Lords Sitting of 7 July 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Erne Lough and River* (149).
Second Reading—Statute Law Revision and Civil Procedure* (140); Petroleum (Hawking)* (139).
Committee—Local Government Provisional Orders (Acton, &c.)* (121); Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (68); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1)* (125); Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 3)* (135); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation* (122); Lunacy Districts (Scotland) (108–152).
Committee—Report—Court of Bankruptcy (Ireland) (Officers and Clerks)* (133).
Third Reading—Veterinary Surgeons* (127); Summary Jurisdiction (Process)* (124), and passed.

TURKEY AND GREECE—THE FRONTIER QUESTION.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIEinquired whether the Government Were in possession of any information as to the occupation of the new Greek Frontier by the Greeks?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am happy to be able to assure my noble

  209
  Friend that progress has been made in the negotiations respecting the Greek Frontier. The Convention has been signed by the Greek and Turkish Plenipotentiaries, and General Hamley reported yesterday that the Turks retired that day from Dimario on the left Turkish Frontier, and that the Greeks crossed the Frontier and took possession. All was done in good order.

  ARMY—DEATHS BY SUNSTROKE AT ALDERSHOT.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked the Under Secretary of State for War, If he could now give any information regarding the casualties which occurred among the troops at Aldershot on last Monday?
  THE EARL OF MORLEY: My Lords, I can now give to your Lordships more information as to what occurred on the field-day at Aldershot last Monday than when my noble Friend put his Question to me on Tuesday evening. As I told my noble Friend on that day immediately the report arrived at the War Office the Secretary of State for War at once called for a detailed account of the circumstances. The field-day was appointed for Monday four or five days previously. On Sunday and Monday, on the Fox Hills, where the field-day took place, it was somewhat hot, but a strong breeze was blowing. The troops went out as usual in field-day order—that is to say, they had nothing to carry except their water bottles. They started after breakfast at 8.30. The manœuvres were over before 1 o'clock, and until then there were no casualties and few men fell out. About that time, however, the heat greatly increased; and, unfortunately, the usual anxiety to get back to their lines led to the regiments hurrying the pace, and this, in the heavy dust and increased heat, probably caused a good many men to fall out. Of the 19 men who were sent into hospital the greater part fell out then. Unfortunately, four men have died. Three died of sunstroke—one was an old sergeant of Militia, aged 45, who did not fall out; he was somewhat stout, and liable to suffer from the heat. The second was a man of long service, aged 32, and, on post-mortem examination, he was found to be highly predisposed to illness of this kind; the third was a perfectly healthy man, of long service, aged 33. There
  210
  was a fourth death of a driver, from heart disease; but he was riding on a waggon all day, and had undergone no fatigue, nor did he complain till later in the day. It is remarkable that from the brigade which went over the most ground, and did the hardest work, the smallest number of men, only 12, fell out, and none went into hospital. At a time of exceptional heat all parades take place in the early morning, so that troops may be back in camp before the power of the sun becomes excessive. I do not think that beyond this well-understood rule, attention to which has been especially called by a Circular, issued on Tuesday, the discretion of commanding officers need be hampered. We are all greatly distressed by, and deeply lament, the deaths of these men; but I think I have plainly stated the exceptional circumstances under which they occurred.

  LUNACY DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  (The Earl of Dalhousie.)

  (No. 108.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to order).
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that on behalf of his noble Friend (the Duke of Buccleuch) he begged to propose an Amendment in the Bill. He thought the Lord Advocate was not the proper authority for making the alteration in the lunacy districts. The Bill proposed that as the Prison Boards did not now exist, the power should be in the hands of the Lord Advocate, acting on the application of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy. He proposed to strike out "the Lord Advocate," and make the clause read—
  "The General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy in Scotland shall have power, on the application of the Commissioners of Supply, to alter or vary the districts or divide the counties, &c."
  He hoped the Government would have no objection to the Amendment, as it seemed a much better proposal for dealing with the question than that the Lord Advocate should have power of varying those districts upon the application of the Commissioners.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he had received no Notice of the Amendment, and he therefore asked the noble

  211
  Duke not to press it at present, but to bring it up on the Report.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that in the circumstances he would acquiesce in the suggestion of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEmoved to substitute the Commissioners of Supply of any county for the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy.
  Amendment agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendment to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No.152.)

  SUMMARY PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 99.)
  (The Earl of Dalhousie.)

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHasked the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie), who had charge of the Bill, if he was now able to give an explanation to the question formerly put regarding the scale of costs which the Bill sought to enact in the Schedule, and which seemed inconsistent with the 4th clause of the Bill, laying it down that the maximum costs should not exceed £1?
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, the explanation was that where the costs, according to the scale laid down in the Schedule, exceeded the maximum, the defendant would not be liable for more than that amount, and the surplus would have to be paid by the prosecution.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHsaid, the explanation did not in any way remove the objections he had to this enactment. It seemed a very extraordinary thing that a Bill was to be passed by this House limiting the amount which the defendant had to pay to £1, and mulcting the prosecutor, the injured party, in whatever extra amount of costs was incurred. While it was desirable to keep down costs when the amount of fine imposed was very trivial, yet why the defendant, who had been convicted, should be released at the expense of the prosecutor, was really an enactment which altogether passed his comprehension to understand. He hoped that before the House would consent to that they would have something in the nature of a justification of this curious enactment.
  LORD WATSONsaid, he hoped the Government would re-consider this suggestion. On referring to the precise terms of the Bill, which was one of a useful character, defining the limits of costs, which were sometimes excessive in these summary prosecutions in Scotland, he found that there was a table of fees, according to which agents were to be paid for conducting those cases. If there were two witnesses, by the smallest scale of expenses the prosecutor's charges out of pocket would amount to £1 12 s. 6d. The smallest possible expenses under this Bill would be about £l 5s., and yet it provided that in no instance whatever, when the penalty did not exceed £3, the prosecutor should be entitled to more than £1 of expenses. In short, the Bill enacted that while it was a fair and reasonable thing that the prosecutor should pay on a low scale of charges a sum of £1 10 s. 6d., he should only recover £l, or, in other words, he should pay one-half or one-third of the whole costs. A Bill of this sort was always attended with a certain degree of danger. It was a proper thing to cut down the expenses of the law agents who charged too much for certain species of work; but there was a danger of laying down a hard-and-fast rule as to maximum expenses that put it in the power of persons liable to penalties—who were not acting independently, but as members of associations, and who were, therefore, furnished with ample funds for their own defence, or in cases of land and river poaching, offences against the Factory Acts, and others—to harass the prosecutors by protracting the proceedings, leading a great deal of evidence, and so involving them in expenses to the amount of £5 or £6, even according to this scale, so that when the penalty was inflicted the prosecutor would find that he had four or five times as much to pay as the defendant. He suggested that the 4th clause should be re-framed in terms that would prevent such a possibility.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, this was a legal Bill, to discuss which would require considerable legal knowledge on his part. As the noble and learned Lord gave no Notice of the Amendment, he asked him to be good enough to put it on the Paper.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could not agree that to discuss the proposition of his noble

  213
  and learned Friend required any legal knowledge. It was a practical matter on which their Lordships were perfectly able to give a judgment; and he believed the Lord Chancellor was well able to deal with it without the noble Earl consulting the Law Officers of the Crown.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, he preferred to postpone the consideration of the Amendment.
  Report of Amendment (which stands appointed for this day) put off to Tuesday next.

  ENDOWED INSTITUTIONS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1873—THE PROVISIONAL ORDERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON, in rising to ask Her Majesty's Government, When the five Provisional Orders relating to Endowed Institutions in Scotland, including the new Order for Burnett's Literary Fund, that were presented on the 21st of June, will be circulated: And to move for a Return showing why no Provisional Orders have been issued in the following ten cases in which the Commissioners under the Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act of 1878 have reported to the Secretary of State: Spier's Trust, Beith; Boys' and Girls' Hospital, Aberdeen; Donaldson's Charity, Stonehaven; Graham Free School, Glasgow; Kellae's Trust, Haddington; Scott or Campbell Trust, Selkirk; Wilson's School, Fauldhouse; Wilson's School, Harthell; Wilson's School, Stane; and Wilson's School, Whitburn? said, he considered this was a Notice of a very important character. He had framed it in rather wide language, and he was not at all prepared to say that he would ask for a Return showing why no Provisional Orders had been issued in the cases named in his Motion; but what he really wanted to know was, what had become of those Orders? With regard to the first part of the Motion, he would like to ask the Government why the Provisional Orders relating to the Endowed Institutions in Scotland, including the new Order of Burnett's Literary Fund, presented on the 21st June, were not circulated? Their Lordships would recollect that in the early part of this Session he called attention to the scheme of Burnett's Literary Fund, and took occasion to speak somewhat strongly of the conduct of
  214
  the Home Secretary in relation to this scheme; and he thought he was justified in coming to the conclusion that a strong case existed in his favour and against that Department of Her Majesty's Government. Not one word was said in its favour, and the Motion he made disapproving of the scheme of the Home Department was carried without a division. Now, these schemes related to most important subjects, and Parliament was so very careful and jealous with all that sort of property dealt with under the provisions of the Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act passed in 1878, that all the persons interested in that Act should have every opportunity of being heard upon the subject. A clause was inserted in that Act which provided that the scheme, after being approved by the Secretary of State, should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for 40 days, and if no action was taken anent the scheme during that period, that it should become law. That being the case, it appeared to him that it was the duty of the Secretary of State to see that the provisions of the Act were carried out strictly and to the letter. Now, what had happened in each of the five Provisional Orders to which he had called attention? The Order lists were presented to the House on the 21st June, and it was now the 7th July—that was 17 days—and up to that moment those schemes had not been delivered for their Lordships' consideration. He was told that they had been presented only yesterday in the other House of Parliament; and, therefore, practically by the conduct of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in this case, the parties who were interested in those schemes had been deprived of 16 days out of 40 in which they might make objections and consider what course they should take. He was quite ready to admit that in these days of rapid communication between this country and the North of Scotland such a loss of time was not so important as it would once have been. But it would be admitted that some considerable time ought to be granted to persons living in the extreme North of the Empire to consult together how the schemes affected their own interests, and whether any action, and if so what action, should be taken about it. He had a great interest in Burnett's Literary

  215
  Fund, and he should have been very glad before now to have had the opportunity of communicating with those who were also interested, as to whether this scheme would be agreeable to them or the contrary. He was by no means saying—he had no means of knowing—that the Burnett Scheme might not have been altered in a manner satisfactory to the Governing Body; but what he did say was, that by the action of the Secretary of State for the Home Department they were deprived of 16 days out of 40 which they had to consider the situation. Now, it seemed to him there must be some most extraordinary influence—he hardly knew how to describe it—at work in the Home Office with regard to the printing and presenting of Papers to Parliament. He had a knowledge of one of the most important Papers, probably, that their Lordships could have before them—the Report of the Irish Assistant Commissioners. That Report was presented to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, through whom it must necessarily come for presentation to Her Majesty, on the 18th January. Of course, when the Commissioners had sent it to the Home Department their duty with regard to it ceased. Their Lordships would be astonished to hear that, notwithstanding the Secretary of State received the Report from the Irish Assistant Commissioners, in a matter of the very highest importance, on the 18th January, it was only printed and circulated on the 6th of July; therefore, there must be something very irregular in the manner in which the Home Office dealt with this question. With regard to the other schemes, though he did not press for a Return regarding them, he was deeply interested to know what had happened to those schemes. The Reports, according to the Commission, had been presented to the Home Secretary. He should like to know where those schemes were. What had become of them? Had the Commissioners been communicated with by the Secretary of State for the Home Department with regard to the action he had taken, or was taking, with reference to these subjects? The first scheme mentioned in his Motion was partly dealt with by the late Government. He had suggested to Sir R. Assheton Cross, then Home Secretary, certain objections he entertained to that scheme, one of
  216
  Which was the large outlay—£16,000—proposed to be made for buildings, and the other that a member of the School Board should be a member of the Governing Body. The latter proposition was stated to be ultra vires, and that question still remained unsettled when the late Government left Office. But why had not the Orders presented on the 21st June been circulated? He noticed some of them were circulated yesterday, so that his Motion had done some good. It had induced the Home Secretary to see that these schemes were circulated. He was told one of them was in their Lordships' House, and that the others would be circulated probably in the course of to-morrow; but he pointed out that great injustice had been done to those parties in having the time in which they could petition against the scheme curtailed in the manner he had described. He would be glad to know what had come of the other schemes which he had enumerated; and whether any, and if so what, communication had taken place between the Home Secretary and the Endowed Institution Commissioners in Scotland, if the Secretary of State was not going to agree with the recommendation of the body?
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIE, in reply, said, the noble Duke had really answered the first part of the Question himself when he stated, quite correctly, that one of these Provisional Orders had been circulated that day, and that others would be circulated in a day or two. In the case of the other schemes to which he referred, there had been some difference of opinion—in some cases very considerable difference—between the Scotch Education Department and the Educational Endowment Commissioners. There had not been time to adjust the issue in each of these cases, and the Secretary of State had therefore thought it advisable that they should be postponed, in order to be considered by the new Committee to be appointed by the Bill now before the House of Commons. In the case of two of those schemes there had been strong opposition on the part of certain local bodies.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the noble Earl did not appear to have understood the drift of the Question of his noble Friend. The objection was, not as to the time the Secretary of State might

  217
  have spent over a scheme, but that 16 out of the 40 days given by Government as a security and guarantee against bad administration on the part of the Commissioners had been taken away. The Government must provide some remedy against the recurrence of such delay if the terms of the Act were to be honestly carried out.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHwished to say a few words on the matter of the Endowed Schools Commission which had had to do with those schemes. The Chairman of that Commission was detained in Scotland by his judicial duties; and he had requested him, in consequence of this matter being brought forward, to state the facts of a few of the cases mentioned in the Motion. He need hardly say that no Member of the Commission would have thought it consistent with his duty to bring such a matter before the House, because, although they were always glad when the Reports which they had to give in were agreed to and acted upon, still it was a public duty they had been discharging, and it was in no degree a personal question whether any of the recommendations they made were given effect to or not. But there was one point in connection with the way in which these recommendations had been dealt with he should like to bring under their Lordships' notice. They, as a Commission, had never in any single instance received any intimation as to whether their recommendations were to be given effect to or not; and, therefore, they had been wholly unable to give any information to parties promoting those schemes, whether or not those schemes would obtain the sanction of the Government and be laid on the Table of the House. In a matter of this importance, he submitted that the Commission appointed to inquire into these schemes and to make recommendations was not quite fairly treated when they were never informed, either by the Home Office or any other Government Department, whether their recommendations were to be given effect to or not. In the case of Burnett's Trust, for example, their Lordships would remember how a scheme not only not the same as the scheme which the Commission gave their sanction to, but utterly inconsistent with it on many important points, was laid on the Table without one whisper of infor-
  218
  mation that the Commission had dealt with the matter at all, and not a hint was given that an alternative scheme much more in consonance with the Founder's will had been transmitted by the Commission to the Home Office. With reference to the case of Donaldson's Endowment, Stonehaven, of which the annual revenue was £85, it was his opinion that if a Commission could not be trusted to deal with such small sums, it was very little use indeed appointing the Commission. In this case there was no opposition, and no new remit was made to the Commission; although a whole year had passed since the Commission had reported, yet the order was refused. Now, certainly, in such a case, the Governing Body had not been very fairly used. In the case of the Kellae Trust, Haddington, the net annual revenue of which was £37 6s., their recommendation was to vest the fund in the School Board, for the purpose of founding bursaries for children in Haddington, to be competed for by open competition, to be held within the leading school of the town, the sole surviving trustee, who agreed in the proposal, to be associated with the School Board in the discharge of the trust during his life. That recommendation was made on the 6th of August, 1880; no further communication of any kind had been made to the Commission, and yet this Order had been refused. Now, he had seen it stated in the public prints that effect had been given to certain opposition on the part of the Provost and Magistrates of Haddington, who disapproved because no special provision was made for clothing; but he could hardly believe such a thing possible, and he should be very glad to hear from the Government that that had not been the ground of their refusing this Order. He felt it his duty to himself and his Colleagues on the Commission to press, in accordance with what the noble Duke had said, for a full explanation of the principles which had governed the Home Office in refusing their consent to those schemes.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, that, as the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had observed, the Education Department had no responsibility for the action finally taken in regard to those schemes. That Department, however, was consulted, as the noble Duke well knew, on the schemes when they were

  219
  submitted to the Home Office. As to the point which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had pressed on his noble Friend who represented the Home Office, he had to say that Her Majesty's Government regretted exceedingly that the Papers were not circulated immediately after they were presented. They were not presented, as the noble Duke seemed to think, in "dummy," but were presented entire; and he confessed that it was a matter of regret that they had not been circulated sooner. His noble Friend would inquire into the reasons for the delay; for he admitted that it was highly inconvenient that after those Papers had been laid on the Table they should not have been immediately circulated. With respect to the scheme generally, he would point out that out of the 10 to which the noble Duke had called attention, one of them was dealt with completely under the late Government. The noble Duke said he was not aware what the answer was as to the scheme having been ultra vires. No doubt, he was quite right in that. But that scheme was entirely disposed of by the late Government. Of the remaining schemes, as his noble Friend had said, some of them had not been proceeded with because there was a strong local opposition. As to the others, the Education Department held that there were various objections, in some cases of greater, in others of less importance, to them. Those objections were sent to the Home Office, and in one case the scheme was remitted again to the Commission. But when the Home Secretary found that there was a considerable difference between the Education Department and the Commissioners, and that there was not time for the proper consideration of the subject, he thought that the much more prudent course would be not to deal with it this year. It was not fair to say that there were 10 schemes, because in regard to the case of Wilson's Schools there was a desire evinced on the part of some of those concerned to amalgamate those small funds; and as there was no power under the Act which regulated those matters to make that amalgamation, it was thought desirable to defer the consideration of those subjects to another time. He was glad that the noble Duke had stated that he would not press his Motion as it stood on the Paper, because he (Earl Spencer) believed it would be un-
  220
  paralleled that the reasons why schemes had not been passed should be presented to Parliament.

THE SUGAR INDUSTRIES—PETITION FROM ISLAND OF BARBADOES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in rising to present a Petition from merchants, planters, and others connected with the Island of Barbadoes, said: My Lords, I have taken the unusual course of giving Notice of an intention to present this Petition in order that I might preface that step with a few observations, not only because the Petition is from a distant Colony, and is, therefore, deserving consideration and attention at your Lordships' hands, but also because it expresses the feelings of a portion of Her Majesty's subjects who, like many others at the present moment, are complaining that their interests are adversely affected, and that their industry is being destroyed, by the fiscal action of foreign Powers. The growth of this feeling in the country must be familiar to your Lordships, and it is not necessary that I should dilate upon it. A very remarkable change of feeling has taken place in many centres of industry, and complaints or proposals are being made which, 10 years ago, would have been held impossible. But I will not propose to enter upon that portion of the commercial discontent of the present day which deals with the question of adverse fiscal duties, and which claims retaliatory duties as a protection. It is not necessary that I should discuss that subject; it is one of exceeding difficulty, and I should be sorry to say anything that might be interpreted to be at variance with those principles of commercial policy which this country has deliberately adopted. But the particular case which the planters and merchants of Barbadoes wish to bring before your Lordships, and before the English public, does not deal with the particular class of proposals which are commonly known under the name of Reciprocity. The fiscal measures of foreign Governments give advantages to their own subjects in two ways. They impose duties of protection which exclude our goods from their markets. In that case they give a bounty to their own traders at the expense of their own consumers. The

  221
  case I have to bring before you does not belong to that class. It is the case of foreign Governments, by direct bounties drawn from the resources of the taxpayer, cheapening products of their own manufacturers and driving the manufactures of other countries, and espepecially of this Empire, out of the market. Now, the particular country whose legislation in this respect has given cause for the complaint of the West Indian planters is Austria, and the way in which the sugar industry is adversely affected is this. In Austria a tax is raised on the native beet-root sugar, which is largely exported, and a drawback is then given to the exporter; but the drawback is so calculated that it gives a large bounty to the exporter, giving him back a great deal more than he had paid to his own Government, and so enriching him that he is able to go to other markets with sugar at a much cheaper price than those producers who have not received similar advantages can afford to sell at. The result is that the Austrian raw sugar has been supported by the taxes of the Austrian subjects, and has been able to compete more and more with the sugar grown by our own planters, who have not such an advantage to support them. So keen, apparently, has the Austrian Government been in this policy that they actually at one time paid back in drawbacks more than the whole of the duty they received from beet-root. The results have been very severe on the West Indian planters. The consumption of sugar in this country has, as your Lordships know, grown enormously during the last 10 years, owing to the increase in wealth and population and the abolition of our duty; but, notwithstanding that fact, the import from the West Indian planters has been almost absolutely stationary, while the advantage of the State subsidy on the part of Austria is shown by the fact that within the last few years the export of beet-root sugar has increased from 600,000 tons to more than 1,500,000 tons. The sugar bounty question has engaged the consideration of successive Governments; and, after much negotiation with foreign Powers, it was thought by the late Government that the best course would be to allow the matter to be referred to a Committee of the House of Commons. It was so referred, and that Committee
  222
  collected evidence and considered the matter with great care, and made, last Session, a very exhaustive and able Report on the subject. The Prayer of the Petition, and the considerations which I shall urge on the Government, do not go beyond the proposals of the Committee. I only ask that due attention should be given to these proposals, and that they should not be entirely neglected. The Committee said, and said in very distinct language, that very serious damage is being done by the policy of foreign Governments to which I have referred. It appears from the Report that much of the sugar industry of the West Indies has been destroyed, and that 50 sugar-growing estates have been abandoned; while, in 1879, 36 such estates were advertised for sale without purchasers being found for them. All the witnesses on this branch of the subject agree in looking for the general abandonment "of sugar cultivation" if the present state of things continues. If this is the consequence of the action of any foreign Government over whom we have any influence, the matter is one for the grave consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and ought to be dealt with before it is magnified into a very great grievance. It is impossible to mention such a state of things without bearing in mind a similar grievance which exists with reference to sugar refining. It is exactly the same complaint, applied to another branch of the same trade. The French Government gives a drawback to the sugar refiners who export the produce of their industry. That drawback is calculated too high, and the result is that a very considerable bounty is given out of the French taxes to those who export it, and the French refiner is able to sell at a price which utterly undersells and destroys the profits of the English manufacturer. The consequences have been, in the same way, most lamentable. Five or six years ago there was a very flourishing sugar-refining industry in this country. The competition of the French refiner, supported by the bounty out of the French taxes, has driven the English refiner out of the English market, and all the establishments which existed five or six years ago have now been closed, and the trade is absolutely destroyed. Now, do not tell me we are bound, by the principles of Free Trade,

  223
  to look on coldly and calmly and see this destruction of British industries accomplished, because if you lay down that principle broadly and strongly, and say that nothing shall induce you to interfere when a foreign Government is destroying British industry, you may be quite sure that these undertakings which have been hitherto so successful will be imitated in other industries, and industry after industry will be destroyed by the co-operation of the foreign Governments with the foreign manufacturer, against which the British manufacturer is absolutely powerless. The foreign Government, practically speaking, is illimitably rich. It enters into partnership with its own manufacturers. It invests its property in the promotion of their industry, and the British industry, undefended as it is, must necessarily go down. If it really is the case that considerable benefit to the consumer results from this policy, that will, no doubt, be a very material consolation, and grounds for hesitating very much before pronouncing an adverse opinion; but the benefit to the consumer is, in reality, transient. It is always open to the foreign Government to enter into partnership with its own manufacturers to destroy British industry altogether and make British capital unproductive, and then, when that is done, there is no necessity that the bounty should be continued. Capital will not be invested in industries of this kind unless there is some prospect of stability of conditions, and if industry is always liable to be destroyed by a sudden incursion of a foreign Government using the taxes of its own subjects for the purpose of destroying that industry, the British capitalist will not risk his capital by sinking it in the machinery and buildings necessary for carrying on the trade. I cannot pass on without remarking that the French Government have made a further step along this path already. There is already a bounty given upon ships, sailing and steaming, and it is given in proportion to the amount of tonnage they actually carry. I do not know what effect these new measures will have on the British industry of shipbuilding; but it is looked on with considerable alarm, and I mention it as an indication of the policy which is guiding foreign Governments, and as a danger against which our own
  224
  manufacturers and Government have to contend. It is well known that one of the great difficulties—as was pointed out in a memorable speech delivered by the Earl of Beaconsfield some years ago—is the network of Favoured Nation Clauses which now exist, and which would hinder us from taking any isolated action. The reason why I wish to press this subject on the Government at the present moment is because the Committee, at the close of their Report, make some important proposals. They recommend Her Majesty's Government to institute careful inquiry into the matter, and, in the event of its being found impossible to arrive at an International agreement for the suppression of bounties, they were prepared to recommend the adoption of such a course had it been practicable under our existing Treaties; and they were of opinion that on the renewal of those Treaties the opportunity should be taken of making such alterations as would leave Her Majesty's Government at liberty to deal with the question. With reference to the negotiations which are now going on with France, I think Her Majesty's Government are bound to see that some arrangements are made—if they do make a Treaty—for redressing this great injury under which a once flourishing British industry and a considerable number of workmen are now suffering. But they may go further. If they agree with the French Government in this matter of the sugar refiners I have very little doubt that Austria will be disposed to come to terms. The matter is one for negotiation, and, if advocated by England and France combined, there will be a greater chance of success than if urged by England alone. I earnestly trust Her Majesty's Government will not simply neglect the matter and pass by on the other side. There is a cry arising for remedies which may perplex the ablest statesman to discover and apply. I know that a great authority, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—the same authority who, 30 years ago, was so fond of telling us that all nations were likely at once to adopt Free Trade—now tells us that a demand for measures of a reciprocal or retaliatory character is a sign of lunacy. I have no wish that any action should be adopted inconsistent with sound Free Trade; but I

  225
  should hesitate to apply the name of lunatics to those not of my own opinion, because I fear we should be in the awkward position of finding there are more people lunatics in the world than sane—an observation which always exposes to some doubt the sanity of the person who makes it. I do not think that by calling people lunatics Her Majesty's Government will stop this cry or apply any real remedy to the evils which exist. If they neglect it, if they do not take some pains to remove such grievances as these, I fear they will find themselves confronted, before long, with a political problem with which they will have some difficulty in dealing.
  Petition for countervailing duties upon foreign sugar imported under bounty into the United Kingdom; of Planters, Merchants, &c. of Barbadoes—Presented (The Marquess of SALISBURY).
  Petition read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Marquess gave a Notice which I will venture to read:—"To present a Petition from merchants, planters, and others connected with the Island of Barbadoes." Well, I wondered what might possibly be the subject which the noble Marquess intended to bring before us, because there are a good many different questions connected with Barbadoes. I then obtained the information that the subject had some connection with the sugar bounties. It seemed to me that upon a matter of such importance as one connected with Free Trade and Reciprocity, Notice should have been given that that was the subject which was about to be brought forward. I do not complain of the course taken by the noble Marquess so far as I am concerned; but, no Notice having been given, your Lordships were not prepared for the speech which the noble Marquess made. The noble Marquess said he would not go into the question of Reciprocity, or say anything which would be inconsistent with the principles of that commercial policy which has been adopted by this country; but the greater part of his speech, I thought, was intended to encourage those who wish to see those principles departed from. He attacked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, one of the principal English advocates of Free Trade principles,
  226
  and insinuated that the time would come when it would be wise to embark on a course of Reciprocity and Retaliation. I wish the noble Marquess had stated more fully what policy he was in favour of, because if he were in favour of Reciprocity and Retaliation, he might have indicated how that policy was to be pursued, and whether he would be prepared to introduce the system. I, for my part, think it is a great error to blame persons who happen to differ from me and others on the subject of Free Trade, because it is undoubtedly true that a very large number of educated men are still in favour of the policy of Protection; and we ourselves, not a very long time ago, thought it was a sound system. But if we are to discuss this question, let us discuss it face to face, and not on such a Notice as the noble Marquess has given. I have not lost faith in Free Trade, and I believe it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to form a practicable Tariff on this subject which can be submitted with any confidence to any body of men, and by which the Reciprocity system can again be introduced. The difficulties of the West India planters are of old standing. They are connected, as is well known, with the system of industry in that region and with many other causes. I sympathize with them, but I confess, as a consumer in this country, I am not altogether in favour of a movement which seems to be directed to taxing the consumers of sugar in this country, and especially to encourage the production of West India sugar. The noble Marquess has not given your Lordship any figures, but I understand him to say that there is a considerable decrease in the production of sugar in the West Indies.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, what I said was that the importation of sugar had, during the last few years, practically stood still; and whereas the importation of beet-root sugar was formerly 600,000 tons, it was now 1,500,000 tons.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The impression made on my mind during the speech of the noble Marquess was that there had been a great decrease in the production of sugar. However, the Petition presented to the House is from the planters of Barbadoes, and I will venture to ask the noble Marquess whether, in the face of the figures which I will read

  227
  to the House, he will venture to say that the production has decreased? From a Return of the production of sugar in the West Indies, it appears that the average production of the West Indian Colonies for the five years ending 1869 was 166,000 tons, for the five years ending 1874 it was 181,000 tons, and for the four years between 1874 and 1878, 200,000 tons. There had, no doubt, at the same time, been a large increase in the production of beet-root sugar. For the three years between 1870 and 1873, which was the time when bounties began to affect the production of sugar, the average crop of cane sugar was 246,000 tons; between 1876 and 1879 it had fallen to 242,000 tons; while the corresponding figures for beet-root were 966,000 tons, and 1,607,000 tons. In Barbadoes, during the first term, the production of cane sugar was 91,544 tons; and during the latter three years, when bounties were said to have destroyed the production, it had risen to 132,000 tons. It is, then, rather remarkable that a Petition should be presented from Barbadoes asserting that the industry of the Island is seriously affected. It is quite true that the production of beet-root sugar has increased much beyond that of the sugar cane; but in Barbadoes, British Guiana, and Trinidad, although the sugar cane industry has not advanced so much as beet-root, it has progressed, and there is no symptom that it will decay. But there is another important consideration. When the financial position of these Islands is talked of, their condition as a whole ought to be regarded, and not merely with reference to one production. There has been a large increase in the production of cocoa in many of the West Indian Colonies, and, as I am informed, the production of cocoa, which is more profitable than that of sugar, is increasing to a remarkable extent in some of the Islands. It is the more important for the reason that the increased cocoa production has taken place mainly in those Colonies in which the sugar production has declined. The question of refined sugar, which is a very difficult and complicated one, is being inquired into with very great care, and, as far as the inquiry has gone, it has not been found that the number of persons employed has very largely decreased. The most important part of the speech of
  228
  the noble Marquess was that in which he threw out general and vague hints that it might be desirable to embark in a system of retaliation. Does this indicate that the Party of which the noble Marquess is the Leader are about to demand a reverse of the Free Trade policy of this country in order to return to Protection? I hope that when the noble Marquess makes up his mind on this subject he will give us fair notice of the fact, in order that we may have a full, fair, and free discussion of the subject.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he did not see that the speech of the noble Marquess was open to the suggestion just made, or he would have formulated his Notice in different terms. It was scarcely possible to consider such a question as that raised by the Petition presented to the House without referring to the general topic of Free Trade, which just now so largely engrossed public attention. The case of the West Indian Colonies was an extremely hard one, and all the harder because the resources of those Colonies were naturally very great, and they could supply a very large portion of the demands which this country could make upon them if it were not for the somewhat unfair action of the Government of a foreign country. The French bounty system was one which inflicted undeserved hardship upon the trade of this country, a considerable branch of which it threatened to destroy. A very curious picture was presented by the present state of things. On the one hand we had large Kingdoms forming themselves into great commercial unions, self-supporting and independent of others, as was being done by France, Germany, and the United States. On the other hand we had the English Empire, scattered over the whole of the world, the different parts containing different products which each other part desired, but the parts kept separated from each other by different and sometimes by adverse Tariffs. More than this, we had almost the whole of Europe at this moment entering into a combination to get as much as they could for themsleves, and as much as they could of what we had. France, in particular, had entered into a partnership with her own manufacturers to impose such a duty as must obviously have the effect of ruining the industries of this country in her market. There were, no doubt,

  229
  several conclusions which might be drawn from that state of things which were quite apart from the question before the House. The first result was that the country was now touching a new phase and form of this question, and we had arrived at a new point of departure in the negotiations for the French Treaty to which his noble Friend had alluded. It was perfectly clear, as his noble Friend had said, that the consumer in England was not likely to gain anything from these bounties, and for this obvious reason, that until the necessity for the continuance of these bounties ceased, the foreigner would get a hold of the English market, and make his own terms. The English trade thus destroyed by him was one which demanded a vast amount of capital, and, though it might be destroyed in a few years, could not be re-established in a short time. He ventured, therefore, to hope that the Government would consider very carefully the conclusion which had been arrived at not long ago in the other House of Parliament, which was to the effect that unless we were to obtain a Treaty, not merely equivalent, but superior to that of 1860, it would be better to have no Treaty at all. He, for one, heartily agreed in that opinion. He had always had grave doubts as to the whole policy of Commercial Treaties, and in those doubts he expected many noble Lords opposite would concur. Certainly, unless a better Treaty were obtained than that of 1860, he thought it would be better that we should be perfectly unfettered.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not rise to continue this discussion, which, as my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has said, has been brought upon the House very much in the nature of a surprise. I entirely join in the protest of my noble Friend, and I think that if the noble Marquess intended to raise this most important question, he ought to have given us some indication of what he meant to do. I looked at the Notice Paper, as it is my duty, and when I read the Notice of the noble Marquess, I thought he was going to bring before your Lordships some local grievance with which my noble Friend near me would be able to deal. But I had not the most distant idea, nor do I think that anyone could have conceived that
  230
  the noble Marquess was to a great degree about to raise the standard of Protection, under colour of the more plausible names of Retaliation and Reciprocity. That policy would have a great effect, a most mischievous effect, upon this country. My Lords, there is nothing that I could desire more than that this subject should be brought before your Lordships and worked out completely. But I do protest against two noble Lords settling between themselves to have this discussion without the Notice which it was proper to give. Could anyone imagine that if your Lordships had known generally that this subject would be brought before you, there would have been so few noble Lords present? Why, we should have assembled in large numbers on such a question as this. The only thing I have some satisfaction in hearing is the statement of the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) that he would prefer no Commercial Treaty at all to one which would put our commercial relations in a worse position than that in which they are now placed. No doubt, Treaties of Commerce are an exception—it would be better to have no Treaties of Commerce. But the existing Treaty was made in peculiar circumstances, and was intended to give the two countries an opportunity of seeing what could be done with a greater relaxation of trade. If this subject is to be treated in such a manner that our commercial relations will be put in a worse position than they are now in, I think it would be infinitely better to have no Treaty at all.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I only wish to say that I deny in the most categorical manner that I raised the standard of Protection, Retaliation, or Reciprocity. What I did was to urge the noble Earl at this juncture of the negotiations with France, to exercise his diplomatic ability for the purpose of protecting British industry and Colonial property, which are just now suffering from a deep grievance at the hands of Foreign Powers.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven
  o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.