought that that was an English opinion which was still of some value, though apparently the Party opposite did not hold it in such high consideration as they held the opinions of Dr. Clifford in the months preceding the last general election. The words he had read confirmed the views the Ulster Members had expressed on this Bill. [An HON.

623
MEMBER: Dr. Clifford was not speaking of this Bill.] It was exactly this Bill that Dr. Clifford was referring to, and the speech in which Dr. Clifford made the reference he had quoted was delivered recently. If they turned to Scotland, an important public body called the Scottish Reformation Society, at a meeting they held recently, had dealt with this Bill, stating their objections in a series of Resolutions, with which he entirely agreed. They opposed this Bill—
"(1) Because the proposed university in Belfast is not desired by those for whom it is specially intended, while large numbers of the enlightened Roman Catholic laity are strongly opposed, in the interests of education itself, to the setting up of a new Roman Catholic University in Dublin. (2) Because the proposed measure would establish an extensive scheme of concurrent endowment in a very aggravated and objectionable form, wholly at variance with the spirit and purpose of former legislative enactments in the matter of Irish education. (3) Because the proposed constitution of the new university in Dublin is such that it would be speedily brought entirely under the control of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, so that it will in reality mean a further huge endowment to Roman Catholicism at the public expense. (4) Because the manifest and main design of the Bill is to satisfy the demands of the Irish Roman Catholic hierarchy, and, as experience has shown. these demands involve concessions which the Government of this Protestant country is bound, on principle, to resist in tine interests of civil and religious liberty."
He was bound to admit that their arguments in opposition to this measure had been somewhat handicapped by the fact that the Chief Secretary had secured in advance approval of the Bill by a certain section of the great city of Belfast. They knew something of the methods by which that approval in advance was secured; but they held firmly to the opinion that that approval was confined to certain academic circles, and that the great body of the people in the North of Ireland were as bitterly opposed to the Bill and all that was being done under cover of the Bill as they were to all previous attempts to endow a Roman Catholic University in Ireland. They admitted that they were handicapped by the approval of the authorities of Queen's College in Belfast having been secured in advance. They were sorry to have to say—they had said it before and they would have to say it again—that that approval had been
624
gained by a lavish expenditure of public money. If the object in view was to be attained by a process of bribing the different authorities and institutions in Ireland, then the bribe to the city of Belfast under this measure was a very poor one indeed. Under the Bill, not-withstanding that the declared policy of the Government was against all endowments of religion, the Romish Church got a sum which capitalised meant at least £1,500,000 of public money. The total that went to Belfast was something like £18,000 per annum, as against a grant of £20,000 for the city of Cork alone. Not only was a Roman Catholic University secured in Dublin, but the Bill was so framed that in the course of a few years institutions which had a comparatively free atmosphere at the present moment would also be Romanised. Queen's Colleges in Cork and Galway would be Romanised, and there would be a denominational University at Belfast for which they had not asked and for which no important body of people in Belfast were ever likely to ask. He entirely associated himself with his colleague as regarded the Belfast University. It would, undoubtedly, be a Presbyterian University just in the same way as Trinity College, Dublin, would be more and more in the future a University for the sons of families belonging to the Church of Ireland. The policy of the Irish Presbyterians, like the policy of the vast majority of the people of England, had always been and would always be the policy of the open door. They resented most strongly the prospect of three hostile educational camps being set up in Ireland. That was what was being done under the Bill. The Irish Unionists considered it was a retrograde Bill, utterly at variance with the professed principles of the Liberal Party, and he could only regret that their numbers were so few that their opposition had been so unsatisfactory in its results so far as weakening the more pernicious proposals of the Bill were concerned.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day three months.'"—(Mr. Gordon.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question.'"
MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he did not rise for the purpose of entering into any argument as to the merits or demerits of the Bill. The time for argument had passed and the House as a whole, he assumed, had made up its mind that the Bill should pass into law. He did not feel the slightest inclination to speak bitterly about the opposition of hon. Gentlemen above the gangway. It would be most ungrateful if he did because he recognised that all through the various stages of the Bill they had done a great service to the promoters of the Bill. He regarded this as a very great measure. It was a measure which had its blots from their point of view, and if they had been called upon to draft the measure themselves, probably it would have been different in some important respects. It was one of the great blots on the Bill against which they protested and against which he must enter his protest again, that sufficient provision was not made for the creation of residential quarters so as to make sure that they would have a residential University. That blot was a serious one, but he did not regard it as a permanent disqualification of the University, because he felt certain that in the future other Governments would be willing when the scheme proved that it was going to be a success to come forward and to set an example to private philanthropists and educationists in providing sufficient funds to enable residential quarters to be built. But looking to the Bill as a whole he could not help regarding it as a very great measure indeed. It was thirty-five years since a British Government proposed seriously to deal with the question, and during those past years they had been waiting and working and hoping for some such measure as this. All during those years the young men of Ireland had been going out into the world without the advantage of a University education, and their nation, therefore, all this time had been handicapped in its competition with other nations and their people had been handicapped in every walk of life. Although the Bill might not be in all its particulars pleasing to the
626
feelings of other Members in various parts of the House he would impress upon them the consideration that it would be indeed a serious responsibility for any man to take to do anything or to say anything which would deprive Ireland of this great boon. If she was deprived of it now, Heaven only knew when the opportunity would occur again, and therefore he desired to acknowledge—and he was sure that in saying this he was speaking the sentiments of his colleagues—most truly and most gratefully the action of those Members in various parts of the House, very many of them on the opposite side, who had put aside their own strong predilections rather than see this great opportunity lost for Ireland. He was bound to say that taking the treatment of this Bill as a whole by the House there had been exhibited not only a friendliness to Ireland but a toleration which was eminently creditable to every section in the House, which he could assure the House would not be forgotten by the people of Ireland, and which would have its effect in Ireland in promoting toleration and good feeling between different creeds in the country. It would also be unjust and ungrateful if he did not express their feeling of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. There was nothing that the Irish people respected more than courage, and the right hon. Gentleman's attitude with reference to this question from the very moment that he went to Ireland had been characterised by the highest courage. He remembered last year when in a public speech in Ireland he declared that he considered this, after the want of Home Rule, really the greatest of all Irish grievances, and that although he was precluded from dealing with Home Rule he was not precluded from dealing with University education, that he would deal with it, and that if he did not succeed in settling it he would no longer remain Chief Secretary. That was a very unusual declaration to make, and it was a very courageous one, because he was speaking about the most thorny and difficult of all Irish problems, of that problem on which there was most difference of opinion amongst different classes of people in Ireland. He indeed

627
then took his courage in both hands and risked everything upon the course he was going to take. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the result of his courage. The appeal that he then made to Ireland was responded to in every quarter. He had not satisfied Gentlemen representing a certain part of Ireland who sat above the gangway, but with the exception of them, and those whom they represented, he had practically satisfied public opinion—Catholic, Protestant, Presbyterian—all over the country. That was a great achievement, and if the right hon. Gentleman never did anything else for Ireland, if he never did anything else as a legislator in that House—he hoped Fate would reserve for him to do many great things for Ireland, and that there might be many legislative achievements before him—his name would go down to posterity as a man who had conferred upon a long-suffering and patient people one of the greatest benefits that human power and wisdom could confer by opening to them the gates of higher education and giving them the opportunity of competing in the battle of lift. That would not be forgotten of the right hon. Gentleman. He and the Nationalist Members might have differences. No one could forecast the future. They might even have sharp differences and, as had happened so often before, even with friendly Liberal statesmen, be driven into an attitude of conflict with him. He hoped not, but whether they were or not, nothing could deprive him of the sense of gratitude that they felt to him for his courage in this matter, and, therefore, he thought he was justified in saying in the name of his colleagues that they would not forget to him the service that he had rendered to Ireland. All he had further to say was to express the fervent hope and prayer that this great measure might result in complete success in working. When measures were passing through that House critics always foretold their failure in this and that respect. Those r prophecies of evil he was convinced would be falsified by the working of this institution. He believed it would be worked in a spirit of toleration and of good fellowship between the different
628
classes of people in Ireland. He believed it would create once more in Irish history a great central seat of learning. The history of Ireland was remarkable in nothing more than in that portion of it which dealt with the question of education and learning. Ireland in the old days was one of the centres of learning for the whole of Europe, and when the bad times came and educational institutions were struck down, when it was made even a penal offence to educate the youth of Ireland, all through that period the love of learning of the Irish people made itself manifest, as those who had read the history of the poor scholars at the hedge schools would realise. The love of learning was still there, and he was convinced that when this great institution was established and was in full working order the love of learning would spring up as brightly in Ireland as ever it did before, and he looked forward to the future when this institution created by the right hon. Gentleman would become, not only an honour to Ireland, but one of the greatest educational establishments in Europe.
*Sir GEORGE WHITEsaid he had not opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, and he could not oppose the Third Reading, but he desired to point out the position which many Nonconformists had occupied in regard to this measure and to enter a final word of protest against one or two of its provisions. Of course they had had to listen to a considerable amount of banter from hon. Members opposite because they had not made a more determined opposition to a measure for the creation of a so-called Roman Catholic University. He thought some of the arguments and statements that had been used were justified, from their point of view, and he round some difficulty in answering them. But he would ask the House, and every hon. Member opposite, who might fitly use this opportunity for chiding them, to consider the position in which the great body of Nonconformists were situated in regard to this Bill. There was no section of the House who took a deeper interest in higher education than the Nonconformist and who would do more to further the interests of higher education in England or in Ireland. Then also they as a

629
body were in favour of Home Rule, and a great body of them had been quite willing to let this question be dealt with by a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland. Therefore they had to regard the question from these two points of view. He profoundly believed that an educated priesthood would be a great deal better for Ireland than an ignorant priesthood. He had an equal belief in an educated laity taking a more intelligent part in a body like this and its government than an uneducated laity. Therefore from these two points of view they were bound to look very kindly upon any efforts made to settle a question which had been unsettled for so many years, during which the educational interests of Ireland had been sadly neglected. These were principles which had served to make the Nonconformist party in the House less disposed to argue about first principles than they otherwise would have been. They had endeavoured to do something to amend the Bill. In the first instance they accepted the Bill on its own professions as being art undenominational measure, and so far as the clauses which referred to this side of the question were concerned they were very distinct, and apart from collateral considerations they regarded the Bill as undenominational. He had supported the Second Reading of the Bill desiring and hoping to make some changes which would have safeguarded its professed undenominational character. Very few of those changes had been accepted beyond one or two which were perhaps not altogether without sentiment and which probably would not have any very important relation to the issue. He did not intend to go into any details, but he did not agree that the objection to the erection of a chapel in the University precincts was merely one of sentiment, because they felt that whether it was a Roman Catholic or any other chapel which faced the student when he entered the University the effect would be to give it more or less a stamp of denominationalism in accordance with the religion represented by the chapel. Therefore it was not altogether a matter of sentiment. He knew that it had been said on this point that it would be difficult to erect a University anywhere without having
630
some place Of worship close to it, but notwithstanding that they felt that the erection of this particular chapel was a step in the wrong direction. Their only desire was to help to preserve the undenominational character of the University, and they thought the erection of the chapel was a step in the other direction. He was bound to say that the concession made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland was of some value from this point of view. Having made these efforts to amend the Bill in certain directions the Nonconformists were not prepared as a body to take the responsibility of endeavouring to wreck the measure. Moreover, on the part of some of them a strong sentiment came in because they regarded this as a great effort on the part of the Chief Secretary, and one upon which he had set his heart. Even from that point of view many of them felt that if they could help to frame the Bill and amend it in certain respects they would like to save the measure and let the right hon. Gentleman have the credit, because it certainly would be to the credit of any statesman to have established a University in Ireland into which the great bulk of the youth of Ireland were able to obtain entrance. Such a University would be a standing monument to the statesmanship of the Member of the Government who had been able to carry it through. Therefore, it was partly sentiment which had led them to look as kindly as possible upon this great effort of the Chief Secretary. The chief fault he had to find with the right hon. Gentleman was that he had shown too consistent a determination to satisfy the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The right hon. Gentleman felt that unless he did so the University would be practically useless. While appreciating that motive, he thought he might have paid somewhat greater regard to the convictions of many Members who sat on the Ministerial benches, and not have yielded so much to this dominating class. The Nationalists were not unwilling to fight the clerical element in politics, and he believed the time would come—indeed, a great number of the Irish laity already recognised the fact—when they would find it necessary to fight the clerical element in education. The Nonconformists had made some

631
attempt to help them in that House; but they must now leave the matter to he fought out in Ireland. There would undoubtedly be a struggle, if the University was to be kept on the lines which it was intended to follow. Nonconformists would watch that struggle with some doubts, but with a great many more hopes. They hoped that the two new Universities to be established would conduce to the advancement of that higher education which alone would do for Ireland what they all desired should be done, and would set her free on the path of progress, a path which she had not had the opportunity of pursuing for a great many years.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down expressed some misgiving that we on this side of the House should taunt him and his friends with a certain inconsistency of behaviour which even the most careless observer would hardly fail to see in their comparative treatment of Irish and English education where religion is concerned. I do not mean to taunt the hon. Gentleman or any of his friends at the present moment. The only thought in my mind when I heard his speech was that if this Bill, or anything at all comparable to this Bill, had been passed by a Unionist Government his speech on the Third Reading would have been of a different character.
SIR GEORGE WHITE: I think the circumstances would have been very different.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The circumstances would have been different as regards Ireland?
SIR GEORGE WHITE: The relative position of the two countries.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Ireland would have been, under a Unionist Government, an island lying to the west of England, with a majority of Roman Catholics who have very little practical opportunity of obtaining University education. I fail to see how the educational problem is different, when dealt with by a distinguished member of a Radical
632
Administration from what it would have been if dealt with by a member of a Unionist Government. The problem as regards Ireland would have been the same; the only difference would have been in the attitude of the hon. Gentleman and his friends. It is largely owing to that difference, I think, that the credit of dealing with this question has fallen to the right hon. Gentleman, when under other circumstances it might have fallen to others. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, as I think he deserves to be congratulated. I have always been a supporter of a really serious attempt to give that form of higher University education in Ireland which can alone, as I think, satisfy the majority of those in Ireland who at present have no practical opportunity of obtaining that, higher education. I am glad to think that the particular solution adopted by the Chief Secretary is in its main outline of a character that I have always hoped to see passed. I have always hoped to see a scheme which would, in the first place, give three Universities to Ireland, I have always believed that, of the many suggested solutions of this problem, that solution was the right one, and I am glad it has been adopted by the Government. I am glad that Belfast is to have a University; that Trinity College is untouched; and that there is to be another University, which will, I hope, have in time a great academic tradition behind it. The Government have clearly expressed their preference for a residential form of University as against an examining University. Their wishes and theories have not been wholly supported by their practice, but I shall have a word to say on that directly. At all events, they have clearly expressed their idea, and it has been accepted by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. Their idea is that higher education in Ireland should in future be carried on in the main as it is carried on in England and Scotland, in Germany, and in America—by a residential rather than an examining organisation. I suppose I could hardly allow this Third Reading to go by without expressing some of the misgivings which portions of this Bill raise in my mind I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary will not complain of any such course. The hon. Member for

633
East Mayo yesterday, in reference to certain controversy then going on between the two sides of the House, asked us to define the word "undenominational," and I think it was a very reasonable request. The truth is that in this case, as in every case where there is a dispute about the meaning, words are used, and legitimately used, in quite different senses, and it is the confusion between those varying senses which produces all the cross-arguments and misunderstandings between controversialists on the two sides. In one sense the Bill, as distinguished from the Charter, is undoubtedly undenominational—that is to say, it plainly follows certain well-known and well-understood principles of legislation. There are all sorts of provisions laid down in Clause 3, I think it is, which broadly and clearly express the undenominational character of the Bill from the technical and legislative standpoint. There is another view, however, in which this Bill is, and in my opinion ought to be, denominational. It is intended to meet the needs of denominations, and to see that it is intended and framed for that purpose, and that it is denominational in that sense, you have only got to ask a plain and simple question. if you interchanged the governing body which you are giving to Belfast by giving it to Dublin, and if again you gave to Dublin the governing body which you are giving to Belfast, would you or would you not be altering the character of the Bill? You would be transforming it and you would be making it equally revolting to Belfast and to Dublin. You would be altering its whole character, and in what respect? You would be making it unsuitable to the religious beliefs of the persons whom you want the Universities to serve. In other words, although Clause 3 carries out all the approved legislative and formal conditions of an undenominational Bill, which this Bill is intended to be, if you look deeper, it is, and, in my opinion, ought to be, denominational in some wider and in some deeper sense. It is intended by the constitution of the governing body of Dublin to secure that it shall be different in the case of Dublin College from what it is in the case of the Belfast University, and it is idle to say in these
634
circumstances that your new scheme is undenominational in that sense, that you are indifferent to denominational considerations, or that in each of those two places of learning you hold the balance equal between denominations. You do nothing of the kind. and you do not mean to do anything of the kind. I think it will be better on all sides to look a little below the mere drafting of Clause 3 and consider what the Government intend, what those below the gangway intend, what I, who mean to support the Third Reading, intend, and what we ourselves know will be the effect of the Bill. It is in that deeper sense undoubtedly a denominational measure. I make no complaint Of the Bill on that account. I confess, however, there is one form in which, the denominational idea has taken shape in the Bill which does give me sonic moments of really great anxiety—I mean the affiliation arrangements with regard to Maynooth. I am not sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had thoroughly explained on the Second Reading exactly what the result of that affiliation would be, he really would have been able to carry with him the great bulk of opinion in the House, and if that be so, much as I dislike the affiliation clauses, so anxious am I to see this question settled that I can hardly regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not explain that. I do not say he was uncandid. I am sure he was not, but he did not take us quite fully into his confidence, if indeed he himself at that stage of the proceedings thoroughly realised the ultimate form this measure would take. The hon. Member for East Mayo and other speakers yesterday, when this question was discussed, pointed to the Charters and the Acts constituting the new English Universities, and. said: "Why do you complain of this provision by which, Maynooth may be affiliated, considering that the provisions in the Bill and the Charter which render that transaction possible, are textually the same as, or in no substantial sense different from, the Charters and the Acts which constitute the new English Universities? "That is a perfectly good, sound, technical, legal form of argument, but we all know that no English University would ever think at this moment of

635
affiliating to itself a seminary containing a larger body of students than the parent University and permitting the students in that seminary to have all the advantages of a University degree, all the dignity and privileges arising from being members of what is called, though it is called by courtesy, a teaching University, and at the same time giving them the power in the future government of that University which is conferred by the possession of a degree. No English University would ever think of doing it. It never was necessary to guard against a danger which never existed. Everybody knows not only that the danger, if it be a danger, exists in Ireland, but that it is absolutely certain that within a few years, it may be within a few months, Maynooth will be affiliated to the new University in Dublin, and that the students of Maynooth will get degrees without having to put in one week's residence at the University, that they will obtain the degrees of the University without ever having lived there and, having obtained degrees, they will have a large controlling influence on the future of tint college. I do not think that anybody will deny, however technically parallel may be the new Charter of this University and the Charters recently given in England—nobody will deny that, however close that parallelism may be, there is a substantial and operative difference which is almost incalculable. Looking at the reality, and not the form, I cannot believe that is otherwise than a real danger to the educational future, not for the denominational future, in the wide sense which I have indicated. I am in favour of denominationalism in that sense, but I cannot conceal from myself that this provision does constitute a real danger that the new University may actually fall under what is called clerical control. It must be remembered—and this is no criticism, hon. Gentlemen below the gangway will believe me, upon the ecclesiastical organisation of the Roman Catholic Church—that that ecclesiastical organisation is quite different from the rather looser organisation which exists in all Protestant Churches which carry with them clerical organisation. We heard in the debate yesterday a great deal about the conditions in the older English Universities of Cambridge and
636
Oxford before the Act of 1870. I was an undergraduate of Cambridge during the three or four years which immediately preceded that Act. There were all sorts of statutes which made it difficult for Nonconformists to have what I regard as their fair share of the great educational advantages of those Universities, but although by statute the Church of England hid a position of preference and pre-eminence there, so far as the students were concerned it is ludicrous to talk of clerical control in any sense whatever. It never existed, at all events, not for many years has it existed in either Cambridge or Oxford, and the real advantage of the great Act of 1870 was not to turn a clerically managed University into a lay managed University; the advantage of that Act was not to alter the complexion or character of the teaching which an undergraduate received, but that it admitted a much larger circle of undergraduates into the Universities and allowed Nonconformists and persons of a different religion from the Church of England, or of no religion at all, to obtain the highest academic I positions. That was the advantage of the Act. I do not think that such a thing would be possible under the much more elaborate and vigorous co-ordination of authorities which obtain in the ecclesiastical system of the Roman Church. It never has. Their view has always been that their responsibility extends to spheres of education which the Protestant clergy would never touch, and would never desire to interfere in. What is the enormous advantage obtained by an undergraduate at Cambridge or at Oxford? It is not so much the coaching, the teaching, and the examining; it is the independence and the mutual education of young men brought together, absolutely free to say whit they like and to think what they like, to discuss all questions of heaven and earth and under the earth, knowing that no superior authority will concern themselves in what they are doing. That is the great and enormous advantage which existed in our older Universities even before they were thrown open to all sections and which I do not think is likely to exist to the same extent in any University which is under whit is called clerical control. I must say, considering the great

637
number of undergraduates which Maynooth turns out every year, that those graduates belong to this vigorous and highly centralised ecclesiastical organisation, that if you are going to give them a controlling influence in the University, and if you are not going to exact from them that modifying influence which collision at the most malleable period of life with their lay fellow - countrymen would give them, I think that is a real blot on the new scheme. Do not let me be told that, after all, the graduates of the new University are only a fraction of the governing body. I am sorry of the possibility of their being brought under clerical control. In itself I regard it as an evil. I have heard it described as a democratic University. Democratic is a word which we all utter with great self-satisfaction. It either means nothing or many things, and it certainly means many different things on many different occasions. But I do not call a University democratically governed if it is governed by county councils. I regard that as the worst possible form of University government. A University is democratically governed when it is governed by its own graduates; and I am convinced that what the right hon. Gentleman has pu8/12/2007t, not in his Bill, but in his Charter, cannot permanently stand. The great Universities of this country are governed by themselves, and I cannot conceive why this University, except in a transitory period, is not to be governed by itself. Autonomy is the criterion of academic freedom, and autonomy is the last thing you are giving by this Bill. I do not wish to argue in detail the question of this intervention of the county councils. May I say, however, that the University of which I have the honour to be Chancellor—the University of Edinburgh—is probably historically and by traditions more closely connected with the town of which it is one of the ornaments than can ever be the case with a new University started in these days. In former times the town council of Edinburgh had an immense position of influence in the selection of professors and in other matters connected with the government of the University. But the whole
638
tendency of reform in Edinburgh has been to diminish the effective control of the city over the University. I think it is now represented ex officio by the Lord Provost for the time being on the governing body. Has that had the effect of dividing the interests of the University from those of the city? Not in the least. Every successive body of governors in Edinburgh have felt equally a patriotic interest in their University, and they have been equally liberal where they can be. But they have been excluded from a function for which I venture to say a county council as such is unfit, and their exclusion has not in the least diminished, rather it has improved, the harmonious relations between the University and the city of Edinburgh. I frankly say, therefore, that I dislike the hybrid body which the right hon. Gentleman has put in to govern the new University, to govern the University through the colleges. I do not like it, and I believe that the provision is transitory and provisional; and from that point of view I regard it with satisfaction. When a true ideal of University government is upheld, when a University is really governed by its graduates, then your Maynooth, important as it is now, would become doubly important. If these evils exist now-, then they would be redoubled with every reform which makes your new University more autonomous. I confess that, compared with this ideal, I am absolutely not of the frame of mind of the hon. Member opposite who regards with satisfaction the prohibition of a chapel within the precincts of the new University. I cannot conceive why that should be so. In respect of the chapels of Oxford and Cambridge and of Trinity College, Dublin, no one can allege that they hurt the conscience of any man or do anything in the direction of proselytising those who attend. They are centres of sentiment which I think add an additional charm to the memories that have always surrounded our great Universities. How anyone who is prepared to accept the affiliation scheme of Maynooth can regard it as a triumph of undenominational Protestantism that there should not be a chapel, passes my comprehension.
SIR GEORGE WHITE: I do not accept the affiliation college of Maynooth.
AN HON. MEMBER (on the IRISH Benches): That is shocking !
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I thought, at any rate, that I should not be doing my duty to the House if I did not make this criticism on the Bill, but I do not wish to dwell upon its dangers. It has come to pass; and I am going to support the Third Reading. That being so, I should wish to dwell in a more cheerful key than I have couched the inevitable criticisms which I felt compelled in honesty to pass on one of the provisions of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman. I think, would have a perfect right to get up and say to me: "Well, you have passed your criticisms on this Bill; you have always been in favour of higher education in Ireland; you have not passed it, but I have. It is very easy for you to criticise a Bill which is new, and as to which I have found the difficulties to be almost. insuperable; you must not complain of me because I have been obliged to make some concession to forces which in this practical world of ours had to be dealt with if the Bill was to pass at all." If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to make that criticism, think it is a perfectly fair one. I do not think, however, that I can reconcile myself to the Maynooth clause. The right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly had immense difficulties to contend with, difficulties, indeed, which his predecessors found to he immense; and if that be so, then I am ready to accept his work as being what it is—a great and courageous effort. In dealing with what I individually have long considered to be a crying scandal of Irish education, it certainly does not beseem me to take up a superior and critical attitude towards the statesman who has himself fought the fight and brought it more or less to termination. But let me add this. I think that there are dangers to the true interests of higher education deeply embedded in this Bill; but if the laity of Ireland—by which I mean the general public opinion increasing among Irish Roman Catholics—share, as I think they will probably share, my views, I believe that they will be able either to
640
work this Bill effectively as it stands or to get it changed. We have seen in our own time the efforts of the educated Roman Catholic laity, with no disloyalty to the Church of which they are members, to obtain in this country and in America the most absolute freedom of University training quite apart from any ecclesiastical traditions which may stand in the way of that wider University culture. I believe that in this country among the lay division at Oxford, large numbers of Roman Catholics attend a hostel under the members of their own fold. But I believe also that in America even that limitation is absolutely ignored, and ignored with the consent of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastic's in high places there. That is because, I believe, the American Roman Catholics, while perfectly loyal to their Church, insist on this absolute freedom for obtaining higher education, and in the same way the Irish lay Catholics could insist upon obtaining the same privileges without am- breach or chance of friction with their Church, and with the full consent of the ecclesiastics of their own country. But it rests with the laity of Ireland, and all of us must hope, and many must believe—and I am sanguine myself—that the movement of public thought all over the world is in the direction of free University training irrespective of ecclesiastical control of whatever kind and whatever complexion. If, and as, that condition grows in strength and extends its beneficent influence to Ireland, then whatever the particular provisions of this Bill, I am confident that the sound and educated lay public opinion in Ireland will take advantage of all that is good in this measure and will take care that everything of evil, if anything of evil there be, will be remedied in practice by your legislation. I shall support the right hon. Gentleman.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,)If I ever had ally desire to be disagreeable to the right hon. Gentleman—and sometimes one has a desire to be disagreeable—the speech he has just made has completely disarmed me. I think that we are all now pleased at having reached this pleasant period of our labours, and speaking on

641
a day usually unsoiled by political work, I think that as far as I am concerned the least said the soonest mended. The right hon. Gentleman is a master of analysis, and he approached the question of whether this was a denominational or undenominational University, mid I am quite content with what he says. I think I could say in one of the senses of the word that people may assume that this University is denominational. It may be assumed, but I do not know why. We have heard Dr. O'Dwyer's name mentioned a great deal in this debate. The hon. Member for the University of Cambridge quoted him to a very great extent. Dr. O'Dwyer is a great man for breaking down barriers, and he also is a very lively writer. What does he say? My hon. friends behind me will hear with surprise that he considers that this is a Nonconformist University. A Nonconformist University founded on a Bill framed by a Nonconformist Chief Secretary in combination with, in collusion with, aid in constant discussion with, the leaders of the Free Churches, and that we have palmed off, or are palming off, upon the Irish people a rank denominational institution of a Nonconformist character, full of all the faults of Non-conformity, and that we are asking the Irish people to accept it. Well, I think that a jaundiced view. I put it forward to those persons who assert that this is a Bill that from first to last aims at giving the Roman Catholic hierarchy and the Roman Catholic churches control. It is a complaint of this eminent ecclesiastic by the constitution of this Bill it is not necessary for there ever to be any clerical member upon the governing body. He says the author of the Nonconformist Education Bill of 1906 is now the author of this Non-conformist University measure, and he complains bitterly that the clergy have been excluded from what he considers to be their right, in taking any active part or official part in the higher education of the sons of Ireland. I only mention that as some excuse for myself. I think nobody will take Dr. O'Dwyer's view in this House, at all events as to the part which I have played in this Bill, but they must not too hastily assume that this measure will work out
642
in a rank denominational form. I do not quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Bill is framed to meet the needs of a denomination. It was framed to meet the needs of education. It was my great desire to obtain access to this University for the larger part of the people of Ireland who do undoubtedly belong to a particular denomination.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I meant to say that it was intended to meet the educational needs of the members of a denomination.
MR. BIRRELL: It is intended to meet the educational needs of the people of Ireland, the large majority of whom are members of a particular denomination, I gladly hail the frank recognition from the right hon. Gentleman that so far as it is possible by law we have secured that this should for all time be an undenominational University in this sense. Supposing the Protestant clergy had a great preaching tour in Ireland (they have not been very successful in that in the past) in the course of the next few years, and the majority of the people in Ireland became Protestants and members of a great Protestant community, this University would require no alteration. Nothing need be said or done, it would still remain an undenominational Universty. The great thing is that the great majority of the students who flock to the University would possibly in time alter from the character they are now likely to have. In other words, we are setting up a University which protects no one, which says that no denomination as such shall be protected, which allows free scope and free play in the governing body, and those who are for the time being the vast majority of the graduates and undergraduates are not excluded from having that proper share in the governing of the University which everybody must have if the University is to reflect the opinions of the majority of the people. Now the two things which give the right hon. Gentleman cause for anxiety are, in the first place,the affiliation proposals. When I introduced the Bill I introduced a Bill which made it perfectly plain that it was within the power of the Senate to recognise—affiliation is the better word—

643
to affiliate institutions of a University type, subject to any conditions and limitations they chose to impose upon them. I had very little doubt that Maynooth would be affiliated, and I said so in so many words, but it was impossible for me then as it is now to say what terms the Senate may impose upon the affiliation of Maynooth. It may for a time impose none, and it may after a time if it grows stronger impose anything it likes. It may require complete residence for the whole of three years. It may require residence for one, and it may require residence for two. That was the position I took up when I introduced the Bill, and I could not do more than express my conviction that the Senate would exercise its powers in favour of Maynooth. But as to the conditions under which they would affiliate Maynooth, they were not in my mind at the time. I gave the House reasons why I thought it would be most undesirable to raise this question in the acute form in which it was raised by the Amendment yesterday. I still say it is undesirable for us here under these circumstances to say definitely and positively that the Senate should not take any power to impose what terms it chooses upon Maynooth. It would be possible for the Senate at any time to impose or change any conditions; therefore I think that on the whole we did a very wise thing yesterday in rejecting the Amendment which was moved with so much clearness and force of argument by hon. friend behind me. The other great objection of the right hon. Gentleman was as to the representation of the civic authorities on the governing body of the colleges. I perhaps ought to say that the notion that Maynooth students will overwhelm the Senate is not quite accurate. These Maynooth students will only have the power to elect eight members out of a body of thirty-five. The right hon. Gentleman rather objects to the restrictions and limitations of convocation. A nice academic distinction is raised here. Many people think that the non-residential graduates scattered all over the face of the world are not altogether the persons who keep themselves most closely in touch with the University questions of the day. I am rather of opinion, as a Nonconformist and a Liberal, that on the whole we
644
suffer much at the University of Cambridge from the inclusion of those who have long since left the University. But it is better to leave the position as it stands, and after all I rather agree with the right hon. Gentleman that a graduate of University ought not to be cut off more than you can help from sonic influence in the governing body of his University. As the Bill stands, these Maynooth students will only have the opportunity of electing eight gentlemen out of thirty-five. Now about a civic authorities' representation on the college. They are not of course direct representatives of the University at all, and the only way they can conic in is upon the governing body of the new college at Dublin by electing six members, three of whom have to be members of the Academic Council. Consequently, the civic influence is not likely to be very large. There would be four from the Queen's College of Cork,of whom two are academic, and four from Galway, two of whom have to be academic. It is pushing the thing far too far to anticipate that on the governing bodies of the colleges, these six civic gentlemen will have very little influence. But the question is as to the part they ought to play in the governing bodies of the colleges. I agree there is a great deal to be said on both sides, and that is the reason why I could not accept the Amendment moved by the Member for Cambridge University, who wanted to put into the Bill a modified representation. I much prefer to leave the governing bodies of the colleges in the charters, where it will he easier to make alterations if necessary from time to time. There is a very strong feeling indeed, and I confess I have derived a certain amount of pleasure therefrom, particularly in the localities of Cork and Galway, that we should enlist the sympathies of the local authorities in what I may call the taxable areas of these two new colleges, so that no part of the great Province of Munster should he lets out of consideration in the working of these new colleges, and that. is the reason there is such a large proportion of the local councils in Cork and Galway. If you want these colleges to have the least foundation in the hearts of the people it is essential that you should secure local sympathy. For a considerable time

645
the colleges must struggle with an adverse fate, and in a country like Ireland full of local feeling—and it follows almost to the same extent as local prejudices—it is most necessary if you want these colleges to be successful that they should be in sympathy with the people, and the people should take some share, some lot, in making the fortunes of these establishments. That was the reason why we adopted this course—an experiment which will be watched in Ireland by all academic persons, and I believe by all the people of Ireland generally, very carefully. And if the civil authority is excessive, well, it can be modified. Now I will not detain the House any longer. I have had to work very hard for a great cause, and I am bound to say I have received nothing but kindness and consideration from all the persons concerned. I should particularly like to refer to the frank and loyal support I have always received in this measure from the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin, who has only had some small objections to find in the Bill, and who has from first to last given me his frank and loyal support, and I am all the more grateful because in other aspects of my administration he is sometimes rather harsh. Reference has been made to the fact that I have for the future left the Royal University entirely out of consideration. I have from first to last communicated with members of its Senate and have received communications from Lord Castletown, and I must say that that nobleman, although the University of which he was some time Chancellor is now disappearing, has worked most loyally with me and has afforded me every assistance, and there is no feeling whatsoever about the fact he is left out of the new institution. Such instances of self-denial and self-effacement are most peculiarly gratifying. I can only say generally that we all of us—the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill ended his speech by expressing the same opinion—hope that these Universities we are founding to-day, which will last long years after everyone of us has crumbled into dust, will have before them years of usefulness and pride and distinction and glory, and that they will keep a light in Ireland, a country which has ever, and in the
646
most distressing circumstances, had the warmest feeling and respect for letters, that will play a great part in revivifying, educating, and I hope unifying, a famous race and a great people.
*MR. BUTCHERsaid he would not discuss whether the Bill was denominational or undenominational. He thought the last and the truest word on that subject had been said by his right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition. The real problem was how to frame a University which should be Catholic in tone and spirit and yet academic in principles. He could not but congratulate the Chief Secretary on his adroitness in reconciling those two difficult conditions. The right hon. Gentleman had to unite in his own person the views of a Roman prelate and a Nonconformist minister, and he had performed that difficult task in a way which he believed nobody else in that House could have done. They congratulated him on the courage he had shown in the inception of the scheme, and thanked him for the courtesy he had shown in carrying it out. He would like to sum up in a general view what to his mind were the distinctive merits and, also the flaws of the Bill. The great merit of the Bill was that it sought to remove a long-standing disability; it recognised that the State had an obligation, not yet paid, to the majority of the Irish people. The Bill was an attempt not only to repair an educational defect, but to redress a wrung, unintended on the part of this country, but yet a real and national wrong. What the remote effects of the Bill would be in the sphere of politics and. in the social and administrative spheres, nobody could say. That, it would have the most far-reaching effects in every department of Irish life, he was certain. His own hope—a confident hope—was based upon the power of knowledge in the direction of emancipating and enlarging the mind and producing a spirit of toleration. The next reason why he welcomed the Bill was that it got rid of a false University ideal. It displaced an Examining Board and set up in its stead two Universities framed on the whole on academic principles. He ought to qualify that by saying that while it displaced that false ideal in the

647
case of the laity of Ireland, it did not do so in the education of the clergy. In the case anyhow of the laity it laid down the principle that examination was to follow the lines of teaching, and not teaching to follow the lines of examination, and he rejoiced that the Chief Secretary had held out firmly against the admission of externs to the privileges of a degree. The next point was that the constitution of the governing bodies was free; there were no ex-officio clerics on any of them. There were, however, ex-officio politicians, who he wished were there in much smaller numbers. If the Universities wished to have clerics on their governing bodies—and he thought it was right there should be some—it rested with them, of their own free choice, to have them. The Bill had the merit of leaving the future of these bodies entirely in the hands of the laymen of Ireland, and it rested with the laymen to show whether they were worthy of that trust. He had no misgivings whatever as to the future of Belfast University. It was a much more compact unity than the new University at Dublin, and it would be unvexed by the highly controversial questions which they had been discussing for weeks past. It consisted of a single college with homogeneous elements. He was confident that the founding of that University in Belfast would have upon the whole of the business community in Belfast and the outlying industrial districts of the north of Ireland the same sort of effect as the founding of the new Universities in England had had upon the industrial communities here. The men who represented the commerce of the north of Ireland would take the same pride in their University as had been shown so marvellously in the case of the newer universities of England. He knew that the work done and the teaching given in the University of Belfast would be largely of a technical and professional kind, and rightly so. The great need of Ireland, not only of the north but of the south too, was that science should be applied to industry, and he believed the new University of Belfast would serve that end. But he would express the hope that all these. specialised studies might be carried on in a truly liberal way, that they might be based on
648
scientific principles and have that larger outlook which alone could produce original research leading to discoveries in science within the walls of the University. The other hope he had was that humane learning might still continue to exist side by side with this technical teaching; that it would be the pride of that University in the midst of a commercial community to give literary and philosophic culture, and that students there might learn what the thoughts and doings of civilised man were in other regions of knowledge. The new University in Dublin raised some grave and difficult problems. It was a Federal University; it was therefore a complex structure; but the hopeful thing about it was that it was established on the only lines on which a Federal University could now be constituted. That was to say, the constituent colleges were given the largest possible freedom as regards their own courses of study, and their own government; they would have as few interferences from the Senate of the University as was compatible with maintaining uniformity of standard and general University principles. Such were the merits of the Bill. He would next turn to its blemishes. Two of them had been mentioned that afternoon, and he would not discuss them further. First there was a form of affiliation, under which it was possible for the clergy, who were to he cut off entirely from academic life, yet to have a share in the government of the University. He had had his say on that question upstairs and on Report, and he only now wished to express his cordial agreement with every word that had fallen from the Leader of the Opposition. The other flaw lay in the constitution of the federated colleges. He thought there was an undue proportion of the civic and county representation on their governing bodies, and that it would be very difficult to carry on government, to appoint professors, to regulate the University courses, in any free and academic way, if these professed politicians exercised the right given them to interfere in every detail. But there was another blot, the gravest of all, and that was that there was no provision in the Bill for the establishment of a residential college in Dublin. From various points

649
of view that was a most serious defect. In the first place, it seemed to him a doubtful question whether parents or their spiritual advisers would recommend young men to go to Dublin from the country. They would have the prospect of going into lodgings; they would live scattered through a great metropolis without any kind of discipline or organised academic life. The argument for affiliation, too, would be immensely strengthened by the fact that there was no residential college in Dublin; in fact, the only strong argument for it that could be adduced remained so long as there was this defect. It would be said: "If you had given us a residential college to which young men could go, we should then have been content, and would have encouraged them to go to the University; but as it is, you must affiliate our provincial colleges in order to save our students from the moral dangers which beset them in the midst of a great city." Then there was another side to this question—the absence of that social life which was connected with a residential college. Hitherto Irishmen had asked for a University, and they had been given an Examining Board; they had been given something in which there was no human element, a piece of cold and impersonal mechanism. He would put it to lion. Members that if the memories of their own college days centred round examinations which they had passed or in which they had failed, what a different thing a University would mean to them from what it did to-day ! Now the Bill, it was true, gave a college, but it did not give college life. They were given lecture rooms and laboratories, but what they needed in order to make the University a reality was the human and humanising influence of college life. The Irishman was sociable and gregarious; he had an instinct for comradeship, a love of discussion, a rich capacity for friendship. He had powers which could not be fully developed by solitary study, but must be fostered in the intimacy of daily companionship. He craved the society of equals and the stimulus of kindred minds. Society he must have of one kind or another. There were some persons with whom you got at the heart through the head; others with whom you got at the head through the
650
heart. In Ireland the heart came first, the head second. Head and heart, intellect and emotion, working together produced a finer intellectual product than intellect alone. That union could hardly be produced except in the society of friends and equals. Without all that belonged to college life and college friendships they would never be able to call out the special qualities of the Irishman, which depended upon love of friends and upon appeal to the head through the heart. The Chief Secretary had done his best to get money for college buildings. It was shortsighted and niggardly action on the part of the Treasury to spoil a great gift for lack of capital outlay. A sum of £100,000 given once and for all would probably have met the case. He thought it was a foolish bit of parsimony, but they would go on knocking at the Treasury door until they obtained a sum which would start the University under prosperous and hopeful conditions. Without a residential college it was doubtful whether the new University in Dublin could come into being. What he insisted on was that learning was not a mere abstract thing, but that it was realised through personal relations, and above all through the organised social life of fellow students. Under the Bill such social life was impossible, and it would still remain for Parliament to complete the work it had now begun by providing funds for true collegiate life.
MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid that before the Motion was carried he desired to say one or two words. Auspicious as the passing of this Bill was to Ireland, the circumstances and almost general consent with which it was passed constituted a still more auspicious event, not only for Ireland, but for England, because although credit was richly due to the Chief Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman would, he thought, be the first to acknowledge that the passing of the Bill was practically the work of all parties, and the result of a certain amount of sacrifice and of amicable compromise on all sides. The Nationalists had had something to sacrifice. They, in Ireland, were accustomed to positions which were not second, but only fourth or fifth in matters concerning

651
Irish affairs. He recognised, as his hon. friend had done, that the Nonconformists in that House, for whom the hon. Baronet had spoken, had to a certain extent to do violence to their own prepossessions in order to allow this Bill to go unmolested. If they had thought more of their own preference, their own internal searchings of heart, than of the magnitude of the blessings this Bill would undoubtedly diffuse among young Irish men, and young Irish women, they might unquestionably, even a small body of them, at any moment, have cut short the career of the Bill. They had resisted the temptation, and had made themselves a party to one of the best and, he believed, most fruitful contributions to the regeneration of Ireland with which the name of the Liberal Party would be associated. He must recognise no less cordially, forgetting one or two little lapses into Party recriminations, and remembering only the generous speech made that afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition, that the fate of the Bill had to a very great extent depended upon the sincerity and policy and magnanimity of the Unionist leaders, and some of the most eminent men of the Unionist Party. Although in their active opposition they had thrown out no hint of great hostility, yet they might easily have sealed the fate of this Bill, if not in that House, in another place. But he was bound to say that both publicly, and so far as he knew privately, their co-operation in bringing about the success of the Bill had been sincere and decisive. He did not forget the struggle of the few hon. Members for Ulster. He did not wish to say one word of an uncomplimentary character about them. They had fought a dogged and gallant battle, though discountenanced to a certain extent by the Leader of the Unionist Party, and, later, by the Leader of their own Ulster Party. The Irish Party had been so often in a minority, so often in a folorn minority, that they could not fail to recognise and to honour the tenacity and courage of hon. Members above the gangway. He hoped that their experience for a couple of months in the Committee room upstairs, on both sides, had left no unkindly memories, and had helped hon. Members, even
652
the hon. Member for East Down, to realise that they were in no immediate danger of being burned at the stake for their opinions at the hands of their Nationalist fellow-countrymen. Strongly as he approved of the Bill, he regarded the circumstances in which it had passed through the House as a matter of still higher consequence to the future relations between this country and Ireland, and for this reason: that this perplexed sectarian controversy, like the still angrier agrarian controversy, had been placed at all events on the road to a solution by, in the first place, the spirit of friendly compromise and cordial regard amongst Irishmen themselves, a spirit which had prompted eminent Irishmen like the hon. Member for Cambridge University, and the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University, although still differing from them in some things, to meet them on common ground, as sons of a common country, of which he was sure they were all, in their own way, equally proud. In the second place, that happy agreement amongst Irishmen had been sealed and endorsed by practically speaking all parties in that House. He congratulated the Chief Secretary most heartily on being the beneficent wizard, by the move of whose genial wand these magic results had been produced. He only hoped the right hon. Gentleman might be equally able in the future, by similar methods, to bring about similar results of co-operation among Irish parties and among English parties. All he could say was, that if he could only get the House to regard Irish questions, the great agrarian difficulty and the national difficulty in Ireland, in the same way as that House was willing to treat the question of the Navy or of foreign affairs, namely, as questions sacred from the mere petty momentary interests of party, and as matters in which both parties were entitled to claim a legitimate share of the credit, then he would not despair of living to see the day when they would reach and solve the final problem of the Irish difficulty in a friendly way, and when even the hon. and gallant Member for East Down might accept the situation with the same good humour with which he was

653
sure they would now set to work to make a rattling success of the Belfast University, which they had made so gallant a semblance of rejecting in England.
*MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)said he never felt more unlike a man who was about to die in the last ditch than at that moment. He recognised that in a very short time the last stone would be put on one of the most gigantic monuments of Nonconformist hypocrisy and inconsistency which that House had ever seen. The hon. Member for Waterford had said the Nonconformist portion of the party opposite had put aside a great many of their predilections, but that was putting the case very mildly. He would say that they had swallowed one of the most nauseating draughts it was possible to conceive. Some philosopher, he forgot whether it was Shakespeare or not, said that when they told a lie they should tell a good big one. If they were going to do a thing they should do it thoroughly, and he congratulated hon. Members opposite. They had certainly done this business very thoroughly. They had thrown over in the most absolute way all the professions in which they were brought up and a good many of the professions which had secured them admission to the House of Commons, and if they felt happy in their minds after having done so it was not his business to criticise them further. His hon. friend who moved the rejection of the Bill had said that no doubt the action and speeches of himself and his friends would be looked upon simply as the narrow-minded and bigoted views of Ulster. Hon. Members opposite, when they cheered that remark, forgot for the moment that their views on this question were exactly and precisely those which they themselves held up to about three months ago, and if they were the narrow-minded and bigoted views of the Ulster Members they were also the narrow-minded and bigoted views of the Nonconformist Party up to the time the Bill was introduced. They had had so much unreal discussion on the denominational question that he was getting tired of it and had almost hoped it would be left out of the Third Reading discussion. It had frequently been asked what an undenominational University was, and he admitted it was a very
654
difficult question to answer, but his idea of an undenominational University was the present Queen's Colleges in Ireland, had the ban which was put upon them by the Roman Catholic hierarchy never been imposed. That ban was only imposed by the narrow majority of one in a meeting of thirteen or fourteen bishops. It was a mere toss up whether the bishops forty years ago had accepted the Queen's Colleges in Ireland and allowed Roman Catholics to go to them. If they had, the Queen's Colleges in Cork and. Galway would have been as successful seats of learning as the Queen's College in Belfast had been, and they would long ago have extracted very large sums of money out of the British taxpayer and would have been very much better equipped and larger institutions. Could anybody say that this Dublin University would be undenominational? It had been set up precisely because the bishops refused to recognise these other institutions because they were not sufficiently denominational, because they were Godless. In 1871 the bishops were calling out as they had always done for a denominational University, and they passed a series of resolutions, among them one in which they pledged themselves to oppose the return of any candidate for Parliament who would not uphold the principle of denominational education for the Catholic people, and they knew perfectly well the bishops had not changed their attitude in any way. They had all along stigmatised this as a purely denominational proposal, and all the feeble attempts of hon. Members to dispose of that accusation had been futile. It was because this was a denominational proposal that hon. Members below the gangway were thanking the Chief Secretary for giving it to them. The Times, on the First Reading of the Bill said—
"The fiction that the measure is anything but denominational is too gross to deceive anybody, or to soothe any but the most adaptable consciences."
MR. T. M. HEALY: Mr. Pigott's friend.
*MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that Mr. Pigott had some friends who discerned the political situation with wonderful accuracy. The leader of the Nonconformist Party on the back benches liked

655
the Bill just about as much as he did, but owing to pressure from various quarters he felt compelled not to oppose it. He said he was envious for an educated priesthood in Ireland. But he would like to ask how under the Bill the priesthood were going to be better educated than they were at present. The students of Maynooth who were to some extent synonymous with the priesthood of Ireland had a right which they freely exercised of obtaining their degrees from the Royal University. As they had refused to accept an Amendment providing that the Maynooth students were to take part in the life of the new University in Dublin the situation was precisely the same as before, with the difference that instead of taking their degrees at the Royal University they were going to take them at the new University at Dublin. Nineteen-twentieths of the year they would be at Maynooth and they would go up to Dublin possibly for a couple of days at the end of the year to pass their examinations. The hon. Member was under a misapprehension when he thought there would be any difference in the quality or quantity of education given to Maynooth students, because it was all a question of the standard that was going to be set by the new University as compared with that which had been set by the Royal University. He had always understood that at the latter it was very high, and it was improbable that the standard set by the new University would be any higher. If that was the hon. Member's chief reason for withholding opposition he might just as well vote against the Third Reading. He had certainly damned the Bill with as faint praise as he ever heard and had not a good word to say for it. His last attempt to satisfy his conscience was that it would be a great pity that the Chief Secretary should not have the credit of passing a Bill over which he had taken such an amount of trouble, and that the right hon. Gentleman had stated publicly that if it did not pass he would resign office. That he thought was rather a reason for throwing out the Bill. He did not consider the Chief Secretary had been at all a success in that very responsible office. The hon. Member was no doubt of a different way of thinking, but it was surely a very
656
small and a very dangerous argument to use, that no matter how questionable the Bill itself might he or how little good the hon. Member was able to see in it, it should pass simply because to throw it out would be a serious blow to the political reputation of the Chief Secretary. As far as he could see, and that was the only speech they had had from a Member of the Nonconformist Party, they were going blindly to vote for the Bill though there had not been a single argument adduced in favour of it. He could understand hon. Members below the gangway, and the Leader of the Opposition who had been for many years in favour of something of the sort, but they had yet to hear from the great body of the Nonconformist Party any argument by which they could reconcile their support of the Bill with every declaration they had made in the past on this question of denominational education. He wished to criticise two statements made by the hon. Member for Waterford. The hon. and learned Member said that the Bill had received the sanction of everybody in the House, and practically of everybody in Ireland with the exception of a few hon. Members sitting on the Unionist Benches. But however small their numbers might be in that House, at least they all held their seats by a very substantial majority, and according to all the ideas of Parliamentary representation they represented the vast majority of those who sent them to the House of Commons. It was perfectly well known that in the North of Ireland and in Ulster the people were as much opposed to the general provisions of this Bill, which set up a denominational University, as they were themselves. It was true that the Chief Secretary by hard work had been able to stifle the opposition of a certain number of persons in Belfast, including the professors and their entourage of Queen's College in that city, but they did not represent the feeling in the North of Ireland in regard to the Bill. In the North of o Ireland the Bill was detested just as much as they had shown their detestation of the measure in the House, and the attitude of the Ulster Members. towards the measure was only a reflection of the feeling entertained in Ulster. Therefore, for the hon. and learned Member for Waterford

657
to try and make the House believa that the opposition to the Bill only came from a small section of Ulster was very misleading. On the affiliation clause the hon. and learned Member for Waterford said he could not understand how the British House of Commons could treat this question in the way they had done in the past after reading the Report furnished on the subject two or three years ago as to the provision made in foreign countries for Roman Catholics. It was extraordinary that the hon. and learned Member should furnish that as an argument in favour of a denominational Roman Catholic University. The Opponents of the Bill had been relying upon that document in support of their case for years, and every page of it showed that the proposal to be carried out under the Bill was one which had been refused in almost every country in the world, and in those countries where frankly denominational Universities existed. As time went on every one of them had been swept away, and with the exception of one in Belgium and Austro-Hungary there was not in the whole of Europe a single University which could be said to be denominational. He was greatly surprised that the hon. and learned, Member had found himself able to get out of that document an argument in support of his views, because it was a document which had been relied upon by those who were opposed to the Bill. But the Bill, whether right or wrong, was one which affected very closely Unionist Members from Ireland. [Cries of "Divide"] He thought that when hon. Members opposite were getting all they wanted they might at least tolerate a few words from an opponent. While he had fought the measure, and was extremely sorry it was about to pass, he cherished a hope that the Roman Catholic laity in the course of time would share the desire to see Catholics mid Protestants working together in the Universities, regardless of religions or political differences. He and his hon. friends would do all they could to make the scheme a success, and, although they had. their doubts, since the denominational system was to be stereotyped, his colleagues and he hoped that notwithstanding its drawbacks and disadvantages, the system would be successful.
MR. SAMUEL YOUNG (Cavan, E.)said that as a Belfast man and as the oldest Member of the British House of Commons he desired to say a few words upon the Third Reading of this Bill. In reference to Irish measures, it was not often that an Irishman in that House was justified in using language of congratulation. After centuries of educational starvation, after years of injustice to the majority, after numerous ineffectual efforts and Ministerial defeats, that a solution to the University problem should have been discovered must be pleasing to the accmplished Chief Secretary and eminently satisfactory to the Irish nation. All efforts hitherto had failed because they were directed on lines unsuited to sectarian denominational Ireland. The people must be governed according to their desires, which was the constitutional method. Although the country was sectarian the Chief Secretary had contrived to construct the two Universities on purely academic lines, and at the same time he had created by Senates in Dublin and Belfast an atmosphere in which the inhabitants of both cities could live and breath with pleasure,and thus he had solved a difficult question which had baffled the wit of man for centuries. As a Belfast man he could say that every man in Ulster whose opinion was worth having was favourable to the Bill. The measure was greatly appreciated in Belfast—which was a young town that had risen rapidly to wealth and importance. Until late in the last century it had no reputation for learning, much less for culture, but the generation of toilers who had passed away, who devoted themselves only to the accumulation of wealth, had left behind them new tastes and new aspirations. At present in the city and throughout Ulster there was a growing desire for literary and scientific study which could only be fostered by University life. In Dublin the new University must be still a greater boon. It, would afford the Catholic people for the first time in centuries the opportunity of competing with their fellow countrymen for positions of place and power and at last remove one of the disabilities under which they had too long suffered. There was room in Ireland for three Universities. In Scotland, a smaller country, there were four, which had

659
enabled the Scotsman to take the foremost place in every region of the world where money was to be made or responsibility acquired. The three Universities in Ireland with pending reforms in elementary and intermediate education, would tend to flush the channels of intellectual life, widen the boundaries of thought, afford the means of participating in the extension of human knowledge, and enable her brainy sons to take their place in competitive examinations for the best appointments of the Empire. It was admitted that education, secular and religious, was absolutely necessary for the progress and elevation of a nation, and he had no doubt that this legislative measure would be largely availed of, to acquire that useful knowledge necessary even in agricultural pursuits as well as in all other industrial enterprises in Ireland. That any representative of an Irish constituency should venture to oppose this educational measure for his country was to him a marvel. It was a mercy there were so few. The enemies of Ireland were happily diminishing in number all over Great Britain and Ireland, but there were still a few to be found in the North-East corner of Ireland. Even there they were rapidly diminishing. The trend of public opinion led one to believe that the dawn of a brighter day was nearing for that beautiful but hitherto ill-governed country.
MR. WEDGWOODsaid that Nonconformists had been twitted with having stifled their prejudices in allowing this Bill to pass, while the Nationalist Members had not repressed their prejudices and allowed the Education Bill for England to pass. It seemed to him that when Nonconformists had allowed Ireland to have Home Rule in this matter, and to have he higher education they wanted, they
might have reciprocated and allowed the Nonconformists to have their Bill. He was cure that feeling was widely felt throughout the country. He had received a letter in which a leading Primitive Methodist light in his own constituency said—
"I am now expecting in a few days to be again summoned before the magistrates for the non-payment of the objectionable educational rate.… The Government's silence is aggravated by contrast, for while we are apparently abandoned and expected to take it lying down, Ireland is to have its University Bill, a measure in flat contradiction to all Nonconformist principles here. The Catholic hierarchy in Ire-land gets its price, while we, who worked as for mo e than life or death under promises that three years ago were to be fulfilled at the earliest possible period, have been outwitted by lords and bishops and over-reached by the Irish Party."
MR. DILLON: The Irish Party voted for the Third Reading of the Bill.
MR. WEDGWOOD: After the Bill had been so modified that it was useless to Nonconformists.
MR. DILLON: It was your own Government's Bill.
MR. WEDGWOODsaid they had heard, from the eloquent Leader of the Irish Party and from the hon. Member for Cork City of the gratitude which Ireland would feel for the passage of this Bill. He hoped that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford and his friends would remember when legislation on the subject of education was proposed for England that England ought to be allowed to legislate for herself.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 207; Noes, 19. (Division List No. 223.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Bellairs, Carlyon

Cameron, Robert

Ainsworth, John Stirling-

Birrell, Rt, Hon. Augustine

Carlile, E. Hildred

Ambrose, Robert

Boland, John

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Astbury, John Meir

Brooke, Stopford

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

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

Bull, Sir William James

Cheetham, John Frederick

Barnes, G. N.

Burke, E. Haviland-

Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

Beale, W. P.

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Clancy, John Joseph

Beauchamp, E.

Butcher, Samuel Henry

Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

Beck, A. Cecil

Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Byles, William Pollard

Cooper, G. J.

Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

Kilbride, Denis

Radford, G. H.

Crean, Eugene

Laidlaw, Robert

Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

Crooks, William

Lamont, Norman

Reddy, M.

Cullinan, J.

Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S)

Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

Redmond, William (Clare)

Delany, William

Lehmann, R. C.

Rees, J. D.

Devlin, Joseph

Lever, A. Levy(Essex, Harwich

Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'

Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.

Levy, Sir Maurice

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Dillon, John

Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David

Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

Donelan, Captain A.

Lundon, W.

Robson, Sir William Snowdon

Duckworth, James

Luttrell, Hugh Fownes

Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

Duffy, William J.

Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

Roche, Augustine (Cork)

Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

Roche, John (Galway, East)

Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall

Mackarness, Frederic C.

Rogers, F. E. Newman

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

Everett, R. Lacey

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Salter, Arthur Clavell

Farrell, James Patrick

MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S)

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Fell, Arthur

MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.)

Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester)

Ferguson, R. C. Munro

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne

Ffreneh, Peter

M'Kean, John

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Field, William

M'Killop, W.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Findlay, Alexander

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

Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Marnham, F. J.

Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Massie, J.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Forster, Henry William

Meagher, Michael

Stanger, H. Y.

Gilhooly, James

Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N)

Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn Herbert John

Meehan, Patrick A.(Queen's Co

Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

Glendinning, R. G.

Micklem, Nathaniel

Strachey, Sir Edward

Gooch, George Peabody (Bath)

Mooney, J. J.

Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

Morrell, Philip

Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)

Gulland, John W.

Murnaghan, George

Stuart, James (Sunderland)

Gwynn, Stephen Lucius

Murphy, John (Kerry, East)

Sutherland, J. E.

Halpin, J.

Myer, Horatio

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Harcourt, Robert V.(Montrose)

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton

Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

Torrance, Sir A. M.

Harrington, Timothy

Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r

Toulmin, George

Harwood, George

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

Nolan, Joseph

Ure, Alexander

Hayden, John Patrick

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Verney, F. W.

Hazleton, Richard

Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

Healy, Timothy Michael

Nuttall, Harry

Wardle, George J.

Heaton, John Henniker

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

O'Brien, William (Cork)

Wason, Rt. Hn. E (Clackmannan

Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

O' Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Henry, Charles S.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Waterlow, D. S.

Hobart, Sir Robert

O'Doherty, Philip

White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

Hodge, John

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Hogan, Michael

O'Dowd, John

White, Patrick (Meath, North)

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)

Hudson, Walter

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthe

Illingworth, Percy H.

O'Malley, William

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Jacoby, Sir James Alfred

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Jones, Leif (Appleby)

O'Shee, James John

Wood, T. M'Kinnon

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Paul, Herbert

Young, Samuel

Jordon, Jeremiah

Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

Yoxall, James Henry

Joyce, Michael

Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

Joynson-Hicks, William

Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

TETTERS FOR THE AYES—

Kavanagh, Walter M.

Pollard, Dr.

Master of Elibank and Mr. Herbert Lewis.

Kekewich, Sir George

Power, Patrick Joseph

Kennedy, Vincent Paul

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

Kettle, Thomas Michael

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

NOES.

Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn Sir Alex. F

Gordon, J.

Sloan, Thomas Henry

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

Hamilton, Marquess of

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

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

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

Younger, George

Cox, Harold

MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S

M'Arthur, Charles

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Lonsdale and Mr. Moore.

Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

Seaverns, J. H.

Question put, and agreed to.

FINANCE BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Lloyd-George.)
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: When the history of this Parliament comes to be written I should not be surprised if it should be found that the Finance Bill of the present year is the most important with which this Parliament has had to deal, alike in the precedents which it sets up and in the effect which it has on our future fortunes. The first of these precedents is connected with the circumstances under which we have been called upon to discuss the B:11. The Government has taken the discussion at a later period of the session than, I think, has ever before been the case in a session of Parliament which was interrupted by no Government crisis or a dissolution of Parliament, and they have placed the Third Reading of the Bill as the second Order at a Saturday sitting towards the end of July at a time when it is impossible to expect the House, as is perfectly obvious from its appearance at the present moment, to give serious attention to the great problems involved, and when it is impossible to take the sense of the House fairly and representatively upon the merits of the measure. Under these circumstances, I do not propose to follow the course which, during the Committee stage of the Bill, I had indicated I meant to take, and shall not make the Motion for the rejection of the Bill, the hope of doing which was at once the excuse and justification for taking no detailed part in the discussions and divisions which accompanied the Committee stage. I take note of the action of the Government in this respect and of the new precedent which they are creating for Finance Bills. Finance Bills as we go on are not likely to become less important, less complicated, or perhaps less contentious. But the Government with all their responsibility have set a precedent for the treatment of such Bills from which probably neither this Parliament nor future Parliaments can escape. More important than the procedure in relation
664
to these Bills are the intrinsic merits of the Government's financial proposals themselves, and in that respect this Bill stands out as one of quite exceptional and extraordinary importance. It is one of an unparalleled character, I think, in our financial history. The Government this year have been engaged in laying financial burdens upon the country in pursuit of a great scheme of social reform of a character and of an amount which are wholly unparalleled in our history. They have, I had almost said, by a stroke of the pen, but I would say by a single measure, laid these great financial burdens upon the country and on the future taxpayer, but what constitutes the most remarkable feature of their policy is that whilst by a single act they have assumed these great burdens they have made no provision for meeting the new liabilities that are created, and they have given no intimation of the way in which they propose to make good the gap yawning before us between expenditure and revenue. Of the many expectations held out by the Government and its supporters at the last election, and whilst they were in opposition, none was more constantly repeated than the assurance that they would reduce the expenditure of the country. They have failed in the two years that they have been in power to reduce that expenditure, and now by their action in the present session they have made reduction of expenditure in future an impossibility. They have remitted here and there a tax or a portion of a tax, but they are collecting a larger revenue than any of their predecessors have ever attempted to collect in time of peace, and that revenue is, by confession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wholly inadequate to the burdens which the House of Commons have already laid on the people. At what moment are they doing it? They are doing it at the close of a succession of prosperous years in which the revenue has advanced by great leaps, but when already the signs of a reaction are everywhere patent around us, when by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's confession taxes are yielding less than they did before, and when there is, therefore, special reason to regard with jealousy and suspicion

665
all new burdens which we have not yet decided how to meet. It used to be the boast of the Liberal Party, and under Mr. Gladstone it was a boast that the Party could rightly make, that they steadily pursued in office a reduction of our expenditure, and that though reduction can never be sudden, as increase may be, when they had a fair field and a reasonable time before them they did do something to reduce the annual national liabilities. The present Government are acting on an entirely different principle. They are not merely extending liabilities beyond the provision that they make this year, but they are encouraging hopes and expectations which subsequent Parliaments will be expected to fulfil, and which must themselves involve an increase of the very liabilities for which the Government are at present failing to provide. There is another aspect of the case which renders this matter one of increased gravity. I have spoken of our domestic situation, of the want of elasticity in the existing taxes, and of the need for caution, therefore, in regard to our national finances. But is not the international position one which. also requires and demands our careful consideration in respect of this matter, having regard to the liabilities which may arise out of our international relations, which do not depend solely upon our action, and yet may at any moment involve us in the heaviest expenditure which the country has ever seen? I do not know whether other Members of this House have read as I did the speech which Lord Cromer delivered on the Old-age Pensions Bill in another place. I differ widely from Lord Cromer as to the proper basis and character of our fiscal system, but although the President of the Board of Trade accused tariff reformers of having spoken in ignominious terms of Lord Cromer at the moment he chose to differ from them on the fiscal question, not one of them has ever used language about Lord Cromer which did not recognise his great authority and the wealth of experience which he brought to the consideration not merely of fiscal but of political questions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are very glad to quote the authority of Lord Cromer on behalf of
666
his fiscal views. Will they pay any attention to his warning as to the result of the financial course on which they are now embarking. He said the other day—
"What, I would ask, in the present condition of Europe, is the main duty which devolves on the Government of this country? For my own part, I have no sort of hesitation in replying to this question. Their main duty is to make provision betimes for the European conflict which may not improbably be forced on us before many years have elapsed. I am aware that the mass of the people of this country, who do not follow foreign affairs with any very close attention, are not alive to the possibility of any such conflict taking place. I say it is the duty of a Government gifted with both patriotism and foresight, who have means of information at their disposal which is not available to the general public, to provide betimes for that danger—a danger of which I, in common, I believe, with most people who can speak with real authority on foreign affairs, ant very firmly convinced."
Now, what provision are Government making for a time of possible danger of that kind? They are making none. Their attitude is not purely negative; their attitude is one of positive destruction of the resources on which we should count. It has been a favourite thesis of the Party opposite—and not confined to them, for at different times Mr. Disraeli lent the weight of his authority to it—that the surest preparation for the emergency of a great international conflict in which this country might be engaged, is not the piling up of armaments, but the piling up of financial resources with which to meet them. I accept that statement only with great qualification. War in recent times, perhaps in all times, has not been a matter of improvisation. Least of all is it possible to improvise either the material or the personnel of war in the highly scientific and highly trained day in which we live. Therefore, in my opinion, it would be short-sighted indeed if we allowed our defensive forces to fall below the highest standard of efficiency that we are able to obtain. But I do not for a moment deny that second only to our naval and military forces for the purposes of a great war are the financial resources, which indeed depend on the efficiency of naval and. military strength to give them time to develop and us time to use them, but which are rather the life blood of a struggle of any long continuance, How are these affected by

667
the financial policy of the present Government? When Mr. Gladstone studied economy and not less the reduction of the naval and military preparations of the Empire, he was careful so to husband the financial resources he set free, that in the case of a great emergency they might be readily available to meet the financial pressure that might come upon us. But that is not what the Government are doing now. The financial resources which the Government have abandoned are of two kinds. There are the taxes which they have abandoned, not primarily on the ground that they are unnecessary, but on the ground that they are intrinsically and on principle bad and ought never to have been imposed. The tax on the export of coal was abandoned, not because we did not want the money that it provided, but because the Government objected to it on principle and held it to be a tax to which we ought in no circumstances to have recourse. The sugar tax which they are reducing this year fell, in their eyes, into the same category. The only reduction which has been made, which, in their opinion, according to their principles it would be legitimate to go back upon, is the small reduction of a penny in the tea duty. The other reductions which have been made on sugar and on coal have been possible only by maintaining the direct taxes at the full rate at which they stood when the Government assumed office. They have provided no additional resources; they have, in fact, destroyed or abandoned part of the resources on which we had to draw when they came into office if we were faced with a new war. Now, for the purposes of war we have two great financial resources. We have the amount which we devote under normal conditions of peace to the annual reduction of the National Debt, and which on any great emergency of war we can suspend and devote instead to the prosecution of the war. We have, in addition, the amount by which the taxes which we levy can be raised without impairing their yield and without inflicting too great a hardship on our people. To the resources of taxation the Government have added nothing. From them they have subtracted much. The resources of the Sinking Fund they had announced their intention of apply-
668
ing next year, not in order to meet a great emergency, but in order to help them over the financial difficulties which they and their policy have created. What the effect of the policy they have pursued may be on the public opinion of the country I do not know. I observe that Lord Cromer, approaching the question, as I have said, from a very different point of view from mine, accuses the Government of making a great breach in the walls of the stronghold that they were put there to defend, and I think it is not improbable that the great and intolerable strain which the Government are placing upon our present narrow fiscal resources will make more converts to fiscal reform than all the speeches which fiscal reformers have been delivering in the country. For my own part, whatever may be the effect of the Budget in helping forward the question of tariff reform, of which I am anxious to see the fruition, I regret—I more than regret, I view with great anxiety, the financial situation the Government has created, and the financial liabilities left for other years to meet. I do not think it is consistent or honest finance to offer to the poorer classes of the country the great boon of old-age pensions, coupling with it at the same time relief from part of the taxation they now pay. When such a proposal, essentially confined to the poorer classes, so costly, so vast in its character is made, while the Government has a right to call on every class in the community to contribute to this great social reform, it is the bounden duty of responsible statesmen to call on those who will be the beneficiaries under the new scheme to make some contribution towards the expenditure instead of teaching them that they can not only receive this boon without contributing towards it, but receive it in conjunction with relief from taxation which they have shared with others who will be excluded from any benefit under the scheme. From the point of view of national and domestic politics this is an unwise step for the Government to take; it sets a bad precedent, and in the hands, if not of this Government, of those who may follow them, will lead to the temptation on the part of those seeking entrance to the House to purchase the support of the

669
masses in constituencies by raising hopes of progressive relief in the same direction. On this ground, and because it goes dangerously near inaugurating a vast system of national political corruption, I regret the Budget proposals. I regret them because of the strain placed on our financial resources at a critical time, and because of the encouragement given by action and speeches—notably by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to those who are seeking now still further to reduce our naval and military forces, and to rely not on defensive preparations, but on soft words and good intentions in a situation where our contemporaries trust to stronger measures. Viewing the Budget in this light, I regret that circumstances, and the way in which the Government have used their control of business, prevent me from taking the opinion of Members in a full House. I do not qualify what I have said on the Report stage and only regret that the circumstances of the time have led me to confine my protest to speech.
*MR. HAROLD COXnoted as a curious accompaniment to the right hon. Gentleman's argument against the action of the Government in passing the Old-age Pensions Bill that he voted for that Bill. It was a position not easy to understand. The right hon. Gentleman had laid great stress on the duty of the Government to retain taxation upon those who were to receive the benefit of pensions, and, on the surface, the argument was attractive; but, looked at closely, it would be seen that, as this was not a proposal that the taxpayer should provide his own pension, but that he should provide other people's, it would be absurd to place a burden upon those who were considered too poor to pay their own pension. If taxation was to be used as a means for redressing the inequalities of fortune, clearly it would be absurd to tax people to provide money for others less poor than themselves. That was what they were going to do, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer remarked to the friendly societies deputation that an extra shilling would be given to the man with 12s. a week, which he might speed in tobacco. He did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded tobacco
670
as a necessary of life. Surely it was absurd to tax families who had only 12s. a week to live upon, and to snatch away some of their food, in order to give 1s. a week for tobacco to an old man who already had 12s. and only himself to keep. If this was to be the destination of our taxes it was unjust to impose any taxation at all upon the very poor. On the other hand, if taxation was confined to providing for common national purposes, he held that, however poor a man was, he ought to contribute something to the upkeep of the nation to which he belonged, and from what he knew of the poorer classes they were willing to do so. They realised they were part of the nation as a whole, and were not merely concerned with the necessities of life; they did not live for bread alone; they had a pride in their country, and were willing to contribute towards national purposes; but, if the new principle was to be adopted and taxation used to subsidise the moderately poor, it was absurd to tax those who were yet poorer.
*SIR EDWARD SASSOONmoved: "That this House declines to proceed with a measure which, while reducing substantially the tax on sugar, the produce of foreign countries, does nothing to relieve the burden of the tax on tea, an infinitesimal part of which is imported from possessions other than our own; and, while parting with a large part of revenue, renders the discharge of prospective obligations of unknown magnitude embarrassing to the finances and injurious to the credit of the State." He assured the House-that he was not actuated by any considerations of a party character, but rather that he was filled with unaffected misgivings as to the trend and tendency as much as to the actual scheme which this year's Budget represented. His hon. friend the Member for Preston had just taxed his right hon. friend the Member for East Worcestershire with inconsistency in not opposing the Old-age Pension Bill, and yet with condemning the Budget. The inconsistency was only apparent. He himself followed exactly the same course, and what they objected to was that the Government, in view of the colossal commitments in which they were involved, should light-heartedly part

671
with revenue such as the sugar tax. That was the whole point, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would on consideration see that there was some method in the plan which they had pursued. If there was one feature which more saliently stood out than another in this Bill, it was the determination, implied if not avowed, to afford no relief to the payers of direct taxation. That justified their belief that it was in pursuance of a settled policy on the part of His Majesty's Government gradually to exonerate and ultimately wholly to relieve those who contributed to the indirect taxation, those who represented four-fifths if not seven-eighths of the population, in order to maintain the present burdens, and to impose fresh charges upon the remaining one-eighth. That might be magnificent, heroic finance, but it was neither business nor practical politics. Anything but a moderate income-tax used to be considered a sort of reserve, a kind of nest egg for periods of emergency. Under the new dispensation we appeared to have changed all that, and he could not, therefore, resist the conclusion that when times of stress and trouble arrived, as they must in the chances and changes of European or international politics, we should find that that egg would assume attenuated and shrunken proportions. The Prime Minister had somewhat lightly repealed the coal tax, every shilling of which practically was paid by the foreign consumer, because he was unable to obtain that hard, smokeless coal elsewhere, and basing himself upon the well-accepted maxims of political economy, he (Sir Edward Sassoon) said without fear of challenge that the incidence of the tax inevitably fell upon the foreigner. [Dissent.] If that was doubted he would go to the highest authority in the House. It would be within the recollection of hon. Members that when the Prime Minister was asked to abolish the tax for the few months that remained in 1906, the repeal having been already decided on, he distinctly refused, on the ground that it would mean anything over £800,000 to the foreigner. Sir George Livesey, also an authority, the Chairman of the South Metropolitan Gas Company, employing 5,000 hands, and the inaugurator of co-operative
672
profit sharing, told his shareholders that their gas bill for the year immediately following that repeal showed an increase of no less than £250,000 sterling. So that a prime ingredient in all industries, an article of necessity to every but and cottage, had been raised in price by the direct action of the Government, while a clear present of £2,000,000 sterling a year had been made to foreign manufacturers. That was a curious frame of mind on the part of the Government. Whenever they were moved by a spirit of generosity, it seemed that it was towards the foreigner that their yearnings instinctively turned. He had already alluded to the coal tax. They had refused to renew the registration duty upon corn, which brought in millions without in the slightest degree affecting the price of bread. But let that pass. Now they had the tea and the sugar tax. Which of these did the right hon. Gentleman select for relief? How did they stand relatively to each other? Both were articles of universal consumption. Both had become commodities of necessary luxury to the poor, but whereas tea was imported from our own fellow-subjects, which gave employment to hundreds of thousands of lowly agriculturists in India and Ceylon, sugar, with the insignificant exception of what was imported from our West Indian Colonies, we got from possessions other than our own. The Prime Minister told them that the sugar tax was bringing in six millions of money, and that that was the soundest argument against its being lightly touched. Might he ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it brought ill less now? Under this benevolent administration what were they going to do? Did they relieve tea? Not a bit of it. It was sugar that was the object of their affections, and as regards tea, there was none so poor to do it reverence. This incorrigible sub-conscious bias to benefit he stranger and to ignore one's own people was revealed to the House in the altruistic psychology of the Government with an amazing and a monotonous consistency. The Government were engaged, and properly so, in punishing those who were endeavouring to foment sedition among the ignorant and ill-balanced minds in India. But what

673
were they doing for the peaceful, the law-abiding, and the staunchly loyal portion of the people? They talked of conciliating them, and he was convinced they talked sincerely. Here was a chance. Let them remove the extra tax upon tea, imposed for the purposes of the war, and they would have done more to convince the Indians of their earnest. desire to encourage them in the arts of peace than any number of those vague and nebulous schemes which, from their very nature, must take years to develop and to come to fruition. The Chancellor of the Exchequer deluded himself into the belief that capital was accumulating in this country at a rate which he called colossal. But it was notorious that capital was leaving, and had been leaving the country. When he ask the Prime Minister a question across the floor of the House on that very subject, he seemed to belittle this remarkable phenomenon, and said it was to be accounted for by the return of capital, by greater vigilance and stringency in the collection of revenue, and he would make him a present of a further admission, that some securities held abroad had now entered the dividend paying list, but after all was said and done, and after all these deductions had been made, there still remained a huge amount which had beer, driven out of the country. The figures supplied by the Board of Inland Revenue testified to this. It was true they were getting the interest on the capital, but did the right hon. Gentleman not see that the capital went to fertilise and irrigate foreign industries abroad, to the detriment of the British workman at home? Why, we were fast becoming rent chargers. We were creating a sort of absentee landlordism in British capital. Was that a prospect so alluring and so satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman's financial conscience? Then there was another gross misconception. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he went upon that ill-starred pilgrimage to the shrine of free trade, North-West Manchester, indulged in several statements—promises to working men, thick as the showers of Danae, sops to the Jews, doles to the Catholics, free bets taken and offered about old-age pensions—but there was one point which it would be a pity not to rescue from unmerited
674
oblivion. He talked about the expansion in the exports of cotton fabrics. He said, with that picturesqueness of language of which he was so great a master—
"Look ! See how your industry has prospered during the last year ! There was more business in one district of Lancashire than in the whole of the United States put together."
If the right hon. Gentleman had been addressing some befogged and benighted electors in the backwoods or the backwaters of the Lake District, he could have understood it, but he was addressing the most enlightened and the most wide-awake electors in this country, and the best proof of their perspicacity was seen in the fact that they had returned his hon. friend whom he saw near him to represent them in this House. They knew what he must charitably assume was removed from the purview of the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge, that the average price of middling American cotton in 1907 was something like ½d. a pound higher than it was in 1906, and that this increase in the price of the raw material represented almost within the sixteenth part of a ¼d. the 11 per cent. increase in the imports over 1906 to which the right hon. Gentleman called attention. To be quite accurate, the increase worked out at 10·08. This represents no increase in trade profits, not a penny more in wages, not an ounce of extra employments Let him now revert for an instant to the problem of fresh sources of revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's name was indelibly identified with three enactments on the Statute-books of the realm which, by universal admission, had enured to the industrial interests of the country. He (Sir Edward Sassoon) was only a humble searcher after the truth. He was disposed to sit at the feet of this modern Gamaliel, and was tempted to ask him why, if it was right to protect the outcome of a man's brains and skill, as was done in the Patents Act, it should be so frightfully wrong to protect another man's unskilled work. Again, why, if it was permissible to protect the British seaman from the competition and the lower standard of living of his foreign and Asiatic rival, it should be pure anathema to protect his fellow-worker

675
and fellow-subject from the competition of the Californian fields, say hops tended by Chinese cultivators, or from the sweated, certainly tariff-protected and bounty-fed, manufactures of the polyglot population of the United States. These phenomena were sinking into the minds of the people here. They were beginning to puzzle things out for themselves. The Sphinx-like attitude of right hon. Gentlemen opposite afforded them neither light, leading, nor guidance. He knew they did not like the bother of thinking out solutions for novel aspects and phases of devolution of economic manifestations going on all the world over. They could do that with impunity when trade was brisk and manufacturers were prospering. But now that they had entered upon a period of slackening activity and deflated trade, when they had launched the ship of State upon a career of ambitious social reform, now that our colonists, tired of knocking at our doors, had started arrangements with foreign nations, the inevitable effect of which must be enormously to reduce the preferential advantages they spontaneously offered us, were the Government still going to rub along, to muddle through upon their restricted schedule of taxation, or were they going to tamper with the normal operations for the reduction of debt in times of peace? From some observations which fell from the Prime Minister, he feared he had given a direct incentive to his successor at the Treasury to embark upon some such predatory enterprise. With heavy Naval Estimates looming before us if the Prime Minister's pledge was to be carried out, as they hoped and believed it would be, because no one in his senses believed that Germany, who had shown so marvellous a tenacity in adhering to her naval programme, to the point of borrowing at 4 per cent. on onerous terms, to the point of straining her credit, was likely to relax her efforts in that direction; with considerable prospective demands for education, both in its technical and social aspects, with large liabilities for the Rosyth and Plymouth harbours, the lines of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not fallen on pleasant places. Let them embark upon the amelioration of the lot of those who toiled and earned
676
their bread by the sweat of their brow. certainly, but let them not embark upon that by means of quack nostrums and empirical panacea. Let them throw wide their financial net. Let them tax moderately the goods upon which foreign labour and enterprise had been expended, rather than those which, from climatic or other reasons, we or our fellow-subjects abroad do not or cannot produce. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown great resource and responsiveness in helping British trade. He had the knack of assimilating profitably, novel ideas. He implored him to look with a tender eye upon the state of our finances, and in order to emphasise his protest he begged to move.
*MR. JOYNSON-HICKSsaid that after the references to North-West Manchester he could not do otherwise than second the Amendment, which seemed to involve two propositions. First, it raised the question of fiscal reform, and, secondly, the question of how the money was to be found to meet the large increase of expenditure in this country. He should have thought that the question raised by the Amendment would have appealed to those free traders who had the Imperial instinct. The proposals did not cut across the main line between free trade and protection. If the Amendment had raised the question of protection he would not be voting for it. He was not in the ordinary acceptation of the term a protectionist, but he had a strong belief in that form of Imperial co-ordination which we could establish between ourselves and the Colonies. What they proposed by this Amendment was to relieve the taxes on commodities which were grown in our own Colonies and Dependencies, and keep them on those which were grown in foreign countries. They had lately had a debate on India; they were all proud of India, and they were all desirous that the condition of our Indian fellow-subjects should be improved in every way possible. Well, here was an opportunity for the Government. It was just as easy for them to take the tax off tea instead of off sugar. There had been as much agitation about the tax on tea as about the tax on sugar. Tea was just as much an ingredient of

677
the free breakfast table as was sugar. Every Member opposite had spoken in bygone days in support of the free breakfast table, and he had always understood that it involved the remission of the tax on tea, which was one of the principle ingredients of the breakfast table. In giving away a large slice of revenue, surely our Colonies and Dependencies should have the advantage of any relief rather than sugar, which was grown almost entirely in foreign countries. He did not like to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the decision of the Government had been arrived at in view of the pressing emergency of a particular bye-election, but at all events he thought that the Government might have paid Borne attention to the exigencies of our own Colonies and Dependencies. He went further than the Amendment, and would exempt, so far as he could, Indian tea, and levy the tax on China tea. That would not be an infringement of the principle of free trade, though it might be an infringement of the Cobdenite free trade of fifty years ago. Without in the slightest degree being protectionist, and without in the slightest putting a tax on the people of England to bolster up English industries, he could see nothing whatever to which the consistent free trader, brought up in the strict school of Manchester, could take objection if instead of taking the tax off sugar they had taken some of the tax off Indian tea. He had been frequently challenged both in that House and in the country to show how they were going to give a preference to the Colonies without putting a tax on wheat. This Amendment did not raise the question of the tax of wheat, and he did not propose to discuss it; but here was an opportunity to the hand of the Government to give preference to one of our. Dependencies without imposing on the British public any single further tax on food stuffs. Many of them on both sides of the House were Imperially inclined, and put a high value on the relations between Great Britain and her Colonies. They realised, moreover, that the Colonies were in earnest in asking us for some closer commercial union between the Colonies and the Mother Country. There would be other opportunities in time to come
678
where taxes could be taken off, and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he was to continue to occupy that position, and introduce more than one Budget, and had money to give away, to take the taxes off the commodities grown in our own Colonies and Dependencies rather than off commodities grown in foreign countries. The second part of the Amendment raised a wider issue than the fiscal question in the first portion of the Amendment—namely, as to the undesirability of parting with a large part of the revenue before they knew how far the obligations of the Government went. Old-age pensions, of course, involved a very large expenditure in years to come. He represented a constituency with very large commercial interests, and he was bound to tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that commercial men and bankers in Manchester and in Lancacashire were very seriously troubled with regard to the commitments of the country in regard to old-age pensions. He knew that it was not beyond the wit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide a scheme of contributory old-age pensions; there were rumours that the right hon. Gentleman himself would have provided such a scheme, only that a scheme had been provided for him by his predecessor, the Prime Minister. But in regard to the finances of the country, having passed a non-contributory scheme, it was of no use going back upon that. The hon. Member for Preston had challenged the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, his right hon. friend. the Member for East Worcestershire; and some others for having voted for the Old-Age Pensions Bill. He saw no inconsistency in it. He had been in favour of old-age pensions for years past. They would have preferred a contributory scheme, which they believed to be perfectly possible—it had been done in other countries, and surely it could be done here. However, that had been ruled out by the Government, and when they brought in their non-contributory scheme those of them who were in favour of old-age pensions, knowing that they could not get a contributory scheme, were of course obliged to vote with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in favour of such a system as he was prepared to give

679
them. He thought he was consistent throughout the consideration of the Bill in voting for the elimination of all those blots upon it which restricted the pensions. He would be prepared to vote in another session for a further removal of restrictions on the issue of old-age pensions. He very strongly objected to the system which prevented a man who had benefited his country by saving 10s. a week from having a pension. He would give a man a greater pension for having done good to his country by saving out of the 15s. or 20s. a week he had earned than to the man who had just slipped through life without coming on the Poor Law, though in every other respect he had been practically a waster and had done no real good to his country. He thought that they would be bound to recognise sooner or later that there would be a very large increase in the cost of these pensions; it would be eight, ten, or fifteen millions a year. That was why he was strongly supporting the second portion of the Amendment, and resisted the idea of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in giving away this large amount of indirect taxation, which he thought they would be bound to put back again as soon as old-age pensions came into operation, unless they had some undiscovered source of income which at present had not been brought before the House. This system of finance, he wished to point out to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, did not commend itself to the merchants and bankers and traders of the country, though it might commend itself to some of those remoter constituencies where the finances of the country were not considered; but in the City of London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and the great financial centres there was very considerable unrest at the present moment. They had all been told that Consols would go up when the price of money went down, but money was cheaper to-day than ever it had been since the Government had come into power, yet the price of Consols had not risen in accordance, as was expected, with the cheapness of money. Income-tax remained as high as it was before, and his hon. friend had told them that there was a falling off in trade in all the great commercial centres of the country. Therefore, he suggested that it was an inop-
680
portune moment to dispense with the revenue from sugar. At all events they might have kept it as one of those nest-eggs, about which the Prime Minister had told them some years ago, for old-age pensions. But when they came to the Old-Age Pensions Bill this year the nest-egg did not exist. About a million and a quarter had to be provided (and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thrown away a portion of his revenue), partly for old-age pensions, partly for the Navy, and partly for expenditure on education. They should think twice and thrice before dispensing with indirect taxes which were not felt half as much as direct taxation.
Amendment proposed—
"To leave out all the words after the word 'that,' to the end of the Question,in order to add the words 'This House declines to proceed with a measure which, while reducing substantially the tax on sugar, the produce of foreign countries, does nothing to relieve the burden of the tax on tea, an infinitesimal part of which is imported from possessions other than our own; and, while parting with a large part of revenue, renders the discharge of prospective obligations of unknown magnitude, embarrassing to the finances and injurious to the credit of the State.' "—(Sir Edward Sassoon.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate has complained amongst other things that the Bill has been postponed to a very late period of the session. I do not think it is absolutely without precedent, and I am not sure that he himself is not responsible for a precedent even worse than ours. In 1904 I understand the Budget did not secure its final passage until about 1st August. I do not think there is really very much in it this year apart altogether from precedent, because practically we have been discussing nothing but the Budget in one shape or another for the last two or three months. The old-age pensions were discussed on the First and Second Reading and then we had very prolonged discussions upon the Old-Age Pensions Bill, and practically the whole of the summer has been taken up in the discussion of the Budget. We have really

681
had nothing else, and I do not think, therefore, the Opposition can complain that we postponed the debate on our financial proposals to so late a period of the session as not to afford a full opportunity for criticism. When I come to the more substantial part of his criticism, I am not sure that I quite understand what it is. It is rather vague, if I may say so. He has used phrases about the intolerable strain and about no provision being made for it, but what does he mean? There is only one strain upon the taxpayers in the Budget beyond what this Government inherited from its predecessors, and that is the strain of old-age pensions. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman objects to? Because if not I really am absolutely at a loss to know what his criticism is directed against, and I think it would have been fairer to the House and to those who take an interest in our debates, if the right hon. Gentleman were to formulate distinctly what his grievance is against the Government. If he thinks we ought not to have made the old-age pension proposal he ought to have said so.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am very loth to interrupt, but I do not wish the right hon. Gentleman to be under any misapprehension as to my views. I did not divide the House against the Old-Age Pensions Bill. I should have voted for the Third Reading if I had been in the House at the moment. But it is not that Bill standing by itself which is the gravamen of the charge I made; it is the imposition of large though uncertain liabilities which are bound to grow, simultaneously with the remission of a large part of our resources for the financial burdens.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I now understand. The right hon. Gentleman does not object to the imposition of the burden; what he objects to is to pay for it. The right hon. Gentleman representing the Opposition on this occasion does not protest against the addition to £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 to the burdens of the country at all. He objects to the absence of any provision to meet burden. I think he also rather hinted that he objects to the indefinite
682
character of the burden. Really he has close acquaintance with the subject, and he must realise that that is not a fair criticism. I do not care what Government brings forward a scheme of old-age pensions or what the character of the scheme; it is bound to be more or less indefinite in the actual amount of the burden, whether it is a contributory scheme, a Danish or. French, a Belgian, or a Colonial scheme, or a scheme of the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished relative. Any scheme that has ever been submitted is bound to be more or less conjectural in amount. £1,000,000 or even £2,000,000 one way or the other must be a matter of experience of the first two or three years. Every scheme is liable to that. That might be an objection to undertaking the thing at all, but the right hon. Gentleman does not say so. He does not object to our having old-age pensions. He will not bind himself down to that. The right hon. Gentleman next said that the situation in Europe is such that the pension scheme ought not to be entertained now but ought to be put off. That is really a very serious thing, especially when you are dealing with old people. I never recollect a time in politics when the situation in Europe was not serious. It is always the present. state of Europe. Yon may shift the particular quarter from which the menace comes. At one time it might be the East or the Far East; the next it would be nearer. I have seen it as near as the French coast. Within the last five or six years people were talking glibly and solemnly about the prospect of war with France. There were prospects of invasion and plans for invasion. But that has shifted and now nobody ever dreams of that. Now there is another Empire which is supposed to be just as threatening. But this will go on from year to year and generation to generation, as it has done in the past, until nations realise the folly of scowling at each other and sharpening their knives to plunge into each other, and spending gigantic sums of money which might be more profitably utilised. for the purpose of improving the condition of their own people. There is no nation which has not got its social problems, its poverty and destitution, and it would be far better for all countries if, instead of

683
spending £400,000,000 a year on munitions of war, they Would come to a mutual understanding that two or three reasonable individuals could easily have arrived at long ago for the purpose of improving the condition of their own poor population. You cannot wait until this thing passes over. I hope it is not a permanent phase of human character, and that it will eventually pass away. But when the right hon. Gentleman talks about the present menacing condition of things I must point out that the condition has improved. Formerly there were three or four nations which were said to be hostile to us. We were always half-quarrelling with Russia about the Far East, and with France about Africa and other parts of the world. The differences have now all been removed, and so far from the condition being worse than it has ever been it is very much better. And what is the use of trying to create an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust and by constantly talking about some Power going to attack us, as if we are on the lookout to strike them or they to strike us? That is the way people come to blows. I am perfectly certain that if social reform is to be postponed until foolish people cease to write wild articles in newspapers to create distrust and malice and enmity between one nation and another, human hearts may well despair, for nothing will be done. I think that if we were placed in the position of having to defend ourselves against any foreign nation that wanted to make an attack upon us our resources are ample—should there be such persons—and we have enough and to spare afterwards to look after our own people at home. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's argument, or Lord Cromer's, with every respect to Lord Cromer, is a good and sound one, that we should put off all social reform until people have ceased to write leading articles about prospective invasions of each other's territory. The right hon. Gentleman proceeded to say that it is not so much the fact of old-age pensions that he objected to but that it is not the way he would have done it if he had been responsible. He said what he objects to is that although we impose this burden on the country we make no provision for it. Here again what does he mean by making provision? Does he mean
684
that the Government should have brought in a Bill this year to impose a burden of seven millions upon the country when we do not require more than one or two millions? What is the use of raising taxation, not to meet a burden, but in order to show you can do it when the occasion arises—to show Germany and everybody else that if you did want it you really could do it? The Government do not want to put on more taxation than is really required to meet the burden of the year, because they do not want to withdraw that six millions from trade. Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that we ought to raise the six millions of taxation this year? Then what does the right hon. Gentleman mean by an "intimation"? Of one thing I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, and that is that the Government are not going to follow the example of the late Government in meeting the current liabilities of the year by borrowing. But if the right hon. Gentleman means by "intimation" to go beyond that, then what sort of tax will he impose? Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the last thing which a Chancellor of the Exchequer can do is to "intimate" that he is going to tax a certain commodity. If I did this, then the right hon. Gentleman ought to know that in a short time there would. be no commodity to tax. Is it to be urged also that I should indicate clearly now how I am to distribute my direct or indirect taxation next year, and to what extent I shall tax any particular commodity? The right hon. Gentleman knows well that that is impossible. No such grotesque demand has ever been made upon a Chancellor of the Exchequer. What then does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "intimation"? I can give no "intimation" for the sufficient reason that I am not so simple as to tell people in advance what exactly are the things that I am going to tax. I am, therefore, at a loss to know what this "solemn fact" of the Budget means. The right hon. Gentleman does not object to old-age pensions, which is the only additional burden, and I cannot understand the motive of the right hon. Gentleman when he urges that taxes ought to be raised and that information should be given of the tax that I shall impose.

685
The hon. Member for Hythe objected to the sugar tax. But the difference between tea and. sugar is that one article is a raw material of industry and the other is not. Sugar is the raw material of some very important industries. It is by our supply of cheap sugar that we get our start in the competition with foreign countries, and therefore a tax on sugar must to a certain extent impair our chances of competing in one of the markets at least for our custom.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman forgets the drawback.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The existence of a drawback does not really make a difference. There are drawbacks in America, but the Americans have no chance of competing with us in foreign markets because we have no tax on imports.
Sin EDWARD SASSOON: Does the reduction reach the consumer?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I know it is urged that the tax does not reach the consumer. If the tax had been reduced only a half, the reduction might not have reached the consumer. It would have got into the pockets of the middleman; but the Government made the reduction over a half so as to make it certain that the consumer obtained relief. Then the hon. Member said it was notorious that capital was leaving our shores for foreign countries. But a good deal of our trade depends upon that system of investment. Take the case of Argentina, where we have invested very heavily. Our trade with Argentina has grown enormously within the last few years, due very largely to the fact that every great investment in Argentina is an investment of British capital. This country is supposed to have invested between £100,000,000 and £200,000,000 there; and the result is that our trade has gone up to £20,000,000 a year. No country in the world can touch us in respect of trade with Argentina.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The comparative trade return with South America and the Argentina does not bear out that statement.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, it does. If the right hon. Gentleman takes the Argentine alone he will see that there has been an enormous increase during the last few years in trade with the Argentine, and I attribute that fact largely to the circumstance that we get the advantage of being a free trade country, combined with the investment of enormous sums of money in that country. The Argentine does not send us cash to pay dividends on capital; it pays in goods. The same fact is seen in our shipping trade. There has been an enormous increase of trade between Argentina and this country in shipping. Thus it is not a circumstance to be deplored that we have invested capital abroad. We are the richest country in the world, and therefore we have much more money to spend, and we can invest it abroad. The hon. Member is wrong when he imagines that it has been only, in the last two or three years that there has been a great flight of sovereigns from this country to other parts of the world. On the contrary, there is a return of capital which showed that the greatest increases were in 1903, 1904, and 1905. Indeed, since the Government came into power there has been some arrest in the progression of increase. Since the Government came into power the confidence in British industry seemed to have been restored to such an extent that the investment of British capital on British soil has rather increased in comparison with the rate of investments. abroad. The adventures in "industrials" outside the United Kingdom have been £14,000,000, £17,000,000, £19,000,000, £20,000,000, and £21,000,000 in respective years; and "industrials" are a far more important test than Colonial and other securities. British capital, therefore, instead of being invested at home, was being invested abroad in the earlier period; but the former increase of about £5,000,000 has since been £2,000,000 in the return from abroad. There are only one or two more points I wish to refer to.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not possible that, the decrease is due to the disturbed industrial condition in the United States during

687
the last year and a half? It is not a normal period, but an abnormal period, on which the right hon. Gentleman has based his contrast.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I am glad of the interruption. The hon. Gentleman, who is a pronounced tariff reformer, has confessed that the conditions are so bad in the greatest Protectionist country in the world that really they cannot meet the interest on the money we have invested in their industrial concerns.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: I said "disturbed industrial conditions."
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I say that disturbance diminishes profits, and that I should not like to see the cause of that disturbance encouraged in this country. I am not sure but that the disturbance is the result of protection, and that is why I do not wish to see the trade of this country disturbed by the introduction of such a system as exists in the United States. It is perfectly true that the industrial condition is disturbed there. A very good word ! It creates such a sense of insecurity to trade and industry that profits are diminished, and there has been an arrest of the progress of investment from this country. People are afraid of it, and they prefer to retain their money in a free trade country.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that that is due to the protective conditions in the United States?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Certainly, that is largely what produces these great fluctuations. It is an artificial state of the industrial system. The temperature at one moment is very high, and the next moment it is below normal. It is due to this artificial system. They have closed the windows, pulled down the blinds, and stopped all the ventilators, and they are living in this heated atmosphere produced by tariffs with neither light nor air. That sort of thing does
688
foster the growth of certain fungi. These are the conditions under which they are grown—artificial manure and artificial heat and light. That is the cause of the suffering which we witness there while our industries are going up enormously. There is a constant arrest of profits in protected countries which it would be worth while for the hon. Member for Gravesend to study more than he has done. I come back to the point with which I was about to deal when I was interrupted by the hon. Member. I come back to Lancashire, to which the hon. Member for Hythe confined himself—back to Lancashire with its prosperous cotton industry from the United States with its troubled finance.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the reduction of wages in Lancashire?
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is another of the lessons which the right hon. Gentleman has yet to learn. All countries depend on markets either at home or abroad. Where you get all these microbes away from the natural light and heat you get the state of the markets which has been described. It reacts upon us, but to nothing like the extent to which it exists in the protected country. You have not here an enormous amount of railway rolling stock lying idle, and you have not 30 or 40 per cent. of the working classes out of employment. In France they have actually had to start distress committees in the textile districts. We have not come to that yet.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: You may next year.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The hon. Member is making himself very happy over the prospect of having relief and distress committees next year. I hope he will be disappointed, and I am sure that will be the feeling of every right-minded man, whatever opinions we have on controversial matters one way or another. The fact is we cannot support a gamble in suffering for the sake of any system. Let me point out

689
to the hon. Gentleman who said that the increase in cotton was entirely due in Lancashire to the increase in the price of the raw material, that it is not merely an increase in the price, but an increase in the yards.
SIR EDWARD SASSOON: You mean in the quantity.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, in quantity. It was not necessary to go to Lancashire for that information. If the hon. Member had only taken a walk as far as the library he would have found it out. If he will study the statistics, he will find that there is an enormous increase in the yards. There is an increase of 38,000,000 yards. The hon. Member gave me a piece of information, and I am very glad to return the compliment.
SIR EDWARD SASSOON: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the increase in the price of the raw material is nearly 11 per cent.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: That is where the skill of Manchester comes in. They are able, in spite of the price of the raw material, still to sell all these commodities to the world, and at the same time to keep their customers perfectly happy. That is really the system of an intelligent free trade community, and I hope the hon. Member will not press me for any further explanation. So much for the past. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is not the time to restrict the schedule of taxes. Here again you increased your burdens. Well, we have been diminishing our burdens. My own view is that you ought to diminish your unproductive expenditure and increase your productive expenditure. That is the first principle of business. You do not always benefit a business by merely cutting down. On the contrary, you can wreck a business by cutting down. I agree that the first principle of business is that you should not spend a penny piece more upon any branch of a business than is absolutely necessary. You should not spend anything for what is unproductive if you can avoid it, and you should spend
690
freely and boldly upon every extension of business which is of real benefit to your trade. That is the principle we have followed here, and that is why I have watched with a jealous eye and scrutinised rigidly every penny spent on armaments. I hope that that will be the first principle of every Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was the principle of the greatest financier this country has ever produced, Mr. Gladstone, that every penny spent beyond. what is necessary for absolute security is money thrown away, and that every penny spent unnecessarily is a menace to other countries. It provokes and irritates, and creates other expenditure which may end in disaster. That has been the lesson of every unnecessary expenditure which has been incurred. That does not mean that any Chancellor of the Exchequer is ever going to propose to cut down our expenditure on armaments below the level of absolute security, and I should be the last to propose that. When the right hon. Gentleman says that this is not the time to restrict the schedule of taxes, he hints that you should increase the number of things you tax. It is not the goods you tax that pay the tax. A tax on a parcel of sugar does not pay the tax; a tax on a canister of tea does not pay the tax. It is the person who consumes the article who pays. [An HON. MEMBER: Or produces it.] Well, I will not go into that argument now. The consumer is the man who pays, and if, instead of having six taxes, you had 600, you would not be increasing the resources of the country by increasing the number of things you tax. It is one of the mast fundamental, and one of the crudest errors ever advanced that the moment you begin to tax 1,000 instead of ten commodities you are by some magic means increasing the resources of the country. The right hon. Gentleman talked about destroying our resources. We began by taking more than half the duty off the sugar duty, by taking a penny off ale tea duty, and by remitting the tax on coal. Then we are told that we are destroying our recources. It is the first time that I have ever heard of a country destroying its resources by taking away a tax. If it is a resource at all it is still there. The right hon.

691
Gentleman talked about the safety of the State as being far more important than reductions in the expenditure on the Army or Navy. If it is necessary to reimpose the taxes we have taken off for armaments or war, the commodities are there, and we can do these things again. The people of this country will consume sugar although the tax is taken off. They will drink tea although the tax is only 5d. instead of 6d., and they will drink it if the tax is 7d. instead of 5d. if the time ever comes when you require these resources. I do not understand the right hon. Gentleman when he talks about destroying the resources of the country by taking off taxes. On the contrary, we say that you do not. What we do at the present moment is to set them on one side.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I am glad to hear you say that, but it was very different from what was said by the spokesman of the Government when they too k the taxes off.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has been presupposing a sort of Armageddon when we shall be fighting everybody in the world, when it will be necessary to tax everything. I deprecate all this lugubrious talk, as if we are at the end of our resources. It is not true. As a matter of fact, our taxation is much less than it was when the right hon. Gentleman left office, and during the last ten years the income which has passed under survey for income-tax has increased to the extent of £220,000,000 a year. Our taxation during that period has increased probably by £20,000,000 or £30,000,000, or about one-tenth; but the taxable resources of the country have increased by nine-tenths of that amount, so that to talk as if we are at the end of our resources is not doing justice to the power of this country. And, if anything, it is doing harm to this extent—that it does encourage foreign countries to imagine that, now we have got to the end of our power, we have got to choose between social reform and the end of our country. This country is not put to that option. We are a long way off that. And really to say, when we propose to
692
give £7,000,000 to the old people of this country, that we are either to leave them to starvation or to abandon the country to the mercy of Germany or any other Power: such wild talk has nothing in common with the facts of the case. We need do neither. We are not yet driven 'to the resource of Germany—to borrow money for defence. But if there were a real danger, there is no Chancellor of the Exchequer who would hesitate for a moment to pledge the credit of the country to make it secure from prospective attack from any quarter. We have got command of the sea and are free from invasion. Nobody can calculate what that means to the country and no Government, whether Liberal or Conservative, is ever going to run the danger or even the risk of forfeiting that for a moment. I agree with the hon. Member that there is a temporary lapse in our trade; but trade is like a tide—it comes and. goes. You have got your ebb and you have got your tidal wave which sweeps away much. The spring tide has passed; we are in for the neap, but the spring will come again. That is the history of our trade. We have got our winters and summers, but every time that there is a bit of a lapse in trade there is a considerable number of people who say our trade is going. If they would only look at the experience of the past they would know that their fears are groundless. And, at any rate, if this is a time when trade is on the down grade for the moment, it is not the time for a great country like this, sure of its resources, with its industrial powers founded on the most solid foundations that any industrial country of the world has ever seen, to say: "We will begin to economise, to stint, to draw in—not in armanents, but in providing for the aged poor." This project is a great one. It is not my conception. It belongs to the Prime Minister. It has been my pride that my right hon. friend has given me the privilege and the opportunity of taking a humble share in piloting through this House a Budget which is the one Budget in my recollection in this House in which money has been raised for the poor, the unfortunate, and, the destitute.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid there was one thing quite certain, and that was that the change of office

693
had not changed the right hon. Gentleman's charm of style, or the influence of his speeches upon his audience; but even while they fell under the spell of his eloquence the natural, and, should he call it, the tariff reform intelligence, reasserted itself. He was therefore disposed. to make one or two criticisms on what the hon. Gentleman had just stated. He would not follow the right hon. Gentleman in his peroration on old-age pensions which had naturally moved all of them; and if the Opposition did not criticise the provision for the poor of which the right hon. Gentleman had spoken, it was not because they believed that the measure put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues was the best for relieving the necessities of the poor. They had asked the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to show the House and the country the sources, not the resources, from which the Government was going to get the money for the old-age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman made play with the term "resources," but he knew perfectly well that what the Opposition meant was the sources from which the right hon. Gentleman said he was certain he knew where he was going to get his money.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he really did not know what the hon. Gentleman meant, or what he wanted to know from him.
SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid he thought he was quite clear in saying that the Opposition did not know the sources from which the right hon. Gentleman was going to get his money to pay for old-age pensions. The Opposition said there was a very narrow basis of taxation on tea, sugar, and certain other necessaries of life. They said that the income-tax was at a war rate, and that the liquor trade was taxed heavily. It was quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman was going to find a new source of taxation, a new foundation of finance, and he thought that the Opposition were entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman where he was going to get the money for this vast scheme, this far-reaching
694
permanent demand on our fiscal system. The Prime Minister had never answered the question, nor had the right hon. Gentleman. In referring to the subject of indirect taxation, he did not think the right hon. Gentleman had put the case quite fairly. They on the Opposition side said that if taxation was placed on a very few articles, by increasing that taxation consumption was lessened, and therefore the return from the taxation of those articles which was needed to make up the annual Budget was lessened. Did not the right hon. Gentleman see that it would be better if the taxation were placed upon a series of articles which would not press heavily on the individual article, and therefore would not necessarily lessen consumption? The Opposition were reasonable in showing that such a system was found effective in almost every other country in the world. The right hon. Gentleman was an Imperialist; he did not shrink from that term being applied to himself; did lie not think it, therefore, strange that there was not a single British Colony which, starting with free trade, had not come ultimately to adopt the principle of indirect taxation? All that the Opposition asked was that the arguments which they put forward might be treated with due respect. They were not a handful of people advocating a policy of indirect taxation. They represented far greater constituencies and a far greater number of people than the right hon. Gentleman. They might be wrong; it was quite possible; but at any rate, they ought, when they were bringing forward their views, to be listened to with common courtesy. The right hon. Gentleman's reference to the United States was not entirely felicitous from his own standpoint. He did not think that his remarks were very well founded. Hon. Members below the gangway were aware that unemployment in this country was last month 8 per cent., which was double what it was for the same month of last year. It did not become the Chancellor of the Exchequer to talk as if we were free from embarrassment in this country from want of employment whilst the United States were suffering. He himself had only recently returned from the United

695
States, and knew the disturbed conditions there. But the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the disturbed condition of the United States was due to protection. After all, there was no sharper statesman in this country than the right hon. Gentleman, and he made that point. Whether the point did true justice to his knowledge of the information conveyed to him by the Department. over which he presided was another matter. The United States was passing through a crisis which this country would also have to pass through. We also had trusts. Trusts were growing and developing under our system of free trade every day. There were British trusts which were springing up in various parts, syndicates which existed for controlling prices, in restraint of trade. In the engineering trade particularly had these great trusts and syndicates sprung up in restraint of trade. They were absolutely opposed to the free trade which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite so strongly and properly, as believed in it, advocated. He suggested that it was such trusts in the United States, trusts which the President had strongly attacked by the passage of laws to restrain them, that had been the cause of the disturbance of trade and want of employment in America. Did anybody with any sense—did the right hon. Gentleman with the information at his disposal really believe the United States was in a paralysed condition with regard to her industries or her trade? The United States had suffered a check, but. she would recover from it. Her vast resources would enable her to do so, and the right hon. Gentleman was neither fair nor just in suggesting that this momentary check, this disturbance of trade in the United States was due to the fiscal system there. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of investments abroad. He spoke of the Argentine, with his usual brilliancy, as the most gorgeous flower of the bunch of the South American republics. The Argentine was precisely the country where money was invested. because it was an agricultural country. As the right hon. Gentleman had. observed, and entirely accurately, the interest of the money invested was paid in goods. But did he seriously suppose that nothing was lost to this
696
country when this £200,000,000 went for investment to foreign lands? Certainly the interest was paid in goods, but was nothing lost in the wages which would have been paid if this money was invested here? He did not quarrel with investments abroad, but he did say that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong when he argued that the only thing we had to consider was the dividend that came from that investment. He ventured to say, and many free traders in the House would agree with him, that if we could have kept the money, that £200,000,000, in this country——
AN HON. MEMBER: We had nothing for it to do.
SIR GILBERT PARKER: The hon. Gentleman said we had nothing for it to do; that was exactly the point to which he was coming.
MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid we had plenty of capital for all our industries and then £200,000,000 to spare.
SIR GILBERT PARKERasked if the hon. Gentleman suggested that there were no wide opportunities for developing British industries. Did he know that what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1903 was true; that some industries had disappeared altogether; that some were disappearing, and that others were only holding their own by meeting competition by a strenuous fight to the death. Was not there a disappearance of industry if we had not the raw material worked up from the lowest to the highest? The United States admitted nearly as much raw material free as she taxed. If we worked up all our raw material in this country, would the hon. Gentleman or any other Member of the House suggest there would not be more scope for British capital? They thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer treated this matter far too lightly. The right hon. Gentleman never did himself justice in his conduct in the House, because his attitude was bound by conditions imposed upon him at the last election and

697
by his followers behind him. It was only in his own Department that he gave his mind that opportunity which some day, if they were not mistaken, would lead him and others into the path of indirect taxation in order to seek revenue from sources which had been too long disregarded, and which, until they were regarded, would exclude from the National profit those sources of taxation.
MR. C. E. PRICEquoted an extract from the Report of the American Consul at Manchester.
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERpointed out that the amount of bales of cotton used in America and Germany largely exceeded the amount of bales used in this country and that the proportion of bales used in Germany and. America increased in greater ratio than the bales used in the country.
AN HON. MEMBER: What are the figures?
MR. HARMOOD-BANNERsaid he had not the exact figures, but they were given recently in the Outlook and they had never been challenged. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, towards the end of his speech, had dealt with the fact that the Opposition supposed that he was at the end of his resources of taxation. Where that charge had come from he did not know, but it was an easy one to set up a howl at. Their complaint, however, was not that this country was at the end of its resources for taxation, but that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so arranged the finances of the country that they were going to attack the income-tax payer and the Sinking Fund in order to meet the enormous deficit which must arise on the expenditure next year. It was a very serious point to be met. With regard to the sources of taxation from which this new expenditure was to come, the Prime Minister in his speech as Chancellor of the Exchequer when introducing the Budget had distinctly mentioned those sources as the sources from which he desired to obtain the
698
monies to pay for old-age pensions. Though the right hon. Gentleman did not directly state that the Sinking Fund was to be one of them a reference was made to the Sinking Fund which suggested that the right hon. Gentleman or his successor might go to that source to carry the pension scheme further. The complaint was that such a statement as that, combined with the reduction of the sugar duties, showed that the money for the expenditure for old-age pensions was to be found by one particular set of taxpayers. Labour had had its day and was now earning its full reward from the benches opposite, and one of the reasons why the City was so depressed was that men would not lend them money; and why ships were going without cargoes, and railways without full wagons, was because there was not a capitalist now who had the slightest confidence in what was going to happen to this country, because of the financial attacks which were made on them. It was very rare that a word was said on behalf of the capital interests of the country. In his opinion they were the saving classes, and it was the savings of capital which created the money which was found to pay labour. They had nothing this session except a tax on every interest connected with capital, and, the result was seen in the depressed state of trade. One of the great pioneers of industry told him recently that he wished he was out of this country, because it was almost impossible now not to feel that any man who had any interest in looking after the diffusion of capital was the enemy of the Government. That was his reason for saying that with reference to the reduction of the sugar duty it was premature, and in face of the enormous expenditure to be incurred next year, it was unwise. Had the gold reserves been touched by the present Parliament? They all recollected the dreadful panic that afflicted the commercial world. during last winter, and at that time the outcry was that the god reserves should be dealt with. The bankers on the opposite side of the House had not been able to influence the Government, and nothing had been done to alter the position that were the enormous amounts due from the savings

699
banks there was not an atom of gold in the Bank of England to represent them. The Government would have been better advised to deal with that question, and not to reduce the sugar duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked a great deal about the reduction of liabilities of the Sinking Fund, but what did that mean? He paid so much off and said he was clever and had paid off money running at 2½ per cent., but in Transvaal Loans, local loans funds, and Irish Land stock he was incurring on British responsibility equal amounts with interest at 3 per cent., so that the debt was not diminished in any way whatever. As between the Government and the public the debt remained the same. He would like to congratulate the Government on the clause which related to the duty on tobacco produced in Ireland, because that was a breach of free trade which they knew must in the end bring down the wall of free trade. One of the laws of free trade was that if they had a duty for revenue purposes they must impose an equal excise duty on any article of that description manufactured or grown in the country in which the tax arose, and the result had been shown in Egypt in the crushing of the cotton mills and in India in penalising the poor natives for the benefit of the Manchester manufacturers. But now for Ireland a breach had been started of that law to which he had referred. For once in a way the Government had adopted the theory that it was possible in order to protect an industry to differentiate between Excise and Revenue duties; and in that way they had started what he hoped they would carry out in the future, the idea of abolishing the Excise in Egypt and in India. The Finance Bill imposed an enormous liability on the taxpayer, it attacked every interest of capital which was capable of being attacked, and it showed that in the future there was to be no mercy in the House for anyone except the one Party which sat on the benches below the gangway.
*MR. J. M. HENDERSONsaid he wanted to correct an impression given to the House by the hon. Member for Gravesend, who seemed to think that because £200,000,000 had
700
gone from this country to Argentina and other foreign countries, that money had been lost as capital in this country. But he would ask the House to consider what the money was for. In the case of Argentina, for instance, the money was principally for the development of railways owned to a very large extent by the people of this country. The money was spent in this country in making engines and railway carriages for those railways. But even if it were not so spent, that money was our extra money that we did not require. A little while ago Irish stock was put on the market, and it was subscribed four or five times over, and that alone showed that there was plenty of money left for industries in this country. Because trade went down people did not throw their money into businesses and concerns that were not remunerative. We had plenty of money left and almost unlendable at the present day. He would point out that there was at the present time a bank rate of 2½ per cent., and that meant that for every British industry which could show a reasonable prospect of success there was ample and sufficient, capital left in the country.
Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed.

SMALL HOLDINGS AND ALLOTMENTS BILL [LORDS].
Read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Whitley.)

CRAN MEASURES BILL [LORDS].
Read a second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—(Mr. Whitley.)
Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 10th July, adjourned the House without Question put.
Adjourned at seventeen minutes before Four o'clock till Monday next.