Lords Sitting of 5 April 1910

Preamble
Several Lords Several Lords—Took the Oath.
CITY OF LONDON (TITHES AND RATES) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS COMPANIES (STANDARD BURNER) (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
LEEDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Sandys be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord St. Levan; read, and agreed to.

HANDSWORTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
READING AND DISTRICT ELECTRIC SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND TOWN WATER BILL. [H.L.]
ABERTILLERY AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Gwydyr and the Lord Marchamley be proposed to the House as Members of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Poltimore and the Lord MacDonnell; read, and agreed to.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Gorell be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Northcote, and that the Lord Gorell be Chairman of the said Committee; read, and agreed to.

LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY AMALGAMATION BILL. [H.L.]
BAKER STREET AND WATERLOO RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
CHARING CROSS, EUSTON, AND HAMPSTEAD RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
METROPOLITAN RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Greville be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Earl Sondes; read, and agreed to.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.
Report from the Committee of Selection, that the folio wing Lords be proposed to the House as the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act, viz.:—

E. Mansfield;

L. Kintore (E. Kintore);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

THE SUGAR CONVENTION.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government on what grounds "it is held but not yet settled" that under the Sugar Convention Act, 1903, an obligation exists to impose an Excise duty on sugar manufactured from home-grown beet in the United Kingdom, seeing that the Finance Act, 1901, referred to in the above Act, gives no power to impose an Excise duty on such sugar.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the answer I have to give to the noble Earl is as follows. The duties on sugar are imposed by the Finance Act of 1901. These duties were duties of Customs and were payable on importation or delivery from warehouse. By the terms of the Sugar Convention it has become obligatory to place all sugar factories and refineries under bond, and Section 2 of the Act of 1903 provides that the bond shall secure inter alia the payment of duties; and, in addition, the following words occur at the end of the section—
"The duties payable under the Finance Act, 1901, or any Act amending that Act, shall be taken on the delivery of any article from the factory or refinery and shall be the same as those payable on the like articles on importation."
Therefore we are advised that there is an obligation to impose a duty on sugar manufactured from home-grown beet, but in order to regularise the charge of such a duty there should be a Resolution of the House of Commons and the usual enactment on the subject.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: The noble Lord said the other day that "it is held but not yet settled." Am I to understand that it is now definitely settled that the Sugar Convention Act of 1903 and the Finance Act of 1901 include duties on home-made sugar? There is no reference therein to anything except imports.
LORD DENMAN: I cannot say that it is definitely settled. I understand that there is some doubt about it, but His Majesty's Government are advised as I have stated. I believe that, shortly, the position is this. We are under legal obligation to impose a duty, but we have no legal power without legislation to collect the duty, and that is one of the reasons why special legislation would be necessary.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Is there any prospect of the point being definitely settled so that we shall know where we are?
LORD DENMAN: I can assure the noble Earl that an excise duty will be imposed. Therefore he and those who think with him know exactly where they are in the matter. Of course if the noble Earl wishes I will inquire further, but it hardly seems worth while as the actual case has not arisen and is not likely to arise.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Are we to understand that there is in the opinion of His Majesty's Government some doubt as to the precise position of the law, but that they have no doubt in their own minds as to the policy they mean to adopt, which would be to exact an Excise duty corresponding with the import duty at present leviable?
LORD DENMAN: I believe there may be a doubt on the actual legal question, but there is no doubt that the whole tendency of the Act shows that an Excise duty must be imposed. I think that is absolutely necessary. In the section to which I referred just now it will be seen that there is a provision that the duties payable shall be taken "on the delivery of any article." I do not think that this section of the Act is very clearly drawn. "Any article" may be intended to refer to imported sugar, but it might be held to include any produce going out of the factory. In that case, of course, an Excise duty has to be imposed.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: The section which the noble Lord has just quoted says, "the duties payable under the Finance Act, 1901." That refers solely to imported sugar. The only reference to any sugar deliverable from bond on which Excise would have to be charged is to glucose, molasses, and invert sugar. There is no mention whatever of the commercial article, which is the ordinary beet sugar or cane sugar. As far as I can read the Act there certainly does not appear to be any obligation whatever on His Majesty's Government to impose an Excise duty on home-made beet sugar.
LORD SHEFFIELD: Does not Lord Denman's reply come to this, that under the Convention agreed to by the late Government there is a treaty obligation upon us to impose an Excise duty, but that as no sugar has yet been made in this country there is no legislation to impose such a duty?
LORD DENMAN: Section 2 of the Act of 1903 reads that "His Majesty may by Order in Council," and so forth. That is permissive; but I am informed that when read in conjunction with Article 2 of the Sugar Convention it becomes obligatory. Therefore we should be obliged to introduce legislation to impose a duty.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Perhaps the noble Lord will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject and let us know definitely.
LORD DENMAN: If the noble Earl really desires it I will do so, but as there is no likelihood of the case arising it seems to me, as I said just now, hardly worth while.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: From the noble Lord's last statement I take it he thinks there is no chance of sugar being made in this country. Certainly by their present policy His Majesty's Government are doing their very best to prevent its being made here.

THE BEET SUGAR INDUSTRY.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the fact that representatives of Dutch sugar manufacturers are at present making contracts with farmers in the Eastern counties to

525
grow sugar-beet for shipment to factories in Holland; and to ask His Majesty's Government—

1. Whether this does not show conclusively that, in the opinion of practical commercial men, sugar-beet of good quality can be grown in this country.

2. Whether they realise the great benefits that would arise, especially to agriculture and the engineering trade, if sugar factories could be established in the British Isles; and

3. Whether, in view of the great need for further employment of labour, the improvement of British agriculture, and the development of industries connected therewith in rural districts, they still refuse to undertake that an Excise duty shall not be charged on home-grown sugar, and thereby give an immediate encouragement to the investment of the capital which is necessary for the successful establishment of a home sugar industry.

This is a subject to which I called your Lordships' attention four years ago. I do not think it had ever been discussed before in this House. I bring it up again now because interest in the question has developed very largely all over the country. Many people in agricultural and commercial circles have been giving it most serious consideration, and practical and experienced men have given a great deal of study to it, and are convinced that the time has fully arrived when sugar making in this country can be considered as a serious matter of business. I bring it forward as a serious business proposition and not at all in a Party spirit, and I ask His Majesty's Government to treat it in the same way. I think that His Majesty's Government have adopted a somewhat different attitude towards it in another place—an attitude which I cannot help thinking is very regrettable. I noticed the other day that the Prime Minister was asked whether he would appoint a Committee to examine into the subject. He replied, "Oh no; the Government are very familiar with the facts"—a remark which was received with Ministerial laughter. Then on another occasion there was more Ministerial laughter when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made what he thought was a somewhat smart answer to a Question put to him by a member of the Opposition with regard to a factory which had been
526
attempted to be started at Sleaford in Lincolnshire.
The attitude which His Majesty's Government have adopted has convinced me that they either entirely fail to appreciate the importance of the subject or regard it as some sort of Protectionist trap into which we are trying to entice them. I can assure noble Lords that it is nothing of the kind. I say once more it is a business proposition, and we ask the Government to put Party politics on one side and to treat this important matter purely from a business point of view. We have certain acknowledged evils in this country in the search for a remedy for which everybody is racking his brains. One of the chief evils is the way in which land which was once under plough has gone out of cultivation and has been laid down in grass, often of an inferior description, with the result that the rural population has dwindled very considerably and there has been great crowding into industrial centres. That is a fact so well known that I need not enlarge upon it. We have had various remedies proposed—small holdings, labour colonies, peasant proprietorship, market gardening, French gardening, and all the rest of it; but what I want to suggest to the House is that this is really only playing with the question. The real reason why the land has gone out of cultivation in the way it has done is that agricultural profits have been so greatly decreased by the fall in prices which has taken place in recent years, and also from our failure to adapt ourselves to a proper system of agriculture to cope with the times and to the fact that we are still pursuing more or less the same system of agriculture which was pursued by our forefathers, and which I submit does not give the same results from the land which we might get if we were to adopt a totally different method.
I am quite certain of this, that if we could establish a great industry in this country closely connected with and dependent upon the land it would do a great deal to encourage better farming; we should get better crops, we should have more land under plough, we should keep people in the country, and we should greatly increase the head of cattle kept by farmers. I am amongst those, now increasing in numbers, who believe that immerse good could be done in this direc-

527
tion if we could establish here that sugar industry which has grown to such gigantic proportions on the Continent, which has gone ahead all over the world, and which has been encouraged in every country except in England. You have only to note how it has gone ahead in America. Whereas twenty-five years ago but little beet-sugar was produced in America, last year the production had increased to 425,000 tons. Until quite recently the chief difficulty which we had to contend with was the extraordinary ignorance on the subject which prevailed everywhere. But, as I have said, interest is now rapidly awakening, and people are beginning to realise of what it is we have been depriving ourselves. Only the other day I was speaking to a well-educated farmer who occupies a very large amount of land and considers himself quite up to date in all agricultural subjects. I talked about sugar to him, and he said—
"Dear me, I had no idea that sugar was made from beet. I thought all the sugar we consumed came from cane."
Then I proceeded to give him an elementary lesson. I explained that we import every year £20,000,000 worth of sugar, and that of this total £17,000,000 worth was made from beet.
An interesting letter was published in the Press the other day by that well-known expert and authority, Mr. George Martineau, C.B., who pointed out that—
"Last year we imported 1,760,158 tons of sugar, of which 945,505 tons were refined beetroot sugar, 522,260 tons raw beetroot sugar, and only 292,393 tons cane sugar. Fifty years ago all our refined sugar came from our own refineries. Now our neighbours send us nearly a million tons."
Mr. Martineau went on to say—
"Sixteen European countries now produce 6,499,000 tons of beetroot sugar, made from 40,929,700 tons of roots, the produce of more than 4,000,000 acres of land. I send you these brief facts because there are very few people in this country who are aware of them. During the season 1908–9 the German factories paid dividends of twenty to thirty per cent., although raw beetroot sugar was only fetching 10 s. per cwt. They now extract from fifteen to seventeen per cent. of sugar from the roots."
And he concluded—
"What a magnificent industry, and our people do not even know of its existence!"
The official attitude which has been adopted in this country towards this question has been one of the most incredible stupidity and indifference, and
528
what is needed now is to take every opportunity to educate the public on the subject. The reason is not very far to seek. For many years foreign Governments, more far-sighted than ourselves, did all they could to foster this industry. Heavy bounties had the effect of increasing the factories; but, of course, these bounties led up to the formation of trusts or what were known as cartels. These did a great deal of harm to us in injuring our Colonial sugar industry, and when foreign nations found that the cartels were making huge profits by raising prices to their home consumers although they were able to dump their surplus stuff upon us very often at less than cost price, they began to get tired of the proceeding. We as a Free Trade country said how smart we were to always buy in the cheapest market and how stupid the foreigners were to tax themselves for our benefit. Eventually foreign nations were very glad to come to an arrangement under the Brussels Convention, and when the bounties were knocked on the head then, and not till then, did the sugar industry become practicable in the British Isles.
But, for some reason, during those years the idea had got about that our climate was unsuited to this industry and that we could not grow beet. To show how difficult it is to eradicate that idea I would refer to the letter which appeared in the Press yesterday from Sir Walter Gilbey. Sir Walter Gilbey is a well-known agriculturist, but I am afraid he has not been keeping himself at all up to date with what has been going on in this direction. If he had he would not have drawn attention once more to the failure of a factory in Suffolk some forty years ago, and gravely put that forward as a reason why it should not be regarded as a practical industry now when the whole conditions have changed. To show that this is a serious matter of business I may mention that quite recently contracts have been attempted to be made with farmers in Lincolnshire by representatives of Dutch sugar factories to grow sugar-beet for shipment to Holland. From the information I have received in the last day or two these representatives have not been very successful, simply because the price offered was not enough. I hear from another important firm in the Eastern Counties that another foreign group are making inquiries in respect of contracts to be made

529
for five years to grow 6,000 acres of beet, and if that can be done they say they are willing to erect a factory in this country. Of course, it all depends on the price which the farmers are able to get. I mention these things to show how matters in this direction are developing, and what a prospect there is of a great industry coming into existence if only proper encouragement is given to it.
I come now to the business side of the subject. The first thing is to secure adequate supplies of the raw material. Farmers, and especially British farmers, are proverbially slow to move. They naturally hesitate to make contracts for crops to be grown for a term of years for the purpose of supplying the local factories which will be absolutely necessary unless the price offered is such as to make it clear to them that the profits will be substantial. That is the crux of the whole situation, but unfortunately there are many difficulties to be overcome and much money would have to be spent before the industry could be made really general. The chief difficulty is the question of labour. This is evident when you look round and see the way in which labour has left many of our arable districts. Sugar-beet cultivation requires a great deal of labour. I expect high wages will have to be paid to attract people back, and cottages will have to be erected by the local factories. All this, of course, adds to the amount of money required and makes it more difficult to obtain the capital necessary for the industry. Districts vary very much. In some districts where labour is plentiful and where the soil is good, farmers no doubt could make a very good thing indeed if they could obtain from 19 s. to 20 s. a ton for their roots, and I do not think the growing of them under such conditions should exceed from £9 to £10 an acre. If they are able to get sixteen tons to the acre, as experience has shown they ought to be able to get on good land, the net profit to them ought to come out at about £6 an acre; and I respectfully submit to those of your Lordships who are practical agriculturists that that is a profit which ought to be very attractive indeed in these days.
Then there is the question of the capital necessary for the factories, which ought to be of sufficient size to handle from 30,000 to 40,000 tons of roots. The amount
530
required for each factory would be about £100,000 more or less according to circumstances. It is not easy to get this money for a new and unknown industry, and although you may abuse the investor as much as yon like and say he ought to come forward as a patriot, he will not put his money in unless he sees a good return, and the newer the enterprise the more difficult it is to get money unless the prospects are very good. But with proper encouragement I am certain that money would be forthcoming. I am equally confident that the important landowners of this country would come forward and take a hand in this industry, which ought to be largely one of co-operation between them and the farmers. At the same time I would respectfully suggest to His Majesty's Government that it does not make it easier to obtain capital for rural industries of this description, it does not help the cause of local industries, when landowners are solemnly informed that it is part of the settled policy of His Majesty's Government to tax them out of existence, and that a start in that direction has already been made. As far as I can make out, the general opinion is, from Continental experience, that the cost of making on the basis of paying £1 per ton for the roots would be from 8s. to 9s. per cwt. The present price of raw sugar—f.o.b. Hamburg—is 14 s. 9d. per cwt. But that price is altogether abnormal; it is caused by the bad crops of last year and by the considerable amount of speculation that has been going on. That the price is unusually high is shown by the fact that the quotations for delivery of the next crop, in October, are 3s. per cwt. less. If we could jump right away into a well-organised industry there is a good profit between sugar made at a cost of 8s. or 9s. per cwt. and sold at from 10 s. to 11 s., which may be taken as the normal price of raw sugar. At the same time the margin is not large, and if you are going to make home sugar pay an Excise duty of 2s. a cwt. and it has to compete on equal terms with a highly-developed Continental industry, that margin may be difficult to obtain in the initial stage; because, of course, a new industry cannot be run as economically as a settled one.
It is, therefore, absolutely necessary, if this industry is really to go ahead, that it should be made more attractive; and what I have asked His Majesty's Govern

531
ment to do is to come to an agreement on their part—I am certain that it would be come to on our side—that no Excise duty should be charged for a period of time. This at once would have the effect of adding about 2s. a cwt., or £2 a ton, to the profits derivable, and in the case of a factory of the type that was proposed at Sleaford that would mean about £9,000 a year, or seven per cent. on the capital, and that naturally would make the proposition very much more attractive to investors. If capital could really be obtained, what this would mean should be carefully thought over. I will take leave to read to your Lordships a note which I circulated to some noble Lords in this House dealing with that particular point. In this note I say—
"If we ourselves only grew one-quarter of the £20,000,000 worth of sugar that we import, we should require over 100 factories of the size of the one recently contemplated at Sleaford. Some thousands of men would get employment, most of them unskilled men, who now find it hard to obtain work in the winter. Fully £6,000,000 worth of plant alone would be erected, without counting the cost of buildings. Much money would be spent on upkeep and renewals. Mechanics, engineers, and fitters would be wanted in large numbers for an industry that would rapidly spread and which to-day is non-existent. Engineering firms would manufacture a highly specialised plant for which in this country there is no demand at present. Collieries and railways would benefit, whilst hundreds of thousands of bags would be wanted for the sugar. Sugar refineries would once more look up and much employment would be provided there. New methods of agriculture would be necessary, intensive cultivation would increase, and the general fertility of the land would improve."
I know perfectly well the objections which will be raised by His Majesty's Government. I shall be told first of all that they are a Free Trade Government, that this is Protection pure and simple, and that therefore no matter what good it may do to the country they cannot have anything to do with it and it is no use looking to them. If that is the main reply of His Majesty's Government, all I can say is that as a Tariff Reformer I cannot wish for a better text to preach from; and when the country really realises what the sugar industry is and that all that is needed at the present moment is capital and organisation, and when the country learns that nothing but Free Trade principles are preventing the provision of this capital in adequate quantities, I do not think that it will do the cause of Free Trade very much good. I cannot imagine anything more likely to increase what I would
532
describe as the growing unpopularity of Free Trade principles. But what I ask His Majesty's Government to do is to treat this on the principle laid down by Mr. John Stuart Mill in that well-known passage where he spoke of its being quite compatible with Free Trade principles to afford temporary protection to what he described as infant industries. I quoted these words four years ago in your Lordships' House, and with your permission I should like to do so again. Mr. Mill said—
"The only case in which, on mere principles of political economy, protective duties can be defensible, is when they are imposed temporarily (especially in a young and rising nation) in hopes of naturalising a foreign industry, in itself perfectly suitable to the circumstances of the country. The superiority of one country over another in a branch of production often arises only from having begun it sooner. There may be no inherent advantage on one part, or disadvantage on the other, but only a present superiority of acquired skill and experience. A country which has this skill and experience yet to acquire may in other respects be better adapted to the production than those which were earlier in the field."
And he went on to say—
"A protecting duty continued for a reasonable time will sometimes be the least inconvenient mode in which the nation can tax itself for the support of such an experiment. But the protection should be confined to cases in which there is good ground of assurance that the industry which it fosters will after a time be able to dispense with it—
I fully admit that, my Lords—
"nor should the domestic producers ever be allowed to expect that it will be continued to them beyond a time necessary for a fair trial of what they are capable of accomplishing."
That, my Lords, is all I am asking. Although Great Britain cannot be described as a young and rising country, still the particular industry to which I am referring is accurately described in those words of Mr. Mill. Therefore I submit to His Majesty's Government that although they are a Free Trade Administration they can, if they believe in those doctrines, perfectly well come forward and give the encouragement and help we are asking for at the present moment.
Then perhaps it may be asked, Where are we to stop? That is your affair, my Lords. Mr. Mill no doubt had that in his mind fully when he wrote the passage which I have quoted. You can lay it down as much as you like that this is to be only a temporary encouragement confined to this one particular industry.

533
What we want to stop is the starvation and unemployment now existing; we want to stop land going out of cultivation; we want to stop people going to the towns; we want to stop the rot which has been going on in agriculture. I am not pretending for one moment that that particular industry is going to do all that, but I do maintain in the strongest terms that it will go a very long way in this direction. Then perhaps you will say that if the Dutch can afford to pay 6s. per ton for freight on roots to be taken from Lincolnshire to Holland, why would not it pay if the sugar was made here. I do not say it would not pay in certain circumstances where everything is favourable, but there is all the difference in the world between an established industry run by people who understand it and a new one such as ours would be. The Dutch have their factories in existence at the present moment, prices are favourable, and the Dutch being smart men of business and having their plant running are naturally anxious to obtain as much raw material as possible.
I hardly think the Government will raise the objection I have seen put forward in the Press that the adoption of my suggestion would have the effect of raising the price of sugar. That is so obviously absurd that I am certain His Majesty's Government will not put that argument forward. An import duty exists at the present moment, and if this proposal had any effect at all on the price of sugar it could only have the effect of tending to reduce the price, because you would increase your supplies and you would have sugar on the market here which had not had to pay freight from the Continent. But I think the silliest criticism I have seen appeared a few days ago in the Star newspaper. In it the writer referred to a letter that had appeared in the Press from a gentleman who told how he had seen children in Germany employed in large numbers in the fields for the purpose of singling out the young beet plants, and described how the school holidays are arranged for the purpose and how the children are taken out in large carts and thoroughly enjoy themselves and earn money. The Star gravely put forward the argument that the establishment of the sugar industry here would mean an evasion of the Factory Acts. I would only point out that here in England,
534
as you well know, whole families, men, women, and children, go into the country hop-picking and fruit-picking. Why should it be an evasion of the Factory Acts to employ them on like labour in beet fields? Surely the employment of women in this work, even if imported labour from the towns had to be resorted to at the time when hoeing and singling wanted a lot of attention, would be a more healthy occupation than for them to work in cotton and other mills. Then perhaps I shall be told that there would be a serious loss of revenue. I remember that point afflicted my noble, friend Lord Denman very much on a former occasion. But if as many as a hundred factories were in existence the loss of revenue, as nearly as I can calculate it, would be about £750,000, and—
LORD DENMAN: A year?
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Yes. It would take from 400 to 500 factories to give us the whole of our sugar supplies, and I think the revenue derived from sugar at the present moment is about £3,000,000. Supposing we lost £750,000 a year, a good deal would come back in Income Tax and general prosperity; and I submit that if the industry could be established the money would be well spent in doing so, and in obtaining the increased employment which the Government are now doing all they can to secure through the means of their expensive Labour Exchanges with their well-salaried staffs.
What are the Government going to do if sugar is manufactured? That was the purport of the Question which I put to them at the beginning of this debate. Do they intend solemnly to bring in a Bill for the purpose of putting a tax on home-made sugar and doing what they can practically to stifle an infant industry? If so, I am afraid they will have a rather warm time of it, and they will find that it will be a very unpopular move. I have no doubt that some of their supporters would say that the obvious remedy is to drop the present sugar duty. I remember in the days of my youth being told a somewhat lurid story of a man who was very fond of eating crumpets, by which he used to make himself extremely ill. The doctor told him that if he went on he would kill himself. He asked how many crumpets it would take to kill him—whether thirty or forty. The doctor replied

535
that that number would make him very ill. Well, would eighty kill him? The doctor thought that eighty would. The story goes that the man consumed eighty crumpets and promptly blew out his brains to prove that the doctor was wrong. If His Majesty's Government immediately throw away £3,000,000 of revenue in order to make it impossible for anyone to say that Protection had ever done any good in this country, I think their action would be somewhat analogous to that of the hero of that little story. But I am bound to say that when we find the Government borrowing money at two and a-half per cent.—their own money, money which is owed to them and which they could get for the asking—and doing so for the purpose of trying to show that somebody else was wrong, it is no use prophesying what they would not be likely to do.
I would make a particular appeal to the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture. I did so on a former occasion. I think that the action of his Department in this particular instance has been most disappointing. The Board of Agriculture no doubt do a great work. They keep us free from rabies, they prevent the spread of cattle disease, they circulate valuable information with regard to the bugs and beetles which destroy our crops, and they keep an eye generally on agricultural matters. I believe they have a certain amount of valuable information with regard to the sugar-beet industry. But why do they sit on it? When I first called the noble Earl's attention to this matter four years ago, I do not think I am wrong in saying that he had not paid very much attention to it up to that time. I do not think he in any way fully appreciated what the sugar industry is. He has learnt more now no doubt, and must be aware of what is being done abroad; and if he has since acquired any proper appreciation of what it means and of its magnitude, I ask him why cannot he show some initiative and some enterprise in the matter. Why does he not send down his apostles from the Board of Agriculture to instruct the farmers and call the attention of the agricultural community to what might be done? Why should it be left to private individuals like myself to call attention to it? Why cannot it be backed up by the weight of a Government Department? It would be in any other country. The great sugar industry in
536
Germany would never have been built up as it has been had it not been for the interest and care which the German Government displayed.
I apologise for having detained your Lordships so long. I dare say a good deal of what I have said is repetition, perhaps repetition ad nauseam, of what has been said before; but unfortunately it is generally the case that when you want to attract attention to a particular subject the only way to do so successfully is by repetition. All I ask is that noble Lords who are interested in this matter will give it their kind attention and support, and that they will lose no opportunity of interesting the commercial and business community in the matter and of doing all they can to give a start to the foundation of an industry which would do a great amount of good in our English country districts.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, I am sure that no one who is aware of the keen interest which the noble Earl has taken in this question, and the enthusiasm with which he has advocated the cultivation of sugar beet in this country, can be surprised that he has taken an early opportunity of initiating a discussion on the subject in the present Parliament; and in the able speech to which we have just listened he has stated his case with that clearness and cogency to which we are accustomed in these debates. The noble Earl has raised the question on several occasions in recent years, on one of which it became my duty to reply for His Majesty's Government. I ventured on that occasion to allude to the noble Earl as an enthusiast, and to my surprise—I may say to my amazement—the noble Earl rose in his place and took that to mean that I had alluded to him as a crank. I think "crank" was the word he used. May I say that nothing was further from my thoughts then and nothing is further from my thoughts now. I have a great respect and admiration for enthusiasts. I recollect the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition alluding on more than one occasion to my noble friend behind me, the President of the Board of Agriculture, as an enthusiast, and I am quite sure he did not for one moment desire to imply that my noble friend was a crank Therefore if I again venture to allude to the noble Earl as an enthusiast I hope he will understand that I do so in a perfectly respectful and even complimentary sense.

537
The noble Earl has given us many figures to show that the question of the cultivation of sugar beet in this country has made considerable strides since he first raised it in your Lordships' House—a fact that I do not for one moment dispute. I will endeavour to deal with the more argumentative side of the question he has put forward. In spite of the suspicion with which the noble Earl regards His Majesty's present advisers, I really believe that their aims and objects in this matter are not, after all, so very different from those of the noble Earl. For his contention, as I understand it, is something of this kind. He says to us—Here is a chance of introducing an entirely new industry into this country, an industry which will have excellent results for British agriculture, which will not only benefit agriculturists but manufacturers as well, which will enable higher wages to be paid in rural districts and more land to be put under plough, which will involve a large demand for new plant and new machinery, which will give employment—as I understand the noble Earl's contention—in the winter months when employment is always at its worst, and which may attract considerable numbers to parts of the country that are at the present time sparsely populated.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Hear, hear.
LORD DENMAN: I quite agree that these are powerful inducements, and that this is a case which would merit the earnest consideration of any Government. But I must say I do rather take exception to the way in which the noble Earl speaks of His Majesty's present advisers as being entirely indifferent to the interests of agriculture in this country. I would point to their record during the last four years to prove the contrary.
The EARL OF DENBIGH: I only complained of their indifference upon this particular question.
LORD DENMAN: I am glad to hear that. I can assure the noble Earl that we are desirous of doing anything in our power to realise the very inviting prospects which he holds out to us in connection with this industry. It is when we come to the particular means by which we are expected to assist it that we have to part company with the noble Earl. His whole point is, I gather, that the only way in
538
which we can assist is by not imposing an Excise duty equivalent to the tax on sugar imported into this country—that is to say, that we should not at the present time impose any Excise duty on sugar at all. I should have thought, if the prospects were really so excellent as the noble Earl has contended, that the industry could be established without requiring any such remission of duty.
The noble Earl has repeated arguments which he has used on former occasions, and it is not my fault if I have to recapitulate the arguments on my side against the contention he has put forward. The noble Earl, I know, is somewhat impatient of Free Trade principles, and he quotes to us again Mill's doctrine with regard to infant industries—that infant industries could be encouraged without a violation of Free Trade principles. If I had his expert knowledge of the fiscal question I think I could quote from the writings of economists to show that of all the doctrines which Mill put forward this one was the most open to question and to criticism. I think I can quote an authority to which the noble Earl will attach possibly greater importance than myself—namely, the authority of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition. When this question was first raised in your Lordships' House the noble Marquess said that this doctrine must be received with very great caution indeed, that these industries somehow acquire the secret of eternal youth, and that people engaged in them always have innumerable reasons when the time comes for the rebate or whatever it is to be removed why it should be maintained. I think the noble Earl himself conceded that point. He said we might ask him where this encouragement is to stop; but he added that that was not his affair at all but our affair. The noble Earl asks us to impose no Excise duty for an indefinite number of years.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Not necessarily indefinite.
LORD DENMAN: Can the noble Earl give me an indication of bow many years?
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Five or six years would help very much.
LORD DENMAN: The last time I asked him it was five or ten years; it is always rather difficult to pin the noble Earl down on this point.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: You can pin me down to that.
LORD DENMAN: But it is obvious that once granted a thing like this becomes extremely difficult to withdraw. Suppose a great industry is built up, then it necessarily follows that this must be so. This was made clear the other day. A deputation came to see the Financial Secretary of the Treasury on this matter, and one of the gentlemen who put forward the case was asked by my right hon. friend whether this arrangement would be permanent or for how many years he would ask for a remission of Excise duty, and he replied that he only wanted it for a certain number of years but that at the end of that time he would ask leave to renew his application to the Treasury. So that the whole thing is very indefinite, and a remission of duty once granted would be extremely difficult to withdraw. Again, there is this argument. The sugar duty under Free Trade finance has been reduced by more than half during the last four years. A Chancellor of the Exchequer who is in a happier financial position than my right hon. friend is at present might desire to repeal that duty altogether. Sugar is almost a necessary of life, and I think that a future Chancellor of the Exchequer might be desirous of repealing the duty altogether; but if you are giving this rebate on the Excise it would prevent that course being taken, and the whole community may suffer in consequence. The noble Earl mentioned £750,000 a year as a sum which the Revenue might expect to lose for five or six years.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I was taking a supposititious case. I said that supposing one hundred factories were working that would probably represent about a quarter of our consumption. Of course it would take some time before one hundred factories could be set going.
LORD DENMAN: But that, I take it, is the aim of the noble Earl, and I gather that £750,000 a year is what it might cost the Revenue in certain circumstances.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: It would be well laid out.
LORD DENMAN: That may be so; but I should have thought that this is scarcely an opportune moment to approach the Government with a proposal of that kind, when, owing to the action of your Lord
540
ships in rejecting the Budget last year, there is a deficit of something like £26,250,000 in last year's Revenue. I think it is unlikely that the Revenue will be particularly elastic for some years to come. Again I notice a rather important discrepancy in the figures given by the noble Earl. He said just now—I do not wish to make any point of this—that beet sugar could be cultivated in this country at the rate of sixteen tons to the acre. When he approached this matter before he told us that the amount which might be reasonably expected was thirteen tons to the acre, and that in Germany the average quantity was twelve tons. That is rather an important discrepancy to any one who is desirous of seeing this industry established on a paying basis.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: The later figures are the result of the knowledge gained by further experience. I wanted to be on the safe side before.
LORD DENMAN: I quite accept that. I have said before, and I repeat it now, that in our view it would be preferable to not imposing the Excise duty to propose that a subsidy should be voted in Parliament, and I suggest that the noble Earl and his friends should bring this subject forward in another place. I do not say that it is likely that His Majesty's Government will assent, but we consider that it is better to vote a subsidy for this purpose than to adopt the noble Earl's proposal, because, after all, when a definite sum of money is voted then the Government are in a position to know exactly where they are. But once you allow a rebate on the Excise there is no knowing where the thing may end. There remains one other possible alternative which I do think is worthy of the consideration of the noble Earl and those who seek to establish this industry here. A Bill was passed last year which provided for a Development Grant. That grant—again I am afraid I have to mention owing to the rejection of the Budget by your Lordships' House—will only be this year about half what it otherwise would have been, but still there will be a considerable sum at the disposal of the Development Commissioners.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The Commissioners are not yet appointed.
LORD DENMAN: I agree; but no doubt they will be appointed before long.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope so.
LORD DENMAN: I assume that there will be a sum of about £400,000 in the Development Grant during the course of this year, and I suggest to the noble Earl that this is precisely one of those cases where those interested in this particular industry might approach the Commissioners with a view to seeing whether some assistance might be rendered them. The noble Earl dwelt on other inviting and no doubt very interesting topics. He spoke, I think, of the incredible stupidity of the Government in not having acceded to his request long ago. He spoke of the way in which we are "taxing landowners out of existence," and he had a backhander, in passing, at the Labour Exchange Act. I will not endeavour to follow him in any of these inviting topics. If I may say so, the mind of the noble Earl always seems to be swayed in this matter by two powerful emotions—one is affection for sugar beet and the other is dislike of His Majesty's Government; and I always take a keen interest in watching which will be the uppermost sentiment. The noble Earl made one rather startling observation. He said that were a Tariff Reform Government in power he would have no doubt that no Excise duty would be imposed. I am not quite so certain about that. Supposing that in the dim and distant future a Tariff Reform Government is in power and that they occupy the Benches where we now sit, I doubt very much whether that would come to pass. I will tell the noble Earl why. I have listened very carefully in these discussions to what has been said by the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, and I have noticed that he has always been very careful never to commit himself to any such promise. In fact, reading between the lines, though the noble Marquess is favourable to the establishment of the industry in this country I am doubtful whether he would encourage it in the particular way desired by the noble Earl. If the noble Marquess takes part in this discussion later on I hope that he may afford the House some information on that particular point. I trust I have shown that it is impossible for us to grant the particular form of assistance which the noble Earl desires; but I fail to see why that should be a bar—I sincerely hope that it may not be a bar—to the establishment of the sugar beet industry in this country.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, I confess that as a moderate reformer, and, I hope, a prudent financier, I am horrified at the spendthrift views which have just been announced by His Majesty's Government. My noble friend Lord Denbigh asks the Government to do nothing. In order that a particular industry may be encouraged he asks them to refrain from imposing an Excise duty. What does the noble Lord who represents the Government say in reply to that? After explaining the state of the finances of His Majesty's Government and alluding to the large deficit in the Exchequer, he says that His Majesty's Government prefer a direct system of bounties.
LORD DENMAN: I did not quite say that. I said that it seems to me better than the suggestion of the noble Earl, but I did not say that we should assent to it or that we were in favour of it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I understood the noble Lord almost to invite the noble Earl to enunciate proposals for a direct system of bounties. He certainly did give a very definite invitation to my noble friend to approach the Commissioners of the Development Fund.
LORD DENMAN: Hear, hear.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I have no doubt that that is a very desirable way of doing things, and that the noble Earl's friends may get some satisfaction from the Development Commissioners, but I do think it is a most extravagant way; whereas to merely remit the Excise duty or a portion of the Excise duty for a short period need not cost very much. The noble Lord, I think, misunderstood the figures which Lord Denbigh gave as regards the loss to the Exchequer which would be involved by the remission of the Excise duty. If an industry is so satisfactorily established that its output would be paying an Excise duty of £750,000 a year it would then be reasonable for His Majesty's Government to say that the industry stood in need of no protection whatever. If the annual output of the sugar industry in this country amounted to one-quarter of the whole consumption, as it would in that case, it would be reasonable to say that the industry should bear an Excise duty equal to the import duty charged. Though there might be a

543
slight loss to the Revenue during the first five years or so, I do not imagine that if the small concession asked for resulted in the establishment of the industry His Majesty's Government need anticipate any ultimate diminution of Revenue but rather an increase, owing to the additional direct and indirect employment that would be caused.
The noble Lord well realises that I would not shrink from advocating a measure of the most extreme Protection, but in this particular case this is not a question of extreme Protection; it is not what I should understand by Protection at all. The question between the two sides of the House is not a very large one; the line which divides us is very narrow; I think it is something to have got general agreement that this industry is without dispute one which it would be beneficial to the agricultural community in this country to establish, and which would provide a considerable amount of employment. I ask the Government whether they cannot, consistently with their Free Trade principles, which are not in question, and consistently with certain actions which they have already taken, make this very small concession on the chance of establishing a great and important industry in this country. I am not going to use the infant industry argument. That is no doubt an admission on the part of John Stuart Mill which can be used to nullify almost every Free Trade argument which that distinguished Free Trader used. I do not for one moment use that argument. But I do say that what His Majesty's Government are being asked to do now is no more than they themselves did when they introduced the Patent Laws Amendment Act, which is certainly not strictly in accordance with Free Trade principles as understood by the early Cobdenites. In fact they are only asked to carry out literally what they themselves have already done, what they did when they re-enacted the Sugar Convention. In that Convention it is allowed that there should be a certain money difference between the import duty and the Excise duty. The whole principle of the Convention was that there should be half-a-crown difference between the Excise duty and the import duty, and so long as that difference is not greater than half-a-crown any arrangement may be made by the different Governments who were parties to the Convention. I do not understand
544
how, in the face of that distinct principle underlying the Convention, it can be contended by His Majesty's advisers that it is absolutely necessary to impose an Excise duty equivalent to the full import duty.
The noble Lord said that this is a question which has not been finally cleared up. I hope it will be cleared up soon. I was a member of the other House at the time when the Sugar Convention became an Act. I took considerable part in the discussions upon it; and throughout the whole of the proceedings the principle which was understood to guide us was that there should be this difference of half-a-crown allowed between the Excise and the import duty. Surely it is possible for this Government to act up to that principle the same as other parties to the Convention are allowed to act. That is all that the noble Earl asks. If His Majesty's Government do not choose to act in that way there is another way in which they can act. It is a common feature of the Revenue system of this country when articles are manufactured under supervision to charge a small duty as Excise duty—a duty smaller than the full amount of the import duty—because of the cost to the manufacturer involved in warehousing and so forth under supervision. It would at any rate be reasonable, if His Majesty's Government did not see their way to remit the whole of the Excise duty, to consider the propriety of making the same allowance as is done in the case of tobacco.
LORD DENMAN: We have already definitely promised to do exactly what the noble Viscount asks.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am glad to hear that. Can the noble Lord say how much?
LORD DENMAN: I think the point the noble Viscount is on is the cost of supervision and collection to the manufacturer, and we have promised that a rebate of about five per cent will be allowed to manufacturers in respect of that.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: That is not a very large allowance, but still I am glad to hear how far His Majesty's Government are ready to go. Then, after all, it is only going a little further to ask the Government not to impose a tax. It is the imposition of a tax which horrifies a Free Trader so much. We are not asking for

545
the imposition of a tax. We are asking the Government to refrain from imposing a tax, thereby strictly carrying out the policy of laissez faire by which they have been animated. What have the Government done in the matter of tobacco growing in Ireland? They have allowed a rebate in regard to tobacco grown in Ireland on the ground, as I understand, that it is an infant industry, though I see from a report issued yesterday that last year 133 acres were under cultivation and 126,195 lbs. of tobacco were grown. I know that the Government have contended that it is as an experiment that these rebates have been granted to tobacco growers in Ireland. The noble Lord who replied for the Government said that a rebate once granted is difficult to withdraw. May I ask why that principle is to apply with greater force to the prospect of beet sugar growing in England than to tobacco growing in Ireland? If the experiment can be safely made in Ireland with regard to tobacco, why can it not be made in England with regard to beet sugar? I agree that once you establish an industry there is an inclination on the part of those concerned in that industry to keep every possible concession they can; but, granting that to the full, is it not exactly the same in this country as in Ireland? I know that Ireland can secure special treatment from His Majesty's Government, and I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Denbigh that perhaps the best way of approaching this subject and securing what is now asked for is not to agitate among farmers in Lincolnshire but to get a few acres of sugar beet under cultivation in the district for which the Member for Waterford sits. There are certain agencies in Ireland which seem able to move His Majesty's Government to break all their most cherished principles. They are prepared to take the chance of not being able to withdraw the rebate in the case of Ireland, and I must say that, with the kind of influence which His Majesty's Government are liable to at the present juncture, the chance of that rebate being stopped in Ireland seems to be singularly small. If the Government do not take the little step that they are asked to take, and if the prospect of a great and flourishing industry, which even the Government themselves have described as an industry which would be of great advantage to the country, is lost in consequence, I hope the farmers and people of Lincolnshire will be told by the noble
546
Earl exactly how the matter stands: that the Government, not because they disbelieved in the industry, not because they did not think that what they were asked to do would encourage agriculture, but on pure principle, have refused to do for the British farmer what they have willingly done for the Irish small holder.
LORD ST. DAVID'S: My Lords, I have been greatly interested in the speech of the noble Earl who brought this subject forward, and in the speech of the noble Viscount who has just sat down. It is always very pleasant, especially for us who sit on this side of the House, to get at first hand the doctrine of the Tariff Reformer from a pure source. So far as I understand, the case is this, that there are capitalists who are willing to establish a sugar factory in Lincolnshire if they can get a definite pledge from the Government and the Opposition that they will be free from Excise duty for a certain number of years; and the noble Earl told us that in his opinion the capitalists would probably be contented with a pledge of this sort which would hold good for from five to seven years. The noble Lord who replied for the Government has pointed out that it would be very difficult for the Government to give this encouragement, even if on its merits they were in favour of it, because they are pledged to remove whenever they can the remaining duty on sugar. His Majesty's Government have been in office four years and have taken off half the duty; the remnant of that duty is now only about ¼d. a lb. It is obvious, therefore, that the Government are hardly in a position to assist anybody by saying they will not charge an Excise duty; and, of course, such a promise is of no advantage to a manufacturer if the import duty on foreign sugar is taken off. The noble Earl says that sugar can be grown in this country if the home producer is given some advantage over the foreign producer; but, as I have said, the Government are under a pledge to remove as soon as possible the import duty. Both noble Lords opposite spoke of this as a matter of electioneering. They said they would go to the agricultural districts and say that a Free Trade Government would do nothing, and that the farmers knew what a Tariff Reform Government would do. As we have the noble Lords here who are largely responsible for the Tariff Reform movement, now is the time to get further information on the subject. I have read their speeches

547
with the greatest possible interest, and I think I understand their general scheme. When they get into power they intend to put a tax on foreign manufactured articles, on corn, on meat, and on various other things, but they do not mean the consumer in this country to suffer at all. They mean to take with one hand, but to give the consumer the equivalent on the other. And what have they promised? I am under the impression that I have read speeches delivered by the noble Viscount in which he has said that the Tariff Reform party want to take off the taxes on tea, coffee, and sugar. If that is so, then what advantage are you going to give your friend the capitalist in this matter if you remove the duty on sugar?
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: I am quite certain the noble Lord will never find that I said I thought it possible to take off all the taxes on the articles he mentioned.
LORD ST. DAVID'S: If the noble Viscount has not done so I am sure many of his friends have. It is one of the favourite promises given at village meetings. As the tax on sugar is only ¼d. on the lb. it would be difficult to take off a portion of that; and if that duty is removed no advantage could be given to the home producer by the adoption of the noble Earl's suggestion. Therefore I think noble Lords opposite might tell us whether they intend to drop out of their programme the promise to take off the sugar duty in order to give this advantage to farmers in the eastern counties.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: Not in the eastern counties only. I particularly said that I wanted to see it become a general industry all over the country. I said that although sugar beet might be grown in the eastern counties where everything was favourable, I did not think it would be possible to get the capital to make the industry general unless encouragement was given in the way I suggested.
LORD ST. DAVID'S: I live in Wales where the greater part of the land is old grass land which could not be broken up for this industry, and I think noble Lords from Ireland would say that the greater part of the grass lands in that country are equally unsuitable. The difference between tobacco grown in Ireland and sugar
548
beet is that the Treasury will never be able to do without a duty on tobacco, and it is possible to agree to give a rebate. In the case of beet sugar the promise that there would be no Excise duty imposed would be of little value, for both Parties are pledged to remove the remaining duties on sugar. If those duties were removed, the absence of an Excise duty would be of no value to the home industry.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, my noble friend who initiated this discussion has at any rate been successful to this extent, that he has elicited from the noble Lord who represents His Majesty's Government an admission that this question is one of very great national importance, and deserves, I think the expression he used was, attentive examination. He even, I think, got a little more than that out of him, because we gather that His Majesty's Government have gone the length of promising as an inducement to those who may think of establishing beet sugar factories a rebate which I am given to understand would work out at the princely and magnificent sum of 2s. a ton. I do not know whether my noble friend will consider that that will be at all an adequate inducement to capitalists who may have it in contemplation to start these sugar factories in this country.
There can be no doubt—I do not think it will be contested by noble Lords opposite—that this idea of establishing the beet sugar industry in this country is an extremely attractive one. It has many attractive features: the crop raised is very profitable, the raising of the crop tends to good cultivation of the land, and, above all, to the employment of a large number of hands, and last but not least, the by-products of the manufacture are extremely useful for cattle-feeding. I think all these things have to be borne in mind at the present time when both political Parties are committeed to the policy of encouraging small holdings. I cannot conceive any kind of agriculture which would fit in better with a system of small holdings than the cultivation of the sugar beet. The noble Lord opposite asks why, if this industry presents such magnificent and attractive prospects, it is necessary to support it by means of the kind of encouragement for which my noble friend asks. I think there is a very obvious answer to that. The reason we on this side

549
think that some encouragement of the kind is reasonable and desirable is that owing to the prevalence of the bounty system in foreign countries the beet sugar industry has now been so firmly established on the Continent of Europe, and those engaged in that industry have obtained so long a start, that it really would be asking too much of our agriculturists to rush into the field of competition unless they got some encouragement during the early inception of the movement.
The noble Lord referred, I think not for the first time, to John Stuart Mill's famous dictum with regard to the encouragement of infant industries, and he proceeded, rather to my surprise, to quote me as an authority on the other side. The noble Lord, I think, quoted me accurately. I believe I did say that I had always regarded this particular doctrine of Mill's as one which it was necessary to apply with the greatest caution, and the reason I gave was, as the noble Lord said, that these infant industries if you encourage them over much are apt to find out the secret of eternal youth and to go on insisting upon a continuation of the official assistance which you had given them at the outset. That is a perfectly reasonable caution, and I do not in the least regret having made the statement. But surely everything depends upon whether the industry which you are going to dry nurse, if I may use the expression, is an exotic industry, an artificial industry which is not really suitable and adapted to the circumstances of the country, or whether, on the contrary, it is one which, when once launched, is likely to be able to take care of itself. If you dry nurse what I would call an exotic industry you will certainly find that it will call for a continuation of the stimulating treatment which you had given it at first.
But the whole point of my noble friend's case is this, that when once you have got these factories started, with all their expensive plant and surroundings, the sugar beet industry would take care of itself, and I think the noble Lord quite misapprehended what was said by Lord Denbigh as to the cost of the particular measure which he proposed. The noble Lord opposite was under the impression that my noble friend was asking for a subvention of £750,000 a year for five or six years. It is quite obvious that, if you were to grant the remission of the Excise duty to-morrow,
550
it would be a long time before these new factories would begin to earn the right to a remission of anything like a substantial sum. By the time they could claim a remission of £750,000 of Excise duty they would be fairly upon their legs, and it would be quite natural and proper to tell them that the moment had come when they could no longer be regarded as infant industries and when they must shift for themselves.
I gather from the noble Lord opposite that, in principle, his colleagues are not altogether averse to the idea of doing something if they can to encourage the cultivation of the sugar beet. The noble Lord mentioned reasons for which in his view the particular proposal of my noble friend—I mean the remission of the Excise duty—was inadmissible. So far as what I may describe as the international argument is concerned, the argument based upon the Sugar Convention, I fail altogether to see that any case can be made against the remission of the duty. So long as the import duty remains below half-a-crown a cwt. we are, as I understand the matter, entirely at liberty to grant a bounty in any shape or form that does not exceed that sum. Then the noble Lord came to a section which he quoted in the Act of 1903. I did not quite follow the noble Lord's explanation. I understood him to say that His Majesty's Government were still doubtful as to the strict legal interpretation to be put upon the clause. If that is so, surely the obvious rejoinder is—let them take the high legal advice which they can always obtain, and if they are advised that the section does bear that particular interpretation then let them consider whether or not they will resort to the necessary legislation in order to enable them to do what is desired. But I gather that their objection is not really based at all upon the legal difficulty, but upon the question of policy raised by the proposal of my noble friend.
I am bound to say that it does not seem to me to follow in the least that because you wish to do something to introduce this new industry you can only to do it by means of a remission of the Excise duty. There are obviously other ways of achieving the purpose, and my noble friend Lord Ridley made a most apposite suggestion when he called attention to the fact that in Ireland the cultivation of tobacco is at this moment being encouraged by His Majesty's Gov-

551
ernment by means of an allowance of moderate amount. Why should not a similar allowance, but on a scale sufficiently liberal to really permit of the experiment being conducted—why should not an allowance of that kind be made in the case of the cultivation of beet sugar? I have myself had the privilege of visiting a tobacco farm in Ireland owned by a member of this House. I am not a smoker myself and am unable to pronounce as to the particular quality of the article produced, but I am given to understand that cigarettes manufactured from my noble friend's tobacco are actually procurable within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. Therefore something has been achieved by the generosity of His Majesty's Government.
My noble friend suggested another means of doing something for this purpose. I mean the use of the Development Act which was passed by Parliament last year. I have here the first section of the Development Act. What does it say? It runs—
"The Treasury may make advances to a Government Department or through a Government Department to a public authority or to an association of persons—
I call attention to those words—
"for the purpose of aiding and developing agricultural and rural industries by promoting scientific research, instruction and experiments in the science, methods and practice of agriculture, and by the adoption of any other means which appear calculated to develop agriculture and rural industries."
Those words seem to me to cover the case of my noble friend behind me; and I do hope that, not content with mere platonic expressions of approval and admiration, His Majesty's Government will really look into this matter, and, whenever they have leisure to appoint these Commissioners, consider whether that agency cannot be used in order to do something to bring about the object which my noble friend has so close at heart. He has at any rate laid his case with great clearness before your Lordships, and I think he must not be altogether dissatisfied with the amount of concurrence which he has elicited from both sides of the House.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords, I join with the noble Marquess opposite in the hope that the noble Earl is not dissatisfied with the reception of this matter at your Lordships' hands. The noble Marquess truly said that
552
it is one of great national importance. I think we shall all agree with that, and my only regret is that in a House of 600 members who own, as we are sometimes told, one-fifth, and at other times the proportion is given as one-third, of the land of the country, there should only be at the present moment thirty-three Peers to discuss so important a subject. The noble Earl said, at the commencement of his remarks, that he was going to make a non-Party speech, and I suppose according to his own ideas he succeeded in doing so. Nevertheless he laid hold of a somewhat jocose remark of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to taxing land out of existence. I happen to be a member of the same Cabinet. Every sixpence I have is invested in land, and if I or my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack had the faintest idea that such a thing was seriously meant I do not think that he or I would long remain a member of the Cabinet.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Will the noble Earl ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw what he said?
EARL CARRINGTON: The noble Earl also took me to task for not sending apostles round the country on a crusade in favour of sugar beet. But we have done that. We have subsidised agricultural colleges, which grow beet themselves to some extent, and they have spread the knowledge of its culture among the farmers. Therefore I cannot accept the charge of stupidity and indifference with which the noble Earl was good enough to brand His Majesty's Government in his non-Party speech. I will only say, in passing, that when the noble Earl does make a Party speech I hope I may be somewhere in the neighbourhood and that I may be privileged to hear him. We are all agreed that sugar beet can be grown successfully in this country. That was shown years and years ago. I need not delay the House on that point, except to observe that the problem under discussion is rather more a commercial than an agricultural one.
No beet sugar is at present made in England, and a specific charge will, of course, be made as soon as it is manufactured in this country. What noble Lords really want is a bounty of 1s. 10 d. per cwt. on English-grown sugar, and that the Government absolutely and entirely refuse to give. My noble friend behind me put

553
to the noble Marquess the perfectly pertinent question, What did he think would happen when a Tariff Reform Government came into power? But the noble Marquess, with his usual adroitness, gave no answer; he contented himself with the historic formula, "Wait and see." Is there any reason why the refusal of a bounty would prevent the development of this industry? There are several factories at present in Holland which are going strong, although the tax on imported sugar is exactly the same as the tax on native-grown sugar. No doubt those factories were started originally with a bounty, but at that time nobody believed that sugar beet growing could be made to pay. The noble Earl said that foreigners are asking English farmers to grow a beet supply, and that there is talk of putting up a foreign factory in England. If they can do that without any bonus, surely it is time for Englishmen to wake up and do the same. The noble Marquess spoke of the necessity of dry nursing infant industries. As a family man I do not think that dry-nursing is the best way of bringing up an infant. However, let that pass. The sole object of noble Lords opposite seems to be, since Tariff Reform has been started, to bring forward and foster infant or decrepit industries which are unable to stand upright or to run alone. Here is a case in point. We were told a short time ago that £400,000 was all that was wanted. We were rather staggered at the figure; but we are now informed that the amount is £750,000 a year—
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: I was, as I have already explained, drawing a supposititious case. I said that if a hundred factories were started that might possibly be the loss of Revenue, but it would be many years before a hundred factories could be started.
EARL CARRINGTON: Take the question of small holdings, to which the noble Marquess referred. In two years we have a hundred square miles of land, and there is hardly any charge on the rates or hardly any expense on the Imperial Exchequer. Where is all this dry nursing of infant industries going to stop? I saw it suggested recently that assistance should be given in the growing of daffodils, and it was stated as a monstrous thing that daffodils should be allowed to come in from foreign countries and should not be grown here. The position of Ireland as regards tobacco growing is
554
absolutely different from the position of beet-growing in England. In the eighteenth century the British Parliament forbade the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland altogether at a time when it was a flourishing industry, and it is to compensate the Irish for that somewhat high-handed injury that the Government have agreed to pay £6,000 a year for five years in order to help to re-establish a trade that was destroyed by the action of this country.
Noble Lords on both sides of the House wish to stop unemployment. The difference between us is one of policy. The policy of noble Lords opposite is to assist industries by means of protective duties. The policy of the Government is based on the belief that any manipulation of duties for the purpose of starting or bolstering up an industry is wasteful and makes for inefficiency. But that does not mean that the Government are going to sit still. There is no want of enterprise or initiative on our side. We have embodied our views as to the means by which agriculture and other industries can be benefited in the Development Act of last year, as to the merits of which I do not think any difference of opinion can exist. The Government will have nothing to do with meeting the views of noble Lords opposite on fiscal matters.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Do I understand the noble Earl to say that the privileges to the tobacco growers in Ireland were granted as some return for the fact that for years tobacco growing was forbidden there?
EARL CARRINGTON: That is practically what it was.
VISCOUNT RIDLEY: Then I give notice that at an early date I will ask the noble Earl whether the Government will consider the question of granting the same privileges to tobacco growing in England, which has been prohibited in the same way, and whether they will consider granting to the sugar refiners some compensation for being ruined by the Government's policy.
LORD DENMAN: I believe I am right in saying that there was a provision in last year's Budget for the growing of tobacco in this country.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.