Sitting of 24 November 1902

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of the Chairman of Ways and Means.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  NAVY (SHIPS' BOILERS).
  Return ordered, "showing comparison

  Ships fitted with Scotch Boilers.

  Class and name of Ship.

  Date of first commission

  Period actully in commission.

  Total cost incurred for alterations and additions since first
  commission.

  Total cost incurred for alterations, additions and repairs since
  first commission.

  Engines.

  Boilers.

  Total.

  Engines.

  Boiler.

  Total.

  Tons.

  I. H. P.

  Ships fitted with Water-tube Boilers.

  Class and name of Ship.

  Date of first commission.

  Period actually in commission.

  Total cost incurred for alterations and additions since first
  commission.

  Total cost incurred for alterations, additions and repairs since
  first commission.

  Engines.

  Boilers.

  Total.

  Engines.

  Boilers.

  Total.

  Tons.

  I. H. P.

  (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 356, of Session 1902, and to include all Ships and Classes included therein)."— (Lord Charles Beresford.)

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  Copy presented, of Financial Statements for 1900-1901 and 1901-02, and Estimates for 1901–02 and 1902–03 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF SOUTHAMPTON).
  Copies presented, of Orders made by the County Council of the County of Southampton altering certain polling districts in the Southern or Fareham and the New Forest Divisions of the County [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  between ships with Scotch Boilers and those fitted with Water-tube Boilers, in the following form:—

  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
  Account presented, showing the gross Amount received and expended on account of the telegraph service during the year ended 31st March, 1902, &c. [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 379.]
  PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901.
  Account presented, showing the Money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of The Pacific Cable Act, 1901, and of the money expended and borrowed, and securities created under the said Act to the 31st March, 1902 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No.380.]
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copies presented, of Two Orders in Council, of the 19th November. 1902, regulating the currency of Northern and Southern Nigeria respectively [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Copies presented, of Two Orders in Council, of the 19th November, 1902 (i.) making rules for preventing collisions by vessels navigating Lake Windermera; and (ii.) confirming pilotage bye-laws made by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACTS, 1865 AND 1869.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of the 19th November, 1902, authorising an alteration in the scale of salaries of assistant masters, Royal Hospital School (Nautical Division), Greenwich [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  WORKHOUSE NURSING.
  Copy presented, of Report of the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board to inquire into the nursing of the sick poor in the workhouses. Part I. Report and Summary of Recommendations [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  WORKHOUSE NURSING.
  Copy presented, of Minutes of Evidence taken before the Departmental Committee appointed by the President of the Local Government Board to inquire into the Nursing of the Sick Poor in Workhouses, together with Appendix and Index to Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  Paper laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House:

  PUBLIC RECORDS (WAR OFFICE).
  Copy of Seventh Schedule containing a List and Particulars of Classes of Documents existing or accruing in the office of His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Port sanitary Authorities.
  SIR SEYMOURKING (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to a letter addressed to the Local Government Board by the Association of Port Sanitary Authorities on 19th November, 1901, requesting them to issue an Order applying the provisions of The Public Health and Local Government Conferences Act, 1885, to the various Port Sanitary Authorities, so as to give them power to apply their funds in paying expenses incidental to attending meetings of the Association of Port Sanitary Authorities; and will he say why no answer has been as yet given to this communications, and what course the Local Government Board propose to adopt in regard to the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I do not find that I have received the letter referred to, but representations have been made to me as to the issue of an Order applying the Act mentioned in the Question to port sanitary authorities. Legislation would, however, be necessary to enable me to issue an Order for this purpose, and the point has been noted for consideration when an opportunity for legislation arises.

  Committee on Workhouse Accounts.
  MR. GOULDING (): To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Committee appointed in May, 1901, to inquire and report in respect of the keeping of workhouse accounts, and of simplifying the necessary records, has completed its Report; whether he is aware that boards of guardians have been for a long time expecting some modification in the present system of workhouse accounts, and are inconvenienced in placing their stationery orders by the delay in the publication of the Report; and whether he can take steps to hasten the completion of the Report of the Committee, and ensure the speedy issue of an Order dealing with the question.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Report of the Committee referred to has been made to me, and the matter is at

  231
  present under my consideration. I hope to be able to communicate with boards of guardians on the subject at no distant date.

  Ranelagh Place Post Office, Liverpool—Alleged Insanitary Condition.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (): To ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been directed to the insanitary conditions under which the staff employed at the Ranelagh Place Post Office, Liverpool, have to perform their work; and if he will state what steps are being taken to remedy the alleged grievance.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The branch post office in Ranelagh Place, Liverpool, has been examined more than once in reference to allegations of insanitary conditions existing in the premises, and I am assured that there is no good ground for them. The lease will expire next year, and inquiries are being made as to what improvements can then be effected.

  Promotions amongst Liverpool Telegraphists.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: To ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that there are now fifty telegraphists at Liverpool who have reached their maximum salary; and whether, seeing that since 1871 only three postmasterships and an equal number of sub-postmasterships have been given to officers attached to the telegraph establishment at that office, he will give favourable consideration to any applications which may be received for vacancies, and, with a view to hastening promotion, refuse extensions of service to officers who have qualified for the maximum pension.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am aware of the circumstances at Liverpool, which are substantially as the hon. Member describes them; and, as regards applications for vacant postmasterships and sub-postmasterships, I need hardly say that I shall continue the practice of my Predecessor in giving them full consideration. But I should not feel justified in accelerating the retirement of efficient officers solely in order to create vacancies for others.

  Dublin Postal Officials.
  MR. NANNETTI (): To ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that in Dublin sorting clerks and telegraphists, the majority of whom are between the ages of seventeen and twenty years, are compelled to carry baskets filled with newspapers and bookpackets, and that some of the baskets weigh more than a stone when empty; and whether, seeing that the weight limit which a postman on collection is compelled to carry is 28 Ibs., and that when these receptacles mentioned are full they weigh at least double this, he will take steps to provide that the duty devolves upon men better fitted for the work.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Arrangements were made in August last for relieving the sorting clerks in Dublin of certain work proper to postmen, and I am not aware that anything more is required. I will have further inquiry made, however, on the point raised by the hon. Member.

  Dublin Post Office—Clerical Staff.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster General if he is aware that it was stated at the Tweedmouth Commission that a scheme was about to be brought into operation by which the clerical force in the secretary's and accountant's offices in Dublin would be recruited from the ranks of the sorting clerks and telegraphists in Dublin by means of competitve examination amongst the staff; and can he explain why this promise has not been fulfilled, and whether the Department has any intention of putting this scheme into operation in future.
  (Anwered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I am aware that it was stated in evidence before the Tweedmouth Committee that, as part of a larger scheme, it was proposed that the clerical force in the secretary's and accountant's offices in Dublin should be recruited by competition among persons already in the Post Office service, but it was not proposed to limit the competition to Diblin candidates only. I may state that, although the adoption of this part of the scheme was not proceeded with, Dublin sorting clerks and telegraphists between the ages of nineteen and twenty-six, if of good conduct and character, are

  233
  eligible, in common with other officers of this Department, to compete for clerkships in several of the London offices.

  South Africa—Permit Regulations—Oath of Allegiance—Case of M. du Toit.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, while some late prisoners of war at Cape Town have been permitted to make the declaration referred to in his interview with the Boer Generals on the 5th September last, some other late prisoners, including M. du Toit, exCaptain of Transvaal Artillery, have been refused by Captain L. A. M'Clintock, who stated to M. du Toit that the order was that the oath of allegiance must be taken before a permit to proceed to the Transvaal could be obtained; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that his statement to the Boer Generals as to all prisoners of war having a choice between the oath and the declaration shall be carried out by the authorities at the Cape.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) A letter from M. du Toit on this subject has been received by the Secretary of State, and he has been informed that a copy of it has been forwarded to Lord Milner, who will communicate with M. du Toit. Lord Milner is aware that all prisoners of war have the choice of making a declaration or taking an oath of allegiance.

  Education Bill — Eligibility of Local Officials for Membership of Education Authority.
  MR. LEVY (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether a medical officer of health appointed and paid by a Borough Council, at present a member of the School Board of that borough, may be a member of the new education authority or the Committee appointed by that authority; and whether a borough elective auditor, elected by the burgesses and paid by the Borough Council, may be a member of the new education authority or the Committee appointed by that authority.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) I can only refer the hon. Member to Clause 18 (3) (d) of the Education Bill.

  Education Bill—Obligation of Managers to defray Rates and Taxes.
  MR. ARTHUR STANLEY (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the provision that the managers of the school shall provide the schoolhouse free of any charge except for the teacher's house, if any, to the local authority, imposes upon the managers an obligation to defray all rates and taxes.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Bill does not transfer to the local education authority the managers' liability to defray taxes. Voluntary schools are exempt from rates under Section 3 of The Voluntary Schools Act, 1897. The effect of the Bill as amended in Committee does not differ from that of the Bill as introduced as respects this matter.

  Evening School Regulations—Grants.
  MR. SHACKLETON (): To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education are the grants payable under Section XX of the Eveining School Regulations in tended to reduce the total grants usually received by technical schools, or will the variable rates be so increased up to the maximum allowable so that schools of this kind will not be compelled to curtail their technological and commercial instruction.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) Schools remaining at their former efficiency will receive grants equal to those which they would have received under the Directory of 1901. If increased efficiency is shown, the variable rates allow of increased payments.

  Education Bill —Proportion of Taxation Paid by London.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the £1,300,000, to be paid yearly under the additional grant under the Aid Grant Clause of the Education (England and Wales) Bill, will be paid (calculated on the usual proportions) by the taxpayers of London.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) It is not possible to say what proportion of the taxation of the United Kingdom is contributed by the taxpayers of London.

  Anglo-Japanese Treaty—Secret Clauses.
  MR. LABOUCHERE (): To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will forgive me in asking him if there were any Clauses attached to the treaty between this country and Japan which have not yet been made public; and whether he will allow me to ask him whether he can inform me, without injury to public interest, if any pledges or assurances in connection with that treaty have been given which are not known to Parliament.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I fear I can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman on the 19th instant,† which he will see covers the present case.

  Coal Duty—Decrease of Shipment of Coal to Holland, Belgium and Baltic Ports.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the falling off in the shipments of coal from this country to Baltic ports since the imposition of the coal duty; if he will state what growth the coal shipments from this country to Holland and Belgium showed during the years immediately preceding 1901; and if he can afford any explanation for the decrease of one million tons, or over 60 per cent., in the shipments of coal to Holland in the first ten months of this year as compared with those in the corresponding period of 1900, or for the reduction to less than one-half of the coal shipment from the north-eastern ports to Belgium up to 31st October of this year as compared with the shipped in the same period of last year.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The facts stated in the Question as to the recent falling off in coal exports from the United Kingdom or particular ports to certain places appear to be correct. The shipments of coal to Holland and Belgium during the years immediately preceding 1901 were as follows: 1898, 1,204,588 tons; 1899, 1,936,517 tons; 1900, 2,964,366 tons. I am unable to assign reasons for the fluctuations which are continually taking place in particular branches of our coal exports. Generally speaking, I may say that the year 1900
  † See preceding volume, page 1350.
  236
  was quite exceptional as regards our exports, not only of coal, but of other commodities, and any decline in coal exports since that year has accompanied, as usual, the general decline in trade activity which has taken place both in the United Kingdom and abroad. If bunker coal be added to coal exported, it will be found that the total quantity shipped from the United Kingdom has actually increased since 1900.

  Bushey Park—Concession of Land to London United Tramways Company.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY (): To ask the hon. Member for North Hunts., as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that the Hampton Urban District Council applied to the Office of Works in the first instance to concede a portion of Bushey Park; that the intimation of the park lands being granted to the London United Tramways Company, in consideration for other lands owned by the Company, was first conveyed to the Hampton Urban District Council by an official of the Office of Works asking the approval of the Hampton Urban District Council to the arrangement; that land on the opposite side could have been purchased by the Tramway Company whereby the loss of part of Bushey Park could have been avoided; and, seeing that the trees in the portion of Bushey Park which is to be surrendered are of more value than those on the ground of the Tramway Company to be given in exchange, and that a large proportion of the trees on the ground now owned by the Tramway Company, and to be made over by them to the public, are dead, will he state what action he proposes to take.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) (1) No; the Hampton Urban District Council did not make such an application. (2) No land is to be granted to the London United Tramways Company. The First Commissioner has already stated this twice in reply to Questions. The Company and the District Council were informed that this Board would not approve of adding any part of the park to the public roadway simply at the instance of the Company, but only at the special request of the District Council, as a public improvement. (3) This is the third Question in which the suggestion is conveyed that this public improvement

  237
  should be effected by the Tramways Company being compelled to purchase the property opposite to the park on the river bank. Such a widening of the road would necessarily seriously diminish the size and impair the beauty of the public garden which has been there formed by the District Council with admirable public spirit. The only advantage would be, apparently, to enable the owner of any residence on that side of the road to dispose of his property to the Company if he dislikes the coming of the tramway. (4) The question of the trees has already been carefully considered. The trees on the ground to be added to the park are fully equal in value to those to be thrown into the roadway or removed. Several of the latter are dead or decaying, and would have been removed soon in any event. Some will be transplanted. (5) This is not the fact.

  Royal Artillery—Status of Colonels and Lieutenant-Colonels.
  CAPTAIN SINCLAIR (): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether Lieutenant - Colonels of both branches of the Royal Artillery are, on completion of their period of regimental command, to be placed on the same list as regards further appointments and promotion; and, if so, will he say what steps are being taken to secure the prospects of the officers of the Royal Garrison Artillery being suitably employed, seeing that their contemporaries in the Royal Horse and Royal Field Artillery obtain promotion now so much more quickly.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) Since the division of the regiment into mounted and dismounted branches, Lieutenant-Colonels are considered for further employment in the branch to which they belong. Should any employment become vacant which is open to both branches, Lieutenant-Colonels on both lists are equally considered.

  Commissions for Militia Officers—Allotment.
  MR. GOULDING: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether the twenty Commissions for Militia officers, stated by the War Office Notice of the 8th July, 1902, to be placed
  238
  at the disposal of the Commander-in-Chief in South Africa, have been allotted; and, if not, when it is proposed to allot them.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) These Commissions have been allotted, and the officers will be gazetted in due course.

(2.15.) QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  South Africa—Censorship of Letters and Cablegrams.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is now any restriction upon, or supervision of, communication by the mails or over the cables to and from any portion of British South Africa; and, if there be such, to what colonies or districts is it applicable, what is its nature, and in whose hands does the controlling power lie.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): The answer is in the nagative.

  South African Mortgaged Lands.
  MR. BRYCE (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is now in force within the Transvaal and Orange River territory any ordinance or other legal provision suspending the right of sale or foreclosoure of mortgaged lands with a view to securing a reasonable delay for debtors who have, owing to the recent war, been prevented from satisfying their creditors; whether if any such provision is now in force, it will be affected by the withdrawal of martial law in the Transvaal should that withdrawal take place shortly; and whether, if the withdrawal of martial law should affect any such provision, the propriety of securing a reasonable further period of delay for mortgage debtors will be seriously considered.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: By a proclamation of 28th May last, it was provided that exemption from payment of interest on mortgage bonds should cease on 1st June, as regards interest accruing after that date, but no actions at law should be brought or maintained for the

  239
  capital sum of loans for which bonds on land or other fixed property have been passed for six months from that date. I am advised that the withdrawal of martial law will not affect the validity of this proclamation in any way. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that martial law has been withdrawn.
  MR. BRYCE: What are the terms of the arrangement, and for what length of time will it remain in force?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: As I understand at the present time, the moratorium will expire in six months from 1st June last.
  MR. BRYCE: Is it intended to extend the period?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That depends upon the circumstances.

  Treatment of South African Loyalists—Case of Rev. Mr. Vlok and Rev. J. F. Botha.
  MR. WANKLYN (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private notice, viz.—if it is a fact that a minister of the Dutch Reformed Church, Mr. Vlok, has been deprived of his living for loyalty to the Crown and to the Government of Cape Colony during the war; if it is a fact that another minister, Mr. J. F. Botha, has been compelled to publicly apologise for having endeavoured to promote peace; if it is a fact that the national scouts and others who helped us in the later stages of the war have been threatened with excommunication; and if it is the case that many loyalists, both British and Dutch, are being subjected to persecution in Cape Colony by means of boycotting—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must really compress his statement. He must ask a Question and not make a speech. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Crystallise" it.]
  MR. WANKLYN: I want to know if the Government of Sir Gordon Sprigg, under the control of the Afrikander bond, are providing compensation for rebels out of the proceeds of funds
  240
  derived from this country. In a sentence—is it the fact that many loyalists are being subjected to persecution by boycotting, while rebels are being compensated out of funds derived from this country?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid it is true that the Rev. Mr. Vlok has been deprived of his living, and that the Rev. Mr. Botha has publicly apologised for action which he took, as he says, in the interests of peace. I confess that I very much regret this action. Nothing could tend more to delay the union and prosperity of South Africa; and I regret this action the more because it appears to proceed from a religious body. I hope that the statements which have been made in this country with regard to the boycotting of the national scouts and the loyalists are exaggerated. I am assured that that is the case. As a matter of course it will have my attention; but in the meantime I should not like to say more than that I think that, while there do exist some grounds for complaint, I hope the proceedings which we should all deplore, have not been as general as may have been supposed by those who have read the accounts in the papers. As regards the alleged compensation to rebels, I think there is some misapprehension. As I understand the matter, the last Act affording compensation passed by the Cape Parliament provides that the amount contributed to this purpose shall, in the first place, be given to those who have been loyal throughout the war. But if there were any balance remaining after their claims had been satisfied, it was intended to proceed to compensate those persons who, having joined in the first rebellion, subsequently surrendered and remained loyal afterwards, and whose losses were incurred while they were loyal. That is a very different thing from what is suggested in the question; but in regard to that I ought to add that His Majesty's Government have informed the Cape Government that they will not permit any money derived from Imperial sources or from the resources of the Transvaal, to be employed in the compensation of rebels in any circumstances.

  South African War Medals.
  MR. BUTCHER (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that under the present regulations for the distribution of the Queen's South African war medal, and the King's South African war medal, numbers of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular Army who served during the earlier portion of the South African war for periods of from eighteen months to two years and upwards receive only one medal, whereas those who served for the same or shorter periods during the later period of the war receive two medals; and whether, in view of these facts, he will reconsider the question of the issue of the war medals to officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Regular Army.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): I am sorry that my hon. friend is not satisfied with my previous answer on this question, but I regret that I have nothing to add to it.

  Military Uniform Changes.
  MAJOR RASCH (): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that, owing to the alterations in uniform ordered by the authorities, officers have had to supply themselves with a fresh sash (the pattern approved in January, 1902, having been changed), new fronts to their frock coats (the width between buttons having been altered), spat putties in place of gaiters (since which spat putties are not regulation), new sleeves to the service coat with badges of rank, and a new service greatcoat during the past twelve months; and will he say who is responsible for these alterations.
  MR. BRODRICK: As regards the sash no alteration has been made in the pattern since January, 1902. The alteration of the distance between the buttons in the frock coat was for the purpose of improving the appearance. As regards spat putties, they were made regulation on the introduction of the service dress, and remain so, except for mounted officers of dismounted units who asked for and were granted permission to wear the ordinary putties without spats. The
  242
  pattern legging for mounted units is not yet settled: and meanwhile officers are allowed to wear the Stohwasser gaiter or puttie. The badges of rank have been altered because the former patterns were not sufficiently distinctive, but new sleeves are not required for the service coat. The new service great-coat became a necessity on the introduction of the service dress. Certain alterations in dress have been deemed necessary by the military authorities, but it si desired to reduce these changes to a minimum.
  MAJOR RASCH: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how an officer can live on his pay and defray the cost of all this millinery?

  Destruction of Defective and Dangerous Ammunition.
  MR. MACARTNEY (): I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that ammunition exceeding £27,000 in value has been thrown overboard from his Majesty's ships; whether this was practice ammunition; and whether he can say if it was thrown overboard with the object of avoiding the carrying out of the prescribed gunnery course.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): I have seen the statement to the effect of truth, and is entirely without foundation. In September, 1899, a certain class of ammunition was reported by the authorities of the Royal Laboratory at Woolwich to be defective and dangerous, and in consequence the whole of the ammunition of this character issued to ships was, by order of the Admiralty, thrown overboard, a course which was believed to be the wisest and safest under the circumstances. The value of this ammunition was, approximately £27,000. The whole of the circumstances have been inquired into by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who has correctly stated them in his Report issued to this House.

  H. M. S. "Good Hope".
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE (): I beg to

  243
  ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the space between decks of H. M. S. "Good Hope"; and will he state what space is deemed necessary by the Admiralty to ensure the health of the midshipmen and crew on board cruisers of that class.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No special attention has been drawn to the space between decks of the "Good Hope." The space available in that vessel for the midshipmen and crew is sufficient not only for the proper complement of the vessel, but for some supernumeraries in addition, if considered necessary to carry them. The case of each ship is dealt with on its merits, and it is impracticable to frame a rule universally applicable.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN (): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the heat between decks on board this vessel is unbearable to the crew?
  MR. ARNOLD FORSTER: I have no information.
  SIR WILLIAM ALLAN: That is the case, though.

  Argentine Affairs—Mr. Barnett's Murderers.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the murderers of the late Mr. William Barnett, in the Argentine Republic, have yet been punished according to the laws of the Republic; and, if so, what penalty has been inflicted.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord GRANBORNE,): As I informed my hon. friend on the 10th of September last, under the provisions of Argentine law, sentence on the murderers of Mr. Barnett should be delivered by the 28th December at the latest. But until that date there are no good grounds for protest.

  Uganda Currency.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL (): I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the proposed Order in Council
  244
  relating to local bank notes in the Protectorate of British East Africa will apply to Uganda also.
  LORD CRANBORNE: No suggestion has been made that we should apply to Uganda the proposed Order in Council relating to the local issue of bank notes in the East Africa Protectorate. We have no reason to believe that any such currency facility is as yet required in this Protectorate.

  Somaliland Operations—King's African Rifles.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which of the battalions of the King's African Rifles have been ordered for service in Somaliland, and to what races the troops in those battalions belong.
  LORD CRANBORNE: The whole of the 2nd Battalion and of the 6th Battalion, King's African Rifles, together with contingents from the 1st, 3rd, and 5th Battalions have been ordered for service in Somaliland. The 1st and 2nd Battalions are composed of Yaos and Atonga; the contingents from the 3rd and 5th Battalions of Soudanese and Sikhs respectively, the 6th Battalion is composed of Somalis.

  Education Bill—Position of Welsh Intermediate Schools.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN (): I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether schools established by scheme under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act will be considered as provided or only as aided by the local education authority.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir ROBERT FINLAY, Inverness Burghs): Such schools are not provided schools.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Then will the Education Bill, when passed, override the provisions if these schools were established?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: Not in itself.
  MR. HUMPHREYS-OWEN: Suppose the Bill to be inconsistent with the scheme, which would prevail?
  SIR ROBERT FINLAY: I understand the hon. Member's Question to be whether these schools will be provided or aided. My reply is, that they will not be provided schools under the Bill.
  MR HUMPHREYS-OWEN: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether, in the event of the passing of the Education Bill in its present form, it will be in the power of the local education authority in the counties of Wales and Monmouthshire to withdraw wholly or partly the Exchequer contribution from schools established by scheme under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, and to apply the moneys so withdrawn to the aiding of other secondary schools.
  SIR ROBERT FINLAYwas understood to reply that for this purpose an Amendment of the Bill would be required, and he proposed to put one on the Paper.

  Western Hebrides Mail Service.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR (): I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been drawn to the character of the boats carrying His Majesty's mails in the Western Hebrides, and to the fact that the time occupied in the run from Oban to Barra is from eight and a half to nine and a half hours, while, on one occasion lately, the steamship "Staffa" took from 1.30 to 8.30 to go from Lochboisdale to Castlebay, a distance of twenty-one miles, and on another occasion, after trying for three or four hours to steam to Barra, the boat had to put back into Lochboisdale; and whether he will arrange that the contractor shall substitute faster and safer boats.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): I have made enquiry the mails in the Western Hebrides. I find that the steamer "Flowerdale" takes from seven to eight hours for the voyage from Oban to Castlebay (Barra), and that the "Staffa," which performs this portion of the service in the reverse direction, generally takes from eight and a half to nine and a half hours in winter and about eight and a quarter hours in summer. Mr. MacBrayne has undertaken to have the "Staffa" fitted with new
  246
  engines this winter, and it is expected that her speed will thereby be appreciably increased. With regard to the incidents referred to by the hon. Member, the first occurred on the morning of the 7th instant. The "Staffa" left Lochboisdale at 2 a. m. on that day, but, owing to stress of weather and extreme darkness, the leading lights of Castlebay Harbour were invisible, and the steamer had to lie off until the weather cleared sufficiently to enable her to enter the harbour. This she ultimately did at 8.25 a. m. The second incident occurred on the 15th of October during a severe gale, when the steamer traffic generally on the West Coast of Scotland was disorganised. Both of the steamers in question are certified as "safe" by the Board of Trade each year, and in view of the heavy loss already incurred on the service, I cannot promise to take any steps to secure the substitution of faster boats.

  Moderator of the Irish Presbyterian Church.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT (): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to make a statement as to the precedence of the Moderator of the Irish Presbyterian Church.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): The King has been pleased to approve that the Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland should have precedence, in Ireland and during his term of office, along with the Arch bishops of the Church of Ireland and all Roman Catholic Archbishops in Ireland according to the date of consecration or election; that is to say, immediately after the Lord Chancellor of Ireland if the latter is a Peer, and immediately before him if a commoner.

  Irish Electoral Division Boundaries.
  MR. LONSDALE (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board will institute an inquiry into the boundaries of County Council electoral divisions upon receiving a memorial from any considerable body of county electors.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): By Article 25 of the Application of Enactments Order of 1898, the power of the Board to institute an inquiry of this character is expressly provided to be dependent upon the receipt of a representation from the council of a county or borough. The reply to my hon. Friend's Question is, therefore, in the negative. I see many objections to dealing with the question of redistribution in a piecemeal manner.

  Irish Land Question—Supposed Consultations between Government and Irish Party.
  MR. TULLY (): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state what steps have been taken by him to consult the leaders of the Irish Parliamentary Party as to the measures necessary for the settlement of the Irish land question.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I read their speeches, and I have made speeches myself, to which I have repeatedly referred the hon. Member. They contain all I have said and all I have to say, for the present, on the subject of future legislation.
  MR. TULLY: Has authority been given either by the right hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues to Mr. O'Brien to say that he had a deal with the Government?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I have answered this Question, and I must refer the hon. Member to the speeches I have made in this House. I have nothing to add and have added nothing to them.

  Irish Grazing Lands.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received from Boards of Guardians and other public bodies in Ireland Resolutions in favour of a measure of compulsory sale, and of dividing the grazing lands amongst the population in the congested districts; and whether he can state what steps he is prepared to take to give effect to these Resolutions.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I do not propose to anticipate the explanation of the Government proposals by replies to questions across the floor.

  Tipperary County Infirmary Committee.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Local Government Board has been directed to the proceedings of the Tipperary County Infirmary Committee, who have refused to carry out the directions of the Local Government auditor as to finance meetings; and whether he can state what steps will be taken in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The audit of the accounts of the County Infirmary was carried out by the Board's auditor at the request of the Committee of Management. But there is no statutory duty imposed upon the Board of auditing the accounts of these institutions, nor has it any power to enforce compliance with any suggestions made by the auditor employed to examine these accounts. I have no information in respect of the concluding inquiry.

  Colonel Clement's Estate in South Leitrim.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as the cases of twelve tenants on Colonel Clement's property at Loughrynn, Dromod, South Leitrim, were heard before the Land Sub-Commission on the 6th June last, and the lands inspected on the 18th July, he will explain why no decision has yet been communicated to these applicants for fair rents.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The asisstant Commissioners will announce their decisions in the course of a few days.

  Dromore Disturbances.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the disturbances at Dromore, County Down, on the occasion of a meeting to express the views of the farmers on the land question; what complaints, if any, have been received as

  249
  to the action of the police on the occasion; and what steps will be taken to prevent further disturbances in Dromore.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has complained that his meeting was interrupted, and that a stone struck him after the meeting. The police escorted the hon. Member. An inquiry has been ordered into all the circumstances and ample protection will in future be afforded to the hon. Member.
  MR. TULLY: Has no landlord or landlord's son been arrested because Mr. Russell's head was cracked?

  London and the Education Bill.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what amount of grant, under the new Aid Grant Clause, would, in round numbers, be payable to the elementary schools of London under the Education (England and Wales) Bill for the first twelve months after the Bill comes into operation, if the provisions of the Bill applied to London.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that we have no special materials at our disposal for answering hypothetical questions as to the amount London would get. It is, of course, impossible to assume the precise date when the Bill will come into operation in any area under the Bill, and if we are fortunate in passing our Bill for London next session, there is no reason why London should not come under the operation of the Bill earlier than many other areas. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there was an Amendment down, which, for reasons the House knows of, we did not move, extending the period before the Bill actually comes into operation from a year to eighteen months. We still think some extension of time is necessary, and we propose to move it at the next stage.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Do I understand that it is difficult to get data on which to found an answer?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It must be hypothetical.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I understand the probabilities are that the Bill for London will come into force as soon as that for the other areas.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My answer is, I do not know any reason why we should not pass a Bill for London that will enable London to come in before the lastappointed day that will apply to other areas.
  MR. BRYCE: We may take it that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill dealing with London next session?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly, That is my hope.

  Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.
  MR. COGHILL (): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any change has recently been made in the constitution of the Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In answer to my hon. friend, I have to say that no change has been made in the constitution of the Department.
  MR. COGHILL: May I ask whether the Vice-President is still performing the duties of the office, and still taking his salary?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir.
  MR. COGHILL: Was there not a distinct pledge given that this office would be a Parliamentary one?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think any distinct pledge was given. I am quite sure nobody acquainted with the work which the Vice-President of this Department has done in Ireland would do otherwise than think that the appointment has not only fulfilled, but more than fulfilled, any expectations formed of it.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to, Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.
  Amendments to, Supreme Court of Judicature Bill [Lords] without Amendment.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  That they give leave to the Lord Welby to attend in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on "National Expenditure," his Lordship consenting.

  BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
  (2.35.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): In moving the Resolution which stands in my name, I venture to express a hope that on one point at least connected with the sugar question the great majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House may find themselves in agreement. Great differences of opinion may, no doubt, exist with regard to particular provisions of the Convention. There are many people who may object to the appearance in it of a penal clause. I believe there are certain persons who regard countervailing duties as a kind of damnable heresy—an unclean thing which this country ought never to look at, much less to touch or handle. I do not myself agree with that view, which appears to me to be the outcome of an exaggerated economic prudery. But I am not concerned for the moment to defend the penal clause, although I shall return to the subject later. What I wish at the present to emphasise is a point of agreement; and I hope that I am right in believing that the large majority of people in this country, however divergent their views may be on other political and economic questions, are at least agreed in thinking that sugar bounties are a bad thing, and that the abolition of sugar bounties would be a good and desirable thing. I am aware that this opinion is not absolutely unanimous. There is a section—I believe a very small section—who hold that the existence of sugar bounties is a good thing, and who would be sorry to see them abolished, even by the voluntary action of the bounty-giving Powers; and who are a fortiori opposed to any action on the part of this country which would tend to promote their abolition. But I think all those who have studied the history of the question
  252
  will agree that that position is absolutely inconsistent with the policy steadily pursued by both parties in the State for the last forty years.
  It is perhaps unnecessary to labour the point as far as the Party now in power is concerned. But the Liberal Party are quite as much committed to the general principle that sugar bounties are a bad thing, and ought to be abolished, as the Conservative Party itself. The question of sugar bounties first rose into international importance in the early sixties. In 1862, when Mr. Gladstone was Chancellor of the Exchequer, a conference was called, on the invitation of France, to consider the question of sugar bounties. To that conference, France, England, Belgium, and Holland were parties; and it resulted in a Convention which, unfortunately, was never given effect to, but respecting which we have the opinion of Mr. Gladstone placed on record. The object of the Convention was so to equalise the duty on sugar and the drawback given on the export of sugar as to destroy any advantage or bounty to the exporter. Mr. Gladstone declared in 1866 that that was a very beneficial arrangement in the interests of the consumer, the importer, and the refiner alike; and he gave as his reason that the Convention would tend to equal trade. But while Mr. Gladstone, thus early in the history of sugar bounties, committed the Liberal Party to the view that the abolition of sugar bounties was desirable in the public interest, the Convention was interesting for something more. It contained a clause which pointed to the possible application of countervailing duties as a remedy for the inequalities produced by sugar bounties. That clause of the Convention ran as follows:—
  "The high contracting Powers reserve to themselves to agree as to the steps to be taken for obtaining the adhesion of the Governments of other countries to the arrangements of the present convention. In the event of bounties being granted in the said countries on the exportation of refined sugars, the high contracting Powers will be at liberty to come to an understanding as to the surtax to be imposed on the importation of refined sugar of and from the said countries."
  The surtax to be imposed on the importation of refined sugar was really a

  253
  countervailing duty under another name. I only refer to this in passing because my present object is not to defend countervailing duties, but to point out that from the first the Liberal Party has been committed to the policy of abolishing bounties, at all events as far as that end could be accomplished by remonstrance and negotiation.
  I pass on to the year 1879. During the intervening period many conferences had been summoned to consider the question, but all these conferences had, unfortunately, proved abortive. In 1879 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed on the Motion of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That Committee reported in 1880 infavour of a further attempt to obtain the suppression of the bounties by means of international agreement. The Committee also reported, or rather stated that they would have reported, in favour of countervailing duties but for one difficulty—the difficulty which might arise in connection with the most-favoured nation Clause in international treaties. In 1881 Mr. Gladstone endeavoured to give effect to the Report of the Committee by summoning a conference. That conference proved as abortive as its predecessors, because France insisted as a preliminary on the acceptance by this country of the principle of countervailing duties, to which the British Government of that day were unwilling to consent. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] The right hon. Gentleman cries "Hear, hear!" Yes: but let me draw the attention of the House to the language again used in 1881 by Mr. Gladstone with reference to the bounties. On 18th May, 1881, in answer to a deputation, Mr. Gladstone used these words—
  "We do not regard with any satisfaction the system under which an artificial advantage is given in our markets to the products of foreign labour, the principle to be observed being that of equality. Some people say it is a good thing because the consumer gets the benefit of it; but I do not think that any benefit founded on inequality and injustice can bring good even to the consumer."
  It is thus apparent in 1881 that Mr. Gladstone, speaking with the full authority of the Prime Minister, continued to hold the same opinion as he had expressed in 1866.
  I pass on to the year 1899. Very important developments had
  254
  taken place in connection with the sugar question in the interval between 1881 and 1899. Germany and Austria, in consequence of the bounty given to the producers of sugar, had been gradually gaining upon France, and had become the largest sugar exporting countries on the Con nent. Sugar bounties, which up to 1880 had affected refined sugar rather than raw sugar, now began to pres ever more and more on raw sugar also, and thereby in particular upon the sugar industries of our West Indian colonies. In 1889 another conference was summoned—this time on the invitation of Lord Salisbury—and that conference resulted in a Convention. There is no doubt that this Convention did bring us nearer to the abolition of the sugar bounties than we have ever been until the present year. That Convention, however, also failed, and once more chiefly because France refused to come into line with the other bounty-giving countries. Although by this time the bounty-giving countries appeared more and more anxious if possible to come to some arrangement by which they should be relieved of the heavy yoke which the bounty system placed upon them, the failure of than conference was, as a matter of fact, followed by large increases in the bounties given. In 1896 and 1897 both Germany and France doubled their bounties, or nearly doubled them. In 1897 the United States adopted the principle of countervailing duties—that principle from which this country had so long shrunk—and shortly afterwards their example was followed by the Indian Government. In 1899 a Vote of Censure was moved by the Opposition on the Government in consequence of their having approved the action which had been taken by the Government of India. A very instructive debate followed, a debate which turned not so much on the condition of things in India as upon the merits or demerits of countervailing duties as a remedy for the evils of the bounty system. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition summed up the debate, and while condemning the adoption of countervailing duties as a remedy for the sugar bounties he was careful to guard himself against any suggestion that hon. Members opposite were not as keen and as anxious for the abolition of the bounties as we on

  255
  this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman used these words—
  "The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India invited my right hon. friend the Member for Wolverhampon to go to the country in defence of the system of bounties. but the noble Lord must know perfectly well that we are as much opposed to the system of bounties as he is. I agree with my right hon. friend in regarding bounties as merely another form of protective duties. We need not speculate as to which is the worse of the two. These bounties appear to me to be had. They disturb trade and hinder the development of the country; so that I do not see what there is to be side in favour of them. There is no quarrel between us upon that score at all; where we differ is as to the remedy to be applied."
  I think I have shown that the Liberal Party, no less than the Conservative Party, is committed to the principle of doing whatever can be done by remonstrance and negotiations, at all events, if by no stronger means, to get rid of the sugar bounties. They may differ from us with regard to the means which may be advisable or desirable to use in order to secure this end, but they agree with us in desiring to see the end secured.
  Leaving this part of the subject I come to the considerations which have determined this almost unanimous consensus of hostility to the sugar bounties. I believe there are some people who are in favour of getting rid of sugar bounties, not because they think the bounties, not contrary to the interests of this country, but because they believe them to be contrary to the interests of the countries which impose them. I admire such cosmopolitan benevolence; but I admire it at a respectful distance. If British interests were not involved, I, for one, should not think that British statesmen were under any obligation whatever to assist the nations of the Continent in extricating themselves from the difficulties which their own policy, deliberately adopted, has brought upon them. But British interests are affected. In the first place they are involved in a general way, because we are, I think, entitled to hold the opinion that any such notable advance in the direction of cosmopolitan Free Trade, as would be necessarily involved in the abolition of the sugar bounties, would be in the long run and in one way or another, possibly working through channels the exact course of which we may be unable to
  256
  trace out exactly beforehand, in the interests of British trade and enterprise. But, in addition to that general consideration, British interests of a particular and special kind are involved. When I speak of British interests, I need hardly say that I include the Interests of the Empire as well. Imperial interests are British interests, and are indeed among the most important of British interests. First of all, there is the case of the sugar refiners. I think their case is a hard one, and I do not suppose any one will dispute the unfair character of the competition which they have had to face from foreign refiners who have got the long purse of their Governments behind them. The sugar-refining industry is being gradually supplanted by foreign produce, and it appears to me, as it appeared to Mr. Gladstone, that our sugar refiners have very serious grounds of complaint. But while the sugar refiners have suffered, and are suffering, and certainly deserve our sympathy, the case of the West Indian colonies is so grave and so urgent, that I am bound to say I think they have the first claim upon our sympathy and attention. How grave and how urgent is the case of the West Indies was made apparent five years ago by the Report of the Royal Commission which was specially sent to the West Indies to investigate the question, and of which the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick was a member. Let me draw attention to one distinction between the case of the sugar refiners and the case of the West Indian colonies. In the case of the sugar-refining industry, even supposing that that industry is altogether squeezed out of existence by the unfair competition to which I have referred, it would be still possible for those who were engaged in it to be gradually absorbed in other occupations. The case of the West Indies is different. We have there to deal, not merely with a section of the population engaged in one among a large number of different industries, but with the condition of whole societies. What is at stake in the West Indies is the fate of entire communities under the British Crown. Take away the export trade from the West Indies, and you take away form them the means of maintaining a civilised Government. Of all the exports of the West Indies, in the majority, at all events, of the

  257
  islands, sugar is by far the most important; so much so that if you were to destroy the sugar industry you would practically destroy the Power of those Governments to raise a revenue or to carry on the work of administration in a proper and efficient manner. I do not wish to inflict more quotations than are necessary on the House, but the result of the destruction of this industry has been described in such vivid, and at the same time measured, language by Sir Henry Norman, who was chairman of the Commission, that I venture to read it to the House. Sir Henry Norman said—
  "I think the British Public hardly realise the ruin that must follow a collapse of that industry. Such a collapse would seriously affect even the West Indian colonies which have other industries to fall back upon, such as Trinidad and Jamaica; but British Guiana, wish nearly 300,000 people, Barbados, with 180,000, and all the Windward and Leeward Islands, excluding Grenada and Dominica, and perhaps Montserrat, may be said to have nothing to export except the products of the sugar cane. The inhabitants of those colonies would, therefore, be without the means of purchasing imported articles of food, or of paying taxes, the bulk of which are indeed derived from Customs duties levied on imports or from Excise. The planters must be rained; many others who have drawn incomes from sugar properties will be seriously affected; the tradesmen, artizans, and labouring classes will suffer Privation and probably become discontented and restless, and the revenue will be so crippled as to render it impossible to carry on the Government, even on the most economical scale, in any condition at all approaching to efficiency. Nor will it be practicable to meet obligations for interest on debt, or to provide for the relief of the poor, maintain the hospitals and schools, or to pay the police force, while in Guiana, and possibly in Trinidad, there would be a demand for the repatriation of large numbers of Indian coolies, to meet the cost of which measure funds would not be forthcoming."
  Such were the dangers which five years ago the Royal Commission declared to threaten our West India Islands. Since that time we have been endeavouring, I will not say to avert the calamities that were imminent, but, at all events, to suspend them, by means of that most unsatisfactory of palliatives, the payment of Imperial subsidies. If those dangers were imminent five years ago they are still more imminent now. For on what does the prosperity of the sugar industry in the West Indies depend? First of all, of course, it depends upon the price which sugar will fetch in the
  258
  market, and in the second place on the eommand of capital, or, in other words, the credit possessed by the producers. As regards price, at the time the Royal Commission reported the price stood at about the figure at which sugar could be brought from the West Indies to this country without actual loss to the producer. That was about 10s. per cwt. It had fallen from 21s. to 10s. per cwt. between the years 1882 and 1897. That was the Price— just about the cost of production—at which sugar stood when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick and his colleagues reported. Last September the price had fallen to about 6s. In other words, in September of this year sugar was actually being sold in the London market at 30 percent. less than it costs to produce and to bring it to England form either Germany or the West Indies.
  An HON. MEMBER: What is the Price now?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The price has risen since September, but it still is considerably below the cost of production. So much for Price. As to credit, credit was precarious at the time the Royal Commission reported; it is now practically a vanished quantity. Anyone interested in this matter can judge for himself by reading the Blue-book containing the correspondence with the West Indian colonies relating to the Sugar Conference. From almost to every colony in the West Indies the same bitter cry rises—that the existing crop will not pay expenses, and that for the coming crop no advances are available. This condition of things has been much aggravated by the appearance of a new form of indirect bounty in Austria and in Germany, the result of which has been enormously to increase the already large direct bounty given by those two countries. I refer to what is known as the Cartel system. The Cartels are trusts or rings which by combination between producers and refiners of sugar succeed in securing a monopoly of the home market— Practically determining the quantities to be sold in the home market and the price at which it is to be sold—and, basing them selves on the enormous profits which they make out of this monopoly, they are able to export the surplus at actually less

  259
  than it costs to produce. The success of this system, however, depends upon the difference between the Customs duty and the excise duty being so great as to enable the Cartels to force up the price of sugar of home consumption to an abnormal level. The House will, therefore, see that the success of the Cartel system depends on two elements; first a successful combination between producers and refiners; and secondly, a large difference between the internal duty and the Customs duty. The insidious character of this system will be obvious, and its effectiveness in creating bounties may be judged from this fact—that, calculating upon the system laid down by the Convention as the basis for estimating the amount of the bounty, the German sugar bounty arising from the Cartel system amounts to no less than 3s. 10d. per cwt., and in Austria to 4s. 4d. per cwt. As the direct bounty given in Germany at present stands at 1s. 2d. per cwt. and in Austria at 1s., the House will see that the total bounty on the export of sugar in Germany amounts to no less than 5s., and in Austria to no less than 5s. 4d. There is no Cartel system in France; but in France the Indirect and the direct bounty taken together amount to very nearly 4s. Thus those three greatest sugar-producing and sugar-exporting countries on the Continent give bounties which allow a margin of artifical advantage of 4s. to over 5s. per cwt. to the producers and exporters, a margin with which they can play to the detriment of sugar-producing countries which have no bounty. It is certainly not to be wondered at, in view of disadvantages of this kind, that the sugar producers of the West Indies have been well nigh reduced to despair, and I think it will be clear to everybody that, unless we can come to their aid by securing the abolition of those enormous bounties, there is practically no hope that the sugar industry in the West Indies will survive. There is still time to save it. I do not suppose that the palmy days of that industry will ever return; but if the bounties were abolished, I see no reason whatever for doubting that a large proportion, at all events, of their old prosperity might be restored to the islands. That is not merely my own opinion, but it is also the opinion expressed by the Royal Commission. Not only did the
  260
  Royal Commission take the view that the restoration of the sugar industry to a condition in which it could be profitably carried on was possible and probable if bounties were abolished, but they held that there was no other way of restoring the industry. [An hon. Member dissented.] I am correct in saying that the abolition of bounties was the only remedy which the Royal Commission declared could be expected to have a permanent and lasting effect. It is in the Power of the House by its vote tonight to render the Convention null and void. What course will it pursue? If it refuses its approval to the policy embodied in the Convention, what justification will it have for that refusal?
  I see that this Motion is to be met by a direct negative. I cannot help regretting it. I regret it partly because I am sorry that there should be any opposition to this Resolution at all, and I also regret it because I think it would have been advantageous that we should have had on record on the face of the proceedings of this House a reasoned statement of the grounds upon which that opposition is going to be based. As it is, I am left to conjecture the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman is going to give for the course that he and his friends intend to adopt. But one ground, it appears to me, they are hardly in a position to put forward. They can hardly contend that this Resolution should be opposed because the interests of the consumers and the sugar-using industries of this country are involved. The economic effects of the abolition of bounties would be the same, whatever means are employed to secure the consent of the bounty-giving Powers to that abolition. I think I have already sufficiently shown in the opening portion of my speech that the Opposition as a body are committed to the principle of the abolition of bounties. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs says there is nothing to be said for bounties; the only question was as to the means to be employed. The economic consequences of abolishing sugar bounties were fully and frankly faced by the Royal Commission. They recognised that the suppression of bounties would probably, nay, almost certainly, be followed by some rise in price, but that did not prevent the Royal Commission from recommending the abolition of bounties. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling Burghs, like the

  261
  Royal Commission, will have the courage of his opinions, and that he, too, being an advocate for abolition of bounties, will not shrink from the economic consequences which must follow from that abolition. If he has, as I hope I may assume he has, the courage of his opinions, he and those who think with him will not claim to resist this Resolution on behalf of consumers of sugar, or of the industries which use sugar as a raw material. No doubt a direct negative to the Resolution will bring into the same Lobby with the Leader of the Opposition those who, unlike himself, are out-and-out supporters of the sugar bounties, and desire to see sugar bounties ratained, but I think I am entitled to say that although the out-and -out supporters of the sugar bounties may be found in the same Lobby with him, they will not be there for the same reasons.
  Now let me turn to the argument of those who are out-and-out supporters of the sugar bounties. I believe they are comparatively a small minority, but I am sure they are sincere, and the arguments they use are arguments with which we have to reckon. Speaking for myself, I entirely agree with the Royal Commission that even if the interests of consumers of sugar and users of sugar did, to some extent, suffer from the abolition of bounties, that abolition would still be an object for which we ought to strive. But I cannot help feeling that the fears that are entertained with respect to the rise in prices that may possibly follow the abolition of bounties, have been very much exaggerated. I will even go so far as to say that in the long run the abolition of bounties will not injure the consumers, but possibly protect them from the danger of a still greater rise in the price than is likely to follow the abolition. It is no doubt true that the abolition of bounties will be followed by some rise in price, if present prices are taken as the starting point from which the rise is to be measured. At the present moment the price of sugar is below that of the cost of production. It mush be obvious that if anything like free trade in sugar is established it would be absolutely impossible for the price of sugar to permanently continue under the cost of production. Such an anomaly as that is only possible under the bounty system.
  262
  But what guarantee is there that the present price will continue? I think anybody who carefully examines the history of prices during the last twenty years will come to the conclusion that the bounty system, by encouraging over production, has a tendency to cause violent and unnatural fluctuations in prices, and that if the price is very low now it may sometime in the not very remote future be very much higher than it is at present. In September last the price of sugar was 6s. per cwt.; is now 7s. 10d. That is, that between September and now there has been a rise of something like 2s. That may be taken as an illustration of the rapid fluctuations which occur under the bounty system. But if we want a fair estimate of what the price of sugar is likely to be after the bounties area abolished, what we mush look at is, in the first place, the average price during the past ten years, and in the second place the cost of production at the present time. Now the price of sugar in the London market is practically determined by the price of what is called 88 per cent. beet free on board at Hamburg. The average price of that sugar has been 10s. 6d. per cwt., or £10 10s. per ton, during the last ten years. I venture to make the confident forecast that the average price of sugar during the coming ten years, if bounties are abolished, will not exceed the average price during the ten years that are passed, but will in all probability be less. On what do I base this forecast? I have taken a great deal of trouble to ascertain the cost of production of sugar both in the West Indies and in Germany, and I think the House may take as fairly accurate the figures which I am about to give. The cost of producing 88 per cent. beet sugar in Germany and carrying it to the London market may be put at £8 15s. per ton. The corresponding price of sugar from the West Indies, after the proper allowances are made, is about £8 10s. perton. But let us neglect the small difference of 5s. per ton in favour of the West Indies, and assume that the cost of producing sugar and bringing it to London is £8 15s., both from Germany and the West Indies. Under a free trade system in sugar you would have to add to that a sum representing reasonable profit in order to arrive at what I may call the

  263
  normal price. I am informed that a reasonable profit on sugar may be put at from about 20s. to 30s. per ton, Let us put it at 25s. per ton, and add that to the £8 15s. representing the cost of production and carriage per ton, and you arrive at the figure of £10 per ton. That figure of £10 per ton will be the normal and natural price of sugar, so long as the cost of production remains the same. We may take it, on the basis of this calculation, that £10 a ton is likely to be the average price of sugar during the next ten years in the London market if bounties are abolished, and therefore, having regard to the fact that during the last ten years the average price has been £10 10s. per ton, I am justified in the forecast that during the coming ten years the average price of sugar will not be more than it has been during the past ten years. In fact, I think it is almost certain to be less, because in making this calculation I have not allowed for possible improvements in manufacture, which during the last ten years have been considerable. I see no reason to suppose that the same process of improvement will not continue during the next ten years, though possibly in a less degree. If it does, then we are justified in saying, not merely that the probable average price of sugar during the next few years may fairly be put at £10 a ton, but that it may be put at that figure minus whatever may be gained by improving the processes of manufacture. It may be said that if bounties continue the average price will be even less than the figure I have named. I think that is very possible, and even probable, during the first year or two after the abolition of bounties, but will it continue? What will be the ultimate result? It must be remembered that even now the strain put by the bounty system upon the west Indies has practically reached breaking point, and if things continue as they are that souree of supply, at all events, is almost certain to be cut off. I do not say, as some have urged, that the bounty-giving countries on the Continent have deliberately aimed at that result; on the contrary I think myself it is merely an incidental consequence of the mad war of bounties which they have waged, and are still waging, against each other. If anyone will take the trouble
  264
  to look at Czernikoff's circular of last Friday week, he wil see that at the present time Austria and Germany are the only countries on the Continent Supplying the British market. None of the other sugar-producing countries— France, Belgium or Holland— can afford to let their sugar go at the same low price. That is a state of things which cannot be expected to continue indefinitely. One of two things will happen—either under the stress the bounty system, even without the action of this country, will break down, or else, and this is quite as probable, Austria and Germany will secure the supremacy over all their rivals, and then will follow a condition of things under which the price of sugar is likely to rise far more than is probable merely as the result of the abolition of the bounties.
  Now, Sir, I have given my reasons for believing that the consumer and user of sugar will not be nearly so hardly hit by any possible rise in the price of sugar as many of them appear to think. That is my general answer to what appears to me to be the exaggerated fears that have been expressed on their behalf. I have however been informed that they are beset by a special and peculiar apprehension. Russia is outside this Convention, and they are afraid that it Russian sugar is excluded from the markets of the Contracting Powers, it will pour into Switzerland at the low price rendered possible by bounties, and Switzerland will in this way become an even more formidable competitor with the British sugar-using industries than she is at present. I think those who are alarmed by his prospect may be reminded that the export of sugar from Russia at the present moment is not so much to European as to Asiatic countries. If Russia really desires to export the surplus of her sugar produce to Europe, it is far more likely that she will join the convention and there by be enabled to export her sugar to this country, where, ex hypothesi, according to the fears which have been expressed, the price will be higher than it is at present. As a matter of fact, Switzerland never has taken, and does not now take, any appreciable quantity of Russian sugar. Switzerland is a large importer of sugar, but not from Russia. Unless

  265
  the surplus produce of Russia was sufficient to supply Switzerland with the great bulk of what she requires, the price of sugar in Switzerland would be determined, not by the price at which bounties will enable the Russian exporters to place their sugar on the market, but by the price which would have to be paid for the larger supply of sugar from else where. These considerations convince me that this fear, arising from the suggestion that Russia will flood Switzerland with cheap sugar for the benefit of the Swiss manufacturer—
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE (): That is after bounties are abolished?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Yes, assuming bounties are abolished. It seems to me that that fear is nothing but an unsubstantial bogey. But if it should prove a reality, I would remind my hon. friend that this would be just one of the things for the permanent Commission to consider. As Switzerland is surrounded by France, Italy, and Germany and Austria, all of which are parties to the Convention, and as all these countries would be equally injured with ourselves if cheap sugar was poured into Switzerland, I think we may fairly rest assured that the Commission would take such steps as were necessary for their protection.
  I have now dealt with the arguments with reference to the interest of the consumer and the user of sugar in this country, but I have not Yet reached any objection which, as it appears to me, the Opposition may legitimately urge having regard to the attitude they have taken up and the statements they have made on this subject in times past. I suppose, however, they will concentrate themselves on the penal clause. Under the penal clause, the parties to the Convention are bound either to prohibit the entry of bounty fed sugar or to impose upon it countervailing duties which will be equal at least to the bounties given in the country of origin. No doubt, if it had been possible, we should have been very glad to get the bounties abolished without the insertion of a penal Clause Unfortunately, that was not possible. It was a cases of "no penal Clause, no Convention."
  266
  We were obliged to take both or neither, and if that is to be the issue between us tonight we are perfectly prepared to abide by it. The House will observe that the penal Clause offers two alternatives. It will be open to this or any other country which is a party to the Convention either to prohibit the entry of bounty-fed sugar, or to impose countervailing duties upon it. Personally, I imagine that prohibition would practically in every case be sufficient for the object in view. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen Opposite consider prohibition preferable to countervailing duties. Perhaps I may assume that they do. I am, however, quite ready to rest the defence of the Clause on the supposition that counter vailing duties may possibly have to be resorted to, and if that defence is successful, I may, perhaps, fairly take it for granted that it will cover the cases of Prohibition also.
  I understand I am to be followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. who will probably favour the House with one of those portentous disquisitions—[OPPOSITION Cries of "Oh"]—well, let me change the adjective, and say one of those admirable disquisitions on the virtues of Free Trade with which he has on more than one occasion made us familiar. I am afraid I may shock his susceptibilities when I say that it appears to me that no great advantage is to be gained by discussing the question from that purely abstract and theoretical standpoint. The question whether countervailing duties are or are not consistent with Free Trade principles is one which may be discussed to the end of time and answered in the affirmative or in the negative according to the definitions of Free Trade with which the disputants start. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself, I think, will not deny that the abolition of bounties constitutes an important step in the direction of Free Trade, and if the threat of countervailing duties secures that abolition, countervailing duties must, to that extent at all events, be regarded as an instrument of a Free Trade Policy. But the further question whether the use of that instrument is or is not in harmony with Free Trade principles is one which, as I

  267
  say, will be answered in accordance with the definition of Free Trade from which we start. Whatever you put into a definition you can get out of that definition. If you hold that an essential element of Free Trade consists in the attainment of the natural price of a commodity, then it must, I think, be obvious that countervailing duties are not only consistent with, but almost enjoined by, Free Trade. If on the other hand, you regard as an essential element of Free Trade the Keeping open of the cheapest source of supply, no matter how artificially that cheapness may be produced, then countervailing duties are not consistent with Free Trade. In favour of both of these definitions very high authorities may be quoted. The former definition is that Which commended itself to Mr. Cobden, and apparently also to Mr. Gladstone. The second definition is that which found favour with the late Lord Farrer, and I suppose finds favour with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire himself. But for my part I confess the whole discussion appears to me to be very little more than a war of words, and I think it better to leave such barren controversy and consider the question from the practical point of view. I am glad to hear that cheer from hon. Gentleman opposite, and I hope they will take the same view when the question of free trade and countervailing duties is discussed from the Front Bench on their side. My own desire is to discuss this question from a purely practical point of view, and for that purpose to examine the reasons, and I will do so very briefly, which have been adduced by the Royal Commissioners for thinking that countervailing duties are inadvisable and inexpedient as a remedy against the inequalities of the bounty system.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would first explain what would be the feeling of Russia and other countries with regard to the most-favoured-nation Clause if action was taken under this convention.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I propose dealing with that as part of the question on which I am now entering. The Royal Commission gave certain reasons
  268
  for holding that inconveniences and disadvantages would follow from the adoption of countervailing duties. On that I would remark, in the first place, that the question the Royal Commission had to decide was entirely different from the question which this House is asked to decide this evening. The Royal Commission had to consider whether they should recommend countervailing duties taken by themselves as a remedy for the evils complained of. What we have to consider is whether countervailing duties are justifiable, not taken by themselves, but as part of a Convention to Which all the great sugar-producing countries are parties. And this, let me observe, makes the entire difference. If countervailing duties were to be imposed in the absence of any agreement with the principal sugar-producing countries, it is obvious that these countries, it is obvious that these countervailing duties would have to be a reality, and a possibly very formidable reality, inasmuch as they would have to be imposed against the very countries who are now imploring us to adopt such duties as a protection to each other against the unfair competition of each other's sugar in the British market. Countervailing duties, as part of the Convention embracing all the principal European countries except Russia, are obviously very much more in the nature of a threat than a reality; a threat which it may possibly be unnecessary ever to put into execution.
  Now, Sir, it will be seen, when I come to the objections urged by the Royal Commission, that this consideration really, takes away or greatly diminishes, the force of every one of them. The first objection raised by the Royal Commissioners was that
  "The levy of countervailing duties of varying amounts, according to the country of origin, would give rise to disputes and delays which must to some extent have the effect of harassing and impeding trade."
  Obviously there can be no question of countervailing duties between ourselves and the great majority of the countries in Europe who are parties to the Convention, and therefore that objection is reduced almost to the vanishing point.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: How about Russia?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It must be obvious to my hon. friend that, in

  269
  regard to any inconveniences of trade arising out of countervailing duties, if Russia, which hardly exports any sugar to this country at all [An HON. MEMBER: It may.] were the only country concerned, these inconveniences would be much less than if the duties had to be levied against Germany, Austria, France, Italy, Belgium, and Spain.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: But your own colonies might be concerned.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The second objection urged by the Royal Commission was that—
  "The levy of the countervailing duties in the United Kingdom would also probably involve the imposition of similar duties in India and in some of the colonies of Australia, both of which countries at present receive supplies of beet sugar."
  As we all know, India has already set the example of imposing countervailing duties: and, as regards the Australian colonies, it is open to them to join the Convention, and if they did so, it would be a matter for congratulation and not for regret. The third objection is that
  "The levy of countervailing duties on the bounty-fed sugar might raise serious difficulties under the operation of the most favoured-nation clause in commercial treaties with foreign nations, and it would not be to the advantage of the United Kingdom to encourage any laxity in the interpretation of that clause."
  The fact that countervailing duties are levied under a Convention reduces this objection almost to nullity. The question cannot arise between us and the other parties to the Convention. The only important countries with which, as far as I can see, it is possible that it could arise are, first of all, Russia, and, secondly, the United States. ["Hear, hear" from the OPPOSITION Benches.] Yes, sir, but the question has already been raised with Russia in consequence of the action of the Indian Government; and three years ago Russia was informed that the Government did not consider that countervailing duties were inconsistent with the most-favoured-nation clause, and it was further intimated that, if the Russian Government unfortunately would not accept that view, we were prepared to denounce the commercial treaty between Russia and this country. That seems a sufficient answer with regard to Russia. The
  270
  United States have themselves been the first country to adopt countervailing duties; and, therefore, so far from its being likely that we shall have a difficulty with the United States, it is clear that the United States are agreed with His Majesty's Government that these duties are not inconsistent with the most favoured-nation clause. The fourth and last objection is that a doubt exists
  "Whether in the general interests of British trade it would be wise, on this issue, to open so large a controversy, which may possibly spread so far and lead to a war of tariffs."
  Again I say that the very existence of a Convention embracing all the most important countries in Europe, With the exception of Russia, is itself a guarantee that no such serious consequences are likely to follow. It is obvious that there is not the least likelihood of a war of tariffs with any other country in Europe.
  Now, sir, I have done, and I really must apologise to the House for having taken up so much of its time. The problem presented to His Majesty's Government in connection with this difficult and complicated subject was this: Were we to forego the success of the policy which has been pursued for the last forty years by every Government, Liberal and Conservative, in turn—were we to forego the success of that policy at a time when the fate of the West Indian Colonies was hanging in the balance, in deference to economic scruples, which appear to me to have been at all times greatly exaggerated, but which under present conditions have really lost almost all their force? We have seen what many have wished to see, but it has not been given to them to see—a concert between all the principal European Powers for the abolition of all bounties on sugar, direct and indirect, provided this country will consent, by the insertion of a penal clause into the Convention, to give to the agreement an effective sanction. If we had allowed this opportunity to pass by a very heavy responsibility would have been thrown upon our shoulders. It was in our opinion our duty to take advantage of it, and I trust that this House will give our action its support and endorsement by its vote this evening. I beg to move.

  271
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House approves the policy embodied in the Convention relating to Sugar, signed at Brussels on the 5th day of March, 1902, and, in the event of that Convention receiving the ratifications required to make it binding, is prepared to adopt the necessary measures to enable His Majesty to carry out its provisions."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  (2.58) SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (): I think it will be to a certain extent a relief to the House that there is a change of the drama this week. We have before us a question which is not involved in any religious difficulty. Not but what there are heresies in trade as well as in religion. I can relieve the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down of the fears he entertains that I am going to enter upon a "Portentous" discussion of an abstract question. I never had the smallest intention of doing anything of the kind. On the contrary, I shall endeavour to rival the concise and lively discourse of the right hon. Gentleman. The question is not a small one. That, I think, the House must understand. The instruction to the delegates who negotiated this Convention was to confine themselves to, or to make it their object, at all events, to deal with the case of the West Indies and the case of the sugar refiners. If that was the only matter for consideration under the Convention it would be a very narrow issue. But that is not the issue at all that is raised by this proposal. And here I am happy to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what we have to consider are the interests in this matter of the British Empire at large. I hope that is a good Imperialist sentiment. It is one, at all events, I entertain. it is from that point of view I desire to examine this Convention, and from that point of view alone. I shall, I trust, be allowed to include in the British Empire the United Kingdom. I have myself always considered that England, Scotland, and Ireland are parts of the British Empire, and that their interests are not matters to be neglected.
  Having said this much, I would refer only for a moment to a point on which the right hon. Gentleman has laid a good deal of stress, and that is, the action of the Party that sits on this side of the
  272
  House in the year 1881. Well, Sir, that was the year in which I first became a responsible member of the Cabinet in the Liberal Government. I had a distinguished colleague who was President of the Board of Trade, and, therefore, if the opinions of the Government of that time are to be taken, they must be taken from the President of the Board of Trade in the year 1881 as the exponent of the views of the Government of that time. The right hon. Gentleman quoted some passages form speeches, but this is not a passage from a speech; it is from a memorandum issued on this very point by the then President of the Board of Trade. It contains an expression of the views of the Government of that time. I am not going to enter upon any tu quoque argument. I am going to read two or three sentences which, in my opinion then and in my opinion now, express a sound view upon this question. In that memorandum I find this:
  "As the Policy of this country has been for many years to prefer the large consuming interests of the whole community to the small producing interests of any single class, the Government was not prepared to recommend any remonstrance to foreign Governments regarding their bounties, on!the ground of alleged injury to the trading interests of this country."
  Then there is one other sentence which expresses the considered view of the Government of that time:—
  "Protective duties in foreign countries are even more injurious to the interests of this country than bounties, since they operate no less than bounties to the disadvantage of our producers, whilst, unlike bounties, they confer no benefit on our consumers. If duties are to be imposed to counteract foreign bounties, a fortiori, ought they to be imposed to counteract foreign protective duties? To impose countervailing duties in order to neutralise the indirect bounties would, therefore, be to take the first step in reversing that Free Trade policy which was adopted on the clearest grounds of argument, and has conferred immense advantages on the industrial classes of this country."
  That is all it is necessary to say to make clear what was the view, expressed by its authorised exponent, of the Liberal Party in the year 1881. In that year the right hon. Gentleman the Present Colonial Secretary refused to attend a meeting of the anti-bounty agitators in Birmingham, and wrote as follows:—
  "I regret that the Birmingham Trades Council should allow itself to be made the

  273
  instrument of what is essentially a class interest. If you were, unfortunately, to succeed in imposing countervailing duties on foreign sugar, the effect would be that the consumers in this country, principally of the working classes, would, according to the figures supplied by the sugar refiners themselves, have to submit to a tax of something like £1,000,000 sterling per annum, in order to put this sum into the pockets of the West Indian planters and a few sugar refiners in the United Kingdom."
  These are the views which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade thinks it worth while to recall to the attention of the House, and to make a great part of his argument when referring to the views entertained, as he said, by Fr. Farrar, and (he paid me the compliment to say) by myself; but neither Mr. Farrar nor myself, who entertained these views, could have expressed them with the force and lucidity which characterised the utterances of the Colonial Secretary.
  Now, Sir, I promise the House that as regards what me may call general principles, that is all I intend to say on the subject. I desire to address myself solely to the practical consequences of this Convention. I need not say that I have, in common with all the rest of the House, an entire sympathy with the distress now existing in the West Indian Colonies; but what we have got to determine is whether this is the best method of redressing and repairing that distress consistently with the general interests of the British nation in all parts of the world. It is not a narrow issue upon the mere situation of the West Indies. This House has already this year shown its readiness to give its assistance to a large extent. We may desire the prosperity of the great sugar refiners as of all trades in this country; but what we have to consider is whether the course adopted for the benefit of the sugar refiners may not be injurious to other interests which are equally important—indeed more important than that of the sugar refiners. I want to place before the House that what we have got to determine tonight is a matter affecting the policy of the greatest commercial nation in the world. It is an issue of very great extent, which will have very serious consequences.
  The essence of this Convention is what had been properly called the penal
  274
  clause, and the question is—What is going to be the effect of your introducing into it a penal clause which does not exist in your present system, and which will have an important bearing in relation to your commerce? The penal clause is, of course, one of the most serious parts of this Convention. Now, the fundamental principle of our Customs duties is that they are raised for revenue alone. They are not raised for what I may call the incidental purpose of raising the price of commodities. Now, the object here has been to raise the price of the commodity in order to benefit the West Indian sugar interest. Our Customs duties are not raised to protect a particular interest. That is the Protectionist theory. That is not the theory of the Free Trade policy, which is the policy of this country. We are never tired of boasting, and truly boasting, of the "open door." We are preaching it to all nations, and I am happy to say that at present we practise it ourselves. But this is a Convention to shut the open door. Under what conditions are we called upon to shut the open door? Under the open door there is no question as to the goods brought to us. There is no question of certificate of origin. We do not ask where the goods come from. We ask what the goods are. We do not ask what is the domestic and fiscal policy of the country from which they come. We have nothing to do with that. They present their goods to us and we accept them if we consider that they are worth our acceptance and worth our dealing with. We profess to be the free market of the world. But this is a Convention which is to restrict the freedom of that market, and to place the commodities brought to our markets under examination to see whether the policy of the country that produces them is a wise policy or not—to examine into the character of these goods, where they come from, and under what conditions they have been produced. But that is not to be determined by our-selves. We are not even to be allowed to judge of that. The judges of the policy we are to pursue, the duties we are to impose, and the prohibitions we are to declare, are to be a permanent Commission consisting largely of our rivals in trade. We are to be there with a single vote, with a standing majority of seven against us, upon those questions which are finally to

  275
  decide what is to be our system of taxation, and what is to be the rule of our trade.
  Now, that is a much larger question than the distress in the West Indies. Those are the things we have to decide, and it is a decision of the most momentous character as affecting the trade of this country. You are going to put the key of the open door into the hands of a great European syndicate—a syndicate that may create a trust which may be injurious to your trade when you have abandoned the autonomy of your commerce, and when you have abandoned the system which has brought to you the greatest prosperity, and to the people of this country the greatest comfort and the greatest support. This is not a small question which has to be decided upon by the vote tonight. What a satire it is upon the open door that when goods are brought to you you say, "Oh! no, we will not accept them. They are too cheap. Why! you are selling them for less than they cost." That is the open door! Of course, he sells them to us at less than the cost. But he will have to pay for them by taking goods from us which we sell at more than cost price. That is what I call good trade for us and very bad trade for him. It is a very simple commercial principle, which I thought would have been understood by the President of the Board of Trade. I am speaking in the general interests of the British Empire. In our private transactions I am not aware that any of us complain of our tradesmen supplying us with goods at less than cost price. The foreigner offers us goods under the market rate; that is a thing that we forgive.
  But there is another matter involved in this question. It is not only a disturbance of our trade in that respect, but it is a question of finance. It destroys the independence of our finance. I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer there. I ask him what would become of his Estimates? Who is to determine the rate and character of those Estimates if he is not to go to his advisers to know what is likely to be the yield of the sugar duties, but that is to be settled by a permanent Commission? The President of the Board of Trade asked whether we preferred prohibition to countervailing duties. Well, prohibition has been pressed by the Government into this Convention. It
  276
  was not suggested by any of the other parties; it was the Government that insisted on prohibition. What is the effect of prohibition? Countervailing duties leave you the sugar which you want; they are open to great objections, but at all events you get the sugar and you get the revenue; but under prohibition you get neither the revenue nor the sugar. Therefore, if there is a country which commits the terrible sin of offering you a commodity which you want, and which is the food of the people, you have bound yourself, under covenant, to prohibit these goods coming into this country at all. Of course, nobody would have preferred countervailing duties to prohibition. The Government knows perfectly well that when you come to countervailing duties the confusion will be such in your finance that it will be impossible to deal with it. I will show you what has happened under countervailing duties. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India introduced countervailing duties in India two years ago, and a nice mess he made of it. A more ignominious collapse could not have happened. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be no longer master of his own Budget. He may make Estimates which may be entirely defeated either by countervailing duties or by prohibition; and therefore the Estimates of his revenue will totally fail. Now, these are matters which are very large, matters which are far beyond the question of the West Indies. I am glad to see, speaking of the West Indies, an account in the newspapers of the extremely flourishing condition of the principal island in the West Indies, Jamaica.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): That is not quite accurate, I am sorry to say.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I read it in the newspapers this morning or yesterday.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. What I meant to say was that that description only shows that the island, after the greatest difficulty and economy has been able to make the revenue meet the expenditure. That does not mean prosperity.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: All I want to say is that I read in the newspapers about the great prosperity of Jamaica. The right hon. Gentleman knows a great deal more about it than I do. I hoped it was the case, and I am sorry to hear it is not. The right hon. Gentleman said a great deal on the subject of bounties. It is perfectly true that I, and most of my friends, do not approve of the principle of bounties. It has been truly said that a bounty is a form of protection, and I disapprove of all forms of protection. I disapprove of bounties because they partake of the character of Protection. I entirely concur that bounties are a bad thing for the people who give them. They do not exactly participate in the quality of mercy, as described by Shakespeare, because, although those who receive them are blessed, they curse those who give them. In that respect they differ. That they are bad things for the people who give them everybody must agree; they are good for the purpose of subsidising particular interests, but a very bad thing for the rest of the community. I hope we shall never adopt the principle of bounties, though I fear nowadays the proposal for subsidising particular interests is too readily entertained. I hope we shall never allow any system of bounties in this country. But bounties differ from Protective tariffs in this respect. Protective tariffs injure both those who make them and those who are subject to them; but in the case of bounties the injury is to one party only, and they more or less benefit the other party. Now, the policy of bounties in the countries on the Continent of Europe has been a policy of what is called "cutting rates." They have endeavoured to compete for our market and have consequently given these bounties against one another, hoping to secure the control of that market. Well, like all false principles, like everything partaking of the character of Protection, that has turned out a failure; in the long run they have to go from bad to worse, and at last these bounties have become so oppressive to these countries that they are determined to get rid of them. It has cost them millions. They have paid too dear for their whistle; and consequently they want to get somebody to help them to
  278
  get rid of them. That is their affair, and I entirely agree with the President of the Board of Trade that that is not the principal consideration by which we ought to be governed. We ought to look at this matter and other matters of business as to how it affects British interests. That is the only point of view in which I desire to regard it. As good neighbours we should be very glad to assist these foreign countries in any way that does not injure us in any form; but when we are asked to pay a price which is injurious to us, in order to enable those countries to deliver themselves from the unwisdom they have practised, that is another thing. There are many relations of life in which the unwisdom of men redounds to the advantage of those who have been wiser. That is the case with reference to bounties, as with reference to everything else. But what is the price that we have been asked to pay, and which, under this Convention, we do pay? We have heard of the advantages that we are to gain under this Convention, and of the disadvantages that we should experience under Prohibition. Now, the first advantage that is offered to us under this Convention is that sugar should be dear! Well, on the face of it, that does not seem to be any great advantage to anybody. Cheap sugar is, on the whole, a good thing. It is one of the principal articles of consumption of the people, and the fact that this Convention is to make sugar dear does not, on the face of it, appear to be of any great advantage, But if it does not make sugar very considerably dearer, it is of no good to the West Indies at all; and, therefore, the whole thing to determine is, how much dearer is it going to make sugar? Anyone who knows anything of trade, still more especially of the sugar trade, must say that the Government ought to have avoided such an indiscretion as that. At all events we know what is expected in the West Indies and what was predicted by the minority of the Commission. It is that the price of sugar will be increased by a halfpenny a pound. That is a very considerable increase on the present price of sugar, and I imagine that that is the real view of the Government, because I think the Colonial Secretary said,

  279
  speaking in July last on the subject of the Vote for the West Indies, that bounties were measured at £5 a ton.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that I could have said that. I think if I said £5 a ton, I referred to that as the maximum. Then I should surely have gone on to argue that you measure any possible bounties not by the maximum but by the minimum bounty.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: But you were speaking of the West Indies, and the bounty has lowered the price of sugar by £5. I wish only to remark that £5 does represent the halfpenny a pound of which I spoke, and therefore that is the figure which the West Indies seem to think is the only thing that can be of real service to them. This is the opinion of Sir Henry Norman, the Governor of Jamaica:—
  "It must be admitted that if countervailing duties are levied and have the desired effect, the people of the United Kingdom will have to pay more for their sugar than they do at present, perhaps to the extent of a halfpenny a pound."
  Let us see how that works out. I am asking whether it is worth our while to pay the great price, or any price at all, to bring about a change which will raise the price of sugar to the extent that the West Indians demand. That is the real principle; it is not a question whether it is a good thing for these countries to abolish bounties; it is whether it is worth our while to pay this heavy price. What will be the result upon sugar? The total import of sugar into the United Kingdom is, I think, 1,600,000 tons, and the West Indies send us 46,000 tons only. The total production of the West Indies, which is the point with which you have to deal here, is 240,000 tons. There is a certain disproportion of interests at stake. If you have regard to British interests at large you must have regard to the interests to be benefited and the interests which will be injured by the course you pursue. It is a very serious matter to raise the price of a commodity of which you take 1,600,000 tons by a halfpenny a pound. That means a sum of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 a year which has to be paid by the consumers in this country.
  280
  Cannot you relieve the West Indians cheaper than that? This burden of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 is coming at a time, too, of high taxation after the war, and when you have raised the duties on sugar, tea, beer, corn, and other commodities of consumption. We are not sitting here merely for the purpose of considering what relief we may give to one particular portion of the Empire; we are considering how we are going to affect the masses of the people in this country. But in addition to our own people at home there are British subjects all over the world who are interested in the price of sugar, and your object, therefore, is to raise the price of sugar everywhere. You cannot raise it in England alone; it must be raised in all parts of the Empire. The estimated consumption of sugar, I am glad to think, is 90lb. a head for every man, woman, and child in this country, and when you multiply that amount by six or seven, according to the number of a family, it becomes a sensible sum if you raise the price by a halfpenny a pound. Then there are the poor refiners. I am very sorry to think that the refiners are suffering. The only refiner I had the honour of knowing was a gentleman with whom I was associated in my official capacity to establish the Tate Gallery, and in those conversations and negotiations I did not arrive at the conclusion that the refiners were a ruined interest. At all events we cannot leave out of sight the fact that there are other trades which will be injured by the rise in the price of sugar. Every one knows that the trade connected with the manufacture of sugar, confectionery, and other industries, is a very large one. I have had supplied to me a statement showing that the number of hands employed in the various branches of this trade is not less than 200,000 persons. Therefore you have to consider, in what you are doing, whether, while you are benefiting the refiners you are not injuring a trade of more importance than that of the refiners. I say, therefore, that the making of sugar dearer is not in itself an advantage; it is of no greater advantage than it would be to make corn dearer. Do not let us be told, "Oh, you said the price of sugar would be dearer when it was taxed; it was no dearer, and when the bounties are abolished it will not be dearer." The President of the Board of Trade tried rather to "ease off" the

  281
  increase of price, but the more you diminish the price the less good you do to the West Indies, and the more you raise the price for the benefit of the West Indies the more harm you do to the people here. This, indeed, is a Convention to raise the price of sugar, and it raises it by a sensible amount. We are told that the West Indies are irreparably ruined by the present price of sugar. We have been told, in the calculation of the President of the Board of Trade, that the West Indies must have £10 a ton for their sugar, that they had it once, and they cannot live on less.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No. What I said was that £10 a ton will leave a reasonable margin of profit.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is to say, a living wage. Trades that do not get a reasonable profit soon come to an end, but what the Government aim at in this Convention is to give them £10 a ton for their sugar. There is a quotation ad rem to which I ask the attention of the House. It is from the Report presented to the House with reference to what has happened in Cuba. In Cuba they have gone through very much the same experience as the West Indies have gone through. The traders have been very much alarmed and distressed and almost ruined owing to the price of sugar; and a report has been presented by our very able Consul in Cuba. He says—
  "The vitality shown by Cuba in the rapid rehabilitation of its sugar industry during 1899–1900, with practically no financial assistance from abroad, to which I called attention in my last annual report, has been still more strikingly exemplified by the remarkable progress which has been since made, in spite of the continued steady fall in the value of sugar and the discouraging prospects of the market. The crop of 1900–01, which proved to amount to 635,856 tons, realised very fair prices on the whole, averaging a little over 10s. per cwt.; but the fall which commenced in January became far more accentuated in September, and the known existence of unusually large stocks of beet as well as cane sugar in the principal markets excited the gravest apprehension among the planters. Meetings were held, and appeals, which received the active support of the military governor, were made to the United States Government to grant a reduction in the duties on Cuban sugar, in which it was positively stated that, if the existing crisis continued, a large proportion of the factories would be shut down, thousands of people would be thrown out of employment, commerce would be paralysed, the revenues of the Government
  282
  would fall off, and widespread misery culminating probably in public disorders would be the result. After months of agitation in the Press of the United States, as well as of Cuba, the American Congress adjourned without having done anything in the matter, and in the meanwhile by far the largest crop taken in since 1895, amounting to over 800,000 tons, was successfully harvested and has eventually been sold at prices which have averaged a trifle over 6s. 7d. per cwt. In spite of the very low prices obtained, none of the evils which were so confidently predicted have come to pass."
  This is the state of things in Cuba, with sugar at £6 10s. a ton.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSS: Has that sugar been refined at all? I understand that to be raw sugar, which is £2 less value.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes. Of course all these figures relate to raw sugars, as did the figures of the President of the Board of Trade—
  "Not a single factory," the Report continues, "failed to work to its fullest extent; the demand for labour, in view of the magnitude of the crop, was greater if anything than in previous years; and the low price at which the sugar was sold being compensated by the much larger output, imports, and consequently also the customs receipts, have shown no falling off at all—rather the contrary. Moreover, to the surprise of everybody, the threatened severe losses to individual planters have been proved to be wholly imaginary, and while the profits made have not, of course, been sufficient to meet heavy mortgage charges, I have heard of no well-appointed estates on which the working expenses were not amply covered, besides leaving in many eases a small margin of profit.'
  Therefore, when we are told that it is impossible that sugar can be made at anything under £10 a ton, the extract I have just read is a refutation of the statement.
  Now, Sir, all I have said up to this time is on the assumption that this Convention will raise the price of sugar, but there are a great many people, and I believe the best judges, who think that that is very doubtful. What is the history of the fall of the price of sugar? It is, of course, the great export supplies of sugar from all sources. That is not the work of bounties alone or Cartels alone. It has been the work of the industry and skill and science of the people. Why is it that beet sugar has come into this overwhelming competition with cane sugar? It has been, as everybody knows, by the science that

  283
  has been applied in Germany, France, and Austria, and, above all, the chemical science, in the production of saccharine from beet. These are the sources of the success of the beet sugar, and you will not destroy that by doing away with the bounties. Every year there will be more and more of this beet land brought into cultivation. Do you suppose that the United States are going to rely ultimately on those countervailing duties? No; in this very correspondence of the West Indian Planters' Association there is a statement that they expect very soon that the United States will produce all their own sugar. Where will a Convention of this kind be when Cuba can produce 800,000 tons, three times the whole of their production? Therefore I say the assumption that this is going to raise the price of sugar in a manner which will repair the losses of the West Indies is not well founded, as some people imagine. Let us see if countervailing duties will succeed. The House three years ago authorised the establishment of countervailing duties in India in the interests of Mauritius, who complained that they were beaten out of the field by the beet sugar. What happened? In the first year before the duty operated the beet sugar stood at 1,526 tons, in the second year it was reduced by the operation of the countervailing duty to 872, and in the third year, under the operation of the duty, to 2,900. That is to say, it was three times as great in the second year after the imposition of the countervailing duty as it was before. What is the condition of the cane sugar industry of Mauritius? It has not increased at all. In the last year it was rather less than before the countervailing duty was put on, whereas beet sugar was very much larger. The Mauritius people say that in spite of the countervailing duty imposed in 1899, beetroot sugar is enabled by direct and indirect bounties to flood the Indian market at prices with which it is impossible for them to compete. This is the state of things produced under countervailing duties authorized by the Government in order to save Mauritius, that—
  "One-third of the crop can find no purchaser except at prices which will be disastrous to the planters."
  284
  Was there ever such a ludicrous. failure? But they say—"Oh, there is the Cartel; that must be dealt with." And this Convention professes to deal with the Cartel. There is a long letter from Mr. Martineau pointing out that the Cartel will operate still, and you will find, and this is most remarkable, that the Indian Government, which imposed these duties, in two despatches this very year have repudiated your Convention and said they will not be governed by it.
  "The Indian Government," they say, "is unwilling to bind itself unreservedly to accept the decision of the conference as to what are and what are not to be regarded as bounties in the case of countries which did not participate originally in the Convention."
  So the Convention is condemned by your Indian Government.
  Let me say that there is one article in the Convention that I certainly do not complain of; on the contrary, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I should like to compliment him upon it, because I think it is a very favourable omen. I refer to the article that covenants that you are not to grant preferential duties to colonial sugar. I am glad that the policy of preferential duties is not one that commends itself to the Board of Trade. The worst part of the Convention undoubtedly is the obligation it imposes upon us for suppressing bounties against a non-signatory State. That covers the question of indirect bounties, and that is a question which you are not to decide, but a permanent Commission. Then there is sub-Section (d), which says: —"Advantages derived from excess of yield" Is that an advantage that you are to legislate against, because a country has an excess of yield, or because by its chemical skill more saccharine can he extracted out of the crop? I should like to have some explanation of that; it is the most extraordinary provision, I think, that was ever put into a Convention. Any one who wishes to form a real judgment of this Commission should read Article VII. of the treaty. That any British Government with respect for its trade or finance, should ever have allowed to be imposed upon it conditions which will destroy altogether the independence of its commerce or its finance, is a thing that to my mind is absolutely astounding. They say it is done by a majority, but

  285
  remember you are in a minority of one. Then, by Article VIII., you are bound "to take the necessary measures to prevent bounty-fed sugars which have passed in transit through a contractingry count from enjoying the advantages of the Convention on the market to which it is being forwarded," so that you are not only to ask the country of origin, but by what route it has been taken. Is it possible to conduct trade under conditions of that kind? It seems to me to be injurious in the greatest degree.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman talked about Russia. Russia is a non-signatory to the treaty. If Russia gives a bounty you are bound to prohibit Russian trade in sugar with this country. What happens? You lose the Russian sugar, but you lose a good deal more than that. I have read, and suppose it is true, that when sugar was put under countervailing duties by the United States, Russia acted against certain trades of the United States. It is quite plain that you do expose yourself to retaliation in this matter, and are certain to suffer from it. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the most-favoured-nation clause. That is the key, really, to the commerce of this country; you have lost particular commercial treaties, but you rest on the most-favoured-nation clause, and to imperil the most-favoured-nation clause is the greatest danger and injury you can do to this Empire. I do not know whether I understood the President of the Board of Trade rightly or not, but he said the Government told Russia some years ago that if they did not take off the prohibition or the countervailing duty they would put an end to the treaty. Is that the most-favoured-nation treaty?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: What we said was that if Russia did not take the same view as the Government—that is to say, if the Russian Government insisted on regarding countervailing duties as inconsistent with the most-favoured-nation clause, under those circumstances we would be reluctantly prepared to denounce the treaty.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Denounce the most-favoured-nation Clause?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, the commercial treaty.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: That is worse than ever. It means that the introduction of these countervailing duties may be fatal, and probably will be fatal in many cases, to your commercial treaties. That is too great a price to pay.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It has already been done in at least two cases.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: So much the worse.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No harm has resulted.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If you are prepared to denounce the commercial treaties, how far or how fast you are going in that direction no man can tell. If you are going to force the principle of prohibition or countervailing duties in this case, I suppose you will do it in others, and the price you will pay will be to destroy your commercial treaties, and to put in peril your most-favoured-nation clause. It is a terrible price to pay for advantages of this description; never was so bad a bargain made by an intelligent nation. There has been very little said of the United States in this matter; I wonder why the United States did not join in this Conference. I observe that in one of the early letters Lord Lansdowne asks why they did not, but I never found the answer to that question in the correspondence.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: They were not invited.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Why were they not invited? They have the greatest market in the world.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think they were formally invited—
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. said not.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, no; it was not the Under Secretary, it was the hon. Member for King's Lynn. I think they were formally invited, and they would, of course, have been welcome; but it was known that they did

  287
  not wish to attend. If you ask why, it is because they are not an exporting country—not to any great extent.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I will tell you why they did not attend, in my opinion—because they were not prepared to place the taxation and commerce of the United States at the mercy of a permanent Commission sitting in Europe. Like the Indian Government, they preferred to govern their own taxes, to dispose of their own finance, and they were a good deal wiser than you have been in this matter. I do not believe that the citizens of the United States, who are pretty cute in these matters, would ever have accepted the government of the permanent Commission as it appears in this Convention. It is true they put on countervailing duties, but they were themselves the judges of them. If your Convention had kept in your own hands the countervailing duties and the prohibition it would have been a very different thing. The worst part of this Convention is the obligation into which you have entered. The evils of the Convention are admirably summed up by the Commission itself. The right hon. Gentleman said an extraordinary thing—that the Commission had recommended these countervailing duties.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, I said they had reported in favour of the abolition of bounties. It is perfectly well known that the Chairman was in favour of recommending countervailing duties, but the majority were opposed to it.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Then I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I will read the views of the majority of the Commission on this subject. They gave as their reasons for not recommending countervailing duties—
  "The loss to the British consumer that would result from any rise in the price of sugar; the inconvenience to trade that would be caused by the imposition of countervailing duties; the uncertainty whether any such measure would permanently save the sugar industry in the West Indies (they did not believe this measure would have the desired effect of saving the West Indies); the inexpediency of raising questions connected with the interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause, which might have the effect of weakening its force; and, finally, the danger, direct and indirect, of departing from what has hitherto been considered to be the settled policy of the United Kingdom."
  288
  In my opinion it is impossible to state more truly and soundly the real objections to this policy. It is, I believe, full of danger and mischief, and no advantage can be derived from it which is at all commensurate with the mischiefs with which it is pregnant. I beg, therefore, to move the Amendment on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'House,' in order to add the words 'declines to approve of the Convention relating to sugar, signed at Brussels on the 5th day of March, 1902." —(Sir William Harcourt.)
  Question proposed—"That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. PARKER SMITH: The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech, the first part of which was hardly consistent with the finish. In the earlier portions he appeared to have swallowed whole the statements of the pamphlets which have been sent round to us lately in such numbers, and to have assented to the proposition that there was going to be a very considerable rise in the price of sugar. The right hon. Gentleman quoted that familiar casual remark of Sir H. Norman's in the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commission. That remark was not a reasoned statement; it was not based on argument; it was merely a casual suggestion, and was quite inconsistent with the general views of the Report to which Sir H. Norman had assented. The views of the Report were those of the right hon. Gentleman in the latter portion of his speech—that as a result of the abolition of bounties there would not be any serious rise in the price of sugar; that there might be a slight rise, but not one so serious as to be a real argument against the general advantages which the Commission fully admitted would accrue if bounties came to an end. The right hon. Gentleman opposite quoted a remark of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which has been made familiar in all the circulars. Last year the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the debate said that the highest bounty upon sugar amounted to about £5 a ton. This has

  289
  been quoted as if he had made the converse statement, that if the bounty was taken off the price would rise by £5, but that has nothing whatever to do with the amount of the present bounty. If bounties were withdrawn the price would depend upon the cost of production. I claim as an authority for these views the last half of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, where he went on far sounder principles, and in which he pointed out the very great cheapening in the cost of the production of sugar. I confess that I am puzzled as to which half of the right hon. Gentleman's speech to take seriously. He indulged in a good deal of thunder against the Government on account of the great rise in the price of sugar which they were causing; but the alternative which I understood him to prefer was that taking away of bounties is no good because it would not raise prices enough to be of any use to the West Indies. If that is so, what is the necessity for all the thundering of the right hon. Gentleman against the policy of the Government, and which we have been familiar with outside.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTpointed out that even in that case the obligations of the duties would remain.
  MR. PARKER SMITH: Even if the price is not raised a great deal of good will be done to the West Indies by putting the producers into a position where they will have confidence, where capital can come back, and where they can calculate with the same degree of certainty as men engaged in producing any other great staple article what the cost of production and the price is likely to be. At the present time they are thrown out in their estimates by this incalculable element, and but for this fact I believe the West Indies could enter the fight upon reasonable terms. The right hon. Gentleman adduced the Indian experience in favour of his second argument that prices were not going to be seriously raised by the abolition of bounties. What happens? The Indian Government impose countervailing duties, the price rises for a little while and then drops. It did not rise to any great extent, or to anything like the extent, feared by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It afterwards fell lower because of a fresh reason, that reason
  290
  being the Cartel system, which was not in existence before, and only sprang into being in the year 1899–1900. Therefore it is really within the last two or three years that this has become such a very serious predominant factor as it is at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Indian Government wanted protection against any interference with its fiscal policy. Of course it does, and it can be protected under the terms of the Convention. The right hon. Gentleman complained that we were altogether in the hands of the permanent Commission, and that all our fiscal dealings in the Empire were put under their control. I wish to point out that we reserve complete freedom as to our fiscal relations, and we keep that in our own hands. I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to Article XI., where the Government of Great Britain in declaring that during the continuance of the convention no preference will be granted in the United Kingdom to colonial sugars, states that this is undertaken
  "as an exceptional measure and reserving in principle entire liberty of action as regards the fiscal relations between the United Kingdom and its colonies and possessions."
  That Article reserves entire liberty of action between ourselves and our colonies. There is no doubt what that phrase means. If you take that by itself it might be ambiguous. but it has to be read along with the declaration made by our representatives at the Conference. In making the announcement that this country was willing to accede to a penal Clause, Mr. Phipps added—
  "Niil convient de dire que la Gow. britannique ne pourrait appliquer une clause pénale aux sucres des colonies on des possessions britanniques. Des motifs de politique impériale (Imperial policy) prohiberaient une application pareille." —(Proces Verbaux, 5th Seance, p. 66.)M
  That was taken up in the course of the Conference again and again, and we were pressed to modify it. The other Powers said they did not see why our colonies should stand in a different position to foreign countries, but we adhered to that declaration, and it was accepted and universally understood by everybody.

  291
  The real substantial question is in regard to the rise in price. It is assumed that there will be a very great rise in price. In the first place, you cannot draw any conclusion at all from the amount of the present bounties. While bounties and trusts exist as at present the fluctuations are tremendous. The year of greatest fluctuation was 1889, when it went to £28 5s. per ton, or from £11 10s. to £28 5s.; the fluctuations each year are serious, and they are more serious than in other articles of commerce because they are incalculable and depend upon Government action. But when bounties go and the wings of trusts are clipped then the cost of production comes in, and it is that cost which will govern prices. That is what it is the merchant's business to calculate. There is absolutely the same uncertainty with regard to any other article which you can name, and the clever man of business is able to perform a more intelligent and correct forecast than his fellows. But in the case of sugar, whatever the producer may do he is liable to be met by an increase in the bounty on the part of foreign governments. Sugar if you only give it a fair chance can be produced under so many circumstances and in so many different quarters of the world that it is certain that plenty of capital will flow into the industry, and not more than fair profits will be obtained by those who produce sugar in different parts of the world.
  The President of the Board of Trade has gone into the question of what will be the probable cost of production. He was speaking the views of all the responsible experts when he said that he did not believe that the average cost in the future would be higher than it had been for the last ten years. I know that my opinion is worth nothing in this matter, but I entirely agree with that view. The price of the last ten years is the price under which all the confectionery interests about which we hear so much have grown up. The right hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned the probability of a lower price. If the lower price will give a living profit, as apparently it does in Cuba, so much the better. Then we shall have capital going freely into the
  292
  business, and I have not the slightest doubt that we shall have in the future, as we have had in the past, improvements in production which will bring down the cost of production from time to time, while at the same time they leave a living margin for those who are engaged in the business. The reduction in the cost of production during the last fifteen years has been something wonderful. Partly, no doubt, that is the effect of the stimulus of bounties, which has turned the intelligence and attention of foreign chemists to this subject of sugar production in Europe, and the West Indies have certainly followed suit. On all the more advanced and more prosperous islands, and on all the more advanced estates there has been a reduction in the cost of production. I have had the figures of three typical Demerara estates given to me privately. On these estates, in 1886, the cost of production was £15 5s. per ton, while in 1901 the cost was reduced to £10 13s. per ton, or about 40 per cent., and it is hoped to reduce the cost of production still further in the near future. The cost of producing beet sugar has come down just in the same way, and may be put now at something between £9 and £10 per ton. I should like to know how anyone can fear, under these circumstances, that we shall go back to the old price of sugar. The Royal Commission were entirely agreed on this matter, and as their opinions have often not been fairly given or represented, I should like to quote them. They say:—
  "It has, we believe, been argued that the reduction in the price of sugar, which has resulted from the bounty system, is such a source of gain to the British Empire, as a whole, that it would not be right for Your Majesty's Government to initiate any measures to bring about the abolition of that system. In that argument we do not concur. By far the greater portion of the fall in the price of sugar, which has conferred so great a boon on the consumer, is not due to the existence of bounties, and would not be lost if they were abolished. The fall in the price of sugar is mainly due to a lowering of the cost of production of both beet and cane sugar, and in so far as this is the case the abolition of bounties would not affect the price. … The benefit which the British Empire, as a whole, derives from any lowering of the price of sugar, due to the operation of the bounty system, is too dearly purchased by the injury which that system imposes on a limited class, namely, Your Majesty's West Indian and other subjects dependent on the sugar industry. … It is

  293
  feared by some authorities that countervailing duties might cripple certain British industries. We doubt whether such a rise in price, as would result from them, would appreciably interfere with such trades as those of the jam, confectionery, and biscuit-makers, which depend upon cheap sugar."
  The Royal Commission, therefore, were not the least afraid of those terrible consequences, and, as the result of that view, the Royal Commission made a statement which I did not hear from the right hon. Gentleman and which has often been entirely suppressed.
  "The best immediate remedy for the state of things which we have shown to exist would be the abandonment of the bounty system by continental nations. This change would, in all probability, enable a large portion of the sugar-cane cultivation to be carried on successfully, and would certainly reduce the rate at which it will diminish."
  I could quote Lord Farrar to the same effect, though I admit other utterances are to be found which do not agree. In 1897 he said to the Cobden Club—
  "Upon that point (sugar bounties) we as Free Traders must walk warily; we must admit to the fullest degree that sugar bounties are an abomination, and we must not, because they make sugar a little cheaper in this country, say they ought to be continued. If Mr. Chamberlain were able in any fair way to get foreign nations to do away with their bounties we ought to wish him God-speed."
  Then a question was put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite which I have already alluded to, namely, what is the use of abolishing bounties if it does not mean a large rise in price? No large rise in price is needed to make good estates pay. The present price is not much below the cost price, although it is probably below it. What is important is the abolition of the interference from bounties, which means security and confidence to the planter, and without which, as the Royal Commission testify, the industry can obtain no credit. With things as they are at present—it has been impossible in the more backward parts to get capital in order to provide proper machinery, and to get central factories established.
  There is one point which the right hon. Gentleman raised, upon which I would like to say a word or two, and that is the memorandum of 1881 which was issued by the Board of Trade when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies was at the head of that Department. The right hon. Gentleman read one sentence
  294
  of that memorandum, but he did not read the sentence before or the sentence after. The sentence before shows that the state of the facts under which that memorandum was written was something entirely different from the state at the present day. The sentence is this—
  "At present, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the effect of the alleged bounties given by foreign Governments has been to cheapen the price of sugar to the consumer in this country, while up to this time the general industry of sugar refining in the United Kingdom and of sugar production in the Colonies has not been seriously affected, though there has been some transfer of capital and labour from one branch of sugar refining to another."
  Then comes the sentence read by the right hon. Gentleman. That sentence, I think, is rather double-edged considering the application it has to the agitation we have had outside of the House lately. Then at the end of what the right hon. Gentleman read comes this—
  "At the same time the Government desired for all countries, as for this country, the establishment of a policy of complete free trade, believing that in the long run absolute non-interference with trade, whether by bounties or protective duties, is the system most conducive to general prosperity. They were accordingly desirous to advocate its adoption by all reasonable means, even in a case like the present, where the immediate effect of the bounties is to benefit this country at the expense of other nations."
  Therefore the abolition of bounties was admitted as the ideal they were striving after. The condition of things as regards any injury having been done to refiners or producers of sugar was different, and the possibility of what could be done was different, because then no general agreement had been made by the great sugar producing countries, and if anything could have been done it would have been the bringing into force of countervailing duties in this country alone and without co-operation.
  We have heard a great deal as to how a rise in price would affect the trades peculiarly interested. I think that the sentence the right hon. Gentleman quoted from the memorandum of 1881 is a sufficient answer, and that it is not necessary to pay too much attention to that. I do not believe for my part that a small rise—such a rise as could possibly follow the abolition of these bounties— could have a serious effect upon the great trades which are based upon cheap sugar. Letters

  295
  were written ten years ago by certain great firms connected with the sugar industries in which they expressed their firm conviction that after a short interval this kingdom would be provided with a larger, better, cheaper, and more reliable supply of sugar. For that reason they at that time were not afraid of bounties being reduced. England will remain the great free market for sugar, and the price will be kept up abroad by surtaxes. I repudiate the claim to be guided by mere sectional interests. If you try to be so guided you certainly would be completely puzzled. You have the manufacturing confectioners denouncing those opposed to them as "a small group of West Indian sugar refiners and a few thousand Wrest India planters." The Engineering Federation is very much interested in this question and in turn takes the other side. That Federation consists of 869 engineering firms, and in a circular which they issued lately they point out that on account of the bounties the manufacture of sugar machinery and plant had fallen off in this country. This diminution means a very large loss of money in wages in this country, amounting to many millions. But interests of this kind on the one side or on the other are trifling compared with the interests of the West Indies. There are hundreds of branches of engineering in which the manufacturers and workmen may take refuge, but in the West Indies matters are entirely different. There sugar is the staple industry, and it must continue to be cultivated in order that the people may make two ends meet. The welfare of the whole population of the islands, amounting to more than a million, and not that of a few absentee planters, as is sometimes represented, depends upon the sugar industry. These people have a special claim upon us to save them from ruin and starvation—whether they are representatives of the old slaves, or are East Indian subjects whom we have planted there for our own special interest. Many recommendations were made in the Report of the Royal Commission, and a vast deal has been clone since then to develop other industries in the islands. But the industry that is best suited to the West Indies is the cultivation of sugar. We all lay claim to free trade principles, and if there is one outstanding free trade principle more than another, it is that
  296
  each country in the world should cultivate that industry for which it is best fitted; and the West Indies are most fitted for the cultivation of sugar. It has been said that it would be cheaper to give these islands a bounty, and pension them off. This year a subsidy of £250,000 was made to them under special circumstances, but not without objection being made; and I should like to know what would be said if there was to be an annual vote of double that amount, which would be required if the sugar industry is allowed to die out.
  Some people seem to imagine that the low prices we have at present are going to continue for ever, and that Germany and Austria will go on sending us sugar under the cost of production to the end of the chapter. That is a foolish idea, and is based upon the assumption that foreigners are fools. They are not fools. These countries are fighting for the monopoly of the British market, and are cutting rates. The object of the promoters of the Cartel is not to crush out the West Indies, for there the sugar industry is too small to be of any account to them, but to crush out France and the other European sugar-producing countries. There is so large an import duty on sugar in Germany and Austria that the Cartel is able to keep up the price of sugar in these countries to give the manufacturers a profit of £5 or £6 a ton upon the part of their production which is consumed at home. They are therefore able to sell below cost price the portion which they export and yet to make a good profit on this total production. It is perfectly certain that neither the Germans nor the Austrians, nor their Governments, desire, as a permanence, that we should have cheap sugar, and that the people of their own countries should pay an extravagant price for it. There is a very serious danger of prices being forced up if this monopoly is allowed to be established and France is driven out of competition. In that case, of course, the West Indies will have an undeserved benefit, as just now they are suffering an unmerited loss. I would like to know what hon. Gentlemen who cry out about raising the price of sugar would say in such a case. Meanwhile it is true we have been enjoying the accidental and temporary cheapness which is an incident in a great war of rates. So far we have no doubt benefited,

  297
  but commercial peace and Free Trade is our permanent policy. It is wise to take this opportunity of concerted action, for if the monopolists of Germany and Austria t should force up prices to the level desired by the Cartels, there is no one who would suffer so much as ourselves.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLAND: In my humble opinion this Brussels Convention is one of the most unfortunate fiscal and political instruments, from the point of view of this country, that has ever been drafted. It is one of the poorest pieces of statesmanship that can be imagined, as it will involve the maximum of cost with the minimum of gain. It will add to the cost of the food of the people, and tax the raw material of very important industries in tins country, There is an additional aspect in which this convention fails; it is not at all certain to achieve the object intended, viz., to benefit the West Indies, while it will place the fiscal arrangements of this country very largely in the control of foreign nations. It will have the effect of relieving these foreign countries from substantial financial burdens, and from the clutches of monopolists, and cheapening the food of the masses of their people. It is no wonder, therefore, that some of these Powers are extremely anxious to have the Brussels Convention ratified, because they stand to gain by it, while we stand to lose. I hold that the action of the Government affords another illustration of the fact that the less this Government meddles with the trade of the country the better it is for that trade, for when they do meddle they usually do more harm than good, and for one ounce of benefit in one direction there is a ton of injury in another. I hold in respect to this Convention, that it would have been very much more in harmony with our dignity as a nation, and the strength of our Free Trade position if we had kept away from Brussels altogether. These foreign countries have got themselves into this mess through their bounties; therefore let them get out of it, and not, in return, drag us into it.
  In my judgment, the fallacy upon which this Convention is based is that these sugar bounties are to be abolished to oblige us. If they are abolished,
  298
  it must be shown clearly that they are abolished to oblige these foreign countries and not us. This country in my opinion must adopt that fiscal policy which best suits itself, without regard to other nations. That is the reason why we adopted Free Trade, viz., that we judged it to be in our own best interests. And I hold it is the only safe plan for foreign nations themselves to exercise the same freedom without any interference on our part. On our side we say that bounties are a huge financial blunder on the part of those nations which give them, but it is not our business to say that to the foreigner, because if we tell him so he will naturally suspect us of having some interest in the matter. He must be convinced himself that they are a blunder, and when he has arrived at that conviction the bounties will go without any Convention, and we shall not be sorry when they disappear. In the German Reichstag last Friday, the Secretary to the Treasury drew a doleful picture of the finances of that Empire, and said that in his forthcoming Budget there would be a deficit of seven and a half millions, and when they remembered that it was caused largely by these sugar bounties, he thought that deficit would be a more convincing argument than all the Conventions in the world. The name of Free Trade has been invoked today to sanction two exactly opposite courses. This Convention has been described by a prominent member of the Government as a victory for Free Trade, but surely never before was victory so questionable. Never before was the cost so disproportionate to the advantages of victory. A victory for Free Trade, indeed! Where is the interest of Free Trade furthered as a result of this Convention? Our Free Trade will be less after this Convention than it was before. Nor will its effect be to increase Free Trade for those countries who are signatories to it, because they still maintain the right to continue their import tariffs. In the so-called Free Trade countries we must all agree that it is the unalienable right of every person to buy in the cheapest market. I know the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the proposal this

  299
  afternoon discarded the theory of cheapness and substituted for it the theory of equality of opportunity, but does this Convention secure to those engaged in the sugar trade in this country equality of opportunity as compared with those engaged in the trade on the Continent. We know the surtax and import duties which will be maintained in those countries will effectually deny equality of opportunity to those engaged in the sugar industry here. The right hon. Gentleman prophesied boldly as to the course of prices during the next ten years. If business men could share the right hon. Gentleman's power of reading into the future they would not take long to accumulate substantial fortunes; but, unfortunately, we in business know that nothing is so unsatisfactory as to forecast the course of prices, for the unexpected usually happens. If the prophecy of the right hon. Gentleman is to be fulfilled, and during the next ten years prices are no higher on the average, I should like to inquire whether that range of values will suit the West Indies. Under this Convention which we are today asked to ratify, we are to be committed to the principle of countervailing duties in spite of the hostile report of the Commissioners sent out to the West Indies, and, by being so committed, we are ipso facto committed to a policy of retaliation. After resisting retaliation for fifty years, this Government has brought us to it at last. And what a topsy-turvy kind of retaliation it is. Retaliation, not for injuries done, but for benefits received. If a man chooses to sell his goods below cost to "A," and to recoup himself that loss by overcharging "B," it is obviously the duty of "B" to put a stop to that injustice. We are in the position of "A," and the foreigners, the bounty givers, are in the position of "B," This Convention, so far as I can read it, was not meant at all for us, because in it it is stated that the object of the Convention is to promote the consumption of sugar. Every one will agree that if the ratifying of this Convention and the carrying of it into effect is to influence prices at all, that influence will be in the direction of raising prices in this country, and if
  300
  prices are raised here, it is obvious that instead of being increased, consumption of sugar will inevitably be diminished.
  The Convention is said to be justified by the condition of the West Indies, but the West Indies in July last had a token of the substantial sympathy of this House. Will this Convention be certain to remedy the state of things in the West Indies? The Report relating to that matter contains this passage—
  "It is not clear if the bounties are abolished that another crisis of a similar character might not arise in the West Indies at some future day."
  I hold it would be fifty times better to deal with the West Indies on their merits by grants in aid, and in pursuing that policy we should be greatly in pocket. Another objection has been urged. The West Indies at present have a preferential position in regard to the great market of the United States of America and this Convention will take it from them, and to that extent place them at a disadvantage.
  But besides the West Indies, there is also the position of the British sugar refiner, which is closely affected by this Convention. I have felt sometimes that the case of the British refiner, is rather hard and that he suffers whilst the rest of the community benefit, but the condition of the British sugar refiner was considerably ameliorated last year when the sugar tax was introduced. I do not ask the House to accept my dictum with regard to that. There was a prospectus issued with regard to a sugar refinery at Liverpool last year which contained this statement—
  "Even under the old conditions considerable profits have been realised, but past figures are misleading as to what may be fairly expected under present favourable circumstances."
  That referred, of course, to the sugar tax that had been introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which substantially improved the prospects and the position of the sugar refiners of this country; therefore I hope that the case of the sugar refiners is not so hard as it has been made out to be, and that, even without the assistance of this Convention, the prospects referred to in that prospectus will be amply fulfilled. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman into the question as to what is a fair

  301
  business profit, because I believe his views and the views of traders on the point would probably not agree. I believe bounties, have not been prompted by any desire to injure British sugar refiners, but by a jealous rivalry between France and Germany not to 'be ousted from British markets. Hence, when one country increases its bounties, its rivals feel bound to do the same. It is a policy of what may be called "Beggar-my-neighbour." But why should we be drawn into it, and by so doing upset our fiscal relations elsewhere?
  So much for the West Indies and the British refiners who clamour for this Convention. In so far as they can establish their case, I would compensate them in other ways and be greatly in pocket.
  But on the other side of the account there are incomparably greater interests in this country that are involved and will be penalised if this Convention is ratified. The consumers of sugar will lose many millions sterling per annum, and the sugar-using industries be considerably hampered by an increased taxation on their raw material, and we know that above a hundred thousand people are employed in these industries. In one paragraph of the Commissioners' report it says that
  "The abolition of the bounties was an object which should be aimed at, provided always that the sacrifice would not involve evils out of all proportion to those which it was desired to remove."
  and it is because we say that the higher cost of sugar to forty million customers mostly very poor, is an evil out of all proportion to any which it is intended to remove that we are against the ratification. The gravest objection to the Convention is that it ties our hands in dealing with our Colonies and forces us into a course of action in regard to foreign nations which with a free hand we should probably be disinclined to follow. We are entitled to protest against the unconstitutional proposal of the Convention to take the power of taxing the British people out of the hands of the House of Commons and put it into the hands of a new-fangled Foreign Commission sitting in Brussels. This Commission may indeed turn the scales upon ourselves, because it is obvious that they will be able to call upon this country to take
  302
  off the tax on sugar which was imposed in 1901, and which the Germans insisted at the time was tantamount to a bounty. We have enough to lose by this Convention without having our hands tied with regard to our Colonies. How foreign statesmen must stand aghast at the self-imposed condition that we are to give our Colonies no preference so long as the Convention lasts. What an extraordinary noose that is for us to put our necks into! Why it was only a few years ago that we paid a high price in order to obtain a free Land in our dealings with our Colonies—the price being the denunciation of our treaties with Belgium and Germany. And we are asked now to throw away this freedom once more. I am aware that the final protocol of the Convention professes to reserve in principle freedom of action in regard to our Colonies. But of what use is a principle which is violated in practice? This country has gained enormously by the avoidance of those tariff wars which have impoverished other nations. But the Convention will drag us into them. By it we shall be compelled to retaliate against Russia, the United States, Brazil, Egypt, Argentina, and probably Queensland. I believe the best way to avoid fiscal trouble and complications with other nations is to keep full control of our own tariff in our own hands. And it is because the Convention deprives us of that right that I am opposed to its ratification.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Amendment began his speech by pointing out that there are heresies in trade just as there are heresies in religion. There is another analogy which the right hon. Gentleman Omitted — namely, that there are superstitions in trade just as there are superstitions in religion, and it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman attached to the expression "the most-favoured-nation Clause" a superstitious value which it does not deserve in practice. I was pleased to notice that he hon. Gentleman who has just sat down took an entirely different view, for he considered that we ought to make our own fiscal arrangements without having to refer to foreign nations.
  Now, the arguments which have so far been directed against the proposals

  303
  before the House are of two kinds—the theoretical, those based on what hon. Members opposite are pleased to call economic laws, and the practical, those based on what they consider will be the effect on particular industries in this country. The theoretical argument rests on the assumption that when a foreign country places a bounty on an article which is imported into this country it is really making us a present of the amount of the bounty, and that therefore we should assist them instead of trying to interfere with them in such a laudable practice. It assumes further that the nations which do that, do it not from any intentional generosity to us, but solely from ignorance of economic laws, which are so simple that they are well within the reach of the comprehension of every schoolboy throughout the country. That seems to me to be a pretty large assumption, and I cannot help thinking that if those who hold that view had visited, both before and after the introduction of the industry, those parts of Germany where the beetroot industry is most firmly established, if they had noticed the change in the face of the country and the improvement which has spread itself among the subsidiary industries which had sprung up in consequence, and if they had noticed further that owing to the difficulty of beetroot cultivation, and to the fact that only the most scientific methods are in use the whole system, of farming throughout the length and breadth of Germany has been improved, they would have agreed with my hon. friend the Member for the Partick Division, that perhaps these nations are not such simpletons as we think, and that possibly they know their own business a little better than we give them credit for. But I am not going to argue that. Let us even assume that these nations make a mistake, that bounties are a bad thing for them, must it inevitably follow that they are a good thing for us? If that is an economic truth it is true altogether; there are no exceptions; and I ask the House whether that is a theory we would carry to its logical conclusion. Take the iron industry; it is one of the most important industries of this country, but its relative importance has greatly changed of late. The United States now
  304
  produce three times as much iron as we do. We know how that industry is controlled in the United States. It is in the hands of a few people, who are quite ready to use their power to crush competition. Suppose the same sentiment animated the United States Government, and they were to say: "We have unlimited raw material, unlimited capital, unlimited labour. We should supply the world with iron goods, but Great Britain, which has not our natural advantages, competes with us in every market. Surely it would pay us, not merely for the encouragement of our own industry, but also to kill this competition, to offer a heavy bounty on all the iron goods exported." I do not say that that would be a good thing for the United States, but what would it be for us? Would hon. Members opposite say: "They are making us a present; we are quite ready to receive it, and the more the better?" What would become of our iron industry, and of the hundreds of thousands of work-people directly or indirectly dependent on that industry for their livehood? Hon Members may say that that case has not arisen. I quite - admit it, but we are talking of economic laws. If such a thing were to happen, the men connected with the iron industry and their fellow working-men throughout the country who sympathised with them would give this House a lesson in the elementary prinples of political economy which we would not easily forget. I fully admit that the lesson would be felt chiefly on this side of the House, because it so happens that the artisan electors have placed very few Members on the other side. So far as this Parliament is concerned, hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they represent anything, represent the agricultural interest, and it is possibly for that reason that they are assuming today an attitude which, on the authority of Mr. Gladstone himself, is entirely opposed to the principles of Free Trade.
  If we could not allow a vital industry of this country to be destroyed by such causes, have we not exactly the same responsibility towards an industry of one of our colonies? In one sense I think the responsibility is greater. These Crown Colonies have not the power which the representatives of industries in

  305
  this country have of making their views felt on the composition of this House. That is the case of the West Indies, and with the permission of the House I will read a sentence from a speech by the hon. Mr. Graf delivered in the West Indies, which gives very fairly, and I think not too strongly, the case for the West Indies in this matter—
  "Let me be well understood. The cane-sugar industry asks the British Government for no favour or special advantage. It must stand or fall on its own merits. But what we do ask the Government is to give us a fair field to fight the battle out squarely and fairly, and I hope and trust that the British nation will see this time that we get fair play. If not, God help the West Indies!"
  I quite admit that to benefit the West Indies in the way they desire might mean that we would pay too high a price for it. That is the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I will try to state his argument quite fairly. He says—
  "If you raise the price of sugar one half penny you inflict a loss of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 on the people of this country. If you do not raise the price one halfpenny you do the West Indies no benefit at all."
  If that were a true statement of the case I would say at once that the price was higher than we ought to pay. But it is not a true statement of the case. It leaves out of account, as such simple calculations generally do, what is, in my opinion, by far the most important factor. Take the two sides of this proposition. I do not for a moment believe that the price of sugar will be raised anything like a halfpenny by the abolition of these bounties. In proof of that view let me say that if the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken pleased, he could at the present moment buy beet-root sugar for delivery December next year, after the Convention is in force, at only one shilling per cwt. above its present price; and that shilling does not represent the difference which it is believed will be caused by this Convention; it is really very little more than the normal difference between current price and the price of delivery so far forward. The conclusion which we derive from the view of those who, after all, should know most about it, because they make their living by buying and selling, is exactly the conclusion at which we would come on .general grounds. Why should there be
  306
  such a rise in the price of sugar? The beet-root sugar producers are not going to stop at once. They are going to go through the experience that the West Indian planters have been going through. The stoppage will be gradual, and while the beet-root production is being gradually reduced the production of sugar cane is almost certain to be gradually increased.
  This brings me to what I consider to be the element the right hon. Gentleman has left out. The West Indies have been brought to the verge of ruin not so much by the bounties, or the low price due o the bounties, as by the absolute uncertainty which they brought into the conditions of the trade. New capital, new energy, new enterprise, will never be put into a business unless there is a reasonable security about it, unless it has a fair chance. Was there such a fair chance under the conditions which existed before this Convention? Suppose, for instance, somebody said, "After careful calculation, I believe that by adopting the best machinery, following the most scientific methods, and using the utmost economy, even at the present price I can produce sugar at a profit," would he not be a fool to attempt it if he knew that by the time his machinery was in operation he might find that, from causes which he could not control, and which were purely arbitrary, the conditions had been completely changed and there was no possibility of making a profit at all?
  I will refer to only one other aspect of the question, and that is the claim which the subsidiary industries—those of confectionery, and so forth—have in this matter. I confess I consider that claim unimportant, but it is solely owing to the action of the representatives of those trades that all this recent agitation has sprung up against the Convention. ["No."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite question that statement. Not only is it the cause of the agitation throughout the country, but it is the reason why the Party opposite as a Party have adopted their present attitude. In July last my right hon. friend introduced a subvention for the West Indies. He introduced that subvention on the ground that it was merely part of the general policy involved in the Sugar Convention. At that time not one Member of the Front Bench opposite spoke against the proposal, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Aberdeen actually said

  307
  that though he was opposed to the grant as a grant, he would not oppose it as part of the policy of the Sugar Convention. As I have said, not one Member of that Bench voted against the subvention, and from the point of view of hon. Members opposite, I must say the hon. Member for West Islington is the hero of the debate. He has been consistent throughout and in July last year he brought forward exactly the arguments which are now being used by the Front Bench; but at that time he had to contend against not only this side, but also two of his own leaders. It must therefore now be a great satisfaction to the hon. Member to find that his leaders have at last fallen into line, and are following him. What is there in the complaints of the confectionery and other industries? I must confess I have not much sympathy with them—not because I would not sympathise with any trade, or would not be sorry to see any trade in this country injured, but because I know they are crying out before! they are hurt, and because I believe they are crying out when they never will be I hurt. Why should they be hurt, even after the Convention? They will get their sugar more cheaply than any other of the countries now competing with them, or at least as cheaply. If they cannot protect themselves under such circumstances, do hon. Members opposite wish us to raise a special protection fund for their benefit? But there is more than that. No one in this House, and none of the pamphlets on the subject, has mentioned what I should have thought was one of the first things these traders would mention. At present they export a large part of their manufactures to countries which are to be members of the Sugar Convention. The duties imposed against them are in some cases very high: I should have thought them almost prohibitive. But by the Convention it will be impossible for those countries to put a higher tax against them than 2s. 6d. a cwt. instead of nearly 20s. as in some cases at present, so that even if they have to pay a higher price for their sugar, that is some compensation for it.
  Then there is another general consideration which I should have thought would have made them think that the Convention, after all, was not such a bad thing. If it is really true that their industries depend on these bounties, what a precarious foundation they have! At
  308
  any moment the bounties might be taken away—although I quite admit that, without our intervention, it is not likely that that would happen. We cannot expect the Government of a country like Germany to rise at once to the serene economic atmosphere breathed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they might get there by degrees. One of the first steps in that direction would be a very disastrous one to the subsidiary industries. Surely it would naturally occur to the Chancellor of the German Empire to say, "If it pays us to give a large bounty to encourage the export of raw sugar, it will pay us a great deal better to give a much bigger bounty for the encouragement of the manufactures of sugar. By that means we shall encourage not only the growth of sugar, but our own labour and industries." If they were to do that—and I am certain they would do it sooner or later—what would become of our confectionery, jams and other subsidiary industries? Where would the representatives of those industries be? It would not be difficult to answer the latter question. They would be in the lobbies, where so many of them have been lately, button-holing every Member they could, and urging him to leave no stone unturned to abolish these nefarious bounties.
  MR. ROBSON: The hon. Member has concluded his interesting and lucid speech with a suggestion, the fatal answer to which I should have thought he would have a once seen. He warned the trades that are protesting against this Convention that they might very well become subject to further bounties themselves—that is to say, to bounties operating against them by means of gifts to confectionery and other similar manufactures in the producing countries. Let the hon. Member consider for a moment what that kind of illustration leads him to. He has asked us to contemplate what would happen to us if there was an American bounty on exports of iron, or to English confectioners if there should be imposed a foreign bounty on confectionery and so on ad infinitum. But long before the serious consequences were reached there would be another cause operating. For instance, take Germany,

  309
  with the suggested. bounty on confectionery. Germany is already staggering under the weight of her existing bounties; she already has to meet a serious difficulty and yet the hon. Gentleman tells the confectionery trade that it had better take care, because the policy which without this intervention has broken down with regard to sugar, will by Germany be extended with regard to confectionery. That is the class of illustration with which the hon. Gentleman seeks to intimidate the protesting trades of this country. He began his remarks by saying the suggestions put forward from this side were two-fold—first, that the foreigners made us a present, and secondly, that they did it from economic ignorance. Those were the two statements that he put into our mouths, and which he seemed to think were not practical arguments. But what did he say about them? Having stated them, he straightway left them, except to contend that foreigners were not such fools as we thought them. The inference from that observation is that there was some good reason for their bounties. How is it, if they are not such fools as we think them, that they are so anxious to get rid of their bounties? The hon. Gentleman opposite has stated what our objections are, but he has never met them. Foreigners are, in fact, making us a present, and they are doing it from economic ignorance, because they have found out that their economic policy is mischievous to themselves, and they have come to our Government to relieve them from the very worst consequences of their policy. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down did not defend these bounties on the grounds of Free Trade. I must say that one is always astonished to see the way in which hon. Members opposite treat the principles of Free Trade in controversies of this kind. At one time we are told that they do not regard Free Trade as a fetish, and they say that the principles of Free Trade are old shibboleths and antiquated and economic prejudices, and then, having laid down these principles when they introduced a fiscal change, they try to show that it is in strict accord with all the principles of Free Trade. If Free Trade is really economic pedantry and old shibboleths, surely we need not have the President of the
  310
  Board of Trade so anxious to prove that this proposal is a Free Trade method.
  Every step of this kind taken by the present Government within the last few years has been treated as though it were consistent with the principles of Free Trade. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer revived an export duty upon coal while claiming, at the same time, to be a free trader. Then he went on to increase the sugar and bread tax in a way that gave a differential advantage to the English miller and sugar refiner in this country, and he claimed, nevertheless, to be a free trader. One really wonders what are the ideas of the Tory Party with regard to Free Trade. The Government come before us now, gravely proposing to hamper one of our greatest industries by irritating inquiries into the local origin of imported goods, and they do it in the name of Free Trade. They propose to put heavy tariff duties upon an imported article, and they do this in the name of Free Trade. They seem to think that by doing this they are helping the nations of Europe by some educational process of retaliation towards a comprehension of Free Trade. And last of all, they put our trade regulations under the control of a foreign Commission, and they do this also in the name of Free Trade. The idea among hon. Gentlemen opposite seems to be this—bounties are contrary to Free Trade, and retaliatory duties will stop bounties, therefore retaliatory duties are in favour of Free Trade. That seems to me to be a pretty syllogism; but, unfortunately, where it is not incomplete it is inaccurate.
  Of course nobody doubts that bounties are opposed to principles of Free Trade, but will retaliatory duties stop them? As a matter of fact they did not stop them in the case of Russia and America. America put on countervailing duties against Russia, and Russia responded by putting a maximum tariff on American machinery. Countervailing duties did not stop bounties in the case of India. [An HON. MEMBER: Yes.] We have heard that practically admitted this afternoon. Why did these duties not stop bounties in India? For the very same reason that will operate in the case of these bounties. The President of the Board of Trade explained to us the twofold disadvantage under which our sugar refining trade lies. First of all he referred to the direct advantage of the bounty

  311
  given by the Government, but there is another advantage which the foreign producer gets which is perhaps more serious; for he obtains what is called the Cartel system, which depends not upon a direct bounty but upon a Protective duty. Germany and France have a surtax on sugar. They charge so much by way of excise duty and so much by way of Customs duty in order to prevent the importation of sugar into their countries. That surtax is to be retained under this Convention, the object of the Convention being to preserve the Protective system of those countries. It is by means of the surtax that the Cartel system operates. In this way you get a syndicate which will never be subject to competition from abroad, and they protect themselves at home by means of combination, and with security from that competition they are able to raise the price against the home consumer and lower the price for export. Therefore the Cartel system will remain in spite of this Convention.
  The President of the Board of Trade gave some figures which struck me as being very instructive. He said that there was a difference of about 3s. in one country and about 4s. 4d. in another by way of advantage under the Cartel system arising from the surtax. Therefore, although the abolition of bounties will raise the price in England, it will still leave an advantage to the foreign exporter as against the English refiner and the West Indian exporter, who will get very little benefit indeed from this Convention. I think, however, that the best way of treating the argument in favour of the Convention is to assume that the retaliatory duties will succeed to this extent, namely, that they will prevent the granting of bounties. Is it certain that if they do succeed to this extent they will therefore advance the cause of Free Trade? This Convention is expressly founded upon Protection. This Convention is a Protective document. Although we are to go on giving to Germany, France, and other Protecting countries the free run of our sugar market, yet we are not to have the free run of theirs. There is to be a Customs duty set up against us, and that is to be fixed at such a figure as any nation may consider sufficient for the protection of its own sugar industry. Just consider what that means. The German refiner has hitherto had
  312
  bounties from his Government. Instead of getting bounties he will henceforth get a somewhat enhanced price from the English consumer, and it will he something about equivalent to the bounty which he previously got from the German Government. The first result of this Convention will accordingly be that the English consumer will pay more for his sugar in order to save the German exchequer. The German exchequer will consequently save a considerable amount, and the equivalent to the German producer is to be the increased price paid by the English consumer. This does not seem to me much like a triumph for British diplomacy. Heaven help us if our trade and the livelihood of our industrial population are to be placed at the mercy of that kind of diplomacy.
  We have already had the German coal owner receiving a handsome bounty at the expense of the English producer, and now, apparently, the German exchequer is also to receive some benefit. Why should this relief be given to the German and French exchequers at a time when our own taxation has been burdened so much? This does not seem a favourable opportunity for us to put this additional burden on our people in order to save the exchequers of foreign countries. One might describe this as altruism run mad if it were really intended to be altruistic, and if it were intended to benefit Germany and draw that country towards Free Trade. I do not think that it is intended to draw Germany towards Free Trade, but the intention is to draw England towards Protection. The present Government have succeeded in doing what a few years ago would have been considered impossible. The signature of England has been attached to an international affirmation in favour of Protection. This Convention has been founded upon the right of each nation to protect its own market against the others by hostile tariffs; therefore it is not an unimportant circumstance that England should put its name to an international declaration of a Protectionist character. There is already a Free Trade Party, or, at least, the beginnings of one, both on the continent of Europe and in America, and that Party looks to England for example and encouragement.

  313
  I do not suppose that the governing class of any country in the world will take the trouble to master Free Trade as an abstract doctrine. Free Trade is more easily believed in if somebody else believes in it and practises it, and no doubt the principles of Free Trade throughout Europe and America have been greatly advanced by the devoted adhesion of England to Free Trade. That is now all at an end. If Protection were abandoned as a whole I think there would be a great deal to be said in favour of opposing these bounties, but Protection is not going to be abandoned as a whole. The policy of the Government is not to attack Protection as a whole, because the effect of this Convention is rather to preserve Protection. I think, Sir, that the English Government might very well leave Protectionist countries to see and feel the results of their own policy. They are beginning to see these results in the case of bounties which rest upon the same kind of fallacy as Protective duties. When once they have found out the results in the case of bounties they are very likely to find out the result in the case of Protective duties.
  Why on earth should we arrest that healthy process? The Government might remember that "It's an ill wind that blows nobody good." Well, the ill-wind of Protection, bad as it is, blows us some good. [An HON. MEMBER: No.] The hon. Member says "No." Consider what the position of England is as to these bounties. England sits at her open ports to receive an enormous tribute from all those foreign nations. Can any nation pay a more humiliating tribute to another? It is the tribute of economic ignorance. But the new economy, aided, I suppose, by the new diplomacy, rejects the tribute, and does it in order to preserve the general system of Protection. By all means let us fight Protection, but let us fight it altogether. Don't let us seek to protect it against itself. Don't let us try to save it from punishment while suffering it to remain. Hon. Members opposite may say: "What is your method of dealing with the bounties? The Government have chosen the Protective method; what is the proper method?" It is by the method of Free Trade, which has brought those nations to our door seeking to be relieved from the results of their folly. In the words of Sir Robert
  314
  Peel, the best way of fighting hostile tariffs and bounties is by open ports, and that is the Free Trade method. I suppose that method now is to be relegated by the Colonial Secretary to the limbo of old shibboleths. Well, it is the method by which we stand. You cannot defeat hostile tariffs by imitating them, and still less by this fatuous proposal to assist them by relieving them of their own consequences. When Protection begins to feel the results of its own folly, let us not try to save it from punishment by confirming it in its errors. Some hon. Members seem to think that Free Trade is a helpless sort of thing—a thing with no kind of fighting value. That was not the belief of the great masters of Free Trade when they laid down the great principle that the best way to fight hostile tariffs was by open ports. I do not know that it would be proper at the present time to go into the abstract reasons in favour of that maxim, but, at all events, one may appeal to the experience we have had of this policy. In the last fifty years every nation of Europe has been engaged in a tariff war with every other and today the unquestioned commercial supremacy rests with the one nation which has kept Free Trade as its defence and its weapon. There has no doubt been an absolute expansion of trade in Protectionist countries, but when you come to consider the price they have paid for it, and to look at their deficits, you will see whether the Free Trade principle has not been more efficient. You have in Germany a great population, and a better educated one, we are told, than our own. You have in France a more thrifty population than our own; and you have in America a population with every kind of natural advantage and absolutely incomparable natural resources. Yet America is not able to displace us in the sphere of international trade, great as her home trade is. Of course, if you look simply at a single trade and keep your eyes fixed on that trade, such as sugar refining at home and sugar growing in the West Indies, there may seem to be some plausibility in the reasons for retaliatory duties. The Under Secretary to the Board of Trade rather fell into the error of keeping his eyes upon the West

  315
  Indies and the sugar refining industry only. We have to look beyond that. When we are invited to reverse a whole policy we must look at the industries which have gained as well as to the industries which have lost. The industry which has lost in this case consists of about 12 firms employing 5,000 men. What are the industries that have gained? Why! there seems to be no end of them. They employ something like 250,000 men. Surely we ought to consider that comparison before we throw away the advantage brought to us by the economic folly of other nations. We ought above all to consider our own trade policy and preserve it intact. If we are going to modify it, don't let us throw it aside in points that punish our opponents and benefit us. Until the nations of Europe are willing to open their ports to Great Britain let us keep the benefit of their bounties, not only because of their material benefit, but because of the stern practical lesson they are teaching to the nations which are foolish enough to give them.
  MR. JAMES REID: I should like to say a few words on the subject of the sugar refiner, that much ill-used individual of whom so much has been said today. In the constituency I have the honour to represent nearly a half of the residuum of refiners who are left to us in the kingdom have their location. The town of Greenock for 130 years has been the leading sugar refining port, doing a large and prosperous business with the West Indies until it was ruined by these bounties. Hence we have in the town such names as Jamaica Street, Tobago Street, Antigua Street, and others, showing that in former times there was a connection with the West Indies which unhappily has in a great measure passed away. Of the twelve sugar refineries in the United Kingdom five are in my constituency, but these are not continuously working, I am sorry to say. At the same time, they are not by any means standing idle. Not so many years ago we had fourteen sugar houses in Greenock. We have been told by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that it is an insignificant industry, but it was not so until these bounties crippled it, and even now the numbers employed
  316
  are not a correct indication of the employment which the sugar industry gave for many years. Thousands of engineers have been thrown out of employment, and engineering shops have been closed, because there is no longer a demand for the refining machinery. There is not so much employment at the harbour for workmen as there would be if the sugar refining trade had continued as brisk as it was in former times. We are accused of being Protectionists. The late Lord Farrar has been quoted. He at one time would not assist in any way in abolishing bounties, but he described them latterly as "an abomination, bad and foolish things, revolting to his conscience." Mr. Gladstone has been quoted. He said to a deputation of working men in the early '80's—
  "My desire is that the British consumer should have both sugar and every other commodity at the lowest price at which it can be procured without arbitrary favour to any of those engaged in the competition. But I cannot regard with favour any cheapness which is produced by means of concealed subsidies of a foreign state to a particular industry, and with the effect of crippling and distressing capitalists and workmen engaged in the lawful branch of British trade."
  Is that Protection, may I ask? The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, who possibly may have, like many another man, changed his opinion as time went along, said on one occasion—
  "I say it would be impossible to find in the writings of any of those who advocate Free Trade any justification for the theory that bounties given in the way in which these bounties are given by Foreign Powers to the detriment of British producers cannot in some way be countervailed. My opinion of the bounty system I have never concealed, and I think that those Free Traders are very imprudent who contrive to identify the doctrine of Free Trade with the support of this abominable bounty system. The bounty system is inconsistent with Free Trade, and hostile to Free Trade, and it ought to be, I think it must be, I think it will be, soon abolished."
  A stalwart advocate of Free Trade, Sir Charles Cameron, formerly a Member of this House
  "hoped the Cabinet would put an end to a system which for forty years statesmen had deplored and lamented."
  I think I have proved that little bit of my case, at any rate. The confectioners claim to consume 400,000 tons. We grant they may, but that only represents one-fourth of the consumption.

  317
  Whence, therefore, their right to dictate, and whence their mandate to speak, as they try to do, for the 41,000,000 of our population? They want to pose as philanthropists, but their philanthropy does not go one inch further than their own pockets. At the Birmingham Trades Council Mr. Davies, a Member of the Cobden Club said—
  "We have met to-night, not to advocate the principle of Protection, as it would have (been impossible for me to be present under circumstances of that character. I have the honour to be a life member of the Cobden Club, and I am a Free Trader, and I appear on this platform as a Free Trader advocating the abolition of the foreign sugar bounties. We are here tonight not to ask the State to fix a fiscal incubus, but to remove a fiscal incubus which has practically ruined the great sugar industry."
  Mr. Davies concluded as follows: —
  "Now it appears to me that the greatest sinner of any in this matter is France. It is said that if only France would yield, then all other nations would follow. If that be so it seems to me that the Government should use its powerful influence with France in order that Free Trade with respect to sugar may be declared."
  The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce in a memorial to Lord Salisbury in 1899, said that
  "The business of sugar importing, sugar refining, manufacturing sugar into confectionery, jams, pastry, etc., is large and important in Glasgow, and the West of Scotland; and their cognate trades—such as sugar making, sugar machinery for use at home and for exportation, furnishing coals for refining and manufacturing sugar, and its sea and land carriage, etc. —are of more importance here than in any other district with which this Chamber is acquainted. This Chamber has examined and given most careful consideration to the question of the effect upon British interests of the sugar bounties paid by foreign Governments, and is unanimously of opinion that these bounties have worked, and are working, great evils to the sugar trade and inter-related trades of this country, as well as vital injury to many British Colonies and Dependencies."
  M. Martineau, who was present at the late Brussels Conference, in an able article in the current number of the New Liberal Review, entitled "Free Trade it Danger, says, referring to the Paris Conferences of 1876–7:—
  "Twenty-two years have elapsed since the report of the Select Committee, and bounties still go merrily on. Every attempt to abolish them has been met and defeated by the false cry of 'Free Trade in Danger.' It is those who have raised the cry who are really guilty of jeopardizing the maintenance of those essential principles of Free Trade which have played such a large part in the former greatness
  318
  and prosperity of our country. Woe to them, and woe to our commercial supremacy, if they persist."
  Mr. Yves Guyot, editor of the Siècle,last May read a paper before our Royal Statistical Society, and in the discussion which followed he quoted Sir Robert Giffen, who in 1879–80 was a strong defender of bounties, and had since said as follows, in manfully recanting his former opinions: —
  "He was not sure that he would have taken the same line if he had been able to look forward a quarter of a century and see what the result was to be of allowing these bounties to continue. People became wiser as time went on, and a good many of the assumptions which it was perhaps legitimate to make a quarter of a century ago had been falsified by events. But having had a quarter of a century's more experience, he was satisfied that these bounties must be treated as a great infraction of Free Trade, and that all the countries affected by them were quite entitled to take exceptional measures to put an end to them. Whatever we might gain temporarily in consequence of what foreign countries gave us by these bounties, they were not to be endured, and we should join in the general movement in favour of Free Trade."
  As to mineral waters, I spoke to a manufacturer as to what would be the effect of the abolition of the bounties on his trade, and he said it was all "fudge." The cost of the bottle, cork, and wire was two pence, and of the contents one farthing, and that the mineral water manufacturers lost more money in wrangling amongst themselves about filling one another's bottles than by the bounties. No trade deserves to exist which requires its raw material under cost price; or at any rate to drive a legitimate trader out of his business. What is wanted is a fair field, no favour, and an open door for imports and exports. I am aware it is said that the machinery and appliances of modern sugar refiners are not up to date. I am authorised to give that an unqualified denial, and to challenge inspection. If they are beaten in fair, honest, open competition, British sugar refiners will own it; but if beaten in unfair competition, and by nefarious bounties, they demand justice. In spite of reduced prices, increased consumption did not follow. For instance, the average price of sugar from 1872 to 1885 was 28s. 10d. per cwt. with an average increase of consumption of 32,000 tons; but from 1886 to 1898, when

  319
  the average price was 16s. per cwt. the increase was only 19,000 tons. My contention is "Let justice be done, though the heavens should fall."
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I rise to speak on this question in a clear and business-like way; but I should like to know whether it is perfectly true that the Government intend to make this measure a question of confidence. I thought that these subjects should be discussed in a free and open way, although my hon. friend below me says, "No, not at all." If the Government tell us that if in discussing this question they are beaten they shall go out of office, what is the good of our discussing this matter at all, even though it is a most vital one? We are entirely dependent on sugar grown abroad, because we cannot produce sugar in this country. The working man is the great consumer of sugar in this country, and what we have to consider is whether he can or will pay a largely increased price for that article of food. This is not altogether a question of whether bounties are carried to excess. The West Indies are only sending to us less than 50,000 tons of sugar a year, whereas we require 1,700,000 tons from the Continent and other parts of the world. It is all very well for refiners to say that they are being injured by the bounties. One would think that the refiners were doing a bad business, but look at the Tate and other sugar refining companies! I find that in 1871 600,000 tons of raw sugar were refined in England, whereas last year the amount refined was 625,000 tons, or an increase of 25,000 tons over what was then regarded as the most successful year of the trade. It is absurd to say that the refiners are suffering because of the bounties. Hon. Members who represent important working-class constituencies must be aware that the working men will rise against a proposal which is to increase the price of a staple article of food for themselves and their children by a halfpenny per pound. It seems to me that the Government is very ill-advised in bringing forward this matter at this time, which would need for its adequate discussion four or five days.
  320
  It being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [this day], "That this House approves the policy embodied in the Convention relating to Sugar, signed at Brussels on the 5th day of March. 1902, and, in the event of that Convention receiving the ratifications required to make it binding, is prepared to adopt the necessary measures to enable His Majesty to carry out its provisions."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Which Amendment was—
  "To leave out all the words after the word 'House,' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words `declines to approve of the Convention relating to Sugar, signed at Brussels on the 5th day of March, 1902.'"— (Sir William Harcourt.)
  Question again proposed "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: For the last forty years this subject has been engaging the attention of the country. Conventions have been entered into, and there was a Bill introduced into Parliament to enable the Government to carry into effect the Convention of the 13th August, 1888. With some other Members of Parliament, I, at that time, foresaw the enormous importance of the matter. It is true that there was a great amount of agitation got up by the refiners. I went down into my constituency, having previously communicated with Lord Salisbury and other members of his Cabinet, and delivered a speech, a report of which was sent to Lord Salisbury. The Bill afterwards disappeared from the Orders of the Day. But it was evidently the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has it in his mind to bring forward next Session. I cannot understand why the Government should wish to rush this important matter through, seeing that Parliament has been specially; summoned in order to deal with the

  321
  Education Bill and the London Water Bill. This measure is of the utmost importance. The President of the Board of Trade says his idea is not to have countervailing duties, but he proposes to proceed on the lines of the Bill which was withdrawn.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! There is no Bill before the House at present, and the hon. Member must not argue on a Bill which has been withdrawn.
  SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: We have been told that a Bill is to be brought in next Session, and my object is to show the similarity which must exist between the two Bills. We are asked to pass this Motion tonight after only a few hours discussion, and if the Bill is to be thrown at our heads in that manner surely we ought to try and get at the meaning of it. We ought to have a Commission thoroughly to inquire into the subject. It is a most serious step to interfere with the course of trade. It seems to me that, instead of asking foreign Governments to take off their bounties, it would be far better if we gave a bounty, not only to the West Indies, but to India, Canada, Queensland, and other places to produce sugar for us. Otherwise, one of these days we shall be thrown entirely on the Continent for our sugar. At the present time Continental countries are making more sugar than is required. In Germany there was in stock on the 1st August this year 590,000 tons of sugar as compared with 258,200 tons last year, and no doubt if this Bill becomes law English consumers will have to pay a higher price for their sugar. The policy of the Government of saying to the persons from whom we buy, "You are not charging enough; put the price up," is altogether beyond a commercial man's understanding. we consume 1,700,000 tons annually, but only about one-fortieth of that comes from the west Indies. It is the working classes of this country who would suffer. It is, in my opinion, a false policy, and I am sure we shall deeply regret it. I cannot support the Government on this occasion. I would like to make a sporting offer to take the opinion of a London constituency on the subject.
  MR. W. F. LAWRENCE: We are here tonight on a very important occasion. By the time
  322
  the evening has passed the Colonies will have a charter for freedom of cultivation such as for the past fifty or sixty years they have never enjoyed. Hon. Members opposite have been so intent upon interests that specially concern their constituencies that they cannot look beyond to the larger questions which concern the Empire. It is the case that for the last sixty years the West Indies have never had the opportunity of advancing their staple cultivation without unfair competition. As far back as 1848 Free Trade compelled them to compete with slave-grown sugar in the Brazils and the United States. They had no sooner got over the effects of that competition than they were face to face with this bounty question, which, beginning about 1860, has become extremely active in the last twenty-five years. I shall be surprised if, after hearing the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Dulwich, he does not go with me into the lobby. The hon. Baronet pointed out that the West Indies now send only 40,000 tons of sugar to this country. Why is that? It is because they cannot get fair play in the market of the mother country, and they go to America because the Americans have long since seen the injustice of this bounty system, and have anticipated it by putting on countervailing duties against the system. It is an extraordinary fact that through all the years of this treatment the loyalty of the West Indies has never been doubted, and I am sure that though they have suffered so much they will readily forget the past, and look forward to a fair and reasonable future. The West Indies do not wish to have their produce enhanced; they ask for justice. They have no sympathy with the policy of doles—they absolutely repudiate that principle. They desire only to grow sugar. They will stand the uncertainty of the trade; they are convinced that they have climate, soil, and enterprise in their favour; and if they have not now the capital they will have it by their own credit, as long as it can be shown that under a fair system capital will get its reward. They do not ask for doles—only for fair treatment. I do not believe, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, that the population of this country is only concerned in the £ s. d. of the matter; in fact I was very much surprised with

  323
  the way in which the right hon. Gentleman treated this question. The West Indies only ask for fair play, and not for preference. They want to grow their commodities, and are prepared to stand the rub of the market. It is absurd to think that the price of sugar can become to any appreciable extent higher than it has been during the last ten years. If the Convention comes into force, they have, whether for beet or cane, the full powers of production of the tropical and temperate zones to supply the sugar market, and I affirm that it is beyond the bounds of possibility—although I am not so ready as some hon. Members opposite to prophesy what is going to happen—that with that wide field of production open to them, the price of sugar can rise to any considerable extent. It must also be remembered that owing to the depression of the cane sugar industry they have not been able to make those improvements in cultivation and in the science of manufacture that have been possible in the case of beet under artificial and Government aid. It may well be that in the course of the next few years, when they can afford to borrow money with fair expectation of adequate return, we shall find the processes in cane sugar industry enormously improved. The hon. Member for the Rotherham Division seems to think that this great change will not benefit the mother country. As an agriculturist here at home I am in a position to say that I fully believe we should be able to grow beet in this country. For several years I have gone through the process of beet cultivation here, and it has been carefully tried in different parts of the country, and I believe the possibilities of turning out beet capable of bearing a high saccharine return are very great. When we consider that the proportion of the return on cane is only something like one-sixth more than that on beet per acre, that the growth of cane takes about eighteen months against only a year for beet, and the great distance and consequent freight charges which cane has to sustain in carriage, we may fairly conclude that there will he no more interesting economic question lying in front of us than that as to whether beet or cane will be the better product in the long run. I am prepared to say that if we can only grow beet in this country we shall see many of our poor country districts, which now find very great difficulty in making
  324
  ends meet, improve in the same way that has been the case in Germany and Austria. When we consider the enormous tracts of ground in different parts of the world only waiting for capital to see a possibility of remunerative return to be thrown into cultivation, it is certain that there will be an enormous increase in the growth of cane sugar, which will bring an increased prosperity to all the subsidiary industries, such as shipping and machinery construction, dependent upon it.
  I speak not merely as interested in the West Indies, and as an English agriculturist, but I speak officially on behalf of the refiners of Liverpool. I will leave the matter of refining to my colleagues who are specially conversant with the case, but I would like to say this, in case time prevents them being called upon, that it is not the case that the refiners have made any gain owing to the arrangement of the duties by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. Under this Convention, if carried out, assuredly we shall have a wider area from which to draw the most important staple of sugar than is open to any other staple on the face of the globe. Another point is that this Convention is nothing new. There is a precedent for it. It is exactly analogous to the case of the Cobden treaty thirty or forty years ago. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Shields affirmed that the quiet example of this country in favour of Free Trade was drawing others to follow us. I never heard a more preposterous statement coming from a gentleman so well informed as he usually is. What are these countries that are following our example? The French Minister, in speaking on that subject, described the Convention as a work of peace. In the face of that opinion we need not fear the criticism of those who think that in any sense we are going back upon the doctrines of Free Trade in this country, under which the country has for a long time distinctly flourished. I am a strong supporter of those who desire that such commodities as can be most easily grown shall be most freely exchanged, and because I feel that for many a long year the great industry of the West Indies has been cribbed, cabined, and confined by the selfish and ignorant

  325
  policy of the mother country, I welcome this day the action of the Government, and I am willing to forget the past in looking forward to the future.
  MR. PARTINGTON: I do not propose to take up more than a few minutes of the time of the House; but I should like to say a few words on this very interesting and important subject. I listened to the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the principal reason for the ratification of the Convention was that the sugar planters in the West Indies ought to have a reasonable margin of profit. He said further that if they got £10 a ton for their sugar that would be a reasonable margin. I am connected with manufacture, and I should like to be also guaranteed a reasonable margin of profit. There are plenty of trades in this country at present whose margin of profit is very small; and many of the shareholders of these trading companies think that it is not in any way reasonable. If the right hon. Gentleman will inquire into the position of the cotton mills in Lancashire, he will see that the margin of profit is very small indeed; and that, in some cases, it is nonexistent. I do not know whether this is a new development of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, or whether he is prepared to say that all trades in the country are to have a reasonable margin of profit. If so, all interested in trade will be very pleased to hear it. I understood from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth, that they can grow sugar in Cuba at £6 to £7 per ton, which will give the growers a profit. If we are trying to guarantee the growers in the West Indies a profit at £10 per ton, surely we shall be guaranteeing the sugar planters in Cuba something more than a "reasonable margin of profit." The President of the Board of Trade said that he did not expect that during the next ten years the price of sugar would be above the average for the last ten years. What, in that event, will be the good to the Colonies of ratifying the Convention? I think, however, we have a better authority than the President of the Board of Trade in regard to this matter. We have the authority of Sir Henry Norman, and he tells us that if the Convention is ratified, he expects that sugar will be ½d. a lb.
  326
  more than at the present time. That means, on the consumption of sugar in this country, a sum of between £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. One-third of the sugar imported into this country is used in manufacture—in the confectionery and mineral water trades—and, therefore, these trades will have to pay one-third of the £7,000,000. I wonder whether the President of the Board of Trade will guarantee the confectionery and mineral water trades a reasonable margin of profit if the price of sugar increases. The other two-thirds of the sugar imported is used by the general consumers who are the working classes principally. They will have to pay two-thirds of the £7,000.000, and we all know that many of the working classes cannot afford to pay anything more than they are paying at present. In several large towns it has been shown that something like 30 per cent. of the population is living on the borders of poverty; and I think it is a great shame that we should impose this extra tax on the working classes. We are asked to run the risk of having to pay seven to eight millions more for our sugar for the sake of assisting the West Indies whose total export of sugar only amounts to about three millions sterling. I believe something like five-sixths of the sugar exported from the West Indies goes to the United States. The United States puts a countervailing duty on bounty-fed sugar; and I should have therefore thought that the West Indies had already got what they wanted. If the bounties are removed, then the West Indian planters will have to compete with continental sugar growers; and I am afraid that their position will be worse than it is at present. The argument of the Government on this occasion is some-what contrary to some of their arguments in the past. When they put a duty on coal they told us the foreigner would pay it; and when they put a duty on imported wheat they told us again that the foreigner would pay it. But we on this side of the House were uncertain as to whether the foreigner would pay these duties. We know that in this case the foreigner gives us between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000 by selling sugar under cost price; and I think that, when we have a certain gift like that we ought to accept it with open

  327
  arms. I am an Imperialist, like the Colonial Secretary was in 1881 when he said—
  "Our policy had been for many years to prefer the large consuming interest of the whole community to the small producing interest of any single class."
  That is why I intend to vote against the Motion.
  MR. CUST: I venture to ask the brief indulgence of the House for a few minutes while I endeavour to explain why I feel a great difficulty in giving my vote in favour of this Convention. In doing this, I wish to go back, for a few moments, to some of the facts which have been stated by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; because, if I may say so with great respect, the facts cannot be too often presented to the House. Now, Sir, we suffer manifestly and obviously in every direction from the effects of foreign protection; and it seems to me to be perfectly amazing that the only action we propose to take with regard to foreign protection should be directed against the only form of foreign protection which is directly beneficial to us. We all know very well what the position of agriculture is. What has our diplomacy done to help it? Is English wheat of less importance than West Indian sugar? Again, a Committee is sitting upstairs to inquire into the gigantic shipping subsidies granted by foreign Powers, which are mainly and almost avowedly directed against our maritime supremacy; but no Government has yet thought fit to enter into diplomatic relations and to use their influence in its strongest way in order to reduce the unfair competition under which our shipping has laboured, and is likely to labour still further in the future. It is absolutely only in this case of sugar that the British consumer derives great benefit from the strange methods of foreign finance; and it is only in this case of sugar that Government after Government, since 1863 onwards, have called Conference after Conference in order to strain every nerve to get rid of the great advantages which foreign finance gives us. It would seem that our diplomacy has by an unaccustomed effort at last aroused France, Germany, and Austria to a sense of the lavish generosity with which, in this particular, they have been treating us we may take it on trust that France,
  328
  Germany, and Austria never intended to do so; and we might surely have left the fact to themselves to discover.
  At the risk of brevity, and at some risk of repetition, let me ask the House how does the case stand now, and how will this Convention affect it? I speak as one not interested in any part of the sugar trade, not as an expert, but merely as a commonplace Member of Parliament. We are all agreed that after bread-stuffs, sugar, in all its forms, is the most important item in the food of the people. We know that from patent blacking upwards it enters in a hundred ways into the daily life of men and women. We know that twenty trades depend on it, and that more than 200,000 hands are directly or indirectly engaged in dealing with it. In 1900 the sugar exported from this country, excluding, of course, all consumption within the United Kingdom, amounted to over two and a quarter million pounds sterling. But it is not necessary to go very far into facts and figures which are probably familiar to most hon. Members, and which, indeed, have been already quoted. In round numbers we import 1,600,000 tons of sugar, and of this we take 1,500,000 tons from the bounty paying countries, or 92 per cent. of the whole bulk. Further, we import on the other hand some 40,000 tons from our West Indian possessions, or only 2½ per cent. of our total sugar supply. By the effect of these bounties, direct and indirect, England gets sugar extraordinarily cheap, and I understand, from what I believe to be good authority, that we can buy sugar in London now at from 9s. to 10s. per cwt. which in Germany, the country of its growth and origin, would cost 29s. or 30s. per cwt. These are the advantages which this country enjoys under the existing system. I do not think that the debate tonight will result in palming off doctrines of Free Trade and Protection. The issue is sufficiently clear. What we have to consider, in the sheer commercial interests of the country, is what we stand to gain, and what we stand to lose by any alteration in the present system. It is calculated by Sir Henry Norman, who was Chairman of the very Select Committee appointed to inquire into the whole subject, in his Minority Report, that if we were foolish enough to impose countervailing duties

  329
  against foreign bounties and if those duties had the desired effect (I quote his own words)—
  "The people of the United Kingdom will have to pay more for their sugar than they do at present, perhaps to the extent of ½d. a lb.
  We may, therefore, put at that figure the amount which foreign bounties, as they now exist, and as paid exclusively by the foreigner, deduct from the price we pay on 92 per cent. of the sugar we consume. That is to say, if the bounties were abolished the people of this country would have to pay, on Sir Henry Norman's calculation, ½d a lb. more for their sugar; and it may be remembered when we talk of sugar that every man, woman, and child in the United Kingdom consumes annually per head some 90 lbs, of sugar. Therefore, this additional imposition cannot be classed as a negligeable quantity. Now, supposing this calculation to be accurate, or anything in the least like accurate, ½d. per lb. on 1,500,000 tons works out at something between £7,000,000 and £8,000,000; so that it would appear, unless the whole of the statistical reasoning drawn from the best available sources be fallacious, and utterly fallacious—as indeed I hoped to hear i was—the result of this Convention will be that we shall be taxed £7,000,000 sterling annually and shall relieve the foreigner of a burden of an equivalent amount. That is a sum which would practically pay the interest on the whole cost of the late war. There are many sacrifices which we could make; but if we are asked to make a sacrifice of this size and character we ought to have a certainty of great compensating advantages.
  Now, Sir, what are we going to gain if this Convention is ratified? I will leave out of my argument the rather foolish phrases Which I have read and heard which tell us that by this Convention we shall advance the principles of Free Trade amongst the unenlightened foreign nations, and that a Free Trade Government must vote against bounties. I do not imagine that the people of this country are willing to pay £7,000,000 a year in order to inculcate on our foreign rivals commercial principles on which we are not all at all firmly convinced ourselves. That would be an Education Bill of even a more
  330
  difficult and expensive character than the one on which we have been so long engaged in failing to understand. Some other reason for this Convention must, therefore, be sought for; and it is to be found, we are told, in the salvation of our West Indian possessions; and, in a lesser degree, in the encouragement of the English sugar refining trade. It was o on these points that the President of the Board of Trade mainly based his case. I propose to leave the question of the refiners and the machinery used in the trade out of the argument. That point has been already eloquently and ably represented to the House by hon. Members who are experts on the subject. As far as I know the sugar refining trade has been, to a large extent, a foreign trade; it was always a small trade, and now it is a dwindling trade. It employs a very small number of English workmen as compared with sugar; and, except in a. few very exceptional instances, it was beaten out of England by Germany long before the modern bounties came into full operation. I am only venturing to represent my own opinion; and I think the House will not be short of hon. Members to support the sugar refining trade.
  It remains now to consider the question of saving the West Indies. I quite agree that we are bound to the West Indies, and that the West Indies are bound to us by every tie of old relationship, of sentiment and of a singularly glorious tradition. No more splendid part in the history of England has been enacted on so large and glorious a field as in the West Indies; and I feel sure that every Englishman is eager to sympathise with and to support the generous efforts which the Colonial Secretary has made to assist the prosperity of our West Indian possessions. But we have to remember that our West Indian possessions, on which the President of the Board of Trade so largely based his case tonight, are really only a part, a small part and a not very important part, of the British Empire. That may seem brutal, but we are discussing a commercial question, and commerce is nothing if not brutal. I would point out in this particular relation that the West Indies furnish us with only 2½per cent. of our supply of sugar, while four-fifths of their sugar trade is concerned with the United

  331
  States, under particularly favourable relations, which they will probably forfeit if the Convention is ratified. I suppose that even the most devoted West Indian of them all will allow that there must, of necessity, be some limit of sacrifice beyond which this country cannot go. Those who have read the Report of the Commission will know the enormous difficulties of the problem. And what is the general conclusion of the Commission as regards the objects of this Convention. I cannot help thinking, with regretful respect, that some of the conclusions of the Commission have not been fully represented by those who have spoken for the Government tonight. The Commissioners are only doubtful whether the abolition of bounties would not (in their own words)
  "involve evils out of all proportion to those which it is desired to remove."
  They not only refuse, with the exception of Sir Henry Norman, to recommend countervailing duties, but they point out that even if these far-reaching steps were taken, and the price of sugar rose to the highest point to which such political action might bring it, even such a rise would not place the West Indian sugar industry in a satisfactory condition. It is doubtful, they say, if the improvement would be permanent. Even, to quote the Report:—
  "If the policy of imposing countervailing duties were now adopted in the United Kingdom the West Indies would find themselves, after a time, in a position no better than that which they at present occupy."
  And a little further on, considering the sugar policy of the United States and of other countries, the Commissioners add—and these are important words—
  "It is not clear that even if the bounties were abolished, another crisis of a similar character might not arise in the West Indies at a future day."
  That is to say, that even if we take up the hazardous and expensive line of action which this Convention involves, the advantages to the West Indies would be, in the opinion of those who have a right to speak on the subject, more than problematical. I think that ought to carry great weight with the House. What the Committee did recommend in its somewhat discursive Report on the various Islands was, regular grants in aid on the most generous scale, the introduction of new industries and new
  332
  methods of agriculture, better lines of communication, and temporary assistance, which would not alter our whole financial policy or endanger us with foreign countries, but which would probably, in the long run, land the West Indies in a more prosperous and secure position. Mr. Sydney Oliver, the Colonial Secretary and Acting Governor of Jamaica, who was Secretary to the Commission and has a very competent knowledge of the whole subject, was quoted to-night, perhaps in a wrong sense, as a witness to the extraordinary prosperity of Jamaica. I do not think the speech referred to does that; but what it does do is to give an account of various new methods and branches of agriculture. The figures are so interesting that I think they are worth quoting. Coconuts have increased 47 per cent., oranges 54 per cent., pimento 38 per cent., bananas 36 per cent., and coffee to the enormous amount of 88 per cent., whereas the increase of sugar amounts only to 0·5 per cent., or 1s. on every £100. Surely if this Convention is going to make the price of sugar so high as to make the fortunes of the West Indies, the point of these statistics would seem to show that the salvation and security of the West Indies lies, not in any great change in our financial policy, but in a judicious and continued assistance to the agricultural development of the West Indies.
  I think, then, Sir, that the passing of this Convention will not save the West Indies; and nothing has been said to-night, even in the highly elaborate arguments of the President of the Board of Trade, to show that there is any certainty that the West Indian possessions will be saved by this Convention. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with hypothetical questions; and he offered hypothetical objections to what he called vague and unsubstantial statements. If the Convention will not help to save the West Indies, it certainly will not abolish bounties. In the first place Russia. Egypt, Brazil, the United States and other sugar producing countries had not joined in the scheme; and that, in my humble opinion, vitiates the whole value of the Convention. Even the parties to the Convention are maintaining their Cartel systems. In the second place, when these countries pretend to abolish

  333
  direct and indirect bounties, is it to be really believed that a country like Germany, in the middle of very great commercial expansion, which is checked for the present, will abolish her preferential railway rates and her subsidised line of steamers, which are clearly an indirect bounty on produce during the period of transit. It seems to me that it is idle to suppose that Germany would do that. There is one further point with reference to the extent by which this Convention will tie our hands in the future. We read that the Government of Great Britain declares that—
  "No bounty, direct or indirect, shall be granted to sugar through the Crown Colonies during the duration of the Convention, and that no preference shall be granted in the United Kingdom to Colonial sugars as against sugars from any of the contracting States."
  And we are asked to pass this novel, this entangling, this humiliating abnegation, in the same year in which the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Premiers, in a blaze of Imperial glory, formally published their pious aspirations towards preferential treatment within the Empire. We are also to submit the Convention to the self-governing Colonies. Queensland is a large sugar producing country, and likely to be larger; and has a protecting tariff of her own in the nature of a bounty. The Government will have no power over Queensland except moral influence. Supposing Queensland repudiates the Convention, what are you going to do? You cannot coerce her; and is the British Government to be obliged to enact countervailing duties against Queensland sugar in favour of French, German or Australian sugar, and this, too, with a view to the closer union of the Empire.
  It is with very great regret that I cannot support this Convention. It seems to me, at its best, rather futile and hazardous, and at its worst directly dangerous. We are likely by its provisions to lose a great deal of money, a great deal of commerce, and a great deal of employment at home, and to run the risk of very grave, very serious, and very needless complications abroad. I do most sincerely hope and pray, if it be possible, that the Government will be induced to leave this question an open one for their supporters. I do not think that any Government has ever received more
  334
  loyal and devoted support than the present Government has from its supporters. We have backed the Government through thick and thin, through good report and through evil report, and stranger still, we are going to back them through the Report of the Education Bill. This step, if I may venture humbly to represent my view to my leaders, is one of more than national importance. It is a great commitment for the future, the result of which even those who are responsible for it cannot foresee. There is a definite alternative in the first scheme of the Colonial Secretary. It still remains open. It would, I think, be a great mistake if this question were hustled through in an ill-considered and hasty manner, as it will be should we be forced to a Party division tonight.
  MR. THOMAS SHAW: It appears to me that one thing is pretty certain, and that is that when we have listened to an appeal from a regular supporter of His Majesty's Government, such as we have just heard, that appeal shows where the truth of the argument lies. When the supporter of the Government implores the Government to leave the matter an open question, then indeed that is the best of all testimony that if;he matter were left open the Government would fail to secure a majority. What is now proposed is very dangerous. It is impossible to estimate the entanglements which will arise from this measure; and I submit that the observations made by the hon. Member who has just spoken are well founded, and that it is indeed surprising that the one form of Protection which has been attacked by the Government is that form of Protection under which large bodies of the consuming public of this country reap a steady and constant benefit. But I desire tonight not to enter on the general question; but to submit the views which occur to me with regard, particularly, to the state of our West Indian possessions. I entirely agree with the observations which have been made that it is the duty of the Government to watch over the development of our Colonies, and to safeguard: their interests, subject, of course, to the

  335
  condition that, in doing so, we shall not, on the one hand, depart from sound principles of finance, or, on the other hand, involve ourselves in international entanglements.
  I would ask the House to consider, for a moment, what the position of the West Indies is in reference to this matter of sugar. It produces annually about 250,000 tons of sugar, of which this country consumes between 40,000 and 50,000 tons. The rest of the output goes to the United States, which is far and away the best customer of the West Indies for sugar. Therefore, in wishing to benefit the West Indies with reference to its sugar produce, we ought to ascertain how the West Indies would stand with regard to their best customer. It is not generally known that it has been reported by the West India Royal Commission (paragraph 74) that in addition to a "high protective duty," "local bounties" are granted in the United States for the production of sugar. The result of this proposal will thus apparently be that we shall have under the extraordinary stipulations of this Convention instantly to impose a countervailing duty as against the United States. Observe what the result of that would be with regard to the West Indies. The result would be that they would be at once confronted with a countervailing duty directed against a British colonial product. The West Indies are in this very peculiar position. At present, owing to the proximity of the United States, they have been able to surmount the two difficulties in the way of their achieving an entrance into the United States market. They have surmounted not only a bounty on the production of sugar in the United States, but also the protective duty there. What is now proposed is, in addition to these barriers at present imposed against the entry of West Indian sugar into the United States, to put over and above them a third barrier higher than all, namely, a countervailing duty which the West Indies would have to overcome before their sugar entered the United States market. At present, in my view, West Indian sugar has an easier entry to the States than the German, French, or Austrian, against all of which
  336
  latter there is—on account of its being bounty fed — a countervailing duty. That privilege of an easier entry to its best market is now to cease! The result would be most disastrous to the West Indies. Surely, the time has arrived when it is the duty of this country to conserve and protect the market between the West Indies and the United States. The United States has recently acquired the huge possession of Cuba; and the opposition of Cuba will indeed be serious enough without confronting the West Indies with this new barrier. In order to present a case for benefiting the West Indies we are putting on them a fresh, a real, and a heavy burden with regard to their best customer, which will practically prevent the entry of West Indian sugar into the United States. It is said that after all that will be largely met by the increased price of West Indian sugar in our own markets. I want to know what is the opinion of the Government in regard to that. No one could have heard with more pleasure than I did the speech of the Under Secretary for the Board of Trade, but I failed to gather from that speech whether he argued that the price of West Indian sugar would be raised. I gathered from some of his arguments that he hardly thought it would; but if it be not raised, and raised very emphatically, I think the West Indies will give us very little thanks for the result of our diplomacy. But if the price is raised, observe what the position will be in this country. West Indian sugar will be confronted by German, Austrian, and French products in our home markets, and under what conditions will West Indian sugar be able to compete? We will not have abolished bounties in the continental nations, because they will continue under the cover and name of a surtax, the effect of which will be that all Continental nations will be permitted to place a duty of 2s. 6d. a cwt. on their products. These nations export two-thirds of their products, and consequently there will be an advantage to all the Continental nations in the: shape of a surtax to the extent of 10d. per cwt. upon their entire output. What will be the result? It is said that we will have an open market and an increased price for West Indian sugar;

  337
  but West Indian sugar has to be borne from the West Indies, a distance of between 3,000 and 4,000 miles, and will have to compete with products coming from Ostend, Rotterdam, and Hamburg. For every hundred miles the continental product is borne, the colonial product must be borne a thousand miles. Is not that sufficient to show that West Indian sugar cannot compete on equal terms? By the increased cost to the producer and transmitter in the West Indies, the market is loaded in favour of the Continental commodity by the effect of distance, and still further loaded by the 10d. surtax. The thing is absolutely ridiculous, as a penny would sway the market in favour of sugar from any quarter; but when the difference is 10d. in favour of Continental producers, that shows the futility of a diplomacy which, in the name of abolishing bounties, preserved them under the name of surtax. The! West Indian market will be disturbed and distorted from the States to Britain, and the result here will be as bad, if not worse, to the West Indies than it is at the present moment.
  There is the other and larger element. In order to do this we have unquestionably to raise the price of sugar, not to the West Indies, but to the people of this country. Are we justified in imposing a tax of £8,000,000 sterling on the people of this country in order to perform a fantastic trick of this kind with West Indian finance? I do not know what may be the result with regard to foreign nations. It will undoubtedly be productive of something in the nature of a tariff war. We shall, I suppose, at once have to impose countervailing duties against Russia and the United States, and then we should be in the same position with regard to the United States as was Russia recently. The long and short of the matter is that this is an attempt to ride two horses. You are attempting, on the one hand, to benefit the West Indies, and on the other to conciliate and promote the sugar refining interest. I was surprised to hear that the interest of the refiner Was to be treated as the principal interest, and that of the manufacturer from refined sugar as subsidiary. There are 250,000 people employed in those industries, which have been managed with the most consummate skill, and
  338
  have gradually commanded the markets of the world, and of whose manufactures we export about £2,500,000 worth per annum. The refining interest employs 5,000 men, or, with the allied trades, say 10,000. So that you have 10,000 men employed in the principal interest, forsooth, and 250,000 in the subsidiary interests. I never heard the like of it. From the point of view of the West Indies, of the sugar industry as a whole, and, above all, of the general consuming British public, I submit that this proposal stands condemned.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, supported, in his opening remarks, the appeal which was made to the Government by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey—namely, that the Government should in this case make the decision what is called an open question, instead of, I suppose, putting on, as is usually the case, the Government tellers. Of course, in one sense every question is an open question. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bermondsey has declared his intention of voting against the Government. This is an open question, therefore, with him, and it may be an open question in the same way with others of my hon. friends who have failed to be convinced by the arguments of those who have supported this Convention. But if the meaning of the appeal is that we should not take the ordinary course with regard to a Government measure, then I must point out to my hon. friend and to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who has supported him, that that would involve the Government in a charge of international breach of faith and dishonour. We have to the best of our ability represented this country in the Conference at Brussels. We have come to what is practically an unanimous decision with the Powers, and we, and all the other Powers, are equally bound to do everything to show that we are sincere in accepting the provisions to which we agreed; and that we are ready to do our best to promote their adoption. To say to the House of Commons on this occasion that we will adopt the extremely rare course which is occasionally adopted by Governments where a matter is not of pressing or practical importance, or where perhaps the members of the Government

  339
  themselves are divided on the subject—to say that we will adopt that course with regard to a Convention to which we unanimously agreed, would be to take a course which certainly would throw discredit upon English diplomacy.
  I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, and I must confess that, although I have devoted a great deal of time to the subject, many years ago as President of the Board of Trade, and now for a considerable number of years as Secretary of State for the Colonies, I was really unable to follow him or to understand exactly at what he was driving. If I do injustice to his argument it may be want of intelligence on my part, but, at all events, it is not want of good intention. If I understand him, he argued that, in spite of this Convention, bounties would still continue in consequence of something which he called a surtax, the effect of which I do not think he exactly appreciates. But I put this to him as an alternative. In our opinion the surtax has been fixed at a rate which is not compatible with the giving of any bounty or advantage which need be taken into practical or appreciable consideration. But if I am wrong in that-—if it be the fact that we are all wrong, that those who attended the Conference on our behalf and on behalf of foreign nations, and those experts who advised them, were all wrong, and that the hon. and learned Gentleman alone knows the real facts connected with this complicated sugar question, then, I say, why on earth need he trouble himself about the Convention, why predict all these evil results when, according to his own argument, it will have no effect at all?
  Then the hon. and learned Gentleman went into another matter which has been raised by other hon. Members, which I will deal with very briefly indeed. He expressed a fear of what will happen if. under the terms of the Convention we are forced to take steps to penalise Russian sugar, and he assumed all kinds of terrible results that might accrue to the trade of this country. Now, I am one of those who believe that we must carry out our own fiscal system in our own way. I shall show hereafter that we are carrying it out in our own way, and. so long as we continue to be responsible for the affairs of
  340
  the country, that will be our policy. We are going to carry out our own fiscal arrangements in our own way, without the slightest reference to what foreign countries may think about it, and we are not going to be terrified by those threats which are put forward with some indiscretion, as I think, by the Party opposite, as to what things will be done to us if we do what we think to be best for British interests by foreign countries who are more or less directly interested. The fact is, that with regard to Russia, Russian exports to this country are a mere fraction of her produce and a mere fraction of our supply. If we were to pass an ordinance tomorrow prohibiting the introduction of Russian sugar, it would make not the slightest difference either to Russian industries or to British industries. The matter is really not one of the slightest practical importance; but even if it were, if in the interests of this country we thought it right and proper to exclude a large supply of sugar from this country, I should regard it entirely from the point of view of British industries, and I should not regard it from the point of view of the interests of Russia or of any other country.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, in replying to the very careful and lucid and complete statement of the Government case which was made by my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, insinuated that, in his opinion, that speech had been neither concise nor lively.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I said it was.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there are insinuations by affirmation as well as by negation, and I think I do not misrepresent him when I say that he suggested that my right hon. friend's statement was neither concise nor lively. I will not call the right hon. Gentleman's speech "portentous," as he objects to the phrase, but I am sure he will not be offended if I say that that speech also was neither concise nor lively. I make these prefatory observations only in order to excuse myself to the House. This is a very complicated subject and a very difficult subject. It deals with very

  341
  important theories. Political economy has always been a dry science, and it therefore deals with theories which are necessarily dry, and it deals with a vast mass of facts, every one of which is disputed. In these circumstances I have no hope whatever that I shall excel either my right hon. friend or the right hon. Gentleman, or that I shall be able to make, on this occasion at any rate, a concise or lively speech. I would have gone further, and said that it was not in the power of any human being to do so if it were not for one of the most admirable speeches, short though it was, to which I have ever listened in the House of Commons—I mean the brilliant effort of my hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. I have said it is a very complicated question, and surely it is not made less so by the fact that the arguments against the Convention are mutually contradictory—that is to say, they are more or less inconsistent. The opposition is there—that is consistent enough—but the reasons given for the opposition are discordant, and in replying on the debate I have to go over a great deal of ground, and deal separately with all these various and conflicting statements.
  I think I may at the outset say that the issues the House has to decide are really very simple, and are only two in number. I would call them the material and the moral issues. The material issue is the pocket question, the question of whether or not bounties are to the pecuniary advantage of this country, or to the advantage of the industries of this country. That is the first question. The second question, which I call the moral question, goes, in my opinion, very deep down into the foundation of our Empire. It is this—Are we prepared to say that the pecuniary question, and that alone, is to decide our policy? Are we to say that we are ready to repudiate the principles of common justice if it be found that the adoption of those principles may involve us in more or less pecuniary loss? Now, as to the pecuniary question, there is one thing which seems to me to have been lost sight, of on the other side of the House. I regard their calculations—I do not say it in any offensive sense—as absurd, because they are so purely hypothetical, I
  342
  regard their predictions as absurd, because the same predictions have been. made, to my knowledge, for the last twenty-five years and have always proved false; and they are at liberty if I make any predictions to regard mine with. equal disfavour. The fact is, this is a case on which nobody can dogmatise as to the future. [Ironical OPPOSITION cheers, and counter cheers.] I am glad to be cheered from both sides of the House. I can only say that had that statement been so generally approved of and so generally accepted at the beginning of the debate it would have saved at least three-fourths of the speeches to which we have listened.
  My first point is this, that in any estimate of pecuniary advantage you must not consider only a possible temporary advantage, but you must consider also the permanent result; and that leads me to say that in matters of economics, if you can agree upon a principle, you must accept that principle, and act upon it in spite of questions of temporary expediency. That is what distinguishes the old Free Traders, the authors of Free Trade, from those who now parade in their cast-off garments. The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields told us, in what to me was a really amazing speech, that this Convention was an attempt on the part of a Tory Government to secure Protection for certain industries. I say that is a perfectly amazing statement. What is the principle which lies at the bottom of Free Trade, and is in itself, therefore, contradistinct from Protection? We have been told by my right hon. friend that this is a quarrel of words, and that everything depends on the definition of Free Trade. But who is entitled to give the definition of Free Trade? Surely the author of Free Trade. I was going to refer to Mr. Cobden, but probably the] real author of Free Trade was Adam Smith. At any rate, Mr. Cobden was so completely the apostle of Free Trade that I think he may be taken as an authoritative exponent of its doctrine. What was the doctrine of Free Trade? It was not founded merely on commercial expediency or on questions of temporary loss or gain, but on the endeavour to establish as a principle that everything should be done to secure the natural

  343
  course of production and exchange. Mr. Cobden said something to this effect —I do not know that I am using his exact words—that "What we (meaning the Free Traders) want is that every natural source of supply should be open to us as nature and nature's God intended it should be, and without artificial hindrance." He said, "Until we gain that we shall never be satisfied." But this Convention, on the face of it, at any rate, is surely intended to secure this equality, and to secure the natural course of trade. Here you have a great trade artificially diverted by a stimulus given by foreign countries to their own producers. If you can exactly keep the situation, not protecting your own trade, not giving the slightest advantage to your own trade, but putting it in what may fairly be called the natural situation, surely in that case you are following the strictest line of the principle which I have said is the principle declared by Mr. Cobden to be that of Free Trade. Our object is to secure the natural course of production and exchange. Bounties interfere with that natural course. They contravene the principle. They destroy the ordinary arrangements which would result from natural conditions. They divert capital and labour from the employment in which naturally they would find the most remunerative field, and they turn them into other directions less to the advantage of the country concerned. And, accordingly, you will find that until the last few years, when a new school of economists has started into existence—talk of the new economy! The new economy is not found on this side of the House; it is found on that [Pointing to the Opposition]—and until the last few years, I say, until the new economy represented by such an expert as the hon. Member for West Islington and others, no economist of the slightest eminence, no Commission ever appointed by any Government, no Committee of Parliament, no authority of the slightest importance, has ever denied what seems to me to be the plain fact that bounties absolutely contradict the principle of Free Trade, and are in themselves injurious to the country that gives them, and injurious in the long run to the country that at the moment profits by them. ("Oh.") Oh yes! You cannot take half of the proposition without
  344
  taking the whole of it. I assert, and I am sure that I cannot be contradicted, that you will not find a single passage from any economist of note that does not accept that proposition—that they are injurious, as I have said, not only to the giver, but in the long run to the recipient.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTmade a remark across the table which did not reach the gallery.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Really, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire always tries to interrupt what, after all, is a serious argument, by personal allusions. I think he ought by this time to know that it is rather embarrassing and tends to protract the discussion. Still, out of courtesy to him, I will reply to his interruption.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I only meant to say it was not a new doctrine.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: What is not a new doctrine? I have been laying down a doctrine as being the accepted doctrine of every authority on Free Trade, and the right hon. Gentleman says it is not a new doctrine!
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid it was not a new doctrine to condemn countervailing duties against bounties.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is inconsequent. I was not speaking of countervailing duties. I am going to speak of them. At the present moment I am speaking of bounties. I did not say whether countervailing duties were better than bounties or worse than bounties. I must proceed by steps, and what I was saying was that they are condemned as mutually injurious by every great authority down to the last two or three years. One may say, Sir, that not only are bounties contrary to Free Trade, but that if they are instituted, as one of the speakers said, as a form of protection, they are a particularly objectionable form of protection. And, at any rate, Protection, whether right or wrong, is a defensive policy. Protection is intended to secure to the country establishing that policy the whole of its own trade for its own producers. Bounties are intended to do a great deal more. Bounties are an

  345
  aggressive policy. They are intended to invade and to secure the markets of another country to which entrance cannot be obtained by legitimate means. They are intended to secure them by artificial stimulus and arrangement.
  Then it is said—by the new school, not by the old—that these bounties only injure the bounty-giving people; and really I have been perfectly astounded by the observations of some hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to foreign nations. If a foreigner had been present he certainly would not have been flattered by what he would have heard, because in effect what they say is that they recognise that foreign nations are not philanthropic, and that therefore, if they spend this vast sum of money it is not from any altruistic purpose, or special goodwill towards this country, which is the chief beneficiary; but they say the statesmen and economists of foreign countries are such utter fools that they have gone on paying I do not know how many millions a year—amounting at present to something like seven or eight millions—for the benefit of people with whom they are in the most earnest and strenuous competition, without being in the slightest degree aware of what they are doing. That is a most extraordinary view to take. My own opinion is different. I admit I attach a great deal more importance to the astuteness of foreign statesmen; I do not think the whole of the wisdom rests on this side of the Channel. I do say, let us consider before we condemn those "poor, ignorant foreigners" whether they may not have had a serious object and may not have been very near accomplishing it.
  What has been the object of foreign Powers? It has been, in the first place, to develop their own agriculture and manufactures. The hon. Member for South Shields, I think, triumphantly appealed to what he says is the fact that since the adoption of a Protectionist policy by foreign countries their trade has fallen off proportionately to ours. We now are the one nation which maintains commercial supremacy on the Continent of Europe. Well, Sir, as a convinced Free-Trader, I listened to that argument really with some alarm. Because, if Free Trade is to stand upon such a foundation as that—upon the
  346
  assumption that Protection has reduced proportionately the trade of foreign countries in comparison with our own—we have indeed to look forward to a bad time for Free Trade, because the absolute reverse is the case. As a matter of fact, since the establishment and since the increase of this Protectionist policy, we have found the trade in the United States, which is most Protectionist of all nations, and the trade of Germany, which comes very near at its heels—we have found that trade increasing with giant strides, and we have found it increasing in very much larger proportion than our own. I have always thought that there was an answer to that from a free-trade point of view. We must attribute this enormous extension of trade to other circumstances without detracting from the principle of Free Trade. When the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite raised the point which he made in this connection, and put forward the failure of foreign nations and our success as the real basis of his faith in Free Trade, then, I think, he was indeed resting upon a most slender foundation.
  MR. ROBSON: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but what I said was that we had maintained among the nations of Europe our supremacy in the spread of international trade.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I was saying that foreigners must not be considered so ignorant as some hon. Members suppose. What I wish to point out is that these countries have a definite object in view, whether it is right or wise, or not. Their first object was to improve their own agriculture and to extend their own manufactures. They have done so to amost remarkable degree. There is nothing more remarkable in the course of the last few years than the growth of a perfectly gigantic industry, first in beet-growing, and secondly in the refinement of sugar. While our industries have remained stationary, or have gone back, the whole of this vast trade has been secured by our foreign competitors, and secured entirely because of the bounties ["No."]. It is fair to suppose that they have always had in view the possibility that

  347
  by their competition they might exclude those who otherwise would have been their legitimate competitors, and that they might destroy legitimate industries which otherwise would have been successfully prosecuted. Now, then, I come to a point which I wish to press upon the House. If this object has been accomplished — and it has been nearly accomplished—what will happen? Prices will go up and every advantage which you can show to the working of the jam manufacturers, and all the rest of those who are contesting the Convention, will be more than stultified by the increased price in sugar which you will have to pay. At the present time we hear a great deal about trusts. What is the objection to trusts? No one objects to the legitimate combination of manufacturers to reduce the cost of production, or if possible to prevent unnecessary and illegitimate competition. The objection to trusts in America and in this country is always this, that it is feared—and experience shows that it is rightly feared—that they use their power in order to crush out all other competition, and that when they have done that they make the public pay for the whole transaction. This Convention, in my opinion, comes at the right time, although I am not going to say that in my opinion it should not have come earlier. At all events, there is an argument to be made in favour of allowing the bounties to continue until they had just succeeded, and then to stop them. That, at all events, is what we have done.
  Now, what has been the result of bounties up to the present in the competition between different countries? In the competition between the countries, France has substantially been defeated, and now you have arrived at this situation, that a practical monopoly has been secured by Austria and Germany; and if bounties are allowed, were allowed to go on, I do not doubt for a moment that the prices would have been materially raised as a result of the monopoly that would have been established. There can be no doubt as to what would happen if we were to submit to a great monopoly in this article. Our interest is as Mr. Cobden described it; our interest is to multiply
  348
  the sources of supply, to trust to natural competition, under natural circumstances, to keep the price of any article down to its legitimate level. If we were to allow the cane sugar industry of our Colonies to be killed by this unfair competition, if we were to allow the superior article, this cane sugar, to be killed by the inferior article by the artificial stimuli, I believe our descendants would rue the policy that we should have pursued. These are the general principles on which I suggest that bounties ought to be condemned, and I say I cannot understand how any person can deny that these, at any rate, are views which are in accordance with the strictest doctrine of Free Trade as it was declared by Cobden, by Bright, and by the economists who preceded them.
  Now I want to consider other objections that arise from the particular situation in which our own interests are placed—I mean the interests of the refining industry and the interests of the West Indies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth referred —and I do not in the least complain—to language used by me in 1881. Well, Sir, I do say in regard to all these quotations that I hope that those who' make them take the trouble to read the whole of the documents and the speeches. which they quote (I do not expect them to give the whole of the documents to the House) and see and consider what is the spirit of those speeches as well as any particular passages. But I pass that on the present occasion—I pass it because I am perfectly aware, and I am here to declare that since 1881 circumstances have entirely changed. No one knows that better than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire and his friends—that circumstances have changed, and when circumstances change, opinions change at the same time. But there is one point which those who quote me so freely seem to have lost sight of. These speeches were not in favour of bounties. The importance of that lies in the application of it. In 1881, as much as now, the Government of which I was a member was opposed to bounties. We thought them disastrous things, and that they ought by all reasonable means to be put an end to. I remember the deputation to

  349
  which my right hon. friend referred. It was a deputation of sugar refiners and others interested to Mr. Gladstone, and I was present. But the right hon. Gentleman does me too much honour when he suggests that on that occasion anything I said was in a special sense to be taken as representing the Government, even as against the utterance of the Prime Minister. I was the youngest member of that Government, but I had never been a member of a Government before, and I did not at that time arrogate to myself any such position, and I accepted Mr. Gladstone as the true and only representative of the policy of the Government. On the occasion of that deputation, Mr. Gladstone was extremely sympathetic. He did not in any way exclude the idea of countervailing duties; but he said that at that time the case was not proved. There were three facts then which weighed with Mr. Gladstone and with his Government. The first was that what was then asked was that we should impose countervailing duties on sugar, and wait to see what the foreign Governments would do. That is to say, we should at once impose a countervailing duty against all the countries of Europe. Now the situation is entirely changed. At present all the principal sugar growing countries have agreed to this Convention, by which bounties are to be abolished; and the penal Clause can only come into operation against those countries which are outside the Convention, and which can be treated as non-exporting countries. The second thing was, at that time we had no evidence whatever that any serious injury had been done either to the sugar refining industry or to the production of sugar in the West Indies, and in those days we were young and credulous, and we were under the belief that foreign Powers were anxious to get rid of their bounties; that the process, in words which have been repeated to-night, and which I remember so well, had already begun, and we had only to be quiet and leave matters as they were in order that bounties might be abolished by voluntary action. Have they been abolished by the voluntary action of the countries concerned? And that is twenty-one years ago. Not a bit of it. They have gone on with greater vigour
  350
  than ever; they have increased again and again, and they have produced greater and greater results, as those countries think, for their own benefit, or, as we may think, with some inconvenience to their exchequer, which is a different thing from a mere question of national advantage. But to this day it is perfectly certain that there is no chance whatever of bounties being abolished by any voluntary arrangement among the Powers, unless we, who hold the largest market, will agree to give our sanction to any agreement they make for the insertion of a penal clause in case in future they should break the agreement. That is the great change which has taken place since then. When you consider what was said in that day in the very able memorandum signed by Mr. Farrer, as he was then, Permanent Secretary to the Board of Trade, you will see a series of predictions and statements based upon arguments which at the time appeared to be sound, but which experience has absolutely falsified.
  The refining trade since then has gone from bad to worse. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire refer once more to the fact that one great firm of sugar refiners was in the happy position of making a great fortune. It is perfectly true. There is still, as the remnant of a great industry—and no one can tell how much greater it might have been by now—the production of "Tate's crystals," and a few other considerable firms. But the refining trade has lost in the last twenty-one years a great amount of capital, and a large number of persons have been diverted to other employments with great suffering to themselves, and the industry has become practically insignificant. My right hon. friend referred to a very interesting Convention which was made in 1864 for the protection of this refining industry, and was made by Mr. Gladstone. It was in the early sixties. Mr. Gladstone, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer, declared that the object of this was to preserve and develop that great and important industry of sugar refining in this country. Nothing came of that. It was the intention to impose countervailing duties. Countervailing duties were not imposed. Now I would note, when we are dealing with hypotheses, is it not permissible for me to deal with the hypotheses s that if in 1864 or

  351
  1863 that Convention had been made operative, and the sugar-refining of this country had been—not protected, I do not mean that—but preserved from the unfair, artificial competition to which it was subjected—why is it impossible to conceive, in those circumstances, that the industry, considerable as it is now, might have been fifty-fold greater, because, in that time, the industries on the Continent have increased fifty or even a hundred fold? Why should not we have obtained from our own citizens and working men all the advantages which have been gained for foreigners?
  Then I am told that in this or that industry a large number of people are maintained by the destruction of the sugar-refining industry. When we began the evening, and had nothing but pamphlets to go upon, we were told that there were 100,000 people employed in those industries. The right hon. Member for West Monmouth raised them to 200,000. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South Shields raised them to 250,000, and the last speaker, going beyond them all, translated 250,000 persons into 250,000 men, which would mean, with their families, more than one million—a splendid instance of the value of hypotheses. I do not believe for a moment that there are more than 50,000 people employed in different trades which, in any sensible degree, are dependent on sugar; but whether they be 50,000 or 1,000,000, I say there is nothing whatever to induce us to believe, that we might not have employed even more British subjects—more British capital, more British machinery — in sugar - refining and production, if only we had protected them against this competition in time.
  Then I come to the West Indies. I am not going to dwell at length upon that. But surely some of the—well, I will say —taunts or observations which have been made are unnecessary. I am Secretary of State for the Colonies. If I am anything, I am the representative in this House of the interests of those Colonies, and if I speak with some feeling in regard to them—well, I hope I may be excused, and I should be ashamed of myself if I did not sympathise with their sufferings and complaints, when I think those sufferings are real, and when I know that those complaints are just.
  352
  What has been the history of the West Indies since this bounty business began? Our history is not a very honourable one with regard to these, which we once called our most flourishing, and which still, as my hon. friend the Member for Southwark says, are amongst our most glorious possessions in consequence of the traditions with which they were connected. The history of our relations with them is not a very honourable one to this country. From the time when we practised a vicarious virtue and emancipated the slaves and gave what was an altogether inadequate compensation for the property we destroyed—from that time to this I am afraid that we have too often considered our interests without considering at the same time the legitimate interests of our colonists and fellow-subjects. But I say their history has been the history of a struggle for existence for the last twenty years. The right hon. Member for West Monmouth spoke about Jamaica. I will take Jamaica as a good illustration. Jamaica is not prospering. Jamaica has been altogether behindhand, has been piling up deficits, has been in a most difficult position, and has caused me the greatest anxiety. By the strictest economy, by an economy in the provision for the administration of justice, in the provision for medical supply, and education, by economy which has been called for by the necessities of the case, but which otherwise I should certainly not have thought true economy, I have reduced the expenditure, and by efforts on which I will not dwell, partly by increased taxation upon people already impoverished, by that and other means, at last I have been able to reestablish an equilibrium between revenue and expenditure. But under what circumstances? The sugar industry continues in Jamaica and the West Indies. Why? Three or four years ago the Royal Commission were of opinion, as they well might be from the circumstances that came before them, that the sugar industry was doomed almost in the course of the next few years. The United States, kinder to our Colonies than we ourselves have been, established a system of countervailing duties, which for a time gave temporary relief to the West Indies. That

  353
  relief cannot be permanent, whether the Convention is carried or not. The countervailing duties at the present time countervail only bounties and not Cartels, and therefore there is still a bounty against West Indian sugar in the United States; and, moreover, the United States is making such progress with its protected industries—with its folly, as hon. Gentlemen opposite would say, with its foolish lack of the most ordinary economic principles—that in the next few years it will certainly be self-supplying in this matter by means of its dependencies, with the help of Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Under those circumstances we should be then in the position in which the Royal Commission found themselves. In the course of another year or two sugar would go, and if sugar goes Jamaica will go as well, and it is one of those islands called comparatively prosperous. As to Barbados, St. Vincent, and the smaller islands of the Windward group, nothing could save them; they would be reduced to a condition in which they could only be kept alive by bounties on a very large scale indeed, and even then the black population, to whom we owe great obligations, would be little removed from pauperism.
  I wish I could appeal to the working man direct. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite laugh, but have I ever refrained from telling the working man what I believed to be true. Political opposition may go a long way. but nobody, I think, will accuse me of any lack of courage in expressing my opinions to the working men, as well as to every class in the community. I wish I could address an audience of working men, I should appeal to their sense of justice—but that is another question. I would appeal also to their pockets and their interest. I would say, "What have you done? You have destroyed a trade which might have found employment for goodness knows how many people, and you may go on and throw away trade after trade, the best trades of the country, for it is not the worst trades which are competitors for this bounty system, it is trades which would naturally provide us with large profits—and you allow these trades, one after another, to be thrown
  354
  away or handed over to our competitors." And a trade once gone—men of business will agree with me—it is not very easy to restore it. In the West Indies, although the land is in a very impoverished condition, they buy £2,000,000 or £3.000,000 worth of British goods from this country—they might be able to buy ten or twenty times that amount, but even two or three million's worth of British manufactures is not altogether a thing to be despised. I will undertake to say that that alone will keep something like 40,000 persons fully employed, and that is worth considering when we are asked to consider the number employed in each separate trade.
  One word I must say. What is the alternative which is suggested to us? It is suggested by some persons that we should not agree to this Convention, but that we should give grants to the West Indies. Now, whenever I have come down to this House to ask for these grants they have been described in sneering terms as doles and eleemosynary gifts by the hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to this Convention. Now they put forward these doles against the Convention, but if the Convention were destroyed I should not find them voting for these "doles." They are not doles, they are the incomplete payment of our debts, and do not believe for a moment that anything that has been referred to as possible would be a sufficient dole in the event of the ruin of the West Indies. We are told that the West Indies are of no consequence to us, and that they send us only 46,000 tons of the 240,000 tons they export. Well, I would say that the great majority of their production goes to the United States because of exceptional and temporary circumstances. When those circumstances come to an end, the only market for the West Indies, for their 240,000 tons, is this country. It would be two million tons if only they had a fair chance, and if, when they had a fair chance, they knew how to take advantage of it [OPPOSITION laughter] —that is certainly so—if they knew how to take, advantage of it, and we were able to introduce fresh capital and enterprise. Therefore, looking at it purely from the point of view of loss and gain, do not think that by getting rid of this Convention you are going to get rid of the expenditure which will be thrown on the working men as well as on other classes

  355
  of the community. The expenditure will be gigantic, unless you are to take the advice once offered by the hon. member for Northampton and let these colonies go, or sell them, for what they would fetch, to any other Power.
  I come now to a very important point, and that is the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the price which we are to pay is too high. The right hon. Member for West Monmouthshire told you, and other hon. Members also, who, I think, if they had really studied the question would have refrained from such an argument, that the cost to the country will be the amount of the bounty, which they put at the maximum of £5, multiplied by the total importation of sugar into this country. That really is perfectly ludicrous. Anybody who knows the true facts of the case knows that, whatever may be the amount of the bounty, the advantage to the consumer is very much less. A large part of the bounty goes to countervail the natural advantages of the country against which the bounty is directed, and as to the rest it is divided between the consumer on the one part and the producer on the other. He takes as much as he can, and gives to the consumer the least possible amount which is necessary in order to secure the market. I will put an imaginary case, which I think will serve to make my meaning perfectly clear. Suppose that the United States can make a particular class of iron at £4 per ton. Suppose that, owing to our inferior natural advantages, it would cost us £5 per ton to make the same thing. But suppose our Government conies in and says, "We want to get for England the home trade in this particular class of iron in the United States; we will therefore give a bounty of 30s. a ton." Hon Gentlemen opposite would say, "Oh! that is a boon of 30s. per ton to the people of the United States. They will have entirely as a gift from this country 30s. per ton for every single ton they use." That is perfectly absurd. In the first place, £1 of the bounty goes to equalise the natural disadvantages of this country. It goes to lower our cost from £5 to £4, and that leaves only 10s. of the bounty. How much will it take to get the trade in this article? If one shilling will do it, the producer will get nine shillings for himself and he will
  356
  give one shilling to the consumer. If it takes five shillings, he will keep one half himself and give the other half to the consumer. But it is perfectly clear to anyone who knows the course of trade, to anyone who has been in business, that of the bounty on any article whatever which is given by a foreign country, it is only a small proportion that finds its way into the consumer's pocket. It is not these seven or eight millions which are talked of with so much readiness that we have to deal with. It is only the very small proportion that falls into the pockets of the consumers. But if the bounty were abolished I am not certain that there would be even that small advantage. If there were, it would be compensated for by the regularity of prices, which is a more important thing in business even than the prices themselves, and it would also be compensated for by the natural extension of trade.
  I must leave the right hon. Gentleman opposite some time, and so there are many points which I must pass over. One thing I must briefly refer to. It is said that if the price of sugar is not raised the West Indies will not benefit. That has been dealt with by my hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade. But in any case the West Indies will benefit in the first place by getting rid of the sense of injustice which presses upon them; in the second place they will get rid of the irregularity in their trade, and, in the third place, by the restoration of their credit, without which it is absolutely impossible for them to provide the new machinery and to secure the results which they ought to secure from the scientific prosecution of their industry. I will say no more upon the financial, pecuniary, or pocket question. In my opinion the sacrifice which we shall be called upon to make is a very small and trifling one. But even if it were considerable, then, on moral grounds, I for one say that we are still bound in honour and duty to make it. Mr. Gladstone said, with reference to this very subject, that we were bound to act equitably by foreign nations, but that above all we were bound to act equitably towards our own fellow-subjects. That is a truth which we cannot safely ignore. Our Empire—well, there may have been many failings in our administration of it, many

  357
  faults which we have to regret, but at all events we shall all agree that it cannot be maintained unless we accept to the full the principles of justice and of mutual sacrifice. If we allow our Colonies to assume, or to believe, that for some trifling advantage to ourselves we are ready to sacrifice their interests, then I say the knell of the British Empire will be tolled. We are endeavouring at this very moment, and not without success, to impress on them their duty .and their responsibility, and we are urging them to take a larger share of the obligations of Empire. We are asking them to accept the solidarity in which one part of the Empire would be a matter of concern for every other part. And I appeal to all those who agree at any rate in this policy; to all who agree that the Empire should he based upon these principles of justice, who think that the loss of Empire would be for this country in the future to lead a meaner life, and to have more paltry ambitions; to those who would shrink from anything that would lose for us our high place and our mission in the world—to those I appeal in this case to do justice, and not to seek a doubtful victory, gained at the expense of the interest of our kinsfolk across the seas, and of the principles upon which our Empire has been founded.
  Sir ROBERT REID: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has omitted any argument which he thought the House wished to know, for certainly I should have been glad to hear further argument in support of the proposition which is now before the House. This is a very important, a very complicated, and a very difficult subject, and I must say I think it is very much to be regretted that by reason of the Rules of the House the time left to us to discuss it is so limited. We are now asked to approve of this Convention fixing a policy for the next five years which may impose on the Government the duty of levying taxation, and may subject the people of this country to considerable
  358
  inconvenience. The right hon. Gentleman has evoked the Imperial interests of this country and asked the support of all who are prepared to maintain Imperial interests as he depicts them, but surely no one desires in the least degree to impair or minimise the Empire's greatness. I imagine that we are at one in our object, though we may differ in our methods. But I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that that cause is not advanced by urging this argument in support of every proposal whatever. If this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is a wise one, it should be defended solely on its merits, and if it is unwise, it gains nothing by eloquent and passionate appeals to the interest of the British Empire. Nor do we think that he gave the real meaning of Free Trade when he told us that this proposal was in pursuance of the doctrines of Free Trade. I should think, undoubtedly, that bounties are most mischievous, and entirely contrary to those great principles. I should not be disposed to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that every nation ought, under all circumstances, to make self-sacrifice by abandoning the advantage it enjoys from other nations which think it proper to give bounties. I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman through his former speeches on the matter, because I do not think anything is to be gained by it. But the right hon. Gentleman has not really answered the points of objection urged during the debate.
  In the first place, he to told us he was resolved to maintain British interests, and to judge of this and all other proposals from the point of view of British interest. This Convention is open to many objections. One is that it does deprive him and us of the right for the next five years of judging in the British interest what taxation should be imposed in relation to the sugar trade. By the Seventh Article a Committee consisting mainly of foreigners would

  359
  scrutinise our taxation and decide authoritatively upon the amount we should impose as countervailing duties, and also what countries are to have restrictions placed on their process of cultivation. I cannot see how this proposition is to be defended. It may be said that it is a sort of international arbitration. If that were so I should be most heartily in favour of it. But we do not under this Convention choose our arbitrators, nor are those who are to decide what the tariffs of this country are to be in regard to sugar disinterested Parties. On the contrary they are the delegates of those who are most interested against our interests, namely, the producing countries, while we are a consuming .country. In effect what we do by the Seventh Article is to submit beforehand to whatever the producing nations may command by their delegates, and the House of Commons is expected to pass whatever legislation they may prescribe. That is an entirely unreasonable and humiliating position, and I think it is quite inconsistent with what the Colonial Secretary said, that we should have at all times a free hand in dealing with this question. I say it is absurd to suppose that we should have impartiality from these delegates. They represent different interests from our own, and there is every reason to suppose that they will use the authority conferred upon them in the interests of their own commerce, and against the interests of ours. It has been stated with perfect truth that the effect in bounty-giving States will be to save the amount of the bounties which they may divert to other industries, for there is no security that they will give up their own protective duties. We shall gain no market by the.
  360
  Convention. On the contrary, by virtue of the operation of the surtax, the other nations will be able to maintain their own markets intact, which is what they desire, and they reserve the right to themselves to consider increased. import duties to prevent any other nation coming into competition in their own market. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if the West Indies had been extremely ill-used by this country. Where has been the great wrong done to the West Indies by this country, for which we ought to make atonement and stand in a white sheet? I am not aware of it, although the right hon. Gentleman may be, with his fuller knowledge. Slave owning existed in the West Indies and was abolished, for which we gave very handsome compensation. Perhaps it may be said that the compensation was not adequate, but that was a long time ago. Since then where is the wrong that we have done to the West Indies, for which the people of this country are to make atonement? I most heartily sympathise with the planters in the West Indies, and I deeply regret the distress they are in. But we ought to regard this subject from the point of view of justice to all parties.
  As regards the particular evils of bounties, which the right hon. Gentleman says are one of the causes which have contributed to that distress, we are not responsible for them. The right hon. Gentleman himself admits that for a long time we have done our best to get rid of them. Therefore, the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has taken up appears to have no foundation, nor has the right hon. Gentleman cited any authority in history on the subject. We are none the less bound to do what

  361
  we can, within reason, to assist a distressed colony, especially in the peculiar circumstances in which the West Indies stand. We know that only 40,000 or 50,000 tons of sugar are imported into this country from the West Indies out of the 250,000 tons which they produce. A Royal Commission went to the West Indies, but they did not say that the bounties were the cause of the misfortune. Certainly they did not recommend the imposition of countervailing duties. They recommended various fiscal reforms—reforms of tariff, land reform, and reforms with regard to loans. Surely if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we owe the West Indies something, whether by reason of our past misconduct, or by reason of our present benevolence, he ought to have thought of the course recommended by the Royal Commission. Let me suppose for a moment that the abolition of the bounties and the ratification of the Convention would do good to the West Indies, what are we to do? The abolition of the bounties will raise the price of 1,600,000 tons of sugar in order to benefit the producers of 40,000 or 50,000 tons of sugar shipped to Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman has not dealt with that aspect of the question in his most interesting and eloquent speech. If the price of sugar is raised in this country to the extent of a halfpenny a pound, that means a loss of £7,000,000, or £8,000,000 sterling. But let me suppose that the price is only raised a farthing a pound, that means a loss of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000. If the whole of that £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 went to the West Indies there would be something in it, but only two and a half per cent. of it would go to the West Indies, inasmuch as they
  362
  only ship 2½ per cent. of the amount of sugar that comes into this country. It is a question of the first importance how far the people of the United Kingdom are to allow the price of their own food to be raised in order to benefit our colonies. I would say it would be far better to give monetary assistance in the shape of loans and gifts, even on a large scale, to enable the West Indian planters to equip themselves, than to embark on the doubtful policy of raising the price of articles of food in this country. Every one sympathises with the sugar refiners, but they are in no worse position than many other trades in this country, which are not so prosperous as we desire. They are an insignificant trade that has been reduced to insignificance partly on account of the bounties; and as this country was not responsible for the bounties there is no reason why we should be called upon to make any great sacrifices to avert their consequences. The interest is now a small one, and on the other hand there is the interest of the other trades, such as the confectionery and jam trades, which employ at least 150,000 hands. Besides these trade interests there is the entire population of consumers, to whom the consequences must be serious. It is very difficult to foretell what the price of sugar will be for the next ten years to come, but at any rate there must be some rise, and I think a very considerable rise; and that will fall on the very poorest part of the community. This is the second time that the present Government has chosen to inflict loss on the poorest classes of the community. The danger of monopoly of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, is remote when it involves the co-operation of seven or eight nations, with the

  363
  United States always ready to compete. The President of the Board of Trade regarded this Convention apparently as a triumph of Free Trade. Now, if you could get all these contracting Powers to this Convention to abolish their system of Protection altogether, or even on the particular article of sugar, there must be something to be said for countervailing duties. But they maintain Protection even on sugar. Their protection is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, as injurious to them as to us. I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not admit that these contracting Powers only proposed to abolish the only part of the protective system which was most hurtful to them and most beneficial to us. I cannot see that there is any triumph in Free Trade in that. I say that that is only another step towards a policy of Protection, and I think the speech of the right hon Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, who avowed himself to be a staunch free-trader, smacked more distinctly of fair trade than anything I have heard for some time. Every argument that the right hon. Gentleman used in favour of countervailing duties against bounties would be equally applicable to any protective duties. This policy, once embarked upon, would lead to almost incalculable consequences. I am sorry to say that I think this Convention is humiliating, in the first instance, because it subjects the legislation of this country to the dictation of foreign delegates; and it is also retrogressive, and I believe will do no good to the West Indies.
  SIR LEWIS M'IVER: If there were time I think I might .address the House in an extremely long
  364
  speech. I should begin, in the correct form, with a sheaf of congratulations to a most distinguished Member of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has afforded me and many others genuine gratification by his Parliamentary skill during many years, but never have I heard the right hon. Gentleman in better and more ingenious form than tonight, because the right hon. Gentleman undertook what was a new rôle, although new rôle were not unfamiliar to him. He undertook to deliver a Free Trade speech in the cause of Protection, and that takes a bit of doing. He rose to oppose the principles which, as he had been reminded tonight, were enunciated by Richard Cobden, and he did it so skilfully and so ingeniously that not even those sitting behind him ever imagined that he did it for his own amusement. The right hon. Gentleman delivered his speech from two different and conflicting points of view. One half suggested that the effect of this Resolution would be to increase the cheapness of sugar, and the other half went to prove that it would not cheapen sugar, but in either event the Government were wrong. [Cries of "Divide."] We shall divide in a very short time; at any rate that is my own opinion. The popularity of cheapness, as cheapness, has been greatly exaggerated. [Cries of "Divide."] Of course we all desire that the food of the people and other necessaries of life should be cheap, but I doubt very much whether other cheap articles are generally popular, and I know they are generally nasty. The whole of this opposition is based on a Protectionist agitation got up in the interests of manufacturers—
  It being Midnight, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the Business:—
  MR. A. J. BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 223; Noes, 119. (Division List No. 573.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lee,ArthurH(Hants., Fareham

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Doughty, George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leveson-Gower,FrederickN.S.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Llewellyn, Evaa Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lockwood. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Fellowes,Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fer?russonHon,Rt.Hn.SirJ (Manc'i

  Long,Rt.Hn.Walter.(Bristol,S.

  Bain , Colonel James Robert

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J.(Manch'r

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour,Rt Hn.GeraldW(Leeds

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lucas,.Col. Francis(Lowestoft)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  FitzGerald,Sir RobertPenrose-

  Lucas, Reginaldj(Portsmouth)

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Fitzroy, Hon Edward Algernon

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bathurst,Hon.Allen Benjamin

  Flannery Sir Fortescue

  Macartney.RtHn.W.G.Ellison

  Beresford, Lord Chas. William

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Flower, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bignold, Arthur

  Forster, Henry William

  M'Arthur, Charles(Liverpool)

  Bigwood, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Calmont,ColHL.B.(Cambs.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H.(CityofLond.

  M'Iver,Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gordon,HnJ.E.(Elgin&Nairn)

  Majendie, James A.H.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon MajEvans-(T'rH'mlets

  Massey-Mainwaring,Hn. W.F.

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Gore Hon S F.Ormsby-(Line

  Maxwell.RtHnSirHE.(Wigt'n

  Brown,Sir Alex, H.(Shropsh.

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Maxwell,WJH(Dumfriesshire

  Bull, William James

  Greene,Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Burdett Coutts, W.

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Middlermore,JohnThrogmort'n

  Butcher, John George

  Gretton, John

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Carlile, William Walter

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Montagu,Hon.J.Scott(Hants.)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Hain, Edward

  More,Robt.Jasper (Shropshire

  Cavendi-h,V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Chamberlain.Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.

  Hamilton,RtHnLordG(Midd'x

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A(Worc.

  Hanbury,Rt. Hon.Robert Wm.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray,RtHnA.Graham(Bute

  Chapman, Edward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J. Coventry)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Clare, Octavins Leigh

  Heath, ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Myers William Henry

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Helder, Augustus

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Pease.HerbertPike(Darlington

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robt. Wellesley

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Percy, Earl

  Colomb,SirJohnCharlesReadY

  Holthouse.RtHonH(Som'rs't,E

  Platt-Higgis,Frederick

  Compton, Lord Alwvne

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, Nbrth)

  Hoult, Joseph

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Howard.John(Kent,Faversh'm

  Purvis, Robert

  Cranborne, Lord

  Hozier,Hon.James HenryCecil

  Rankin, Sir James

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

  Reid, James(Greenock)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kewsick, William

  Renshaw, Charles Bine

  Davies,SirHoratioD.(Chatham

  Kimber, Henry

  Ridley, Hn. M. W. (Stalybridge)

  Denny, Colonel

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green

  Dewar,SirT.R.(TowerHamlets

  Lawrence,SirJosePh(Monm'th

  Ritchie,Rt.Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawrence. Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dirasdale,Rt. Hon. SirJosephC.

  Lawson, John Grant

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Rothschild,Hon.Lionel Walter

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Wharton, Rt Hon. John Lloyd

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Rutherford, John

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Sandys,Lieut.-Col.Thos.Myles

  Thornton, Percy M.

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

  Seely,Maj.J.E.B.(IsleofWight

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wodehouse,Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath),

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Wylie, Alexander

  Smith,HC(North'mb.Tyneside

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Smith,James Parker (Lanarks.

  Vincent,Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

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

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Younger, William

  Spear, John Ward

  Walrond,RtHon.SirWilliamH.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Stewart,Sir MarkJ.M'Taggart

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE. AYES—

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Welby, Lt-Col.A.C.E (Taunton

  Hoodand Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan,Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harcourt, Rt.Hon. Sir William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Allen, CharlesP. (Glouc., Stroud

  Hardie,J. K eir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Runciman, Walter

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Samuel ,Herb era. (Cleveland)

  Asquith,Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry

  Harwood, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bell, Richard

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brigg, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C

  Soames, Arthur Wellesiey

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Spencer,RtHnC.R.(Northants

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kitson, Sir James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Tennant. Harold John

  Burns. John

  Lambert, George

  Thomas, SirA.(Carmarthen,E.

  Burt, Thomas

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Thomas,F.Freeman(Hastings)

  Caldwell, James

  Leese,SirJoseplF(Accrington

  Thomas,JA(GlamorganGower

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Tomkinson, James

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Toulmin, George

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Crae, George

  Tully, Jasper

  Cremer, William Randal

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Wallace, Robert

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morley,Itt.Hn.John(Montrose

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Warner,Thomas Courtenay T.

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.

  Wason, Eugene

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Norman, Henry

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  While, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Partington, Oswald

  Whiteley,George (York, W. R.)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Evans,SirFrancisH (Maidstone

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson,Chas. Henry (Hull,W.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Price, Robert John

  Wilson,HenryJ. (York, W.R.)

  Eerguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond

  Rea, Russell

  Woodhouse,SirJT. (Huddersf'd

  Foster,Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Reid, Sir R.Threshie(Dumfries

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Rigg, Richard

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grant, Corrie

  Roberts John H. (Denbighs)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstoneand

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  (12.0) Question put, "That the Question be now put."
  (12.13) Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes, 213; Noes; 126. (Division List No. 574.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fitzrey,Hon.EdwardAlgernon

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Montagu,Hon.J.Scott(Hants.)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Flower, Ernest

  More,Robt.Jasper(Shronshire)

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Forster, Henry William

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Arrol, Sir William

  Gardner, Ernest

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gibbs,Hn.A.G.H(City of Lond.

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Bagot,Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Gordon,Hn. J. E. (Elgin &Nairn

  Murray,Rt HnA. Graham(Bute

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Gordon,MajEvans-(T'rH'ml'ts

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Myers, William Henry

  Balfour,Rt.Hon.A.J.(Manch'r

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Balfour,RtHnGeraldW (Leeds

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gretton, John

  Percy, Earl

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Bathurst,Hon.AllenBenjamin

  Hain, Edward

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bignold, Arthur

  Hamilton,RtHnLordG.(Mid'x

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Bigwood, James

  Hanhury,Rt.Hon.Robert Win.

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Rankin, Sir James

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heath,ArthurHoward(Hanley

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brookfield, Colonel Montagu

  Helder, Augustus

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Henderson, Sir Alexander

  Ridley,Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

  Bull, William James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Ridley,S.Forde(Bethnal Green

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Ritchie,Rt.HonChas.Thomson

  Carlile, William Walter

  Higginbottom, S. W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hobhouse,RtHnH(Somerset,E

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cavendish, R, F. (N. Lancs.)

  Hope,J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

  Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walter

  Cavendish,V.C.W (Derbyshire

  Houldsworth Sir Wm. Henry

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.J.(Birm.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Rutherford, John

  Chamberlain,RtHnJ.A(Worc.

  Hozier,Hon.JamesHenryCecil

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Sandys,Lieut.-Col.Thos.Myles

  Chapman, Edward

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Seely,Maj.J.E. B.(Isle of Wight

  Charrington, Spencer

  Jeffreys,Rt.Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Jessel,Captain HerbertMerton

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Keswick, William

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

  Kimber, Henry

  Smith,HC(North'mb. Tyneside

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Smith,James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Lawrence,SirJoseph(Monm'th

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

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Spear, John Ward

  Colomb,SirJohnCharlesHeady

  Lawson, John Grant

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Lee,Arthur H (Hants.,Fareh'm

  Stewart.SirMarkJ.M'Taggart

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leveson-Gower,FrederickN.S.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Long,Col.CharlesW.(Evesham

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Davies,Sir Horatio D. (Chatham

  Long,Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Denny, Colonel

  Lowe, Francis William

  Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.

  Dewar,SirT.R.(TowerHamlets

  Lowther, C. (Coml., Eskdale)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Dimsdale,Rt.Hon.SirJosephC.

  Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lucas,ReginaldJ.(Portsmouth

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Doughty, George

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Walrond,Rt Hn.SirWilliamH.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Macartney,RtHn. W.G.Ellison

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool.

  Partici], Sir T. George

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  M`Calmont.Col. H. L. B(Cambs)

  Welby,Lt-Col.A.C.E(Taunton

  Fellowes,Hon.Ailwyn Edward

  M`Iver,Sirliewis(EdinburghW

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Fergusson,Ht.Hn.SirJ (Mauc'r

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Massey-Mainwaring,Hn. W.F.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Maxwell,RtHn SirH. E(Wigt'n

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Maxwell,W J H(Dumfriesshire

  Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)

  Fison, Frederick William

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Wodehouse, Rt.Hn.E.R.(Bath

  FitzGerald,Sir Robert Penrose-

  Middlemore,JohnThrogmort'n

  Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart

  370

  371

  Wylie, Alexander

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Younger, William

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Allan,Sir William (Gateshead)

  Harcourt,Rt. Hon. Sir William

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Allen,CharlesP(Glouc.,Stroud

  Hardie,J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  Runciman, Walter

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Samuel,Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Asquith,Rt.Hn.HerbertHenry

  Harwood, George

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne,Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Schwann, Charles K

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Bell, Richard

  Hemphill, Rt.Hon. Charles H.

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Brigg, John

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Spencer,RtHnC.R.(Northants

  Brown,George M. (Edinburgh)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Strachey Sir Edward

  Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

  Kitson, Sir James

  Taylor,Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Labouchere, Henry

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)

  Burns, John

  Lambert, George

  Thomas,DavidAlfred(Merthyr

  Burt, Thomas

  Langley, Batty

  Thomas,F.Freeman ,(Hastings

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Layland-Barratt. Francis

  Thomas,JA(Glamorgan,Gower

  Caldwell, James

  Leese,SirJosephF.(Accrington

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W.R.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Tomkinson, James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Toulmin, George

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lough, Thomas

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips.

  Channing. Francis Allston

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Tully, Jasper

  Craig, Robert Hunter

  M'Crae, George

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Maple, Sir John Blundell

  Wallace, Robert

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Morley, Charles (Breconshire)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Morley,lit.Hn.John(Montrose

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Wason, Eugene

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Nolan,Col..JohnP.(Galway,N.)

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark

  Norman, Henry

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Norton,Captain Cecil William

  Whiteley,George (York, W.R.)

  Dunn, Sir William

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Ellis, John Edward

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Evans,SirlirancisH(Maidstone

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Farquharson, Dr. Robert

  Pease,HerbertPike(Darlingt'n

  Wilson,Chas. Henry (Hull,W.)

  Fenwiek, Charles

  Peel, HnWm. Robertwellesley

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

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Perks, Robert William

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

  Price, Robert John

  Woodhouse,SirJT.(Hudderst'd

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Rea, Russell

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Reid,Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Gore,Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Line.)

  Ring, Richard

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Grant, Corrie

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  andMr.WilliamM`Arthur.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Main Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

  Mr. A. J. BALFOURclaimed, "That the Main Question be now put."
  Resolved, "That this House approves the policy embodied in the Convention relating to Sugar, signed at Brussels on the 5th day of March, 1902, and, in the event of that Convention receiving the
  372
  ratifications required to make it binding, is prepared to adopt the necessary measures to enable His Majesty to carry out its provisions."
  Mr. SPEAKER, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October last, adjourned the House without Question puts.
  Adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES (GENRAL) (PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL AND LOCAL REPRESENTATION OF TRADING COMPANIES IN THE COLONIES UNDER RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT.)
  Circular Despatch of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 12th December, 1901, and the reply of the Commonwealth of Australia thereto.

  BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY.
  Financial Statements for 1900–19001 and 1901–1902, and Estimates for 1901–1902 and 1902–1903.
  Presented [by Command], and ordered to lie on the Table.

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Two Orders in Council of the 19th November, 1902, regulating the currency of Northern and Southern Nigeria respectively.
  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1894.
  Two Orders in Council of the 19th November, 1902: (1) Making rules for preventing collisions by vessels navigating Lake Windermere; and (2) Confirming pilotage bye-laws made by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL ACTS,1865 AND 1869.
  Order in Council of the 19th November, 1902, authorizing an alteration in the scale of salaries of assistant masters, Royal Hospital School (Nautical Division), Greenwich.
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF SOUTHAMPTON.)
  Orders made by the County Council of the county of Southampton, altering certain polling districts in the Southern of Fareham and the New Forest Divisions of the county.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (WAR OFFICE).
  Seventh schedule, containing a list and particulars of classes of documents exiting or accruing in the office of His
  218
  Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office.

  PACIFIC CABLE ACT, 1901 (ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED 31st MARCH, 1902).
  Account showing the money issued from the Consolidated Fund under the provisions of the Pacific Cable Act, 1901, and of the money expended and borrowed, and securities created, under the said Act to the 31st March, 1902.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHS).
  Account showing the gross amount received and expended on account of the telegraph service during the year ended 31st March, 1902, and the balance of the expenditure over the receipts, and statement additional to the above account.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.
  Leave given to the Lord Welby to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons pursuant to Message of Thursday last, if he think fit, and his Lordship consenting thereto, a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL.
  Read 2a (according to order): Committee negatived: Then Standing Order No. XXXIX. considered (according to order) and dispensed with Bill read 3a: and passed.

  BRUSSELS SUGAR CONVENTION.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I have given private notice to the noble Duke of a Question which I wish to ask him with regard to the Brussels Convention. It is, whether it is the intention of the Government to give this House an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the Sugar Bounties Convention before the same is ratified by the Crown. I do not propose tonight to state at length the reasons why I and other friends of mine are opposed to this Convention,

  219
  but I do contend that your Lordships' House has the same right to express an opinion on the Convention as the other House of Parliament. No doubt it may be said there is a treaty to be ratified, and that a Bill will have to be introduced which will reach this House, but I hold that your Lordships have an equal right with the other House to express its views before ratification. Otherwise your Lordships will be placed in an embarrassed and undignified position. No doubt this Convention has peculiarities about it, and the form in which the motion is being made here. At the same time, I do assert that on the general question, without pledging the House to any particular action with regard to the financial part, this House has an equal right with the other House to express its opinion.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, the answer to the Question of the noble Earl is that His Majesty's Government, as at present advised, do not propose to submit a resolution in this House similar to that which has been moved to-day in the House of Commons. The procedure which has been adopted in the other House has, perhaps, no exact precedent to recommend it, but I believe that the circumstances themselves are to a great extent also unprecedented. It was considered most desirable to show to the other Powers concerned that His Majesty's Government were in earnest in their intention to adopt such measures as might be necessary in order to carry into effect the Convention to which they had agreed. The most regular form in which this could have been done would have been to pass through Parliament the necessary measure for carrying out the Convention before the date of ratification—namely, 1st February next; but, owing to pressure of business in Parliament, this course was not found possible, and, therefore, it was decided to proceed by Resolution. But as the Bill which will eventually have to be passed through Parliament will deal mainly with financial matters, it was not considered necessary or desirable to submit a similar Resolution in this House. A Bill will, in any case, be necessary,
  220
  and, as the noble Earl has stated, it will be possible for your Lordships to discuss the provisions contained in the Bill. The noble Earl, however, as I understand, desires that this House should have some opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the Convention before its ratification. For the reason I have stated, His Majesty's Government do not propose to invite this House to give such an expression of opinion. But I must point out that the Convention itself, and the correspondence relating to it, are in the hands of noble Lords, and, if they desire to raise any discussion upon it, it is perfectly competent for them to take that course.
  LORD TWEEDMOUTH: My Lords, I am afraid we cannot consider that the answer given by the noble Duke meets the necessities of the present position. It does seem to me an extraordinary thing that it should be a Ministry belonging to the Party which calls itself the Constitutional Party which thus refrains from bringing before the House of Lords for sanction an arrangement of the importance of the Brussels Convention. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has explained, I think very clearly, the great difficulty that this House will be in if it is invited to discuss this subject only on the Bill which is to be brought in at some future period. Then we shall be discussing the subject, so to speak, with our hands tied. The noble Duke has said that the object of bringing forward this Resolution in another place was to show to the other Powers that the Government were in earnest in their desire to see this Convention completed. It seems to me that we in this House have an equal right to be asked to express our opinion on the subject. I think the Government should, out of respect to this House, have invited your Lordships to agree to their proposal. I do not think that it is altogether consonant with the dignity of this House to ask that an important subject of this kind should be left in the hands of a private Member to initiate and to deal with. I, like my noble friend, do not intend to go into the merits of the question, but undoubtedly the Convention does raise most important points. It raises the

  221
  question whether bounties really are advantageous or whether they are not; it raises the whole question of the future position of this country in reference to its financial arrangements with regard to trade; and it raises the great constitutional question how far we are right in giving a Commission, largely composed of the representatives of foreign powers, the right to criticise, and even impose conditions on, our finance. It has been urged by the noble Duke that the matter is a financial one; but, while it is quite true that we in this House are constitutionally forbidden to amend a money Bill, we have a right to reject a money Bill, which shows, I think, that we have complete control over financial matters, at any rate to the extent of saying aye or no. I hope that the Government may yet reconsider their decision, and that from the Front Bench opposite some Motion will be moved inviting this House to agree with the proposals of His Majesty's Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I do not differ at all from what has been said by the noble Lord opposite as to the great importance of the Brussels Convention. It involves many important and far-reaching principles, and no subject would probably be more worthy of discussion in your Lordship's House. I do not, however, consider that we are open to the charge of having in any sense withdrawn the matter from the cognizance of your Lordships. So far as the question of form and procedure is concerned, the noble Duke behind me has, I think, made it clear that the Resolution now before the House of Commons is not one which your Lordships' House could conveniently be expected to discuss. Then arises the question, have we in any sense cheated the House of Lords out of an opportunity of fully debating and examining this question? The Report of the Brussels Convention was laid before Parliament in the month of March of this year. There has been nothing surreptitious about it. The facts had been fully disclosed, Papers had been laid before Parliament containing a full account of the instructions given to our delegates at Brussels, and,
  222
  so far as I am aware, on no single occasion has any noble Lord on the Bench opposite indicated an active interest in the matter. The noble Earl might upon any evening during the summer have brought down the President of the Cobden Club and asked us to discuss the economical questions raised by the kind was done. Even now it is perfectly open to any one of your Lordships to raise the question of the policy adopted by His Majesty's Government in going into conference at Brussels. I do not know whether that is likely to be done or not, but to this charge, at any rate, I do not think we are open, that we have in any sense shown a want of respect to your Lordships by not inviting you to consider our policy in regard to the question.

  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) (NO. 2) BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, this is a very short Bill, which was introduces at the request of the Royal Dublin Society and passed through the other House without opposition. The object of the Bill is to transfer the administration of a sum of £5,000—being part of the sums paid in respect of the Probate Duty Grant to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account—expended annually for the improvement of the breed of horses and cattle in Ireland, from the Royal Dublin Society to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland. This will prevent a considerable amount of overlapping which now takes place in the distribution of two grants of public money for the same purpose by two different Departments.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 4th of December next.

  ERRORS OF SEXTANTS.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I raise to call the attention of the House to the means that are generally adopted for ascertaining the errors of sextants both in the Royal Navy and in the Mercantile Marine; and to ask the First

  223
  Lord of the Admiralty if there is any probability of his causing a table of angular star distances to be published for the purpose of facilitating the necessary calculations as described in an article which appeared in the September number of the Nautical Magazine of 1901. This matter may appear somewhat technical, but there are several Members of your Lordships' House who have had sea experience, and others who are in the habit of assisting in the navigation of their own yachts, and they, at any rate, will have no difficulty in understanding the subject. It is almost needless to remark that the supposed position of a ship at sea, when out of sight of land and out of soundings, depends entirely upon observation taken by a sextant, whose error ought to be correctly known. The calculations for ascertaining some of these components are very simple, while others are very complicated. The index error can easily be found. It is the centring error that baffles the mariner. So much so, that Captain Lecky, the well-known writer on navigation, has declared that—
  "To test the centring errors is practically beyond the power of the navigator."
  It is customary, in consequence, to send sextants to be corrected for centring and other errors to Kew Observatory, where special apparatus has been erected for that purpose. But it is a far cry from China to Kew, and if a sextant gets out of order on a far distant station, or meets with an accident, an occurrence which is not uncommon, the ship herself is very likely to meet with another accident on her way home, for she has to be brought back by a faulty sextant and thereby runs considerable risks.
  It have, however, been fortunate enough to hit upon a method for finding the total error of a sextant which is simplicity itself, and which I published in the Nautical Magazine for September, 1901. By taking the angular distance between two stars, when they are in a line, or nearly in a line with the Zenith—that is, in other words, on the same great circle of altitude—and then applying the corrections due to refraction, a true observed distance is obtained. The difference between this and the calculated distance is the total error for that particular angle. If the real or calculated angle is already known, the
  224
  error can in this manner be found in less than a couple of minutes. I am desirous of seeing a table of these calculated distances published in the Nautical Almanack. I am aware that all the executive officer of the Royal Navy, and many of those belonging to first-class lines of mail steamers, are capable of making this calculation for themselves. These is, however, no reason why their time should be wasted in calculating and recalculating the fixed distance of fixed stars when they have other duties to attend to. These calculations would be much better done once for all by a single computer on dry land. As, however, some stars have an appreciable movement, this work would require revision about once in five years. But by far the larger portion of the tonnage of Great Britain is in the charge of men who have not much knowledge of nautical astronomy, and who have possibly never made a logarithmic computation to seconds of are in the course of their existence. The sextants they use are often cheap and secondhand. But though their sextants are cheap, the lives of these men are of value, and so also are the lives of the men under their command; and it is principally in their interests that I am asking the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty to make this addition to the Nautical Almanack. It would be a boon to mariners to publish it, and it would be one of those boons that do not consist of robbing Peter to pay Paul. With the permission of the House, I will quote an extract from an article recently written by Mr. H. B. Goodwin, who was at one time Naval Instructor at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich. Mr. Goodwin wrote—
  "To give an idea of the magnitude of the errors to which the sextant is liable. we may mention the result of thirty years' experience at the Kew Observatory, taken from a report made to the British Association at its meeting at Aberdeen in 1885. For errors in centring and defects in graduation, 20 per cent. of the instruments gave half a minute of error, 30 per cent. gave one minute, 25 per cent. gave two minutes, and 7 per cent. reached three minutes."
  Now, a minute of angle is one sea mile at the surface of the globe. In Staff-Commander Martin's work on "Navigation," a sextant is referred to which had a centring error which varied from nothing to ten minutes. Many years

  225
  ago the late Admiral Sir Charles Shadwell, under whom I had at one time the honour of serving, and from whom I learnt much, published a little book that contained a table which gave the angular distances of twenty-seven pairs of stars. The last edition came out in 1870, and is therefore more than thirty years old. These pairs of stars were, however, not selected with the view of correcting sextants, but for the purpose of shortening the calculations for obtaining the latitude by a method that has now become obsolete. The principle on which these pairs of stars should be chosen, is that the seaman should have the opportunity of correcting his sextant at about every 15 degrees of are. Different pairs of stars should be selected for different zones of latitude, and the seaman should be able to correct his sextant for all angles during the first and middle watches of two consecutive starlight nights, at any time of the year and at any place on the globe, except, of course, in high latitudes in summer time when stars cannot be seen. I would suggest that this table be published separately at first, and afterwards as part of the Nautical Almanack.
  To sum up, I suggest that the seaman should take the angular distance of a pair of stars in line with the zenith, apply the error due to refraction, and then take the difference between the observed angle and the one in the Admiralty table. That will be that total error of his sextant, which is what he wants. I wish to enable every navigator to find the error of his own sextant while on board his own ship, instead of running the risk of being drowned while on his way to Kew to find it out. I do not wish it to be understood that I am saying anything disrespectful to the Kew Observatory. I look upon it as one of the most valuable institutions that the country possesses, and whether this table is published or not, I think that a man is unwise who purchases a sextant that does not possess a Kew certificate. I now beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty the question of which I have given notice.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): My Lords, I am afraid I am at this great disadvantage, that I have none of the
  226
  personal knowledge of this very scientific question which the noble Lord himself possesses. All I can do is to give him and the House the opinion of the expert advisers of the Admiralty and the Board of Trade on the point that he has brought to your Lordships' notice. I am advised that nearly all the errors of the sextant can be readily ascertained by an ordinary observer without any difficulty. The only errors that cannot be so ascertained are due to false centring or graduation. These are usually supplied with a good sextant after it has been tested at Kew Observatory, but they are usually so small that it is unnecessary to consider them in ordinary navigation. When very accurate positions are required, these can be obtained by observing celestial objects on each side of the zenith at, or about, the same altitude. This not only eliminates all sextant errors, but also those due to refraction of the horizen, a much more important matter. It is not, therefore, considered neccessary to calculate angular distances between stars, or to publish tables, which would never be absolutely correct owing to the differences in the refractoin at different altitudes. I am afraid that the answer does not correspond to the noble Lord's views, but the opinions it contains are those of the experts, not only of the Admiralty but of the Board of Trade.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGH: It scarcely corresponds with the facts that I have quoted.

  PATENT LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order); further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Five o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.