Lords Sitting of 1 May 1896

BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY. PERSONAL EXPLANATION BY LORD LOCH.
*LORD LOCH, rising from the Cross Benches, said: My Lords, I venture to ask your Lordships' indulgence while I make a very brief statement in explanation of certain statements which have appeared in this morning's papers, extracted from the Paris Temps. It states that the Government of the South African Republic possesses proofs that in 1894, Sir Henry Loch, then Governor of the Cape and High Commissioner of South Africa, proposed to the Reform Committee the invasion of the Transvaal. To this statement I give the most unqualified contradiction. [Cheers.] The correspondent of the Temps further states that I asked Mr. Phillips whether Johannesburg could hold out for six days, and how many arms it possessed exclusive of the 3,000 rifles which had been announced. While denying the correctness of this statement, it may interest your Lordships to learn the possible reason that may have given rise to this statement. In June, 1894, I visited Pretoria in connection with the Swaziland Convention, which was then the subject of negotiation between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the South African Republic. The visit was also with a view of negotiating a Convention with reference to British subjects being exempt from compulsory military service in the Transvaal. On my arrival at Pretoria I was met at the station by President Kruger, accompanied by many of his Executive. There was a great crowd at the station, and it was with the greatest difficulty that President Kruger was enabled to have the way cleared for himself and myself going to his carriage. The crowd was a very excited crowd. They removed the President's coachman from the box, took out the horses; two men clambered on to the box with Union Jacks; and in this way we were conducted to Pretoria, a distance of from
314
a quarter to half a mile. On arrival at the hotel, where rooms had been prepared for me, there was a great crowd assembled in the streets, wishing to present addresses. I reminded those who were anxious to present addresses to me, that I was the guest of a friendly Power; and I refused to receive any addresses unless proper consideration was paid to the President, his Government, and the people of the South African Republic. There was much excitement in Johannesburg at this period, and I may remind your Lordships that Johannesburg is some 50 miles from Pretoria. The excitement existed there, not only in connection with the compulsory commandeering of British subjects to serve in the war, which was then occupying the attention of the Transvaal, with the natives to the north of that State, but there was also much excitement in Johannesburg in connection with the alleged grievances. They were very desirous that I should visit Johannesburg with a view to hearing personally from those interested the whole circumstances and details of the grievances. President Kruger, hearing of this, wrote me the following letter:—
"Pretoria, June 26, 1894.—Dear Sir Henry,—I wished to ask you, in the interests of the friendly relations between the two countries, not to visit Johannesburg. A certain party (to which by a long way not all British subjects belong) has greatly stirred up some feelings. There is, therefore, a certain excitement on various sides whereby it would not be impossible that a collision would arise, to bear the responsibility of which would be a serious matter. It would be very agreeable to me personally, and would be regarded by my Government as an act of international friendship, if you would give up your intended journey to Johannesburg.
"S. J. P. KRUGER."
To that letter I sent the following reply:—
"Pretoria, June 27th, 1894.—Dear President Kruger,—I need scarcely assure your Honour that it is my anxious desire to assist as far as possible in allaying the excitement which I am aware exists in Johannesburg and in other parts of the Transvaal where British subjects are residing. In conveying to you this desire I am encouraged by your frankness to be equally frank with your Honour and to explain the views I have formed from an impartial and perfectly friendly observation of the existing situation. The British subjects appear to me to have some very real and substantial grievances which have not, I think, received such a sympathetic hearing from the Legislature as the

315
residents of Johannesburg, who are the most important taxpayers in the Republic, consider to be their due to any respectable and reasonable representation that they may make. It is not for me to make any detailed suggestions to your Honour on this subject, but I may bring to your notice one consideration which will prove to your Honour the importance of dealing with any grievances that may exist in a sympathetic spirit. There is, I believe, an alien white population at present in the Republic of about 40,000 persons. A few years may see this population almost doubled, and if they suffered under the same grievances it would be almost impossible to avert the dangers which have recently threatened. I am sure your Honour will not misunderstand my motives in making these observations. They are made in the spirit of a true friend, with a genuine desire to promote the prosperity of the people of this country, and I shall be gratified to learn that any grievances of which British subjects may complain will receive the early consideration of your Honour and your Honour's Government. I readily comply with your wish that I should not visit Johannesburg at the present juncture, and have arranged for the address being presented to me here by a small deputation of 10 or 12 persons.
I have, &c.,
"HENRY B. LOCH."
The result of this communication was that a deputation came from Johannesburg—a very important and influential deputation—and presented me with an address, setting forth at considerable length their grievances. I informed them, for the reasons stated in my answer to President Kruger, why I thought it was desirable that I should not at the time visit Johannesburg. They, notwithstanding my reasons for not going to Johannesburg, still pressed upon me, if possible, to visit that town. Feeling certain that very serious consequences might result from my doing so, I asked them to consider the question from a business and practical point of view. I pointed out to them that, as I was then commissioned to visit Pretoria to conduct friendly negotiations with President Kruger in connection with Swaziland, and as also I had instructions to complete the Convention which had been commenced for the exemption of British subjects and property from compulsory commandeering, it would have been inexpedient for me at that time, and inconsistent with the duty I owed to Her Majesty's Government, to visit Johannesburg. I further pointed out that President Kruger had, at my instance, at once accepted the terms of the Convention which I had placed before him
316
for the exemption of British subjects from compulsory military service, and that, though the Convention could not be immediately completed, I had in writing an assurance that it would have the same effect as if it had received the sanction of the Volksraad. To strengthen my position with the deputation, I asked them what amount of arms they had at that time in Johannesburg. They informed me that they had 1,000 rifles, and that at the outside they did not believe they had ten rounds of ammunition per rifle. I then pointed out to them the situation, not as an encouragement to resist, but to show them what a futile measure it would be if any action on their part brought about disturbances, and a consequent attack upon Johannesburg. I further pointed out that if I went there—and they admitted it—there would be a danger of disturbances arising, and that if disturbances did arise, the Government of the Transvaal would have been justified, under all the circumstances, in putting it down with a very strong hand. I also pointed out to them that it would not be consistent with my duty to Her Majesty's Government, nor would it be in their own interest, that I should adopt a course which might be destructive to Johannesburg, destructive to many lives also, and much property. They then accepted that position. They agreed with me that it was reasonable, and they saw the force of my reasoning. This, my Lords, is, I believe, the sole ground upon which the statement is made that I inquired what arms they possessed in Johannesburg and how long they could hold out against the arms of the Republic. My Lords, I do not consider that that in any way justifies the statements that have been made by the correspondent of Le Temps. [Cheers.] There is, my Lords, another statement to which I also take strong exception. It is the statement that I promised Mr. Phillips an armed intervention in case of insurrection in Johannesburg, and that I engaged to prolong the difficulties in connection with Swaziland in order to facilitate British intervention. That is likewise, I need scarcely inform your Lordships, wholly untrue. [Cheers.] I would further merely remark that the statement that I am now the adviser of Mr. Chamberlain is, of course, totally incorrect. Mr.

317
Chamberlain's adviser with regard to South African affairs is Sir Hercules Robinson, the present High Commissioner in South Africa. But, my Lords, I may, perhaps, be permitted to add a few words to what I have already stated. In consideration of the excited state of Johannesburg at that time, with the probability—the near possibility at one time—of an insurrection arising in Johannesburg, I felt it to be my duty, in the position I filled as Her Majesty's High Commissioner, to take steps, if necessary, to protect the lives and property of British subjects. The steps I adopted were in connection with an assembly at certain points of the British and Imperial Bechuanaland police. My intention was that, if disturbances had arisen in Johannesburg—disturbances resulting from the administration extended by the Republic towards the Uitlanders in that city—it would have been my duty I considered to have informed President Kruger that he would be held responsible for the safety of the lives and property of British subjects. I should have further conceived it to be my duty to inform President Kruger that if he failed in providing the necessary measures for the protection of the lives and property of British subjects in Johannesburg—I should have felt myself at liberty to have taken such steps as I might have felt expedient to have given that protection which he would have failed to give. I think it will be admitted that a statement of that kind, coming from me as High Commissioner representing Her Majesty's Government, is a very different matter from the unfortunate action that has recently taken place, and which has brought so much sorrow and trouble upon the whole of South Africa. [Cheers.] My Lords, I thank you for the kind and patient way in which you have listened to my remarks, the first remarks which I have had the honour to address to your Lordships. [Cheers.]

GRIFFIN'S DIVORCE BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
SAFETY OF NURSE CHILDREN BILL. [H.L.]
To be read 2a on Monday next.
HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890—Was presented by the Lord Balfour; read 1a; and to be printed.—[No. 76.]
ELECTION PETITIONS BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the law with respect to election petitions—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; read la; and to be printed.—[No. 77.]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (DETERMINA- TION OF DIFFERENCES) BILL.
LORD HARRIS, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said it proposed to amend the provisions of the Local Government Act of 1888, for the settlement of disputes or differences of opinion between County Councils and local authorities in respect to the cost of the maintenance of main roads. There was no doubt that it was the intention of Parliament that these disputes should be determined by the Local Government Board after a local inquiry by an officer of the Local Government Board. There was also ample proof that the local authorities were extremely well satisfied with the arbitration of the Local Government Board, and that they were very anxious to avoid the expense of calling in a special arbitrator who would probably charge a high fee. But in the Debate that took place in Committee the President of the Local Government Board expressed some fear that if there were many of those inquiries the extra work that would be thrown on the officials of the Local Government Board would render necessary a large increase in their staff, and said that he did not wish to throw upon the taxpayers more expenses than were necessary. Therefore provision was made in Section 63 of the Act by which the Local Government Board could, if they pleased, appoint an arbitrator instead of arbitrating themselves. In 1893 a dispute arose between

319
the County Council of Kent and the Sandgate Highway Authority as to the maintenance of a high road. The counsel for the County Council asked for a case to be stated for the Queen's Bench Division on points of law. This application was made under the Arbitration Act of 1889, which, of course, was passed the year subsequent to the passing of the Local Government Act. The Local Government Board held there was no occasion for them to state a case; that the Inquiry was provided for under Section 11 of the Act of 1888, and that, therefore, provision 63 did not apply. The County Authority approached the Queen's Bench Division themselves, with the result that the Court held that the Local Government Board must proceed under Section 63. The effect of this decision was that the Local Government Board must appoint an arbitrator, which was a most expensive proceeding; and that they might be compelled to state a case. It also prevented the Local Government Board from proceeding by way of local inquiry, which undoubtedly appeared, from the Debates on the Act of 1888, to be the most popular and economical proceeding. It was with the object of amending the provisions of the Act of 1888, thus interpreted by the Law Courts, that the Bill was introduced. The second clause gave the Bill a retrospective effect in regard to decisions that had already been given where the Local Government Board had acted as arbitrator.
*LORD THRINGsaid, the Bill was more important than appeared to the County Councils. In the Act of 1888 there were 14 different cases stated as subject to arbitration, and the language used in respect to the modes in which those cases were to be determined was expressed in as many different forms as the cases themselves. Some cases were to be decided by the Local Government Board and other cases by arbitration of the Local Government Board. In a particular instance, a case was determined by the Local Government Board on the report of their officer, but on the matter being brought into the Court of Queen's Bench the Court ruled that it should have been determined, not on the report of an officer of the Local Government Board, but by an arbitrator appointed by the Local Government Board. He would give no
320
opinion as to whether that ruling was right or wrong; but it was very important to County Councils. The County Councils did not for a moment complain of the Local Government Board or their officers, nor did they wish to discredit the mode in which the Board did their business. But the County Councils complained that the section of the Act of 1888, declaring that an Urban Authority might repair its main roads, and that the County Council must contribute towards the maintenance of those main roads, had caused them an extrordinary amount of useless expense. The section provided that the County Council was to make a bargain with the Urban Authority as to the money it was to pay; but when it was making its bargain the County Council had not the slightest idea what it had to pay, because the Urban Authority now and then claimed not only for the whole of its footpaths, but for the improvements of the footpaths and so forth, and the cases decided by the Local Government Board gave no information as to the principles on which such bargains should be made. It was a reasonable request that there should be some means of knowing on what grounds these arbitrations were to proceed. The technical objection could be raised that arbitrators did not under ordinary circumstances give their reasons; but that had nothing to do with these decisions, which were not arbitrations but were judicial decisions. What was asked was that the Local Government Board should give the reasons for arbitration or should allow parties to obtain from the Board or by appeal the general grounds on which arbitrators were to proceed. This was a reasonable request, because a large amount of money was uselessly expended in quarrels upon these matters between county councils and urban authorities. They were entitled to be assisted in construing the most unintelligible procedure ever introduced into an Act of Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)could not help advising the noble Lord who represented the Local Government Board not to give a hasty answer on such a subject without considering what might be the effect of the answer on the original Statute.
LORD HARRISsaid he understood the noble Lord wished him to represent to the Local Government Board the wish that, in deciding cases, it should either give reasons for its decisions, or else it should lay down principles which would enable disputing bodies to settle differences for themselves. He would be happy to make that representation; but he did not know whether the Board had sufficient experience of the working of this clause to be able to lay down guiding principles, although it would obviously be an economical proceeding, for a great deal of money was wasted in carrying disputes into the courts.
Read 2a, according to Order; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday next.

PUBLIC HEALTH (SEWERS AND DRAINS) BILL.
*EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving that this Bill be read a second time, be-spoke the indulgence usually extended by their Lordships to one who addressed them for the first time. He said that, by the Public Health Act, 1875, it was provided that a pipe into which the sewage of more than one house ran became a sewer repairable by the public authority. That position was in no way recognised by local authorities until a decision was given in the case of Travis v. Uttley, in December 1893, which revealed their obligation to the local authorities, who had up to that time thought that owners or occupiers were obliged to maintain all drains on private property. An attempt was made in the Public Health Act, 1890, to bring the law into accord with practice by enacting that when one or more houses were connected with a public sewer by a single drain, and these houses belonged to different owners, then the public authority might compel the occupiers to put the drain into order. But last year, in the case of Hill v. Hair, the judges held that there were two defects in this Act which made it inapplicable to the drains that were sewers under the original Act, and to houses which belonged to the same owner. In these circumstances the Bill was introduced to define the expressions "sewer" and "drain." In
322
Worcester there were 47 miles, and in Nottingham 230 miles of drains, which, unless this Bill were passed would remain sewers repairable by the public authority. There were two ways in which landowners would be affected; they would retain drains which would not be compulsorily taken from them as they might be at present; and they would have power to build over or alter any drains which were on their property at present. The other clauses were comparatively unimportant. The second section provided that the procedure adopted in the case of streets should be followed by the local authority in requiring a drain in a dangerous state to be put in order. The third clause gave a local authority power to declare a drain to be a sewer; and it was not likely to be abused, because no local authority would undertake the charge of more sewers than it could avoid, for fear of unduly burdening the local rates. The Bill had received the approval of the Association of Municipal Corporations, who were of opinion that the definitions of sewer and drain in the Bill were the best that could be devised.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that as the Earl of Wemyss was unable to attend he had been requested by others to endeavour to postpone the discussion of a Bill which was strongly opposed in Liverpool, Manchester and Salford. He therefore moved the adjournment of the Debate.
THE PRIME MINISTER (The Marquess of SALISBURY)said it would be rather a strong measure, without hearing any arguments going to the substance of the Bill, to refuse a Second Reading, and the objections to the Bill could be heard on going into Committee.
LORD HARRISsaid the Local Government Board did not object to the Second Reading, but would ask that they should have a fortnight to consider it before going into Committee. He congratulated Lord Beauchamp on the lucidity with which he had introducd the Bill.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, he hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time. His own experience had shown him that a better definition of drains and sewers was wanted, especially after the decisions which had been referred to. There were some Amendments he

323
would suggest in Committee; but the Bill certainly deserved a Second Reading. He should also like to acknowledge the admirably clear manner in which the noble Lord had introduced the Bill.
Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn, and original Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday the 15th instant.

GAMBLING IN FICTITIOUS PRODUCE.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY rose to call attention to the alleged depreciation in the prices of wheat, cotton, wool, silver, coffee, and other agricultural products, owing to the international system of trading in ''Options and Futures,'' representing fictitious or non-existing produce, and to ask Her Majesty's Government why Mr. Charles W. Smith's evidence, prepared in 1893 and 1894 at the request of the Royal Commission on Agriculture on this subject, has been suppressed after having been printed; whether it would be laid upon the Table of the House; how it is that after hundreds of failures due to these systems, hardly one has been brought before the Bankruptcy Court for fear of exposing the system; and whether Her Majesty's Government will appoint a Select Committee to take evidence on the subject? The noble Lord said that when he last addressed the House on the subject of wheat, the noble Marquess at the head of the Government said that the question of prices was one of great complexity. With that opinion he entirely agreed, since papers by experts seemed to prove that the low price of wheat everywhere, which is driving it out of cultivation, is caused more by the gambling in fictitious wheat than by the competition of free imports of the actual produce, Mr. Charles Smith prepared some evidence for the Royal Commission on Agriculture, which took him three months to do. In 1894 he gave in this evidence, and it was ordered to be printed; and it was printed and yet suppressed. The late Government was asked in the other House to lay it before the House, but would not
324
do so, and the only reason given by the Commissioners was the expense, and that it would make the Blue-book too bulky. Neither of those excuses was of any weight, for he had a copy of the evidence. It was still in type, and in all printing the chief expense was the setting-up of the type, and the cost of paper and printing did not come to much. As to making the Blue-book bulky, in very many cases Blue-books are artificial bundles of hay in which to hide the needle the public wishes to find. He knew of at least one Public Office which had boasted that it would conceal the needle in that way. It was a mystery what was the motive for this suppression. One supposition was that the Commission contained strong parties of monometallists and bimetallists, and that this evidence did not suit either party. This was hardly probable. It was the duty of the Commission to inquire into the state of agriculture, and not currency. Besides, even if they wished to sift the metallic question, this evidence threw much light upon the depreciation of silver, which, like wheat, was the victim of the fictitious sales that were complained of. He feared the real motive was a less avowable one, and that it came from persons interested in maintaining these fictitious yet highly-profitable sales. Neither the late Government nor the present Government could treat Mr. Smith's evidence as visionary, for it had been translated into German by Count Arnim for the members of the German Reichstag, and the German Ambassador has notified to Mr. Charles W. Smith the acceptance with thanks by His Majesty the German Emperor of this paper published in Berlin. On the 24th of February last a committee of the German Reichstag reported in favour of the total prohibition of time-bargains. He had a telegram from Berlin stating that a vote would be taken that afternoon on an Anti-Option Bill, and that a majority was assured. Two very drastic Bills were passed, one in the House of Representatives last year, the other by the same body of the United States in 1894. Mr. Alfred Paisant, President of the Civil Tribunal of Versailles, had published in the Journal of Agriculture a translation of a great part of Mr. Smith's evidence, interspersed with comments, examples, and legal

325
opinions as to the best way of strengthening the French Code, and of putting down this system of gambling, which was ruining agriculture all over the world. Austria-Hungary was also taking measures against these fictitious sales. He therefore asked Her Majesty's Government to lay Mr. Smith's evidence on the Table of the House; and also a translation of the article of Mr. Alfred Paisant, who, like most French writers, was very clear. He would now endeavour briefly to explain the system of fictitious sales of wheat and other commodities. Very few outside people knew much about it, since those who entered into this gambling conspiracy kept the knowledge of it to themselves, and the French Judge who had now explained it so lucidly, said that at first and for a long time he could hardly believe in these transactions, so contrary were they to recognised commercial practice and morality. Last year the Foreign Office was in complete ignorance of this system of gambling, and this was the proof of it. Here was a Parliamentary Paper presented in April 1895, under the title of Legislative Measures for Suppressing Gambling in Fictitious Wheat Contracts. It contained a Dispatch of 15 lines at the beginning from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin giving a statement by the Prussian Minister of Agriculture; and at the end there is a Dispatch of eight lines from Sir Julian Pauncefote forwarding copies of a Bill respecting options and futures; but the Bill is not printed, and a footnote says it has been sent to the Library of the House of Commons; so it was kept back from the public. But the bulk of this paper, three pages and a half, is taken up with a Dispatch from Brussels relating to a duty on flour, imposed on Belgian wheat which went to France to be ground, and came back as flour. When he read this he was grateful to the Foreign Office for information which strengthened the arguments of Sir W. Cunliffe Brooks in favour of a duty on flour; and at that time he knew nothing of these fictitious sales; but the gentlemen who did know and were interested in the question were angry at this Dispatch on a duty on flour being given them instead of the information asked for, and one of them went to Her Majesty's Legation at Brussels to ask for an explanation. Her Majesty's
326
Minister was not then at Brussels, but the Attachés put all the blame upon the Foreign Office for not explaining clearly what was wanted. However, they took this gentleman to a Department of the Belgian Government. Here at first it was not understood what was the subject of inquiry, until a copy of the Belgian Bill of 1894 against gambling contracts was shown to the Belgian official. But why did the Foreign Office print and present to Parliament a Dispatch on a duty on flour under the title of Legislative Measures for Suppressing Gambling? No Secretary of State could exonerate the Foreign Office from a stupid blunder, except by the alternative of Machiavellic duplicity, or the wish to conceal the needle in this Belgian bundle of hay. The most charitable supposition was in favour of stupidity, but there were also reasons to fear duplicity. The gambling system of options, futures and settlement were introduced from America into England in 1883 for operating on wheat and maize, also beet-sugar, coffee, tea, cotton, silver and silk. Very similar systems had also been in vogue under what were termed ''warrants'' in pig-iron, copper and tin. These American practices were introduced into the Liverpool Produce Exchanges in 1883, but not extensively used, combined with a settlement in wheat till 1889. The London Produce Clearing House was registered in 1888, but established before that. The French Judge pointed out that a bona fide holder of wheat intending to sell it would be glad if the price went up at the time he delivered and completed his sale; but the reverse occurred under the system. Peter sold to Paul 1,000 quintals of non-existing wheat for the 31st December delivery at 20 francs, but on the settlement on that day wheat was quoted at 19·50. Paul had to pay 500 francs difference on this paper-wheat to Peter. Both Mr. Smith and the French Judge established the fact that there were, as a general rule, nine Bears to one Bull, or nine who sought to lower the price to one who was interested in a rise, and that the Bears constantly won. Both stated this latter. They neither of them tried to explain the reason of this, but they stated it as a fact, and Mr. Smith, who had been a broker for 30 years, was in a position to know. Another further reason is that

327
it was much easier to invent rumours to cause securities to fall, than to invent rumours to cause a rise. Sometimes the Bears accumulated stocks when their detention had caused a rise, and by throwing them on the market caused a fall, but the previous rise was of no benefit to the farmers, as this generally happened only after the wheat had left their hands. It was most important to state that it was only since 1889 that the settlement or ''liquidation'' had become daily; and the prices for these fictitious sales of paper-wheat, in quantities largely in excess of existing quantities governed the market and prevented farmers getting more than the prices quoted of "Futures" by the Produce Exchange. Mr. Smith pointed out that if America and the European Governments put down this gambling by legislation, England would be obliged to do so also in self-defence, or else ''become the sole hell of the worst form of gambling." A proof that this gambling did depress the price of wheat was given by the fact that barley, which was not gambled with at all, and oats only very little in America, had not been depressed to the same extent. Further, that as these gambling systems became rampant all over the world, and of an international character since 1889, the decline in the value of wheat alone had become most pronounced. For instance, since 1891, it fell 51 per cent. In the 29 years from 1846–1874, prior to the inventions of the systems either in America or in Europe, the average price of English wheat was 53s. 3d.; barley, 35s. 4d.; and oats, 23s. 6d. Since then, from 1875–1893, the average prices had been in 19 years: wheat 38s. 6d., a decline of 27 per cent.; barley 31s. 3d., a decline of 11½ per cent; oats, 21s. 4d., a decline of 9 per cent. In 1872 wheat was 20s. higher than barley, and 34s. higher than oats. In 1882 it had sunk to 14s. higher than barley and 23s. higher than oats. In 1893, wheat was 8d. higher than barley and 7s. 8d. higher than oats. In October 1894, English wheat was 6s. 5d. lower than barley, instead of 20s. higher, as in 1872. It was shown and acknowledged that this is not due to over-production. The United States producer had suffered as much as their own, and far worse than if his price had been diminished by
328
5s. a quarter duty levied on him here. In 1881 his average price per bushel was 119 cents; in 1893 only 53 cents; while in Germany last year, the farmers had a forcible object-lesson brought home to them—one Jewish house on the Berlin Produce Exchange, by the power of Bear operations, causing a loss of millions to them by depreciating the value of their home-grown wheat. On this subject he should like to quote from The Farmer's Voice (Chicago), of March 21st, which said:—
"The National House Committee on Agriculture has voted to take the Bills against anti-option. This move leaves the Chicago Board of Trade to continue its gambling in grain without interference. It is not too much to say that our Boards of Trade are the worst nest of gamblers that there is in this country. They are the most subtle, the most infamously designing crowd, the most audacious robbers of the farmers that this country has ever produced."
A short time ago an Essex farmer would have been excusable had he wished that every American cargo might be cast ashore on the Galway coast; but now he would be full of sympathy for his fellow sufferer in America. The French Judge had written that the American people were extreme, and that their Bill against options might be excessive, and so fail. If so the Americans had a national Judge to be found in every settlement, and the men of Kentucky would appeal to him when they discovered how they were being ruined by the Chicago gamblers. With regard to gambling in silver, the French Judge only says that it is still more pernicious than the wheat gamble. Mr. Smith says:—
"It is only since silver has been recognised as a gambling medium in our registered institutions in 1888, that the price of that metal has been influenced and depreciated by the values quoted 'ahead' of such in the shape of futures. For instance, since 1873, the year of the demonetisation of the white metal, the average lowest price for 15 years, say from 1873 to 1887, was 551/16; as against 39⅝ for the following six years, 1888–1893. At the time of writing (January, 1894) Bears were offering to sell distant months at 30½."
In October 1894, in a lecture at Bristol, Mr. Smith related a striking example of the loss caused by silver gambling some two years before, and given to him by an eminent authority:—
"The Indian Budget had just been brought out, and the Estimates for the then ensuing year were all upset, and the gold value of the rupee

329
knocked down one penny by an operation of a sale of silver in New York; which subsequent investigations seemed to prove was not more than 1,000 ounces, sold at a "give away" price for the purpose of influencing the market. The price was telegraphed over here, and speculators in London and in New York beared the market and really made the price of the 1,000 ounces the market price, entailing an extra loss to the Indian Government of over £1,000,000 sterling that year on their Exchange Estimates."
With regard to cotton, Mr. Smith further said that in the past 12 months (1893) there were three or more violent fluctuations in price at Liverpool, first a rise of 45 per cent., then a fall of 35 per cent., then a rise of 10 per cent., then another fall. At that time Lancashire had only one supply to deal with, and no laws of supply and demand justified such fluctuations. This season, and in the face of a very small American drop, the Liverpool Cotton Association had witnessed one of the greatest panics on record, the differences paid by gamblers in one week's settlement being estimated at more than a million. The export of raw cotton from India had been nearly stopped. The values of cotton exported from India were in the years—

1888

…

…

£3,063,000

1889

…

…

5,223,000

1890

…

…

4,740,000

1891

…

…

1,850,000

1892

…

…

1,164,000

1893

…

…

800,000

Now Lancashire had almost ceased to spin Indian cotton. At the same time the value of American cotton had been so much reduced that the supply from that country threatened to run short. The circular of Whitaker and White-head, Liverpool, cotton brokers, of April 23 last, stated that the total movement of the cotton crop from September 1st to 17th April showed a deficiency of 2,848,000 bales in comparison with 1895, and of 493,000 bales as compared with 1894. The visible supply of American cotton showed a deficiency of 1,217,000 bales as compared with 1895, of 578,000 as compared with 1894, and of 547,000 as compared with 1893. The Bears were fixing the price 12 months beforehand, before the seed was sown, and reducing the price below the present one, or to about half its highest value in 1890–1. Sir Courtenay Boyle, of the Board of Trade, had
330
expressed himself in the following words as to this gambling system, in September, 1894, at the meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce:—
"Commercial gambling stands condemned by the common consent of all those who have any knowledge whatever of the subject. It stands condemned by every writer upon political economy who has given his views to the world, and it needs no representation from anybody whatever to convince those who watch the progress of trade that commercial gambling is an evil, and an unmitigated one. How to put down commercial gambling is a problem of the greatest intricacy. I feel it will almost be beyond the wit of the wisest man in this room to lay down a clause which will prevent gambling and not interfere with legitimate business."
Another Board of Trade official, the Inspector General in Bankruptcy, in his official Report of 1895, said:—
"It is alleged, and apparently with good grounds, that the operations of speculators in what are termed futures … have tended 'to depress the prices of commodities below their natural level.' The prices are thus largely determined, not by the natural laws of supply and demand, but by the action of a comparatively few reckless competitors."
Here were two Board of Trade officials condemning this gambling and calling for a remedy, but what right had Sir Courtenay Boyle to assume that because he and the traders he was addressing could not draw a clause discriminating between legitimate trade and gambling, that such a task was beyond the powers of the heads of the legal profession. The French Judge had shown that such a clause could be framed. This subject had been twice brought under the notice of the head of Her Majesty's Government last year by Mr. Jasper More and by Mr. Smith. The reply to their letters had been published, and he feared that his noble Friend the Marquess of Salisbury had been too much occupied at the time, last October, and had also been misled by Sir Courtenay Boyle's observations into exaggerating the difficulty of distinguishing between gambling and ordinary commercial contracts; and he had certainly been misinformed with regard to what he had called the overwhelming majority at Huddersfield in favour of the ''previous question." The previous question had been moved instead of the resolution out of courtesy and deference to the permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade, and as a due acknowledgment and

331
thanks for his presence at that meeting. He had said in the notice that hardly any of the failures caused by this gambling wore investigated by the Bankruptcy Court. He would read a case taken from Mr. Smith's evidence of—
"A Liverpool broker who held £2,000,000 worth of produce in the shape of future contracts, against which not one pennyworth of actual produce did he ever intend to demand delivery of, nor had the sellers also any intention of delivering. This enormous gambling transaction was known to all, and everyone recognised with apprehension that, sooner or later, the same quantity had to be resold. Further that even a slight fall in the market would render it impossible for this broker who had no capital of his own worth mentioning, to find margins to pay into the clearing house. The market did fall, reselling commenced and the inevitable smash came, accompanied as usual with the failure of the broker, and with a heavy decline in values. The above broker held the position of President of the Produce Exchange, and his clients, who were two clerks, were afterwards convicted of robbing their employers of £180,000 which sum had been paid to that broker on account of differences due on their gambling contracts. I may mention in connection with this swindling operation that in order to save a wholesale financial disaster, the Produce Exchange had to imitate the Bank of England's action in 1890 after the Baring collapse, but I may add without any outside guarantee."
He would now recapitulate the proofs that these fictitious sales had depressed prices. (1) Barley and oats were not depressed in proportion to wheat; (2) the depression was not caused by overproduction; (3) American growers got less than half former prices; (4) general agreement of other Governments as to necessity of checking this gambling; (5) 25 resolutions condemning these sales passed in England; (6) endeavours to choke and suppress evidence and inquiry; (7) numbers of failures which have checked inquiry by the Bankruptcy Court, hundreds of failures by produce brokers, and thousands by their clients; (8) deputations received by the present Government from the wheat, cotton, London coffee trade, and West India cane-sugar interests, all of which were depressed by the fictitious sales. He would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they wished to see that feeling in this country against capitalists, and especially Jewish capitalists, which existed throughout the countries of Europe. A warning note had been
332
sounded in the Quarterly Review of January last, which said:—
"The whole world may become a universal gambling house with this compact syndicate holding the bank, and who from outside will play and not lose? All the commodities which are of prime necessity shall be exploited in their turn; wheat and coffee, copper and iron, cotton and linen shall become suddenly enchanted and lie under a spell by which thousands of families are hurled into ruin, trades are disorganised, and an economic earthquake is artificially produced."
Further on, the writer said:—
"For such Free Trade the believer in liberty need not scruple to express his detestation."
Speaking of Jewish capitalists, he quoted another writer:—
"They make nothing; they seem on their way to possess all things."
He could not agree with the statement that it was useless to struggle against these gamblers on the Liverpool Produce Exchange as so many people made their living by it. If Her Majesty's Government should do nothing, language as bad as that used in the case of the Chicago Board of Trade will be used with respect to our Board of Trade. It is said that nothing will be done because so many people make a living by the Produce Exchange, but there is another community and more numerous than that of the gamblers, one of whom once used similar language as to the necessity of making a living, to Cardinal Richelieu, who nevertheless hanged him forthwith. He would conclude with a formal Motion for Papers on the subject, to secure a reply.
*THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (The Earl of DUDLEY): I do not think that the matter which has been brought forward by the noble Lord is one which calls for any action by Parliament at the present time. It has been discussed pretty freely by many commercial bodies throughout the country, and, although it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord says, that some of those commercial bodies have passed resolutions in favour of legislative action, still, on the other hand, the Associated Chambers of Commerce, at both their last two conferences, have refused to bind themselves in any way to such an expression of opinion. Moreover, the matter has

333
been brought forward by Mr. Smith, a gentleman who has taken a leading part in this question, before the Central Chamber of Agriculture on more than one occasion, but that Chamber has not seen fit to make any representation to the Board of Agriculture. The Agricultural Commission have had before them evidence bearing on this question, and they will no doubt deal with it in their Report. Under these circumstances I feel sure that your Lordships will not feel inclined to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord and appoint a Select Committee to inquire into this subject. The noble Lord has drawn the attention of the House to the alleged depreciation in the price of certain products owing to the system of what is called dealing in "futures" or ''options." Of course there can be no doubt that there has been a very large fall in the price of some of the products to which the noble Lord has referred, but I venture to think that it is by no means proved, even after the speech of the noble Lord, that that fall in price is in any way due to the system of which he complains. To say that price is governed by the laws of supply and demand is merely to use a truism, but it is, I believe, a fact that that law holds good even in the speculative market, and that the unanimous opinion of the best experts is that the price in those markets follows and does not lead the price dictated by the laws of supply and demand. In fact, they are of opinion that this system of dealing in ''futures'' instead of deteriorating prices, rather tends to equalise them and to counteract the fluctuations that always must exist. The noble Lord refers, in his question, to coffee as one of the products the price of which has been depreciated by this particular system. My information, however, is totally at variance on that point with that of the noble Lord. Although I understand that it is perfectly true that this system enters very largely into the coffee trade, and that, in fact, the coffee trade is to a great extent carried on in that way, yet coffee happens to be a product the price of which does not fluctuate and which has not depreciated of recent years. The circumstances of coffee in particular, therefore, point to a totally different conclusion from that drawn by the noble Lord. But, even if
334
the arguments of the noble Lord were sound, and even if one had reason to believe that this system of gambling had depreciated prices, I very much doubt whether it would be possible to check it by legislative action. The noble Lord has referred to the many attempts that have been made, chiefly by Mr. Smith and others, to distinguish between purely legitimate speculation and gambling enterprise, but all those attempts to differentiate have failed, and I doubt very much whether it would be possible to draw any distinguishing line of that kind in an Act of Parliament, without running very grave risk of hampering trade and checking legitimate enterprise. The noble Lord also referred to several attempts which had been made by foreign Governments in this direction, but in no single instance have those attempts been successful, and no Bill drawn with this object has as yet passed into law, and I understand that only last month an anti-optional Bill was thrown out by the Agricultural Committee in the House of Representatives at Washington. With regard to Mr. Smith's printed evidence, which the noble Lord seemed to think has been suppressed, I believe what really took place was that Mr. Smith prepared a précis of the evidence which he intended to give before the Agricultural Commission, and he was cross-examined upon that précis and that it was not published for the very good reason that it is not usual to publish a précis of intended evidence. With regard to the last point referred to by the noble Lord, the Government have no information that the proceedings in bankruptcy do not include as large a proportion of failures by gambling in ''futures'' as of failures from any other cause, and the reason that they are not more frequently heard of is probably because relatively few of such failures take place. The translation which the noble Lord asks for does not seem to the Government to be one which can rightly be put on the Table of this House.
*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he hoped he should not be understood as showing any want of courtesy or respect to the noble Earl who had just replied, but he did object to have an answer on a matter of agriculture by the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade

335
was already committed to the opinion that there was no means of giving legislative check to these malpractices. He did not think Sir Courtenay Boyle was competent to give an opinion upon a legal matter, and he ought not to have pledged the Government in the way he had done. Trade and commerce were usually hostile to agriculture, moreover, the Board of Trade had been poisoned by Mr. Mundella's sojourn there, and he did not think the present President was likely to disinfect it.
THE PRIME MINISTER: On the question of the distribution of duties, I would like to point out to my noble Friend that undoubtedly a question of buying and selling is a matter for the Board of Trade and not a matter of agriculture. The buying and selling of corn is not an agricultural act.
Motion by leave withdrawn.

DIVORCE AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1857, and the law relating to the marriage of divorced persons.—Was presented by the Viscount Halifax; read la, and to be printed.—[No. 80.]
House adjourned at a Quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, a Quarter before Eleven o'clock.