Sitting of 5 August 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE' BILL BUSINESS.
South Shields Corporation Bill. Lords' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Bangor Corporation Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
Hastings Harbour Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
East Ham Improvement Bill (by Order). Lords Amendments considered:
Lords Amendments as far as the Amendment in page 13, agreed to.
Lords Amendments, in page 13, to leave out Clause 14, and insert Clause 14A, the next Amendment, read a second time, amended, and agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
Airdrie and Coatbridge Tramways Order Confirmation Bill; Lerwick Harbour Improvements Act (1877) Amendment Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time and passed.
Lanarkshire Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
Glasgow Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LAND REGISTRY.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 19th May; Mr.; Henry David Greene]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 315.]
  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Copy presented, of Return of the Amount payable on 5t11 January 1903, out of the Consolidated Fund for ecclesiastical purposes in the west Indies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Return for the year ended 31st March, 1903, of the Army and Navy officers permitted, under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Act, to hold civil employment of profit under Public Departments [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 316.]
  PRISONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of twenty-fifth Report of the General Prisons Board (Ireland) for 1902–3, with an Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  CASUALTIES TO SHIPS.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 17th March; Mr. Lough]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 317.]
  Papers laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House.

  ADJOURNMENT MOT IONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 10.
  Return relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 318.]
  CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 26).
  Return relative thereto [orderd 4th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 319.]
  DIVISIONS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  PUBLIC BILLS.
  Return relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  PUBLIC PETITIONS.
  Return relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  SELECT COMMITTEES.
  Return relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  SETTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
  Return relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to he printed.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (DAYS OCCUPIED BY GOVERNMENT AND BY PRIVATE MEMBERS).
  Return relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed. [No. 320.]
  PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  Return relative thereto [ordered 4th August; Mr. Caldwell]; to be printed.
  TRANSPORTS (SOUTH AFRICAN WAR).
  Return ordered, "giving the names of all the transports hired for the conveyance of troops, stores, and material to South Africa in 1899, 1900, 1901, and 1902, and giving in a tabular form the following particulars:—(1) name of vessel; (2) owner; (3) broker, if any, through whom the vessel was chartered; (4) tonnage; (5) speed; (6) rate per ton per month; (7) minimum time for which engaged; (8) date of agreement; (9) date at which pay commenced; (10) date at which pay ceased; and (11) total sum paid by Government for hire and other charges." —(Air. Buchanan.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSIVERS CIRULA WITH THE VOTES.

  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway — Level Crossings.
  MR. MARSHALL HALL: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the attention of his Department has been called to the level crossings on the Liverpool-Southport section of the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway; and, if so, whether he will order an inquiry to be held, to ascertain whether the level crossings constitute a danger to the public, before the proposed electrification of that section, which is now in course of construction, is completed.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) Representations in regard to the level crossings in question have been made to the Board of Trade from time to

  1575
  time. I will consider the expediency of calling the attention of an inspecting officer to the allegation of danger.

  Shipping Subsidies.
  MR. CHARLES APARTHUR: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the injury caused to the shipping trade of the United Kingdom by bounties on foreign shipping, and by the exclusion of British vessels from the coasting trade of various ft reign Powers, the Government have considered the advisability of adopting means to remove or countervail such bounties, as also to secure the re-admission of British vessels to the trades from which they are now excluded, if needful by making the admission of foreign vessels to the British and colonial trade of the Empire conditional upon reciprocal treatment as regards British vessels, as recommended by the Select Committee on Shipping Subsidies and the Conference of Colonial Premiers; and whether the interests of the British shipping trade will in all respects be fully taken into account in connection with the fiscal inquiry now proceeding.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Bulbar.) The answer is in the affirmative.

  Emigrants from, Immigrants into, United Kingdom.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil)To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the total number of emigrants of British and Irish origin from the United Kingdom in the years 1881, 1891, and 1901, respectively; also the number who emigrated in those years to the United States, British North America, and Australia and New Zealand, respectively; and also for the same years the total number of immigrants that entered the United Kingdom from countries out of Europe.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) The particulars required are given on pages 31 and 39 of the Board of Trade Return of Emigration and Immigration (Parliamentary Paper, No. 183, of Session 1902).

  Imports into Canada from United Kingdom and United States.
  Mr. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state when the Return of the Value of Imports into Canada from the United Kingdom and the United States since the Canadian preferential tariff for British goods came into force, ordered by the House on the 29th July to be printed, will be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) This will be issued in about a week's time.

  Cost of Elementary Education in England and Wales.
  MR. ALFRED DAVIES: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if lie will state how much of the cost of elementary education for 1902–3, amounting to £8,589,889, was spent in England and Wales respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) The apportionment suggested by the hon. Member could not be made without a calculation which would at best be approximate only, and would involve much labour and require a considerable time. I do not think such a calculation would serve any useful purpose, as the same grants are made, and under the same conditions, in England and Wales.

  Glasgow Post Office—Age Limit.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he will explain why an assistant superintendent, first class, who is sixty-four years of age, is at present employed in the Postal Department at Glasgow, and has been allowed to exceed the age limit laid down by the Tweed-mouth Committee, by four years; will he say whether he now- contemplates allowing him to retire from the Service; and, if so, on what date.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Question appears to be asked under a misapprehension. as the age for compulsory retirement is fixed by Order in Council at sixty-five and not sixty. The Tweedmouth Committee made no recommendation on the subject.

  Glasgow and Govan Post Offices.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the duties of check clerk in the postal department at Glasgow are performed by officers below the rank of clerk, although the postmaster at that office has admitted that these duties pertain to the clerk's class; if so, will he state the cause of this state of affairs; and whether, in view of the fact that these officers are in charge of one of the busiest sections from 4 p.m. till 7.30 p.m., will he take steps to ensure that in future only officers in the clerk's class shall be employed in the check clerk's duties.
  To ask the Postmaster - General whether he is aware that junior officers who are wholly unacquainted with counter duties are employed at Govan branch office, and that these officers, one of whom is No. 233 in the class of sorting clerks, and who is in receipt of only 22s. per week, lock up safes at 8.30 p.m. containing valuable stock, and thereafter retain both the keys of the safes and of the office in their possession until 6.30 the following morning; that these junior officers are in sole charge of the office and superintend thirty-five postmen at both the early morning and last deliveries, and that, if necessary, they are called upon to suspend postmen who may have over twenty years' set vice in case of any serious offence; and, if so, will he give instructions to employ officers in these posts at that branch office who are more fitted to hold such responsible positions.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) I have no information as to the facts alleged in these Questions, but I am making inquiry upon the subject.

  Betting Circulars.
  MR. C. RICHARDS: To ask the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that prospectuses and proposals of the Systematic Play Syndicate, Monte Carlo, are being posted in England in open envelopes at the halfpenny rate of postage, and are being circulated among officers in the Army by means of the post; and, if so, whether he can take steps to put a stop to such use of the halfpenny post.
  1578
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain) I am indebted to the hon. Member for sending me a copy of the prospectus to which he refers. Any documents of this nature found in the post in open envelopes will be destroyed.

  Post Office Pensions—Case of B. J. Foreman.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR (Essex, Rom-ford): To ask the Postmaster-General if he will state on what grounds a certificate for pension has been refused Benjamin John Foreman, for 34 years counter clerk and telegraphist in the employ of the Post Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Mr. B. J. Foreman was not qualified for the award of a pension at the time when his service was terminated, as he was neither sixty years of age nor incapacitated from the performance of his duty. No question, therefore, of the grant of a certificate arises.

  Functions of Foreign Ministries of Commerce.
  MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to lay before the House the Reports a to the constitution and functions of Foreign Ministries of Commerce.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The last of these Reports has now been received. They will be laid before the House at as early a date as possible.

  Foreign Drama and Opera (Subsidies) Return.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any prospect of an early presentation of the Return relative to Drama and Opera (Subsidies) Foreign Countries, etc., ordered on 2nd March 1903, on the Motion of the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) We have not received replies from all the countries in regard to which inquiries were made in pursuance of the Return ordered by the House. Those replies we have received will be laid without further delay.

  Education Board for Wales.
  MR. GEORGE KENYON: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he can state the present position of negotiations which are taking place with the representatives of County Councils in Wales as to the establishment of a joint education board for Wales; and whether he will be in a position to lay any Papers upon the Table before the Prorogation of Parliament.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) The Board are in communication with the County Councils in Wales on the subject referred to, but will probably not be in a position to lay Papers upon the Table of the House before the Prorogation of Parliament.

  Board of Education—Teachers' Examinations.
  MR. NORMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that at the recent certificate examination by the Board of Education candidates were required to answer six questions out of thirty-six in the paper upon theory of teaching and school management, these six questions to be taken from at least three of the six sections of the paper, whereas four of the sections were outside of the syllabus issued by the Board; and, if so, whether, in order to avoid the difficulties thus imposed upon candidates who had prepared themselves according to the official syllabus, he will give instructions that this shall not occur again.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) It is understood that the Question refers to the syllabus issued by the Board for acting teachers, and does not refer to the case of training college students. The candidates were required to answer not more than six questions selected from at least three sections of the paper. Two sections of the paper bear directly on the official syllabus, and from the remaining sixteen questions a candidate would have no difficulty in finding more than enough based upon the syllabus to complete the necessary number of answers. Without admitting that the the questions were outside the syllabus, it is possible that the syllabus may have
  1580
  suggested a more limited range Of thought and study than is desirable for candidates. Allowance will be made for this, if necessary, in marking the papers.

  Charity Commissioners and Wilder's Charity.
  MAJOR SEELY: To ask the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division whether his attention has been called to representations made by public bodies and others with reference to the scheme formulated by the Charity Commissioners for the administration of Wilder's Charity; and if he can state what were the facts and representations considered by the Charity Commissioners before formulating the scheme.
  (Answered by Mr. Griffith Boscawen.) Hyde, Isle of Wight. Augusta Wilder's Charity. 1. The representations made by public bodies and others with reference to the scheme which has been established in this matter were very carefully considered by the Commissioners. 2. The charity is an almshouse founded at Ryde in 1856 for natives of the Isle of Wight, being members of the Church of England or Protestant Dissenters holding the doctrine of the Trinity as taught by the Church of England. The administering trustees were to be the vicar and churchwardens of Newchurch, an ancient parish which occupied a large portion of the centre of the island, and included both Ryde and Ventnor. 3. In 1866 the parish of Newchurch was divided into Newchurch, Hyde, and Ventnor, and from that time the almshouse was administered, irregularly, but not unnaturally, by the vicar and churchwardens of Ryde, Hyde being the portion where the almshouse was situated. No complaint was made of the administration; and the influence of the trustees had been effectual to obtain additional funds from a voluntary source, without which there would be no adequate provision for the inmates by way of maintenance. 4. It was considered by the Commissioners that a scheme was necessary to put the administration on a regular footing, and they have accordingly substituted for the vicar and churchwardens of New-church, who are no longer in touch with

  1581
  the almshouse, the vicar and churchwardens of Ryde, who have been for many years, though irregularly, the sole administrators. In pursuance of the practice which has of late years been approved they added to the vicar and churchwardens of Ryde three representatives of the County Council; but they reserved to the vicar a casting vote as chairman. 5. Suggestions were received during the period of publication from the County Council claiming a majority of the governing body, and from the Ventnor Urban District Council claiming representation. Since the scheme was established similar claims have been received from the Isle of Wight Rural District Council and Board of Guardians, and also protests from several parish councils against the retention of the vicar and churchwardens. The composition of the governing body as settled by the Commissioners represents a medium between these claims and the state of things found existing; and it is justified in the present case by the following considerations:— (a) The charity is not a parochial charity within the Local Government Act, 1894; (b) It is restricted to a limited class of beneficiaries with a strong Church of England colour; (c) The expressed intention of the foundress was to repose her full confidence in the vicar and churchwardens of the parish in which her almshouse was situated; a confidence which the Commissioners find to have been justified by their administration; (d) The appropriate source of a limited representative element in the governing body of a charity extending to a whole county appears to be the County Council.

  Improved Landing Facilities at Conna-loughey, Co. Kerry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Congested Districts Board will favourably entertain the proposal to improve the landing facilities at Connaloughey, Co. Kerry.
  (Answered by Hr. Wyndham.) The question of improving the landing accommodation at this place was recently
  1582
  before the Board. The further consideration of the proposal was postponed in favour of other demands upon the resources of the Board of relatively greater importance.

  Disease of Foul Brood in Bees in Ireland.
  Mr. BOLAND: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state the result of the correspondence between the Irish and English Agricultural Departments with respect to the means to be taken to stamp out the disease of foul brood in bees; and whether in the absence of special legislation, any steps can be taken immediately by the Irish Department of Agriculture to check the spreading of the disease.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Correspondence and inquiries are still proceeding. County Committees which have appointed instructors in bee-keeping may, with the consent of the owners, destroy bees affected with foul brood, and may, with the approval of the Department of Agriculture, compensate such owners out of funds provided for agricultural and technical instruction.

  Irish Resident Magistrates.
  MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether there is a rule in operation which limits the time during which a resident magistrate can remain in any particular district.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham): There is no such rule.

  Workmen Employees of the War Office and Volunteer Camps.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will make representations to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury in favour of having the same special relief given to the workmen employees of the War Office as is referred to in the circular issued on 20th May with reference to leave to attend Volunteer camps, and which applies to Civil servants only.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) This question has been very carefully

  1583
  considered, but it has not been found possible to extend the grant of special leave with pay to the large number of Government employees who would be affected.

  Population and area of African Protectorates.
  MR. HENRY J. WILSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what is approximately the area of the four African Protectorates referred to in Command Paper 1635, Africa, No. 9, 1903, and the approximate populations, distinguishing between Natives and Europeans.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain): The approximate areas and populations are:—East Africa Protectorate: area 350,000 square miles; population, 4,000,000, including 5,000 Asiatics and 450 Europeans and Eurasians. Uganda Protectorate: area 80,000 square miles; population, Natives, under 4,000,000; Europeans about 300. British Central Africa: area 42,217 square miles; population Native. This has been variously estimated at figures ranging from 3,000,000 to 850,000. A very recent Return estimates it at 736,724. Europeans 538. Somaliland: area 68,000 square miles; population 500,000, chiefly nomadic. The estimates of the Native population must, in the absence of anything approaching a census, be received as in the main conjectural.

  Royal Commission on Militia and Volunteers.
  LIEUTENANT-COLONEL PRYCE-JONES: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can give any information as to when the Royal Commission on the Militia and Volunteers is likely to terminate its inquiries and to issue its Report.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour) I understand that the Commission have not yet concluded taking evidence, and therefore it is impossible to mention even an approximate date for the termination of their labours.

  Fiscal Inquiry—Rents, Mining Royalties, and Railway Rates.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the
  1584
  Cabinet inquiry into the trade of the country will include an investigation into the difference between rents, mining royalties, and railway rates paid in Great Britain as compared with those paid on the Continent, where minerals and railways are mainly State property, and the effect of such difference on British trade and commerce.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) With regard to this Question, I fear I can only repeat the terms of a former answer, viz., that it would, I think, be inexpedient, on the one hand, to lay down any limits beyond which the inquiry ought not to go, and on the other, formally to include within it everything which could be described as germane to the subject. If the first course were adopted it might be found that most important topics were excluded; if the second the range of investigation might become almost unmanageable. †

  Shipbuilding Programme for Current Year.
  MR. DUKE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the battleships to be laid down before the conclusion of the present financial year are identical with the three ships which were to be laid down in April next; and, if so, whether he will give the reasons for accelerating the commencement of these vessels.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) The three battleships which it is proposed to lay down before the conclusion of the present financial year are not identical with those which it is hoped may be begun in April next. The former are the ships of the current year's programme, and will be built by contract. The latter are the ships which, subject to the sanction of Parliament, will be begun in 1904–5. Arrangements have been made which will permit of these ships being laid down simultaneously in the three principal Dockyards at the beginning of April next.

  Petition of Dockyard Employees.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Ports-mouth): To ask the Secretary to the
  † See (4) Debates, cxxv., 1306.

  1585
  Admiralty whether he can hold out hopes that some announcement concerning the petitions of dockyard employees will be made before the Appropriation Bill is introduced.
  (Answered by Mr. Arnold-Forster.) I am afraid I am not in a position to give a definite promise that the decisions on these questions will be announced by a particular date, but I hope that the announcement will at any rate be made before the House rises.

  QUESTONS IN THE HOUSE.

    South African War—Transports.
    Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will grant the Return on the Paper relating to the hire of Transports during the South African War,† in accordance with the undertaking given on 5th February 1900.
    THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): There is no objection to giving the Return in the form asked for, but it may take some time to prepare.

    General De Wet's Guns.
    Ma. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will say what is the reason why General De Wet has been deprived of his guns.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): I have no information on the subject of the alleged deprivation, but am inquiring.
    MR. MURPHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an answer before the end of the session.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That I cannot say, but I shall be pleased to send the reply to the hon. Member.
    † See page 1574.

    India and the Tariff Inquiry.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India will he state whether the Government of India has at any time during the last few years either asked for preferential treatment or stated that a system of preferential tariffs would be advantageous to India; and, if so, will he publish any correspondence on the matter that has taken place.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The answer to the first portion of the Question is in the. negative.

    Imprisoned Chinese Journalists at Shanghai.
    MR. BUCHANAN: On behalf of the. hon. Member for South Wolverhampton, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether instructions have yet been sent to His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Pekin concerning the case of the six Chinese journalists under arrest in Shanghai on a charge of high treason; and, it so, can he state the purport of these instructions.
    THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,, for Lord CRANBORNE): His Majesty's representative at Pekin has been instructed by telegraph that in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the prisoners should not be surrendered.

    Government Officials and the Press.
    MR. WHITLEY': I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to a letter which appeared in the public Press on Saturday last over the signature "A Revenue Official;" and, if so, will he state whether the rules of the Revenue. Department permit one of its officials to send communications to the Press dealing with a matter of controversial politics which is the subject of an. inquiry in his Department.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE, Croydon): Communications to the Press, such as

    1587
    that to which the hon. Member refers, if made by an officer actually in Government employment, are contrary to the rules of the service.

    Railway Rates on Agricultural Produce.
    CAPTAIN BAGOT (Westmoreland, Kendal): I beg to ask the hon. Member for North Hunts, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether he has recently made representations to the leading railway companies with regard to the rates charged and the facilities given for the carriage of agricultural produce; and, if so, whether he will state what is the present position of this matter.
    MR. AILWYN FELLOWES: Yes, Sir; my noble friend became aware on his advent to office of the importance which is attached by agriculturists to the subject to which my hon. friend refers, and he thereupon placed himself in communication with leading railway officials with a view if possible to personal conference respecting it. The object which my noble friend had in view was of a twofold character. In the first place he wished to know generally the views of the railway companies with respect to the principal complaints and suggestions made by agriculturists, and secondly he desired to learn from them what in their opinion might be done by consignors of agricultural produce, either individually or in combination, to secure for themselves the best possible terms and facilities for the carriage of their goods. The General and Traffic Managers of the leading companies, nine in number, were good enough at once to accede to my noble friend's wishes in this respect, and a conference was held a few days ago between them, a representative of the Board of Trade, and ourselves, when the most important questions at issue were discussed in a more or less informal manner. As a result of the interchange of views which then took place it was arranged that we should bring to the notice of the individual companies concerned the various representations and proposals made to us, and we hope also to arrange later on for the holding from time to
    1588
    time of local conferences at which a representative of the Board may be present, and at which specific questions may be discussed, and the position of the companies and of the consignors explained. My noble friend desires to acknowledge the very friendly and reasonable spirit in which the General Managers have met him in this matter, and he is hopeful that the results of the action which, with their assistance, he is now taking may be of practical benefit to all concerned.

    Church of England School Managers.
    MR. MANSFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education will he state whether the orders issued to Church of England schools will require the co-optative or representative managers to reside in or near the parish, or to have a life estate in real property therein, and to be, and continue to be, bonâ fide members of the Church of England, and to sign a declaration that they are members of the Church of England.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): Draft orders issued under the Education Act, 1902, Section 11, in the case of Church of England schools will usually, according to the circumstances of the case, contain some or all of the provisions mentioned in the Question.

    Imprisonment for Contempt of Court in Ireland—Case of Mrs. Madigan.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of her age of SO years, he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to order the release of Mrs. Madigan, of Kilrush, who is at present in Limerick Gaol for contempt of Court in having failed to carry out some matter in connection with a will.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The discharge of prisoners committed for contempt of Court is not controlled by the Lord Lieutenant. I am informed that the Court of Chancery will at once release this woman upon her complying

    1589
    with its order requiring her to render an account of her dealings with the estate in question.

    Evictions in County Limerick.
    MR. LUNDON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he lay upon the Table of the House a Return for the County Limerick of the cases of eviction in that county for the past twenty-five years, as specified in the Report of the Constabulary, showing the dates of eviction, the names of the landlords and tenants respectively, and the names of the townlands on which the evictions took place.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: I am inquiring whether it is practicable to prepare a Return on the lines suggested, and will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject in a day or two.
    Mr. DELANY: Will you give a similar Return for every county?
    MR. WYNDHAM: That is one of the points under consideration, as if a Return is given for one county it cannot be refused for other counties.

    Returning Officers' Charges.
    MR. COGHILL (Stoke-upon-Trent): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend, before a dissolution takes place, to bring in a Bill dealing with the charges at present made by returning officers at Parliamentary elections.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The matter has not yet arisen for consideration, and I have no statement to make with regard to it.
    MR. COGHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the unreasonable and exorbitant charges which are often made by returning officers.
    Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not deny that the matter is one for consideration, but my hon. friend will hardly expect me to give any pledges as regards legislation, not, of course, in the present session, but even in the next session

    Redistribution of Seats.
    MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before a dissolution takes place, the Government will bring in and pass a Redistribution of Seats Bill.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I remember answering a Question of my hon. friend couched in very much the same terms some time ago,† and I really have not very much to add to it now. I am aware that the subject excites, and in my judgment very properly excites, great interest, inasmuch as the anomalies which at present exist in our electoral system are augmented, and seem likely to be augmented, and have already reached a point which, I think, it is impossible to justify. But I could not give, nor do I think it wise to give, any specific pledge at the present time as to whether it would be practicable in the immediate future to deal with this very difficult question. I may point out to my hon. friend that though most of us who have studied the question are quite prepared to admit the gravity of the evil, I have not yet seen a satisfactory plan for dealing with it suggested by those who have given it most attention.

    Voters' Register.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the new register of voters will be available in London and other places, for municipal purposes, on the 1st November; and. if so, whether the Government will, before Parliament rises, introduce a Bill providing that it shall also be available for Parliamentary purposes in case of any-general election taking place after the 1st of November this year.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. I think the programme of legislation we have already got to dispose of is sufficiently heavy. That programme is one in which the hon. Member takes a very great and active interest, and I think he can hardly expect me to add to it on his behalf.
    † See (4) Debates, ci., 1228.

    The Shipping Agreements.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state the terms of the Resolution with regard to the Gunard agreement which he proposes to move.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I cannot at this moment.
    MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I assume that the Resolution will be simply one of approval.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will consider its exact form.
    MR. BRYCE: Will the agreement with the American syndicate also be laid on the Table of the House, and, if so. when?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade thinks it will be available to-night at the Vote Office. I think the two agreements ought to be discussed together; they form part really of one transaction.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
MR. BRYCE: Can the Government state in what order Report of Supply will be taken on Monday, and has the right hon. Gentleman any other information to give with regard to the course of business?
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose to take anything after the Committee stage of the Sugar Convention Bill to-night, which will, or ought to, involve long discussion; but there are certain formal stages which should be taken. The order of the Report of Supply on Monday will greatly depend on how far we proceed with Supply on Thursday. I shall be glad to consult those interested in the matter, so that we mar turn to the very best account the hours the Standing Order gives us on the last day of Supply. In consequence of the absence of my noble friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who is ill and unable to be in his place, it will not be possible to take the Foreign Vote on Thursday.
SIR CHARLES DILKE: Has not some communication been made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury with regard to the order of Supply on Thursday? We all regret the absence of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD (Somerset-shire,)explained the order of Supply to be taken on Thursday would be the Irish Estimates, and Class 1, Vote 12, would immediately succeed the Irish Votes. The hon. and gallant Gentleman added that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs expected to be back in his place on Monday, in which case the Foreign Office Vote would then come on.
MR. JOHN REDMOND: I had hoped it might be possible to take the Irish Land Bill on Monday.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it would be possible to get the Bill printed with the Lords' Amendments in time for Monday. In addition to that it is necessary to take Supply on Monday if the session is to be wound up at the time fixed, and I hope that the arrangement will not be disturbed.

FRANCHISE AND REMOVAL OF WOMEN'S DISABILITIES BILL.
Order for Second Reading [this day] read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
WAGES BOARDS BILL.
Order for Second Reading [this day] read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
TRADE UNIONS AND TRADE DISPUTES, BILL.
Order for Second Reading [this day] read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—London Education Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to amend Section 82 of the. Bills of Exchange Act, 1682." [Bills of Exchange Act (1862) Amendment Bill [Lords].]

BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT (1882) AMENDMENT BILL [LORDS].
Read the first time; to be read a second time to-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 313.]

SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
[Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
Clause 1.
MR. LOUGHmoved the omission of the word "foreign" from line 15. He was astonished at having to make such a Motion. He could not but think that the word had crept in by mistake. It the right hon. Gentleman would at once accept the Amendment he would not develop his argument; otherwise there might be a long discussion on the point. Let the House realise the position. They were providing that direct and indirect bounties should be abolished; and under this section, by the use of the word "foreign," they were fixing the penalties which should be imposed by this country on any country which granted a bounty—direct or indirect. Let the Government remember the grounds on which the bounties had been abolished. They had been told that the bounties were immoral and subversive of free trade, and that every good principle of sound economics demanded their abolition. Yet they were forcing through the House that which allowed these nefarious practices to be carried on in the British Empire. That was the meaning, of the clause. We had a world-wide Empire, and sugar was one of its most prominent products. As the Bill stood we abolished a bad practice in foreign countries. We swept Germany, France, and Holland clean, but in every colony and every British possession bounties—direct and indirect—were to be allowed to continue. That was the meaning of the clause unless the Amendment was accepted, and it was monstrous that such a proposal should ever have been submitted to the House of Commons. If bounties were bad for trade, if they
1594
were unfair, they ought to be struck out, so as to secure their abolition everywhere—wherever they existed. There was a curious history connected with the inclusion of the word "foreign" in the Bill. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich on the previous night pressed the right hon. Gentleman to say why the policy of countervailing duties originally presented to Parliament had been abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman gave no answer.
THE PRESIDENT OF TILE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): It has not been abandoned.
MR. LOUGHsaid that assertion placed the right hon. Gentleman in still another difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman had given no satisfactory explanation of the mystery, but he would now explain it. When the Bill was first brought in countervailing duties were put forward as a cure for bounties, But after that the Colonial Secretary came on the scene, and the noble Lord who represented the Foreign Office in the House stated that the countervailing duty would not be applied to the ease of any British colony. But when the Bill was actually presented it was seen that the countervailing duties had entirely disappeared. That succession of events explained a great deal. They all remembered how again and again in the spring it was promised that no difficulties should be put in the way of any British colony or possession, and it was in order to carry out that policy that the word "foreign" had been introduced. If that were retained he feared we should get into difficulties with foreign Powers. Under Article 10 of the Convention it was clear that the colonies were included. They came under all the provisions of the-Convention except those of Article 8, which only referred to transit, and foreign Powers would naturally expect us to fulfil the Convention, not only in our own case, but also in regard to our colonies. Remembering that we had attached a final protocol in which we announced that we would not countervail against our colonies, it was clear that the Government were plunged into a difficulty. The Powers would think

1595
that the Convention would not only apply to Great Britain, in which no sugar was produced, but that it would also apply to the British colonies in which sugar was produced. If there was to be an honest fulfilment of the agreement, the Powers must feel that it should apply to the colonies as well as to the mother country. According to the White Paper it was announced that at the last session of the Conference the system obtaining in the British colonies and in India was not inquired into, and that made it pretty clear that there would be such an inquiry at the next session. If we restricted our action under this Convention we should be guilty of a breach of faith towards the other Powers which had entered into it. Although a great point had been made that the colonies were not going to be affected, the Convention still did strike a serious blow at them, as for five years we were bound to give no preference to our colonies Was it to be said that no bounties existed in any of our colonies? It could not, because there were already six bounty systems existent in the colonies and two in the mother country, and we were going to retain those systems while asking foreign countries to abolish theirs. Canada paid a bounty on steel, and under it the exports of steel to this country were rapidly increasing. Canada also had a sugar bounty. Could they compel her to abandon it?
MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: No, you cannot, for Canada has full right to make her own fiscal arrangements,
MR. LOUGHsaid lie agreed with that, but he would ask—Was it fair play to ask other countries to abolish bounties while these continued? Queensland, too, had a sugar bounty, while the shipping grants, railway facilities and capital expenditure in the West India Islands were also of the nature of bounties. Again, at home the sugar refiners enjoyed a bounty under the sugar duty scale, and under the Revenue Bill now before the House, a bounty was to be given on molasses. It was almost a scandal for us to claim to build up this bounty system at home and
1596
in our colonies and yet claim that foreign countries should abolish their bounty systems. It might be said that although bounties existed in Canada and Queensland we did not get any sugar nom those countries. But the House could not proceed on that basis. The right hon. Gentleman had said that we had not abandoned countervailing duties. Did he still think then of resorting to them?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Under certain circumstances.
MR. LOUGHsaid that if we did, the smallest duty imposed would be £7 per ton, which had already been suggested in the case of Russia, and if such a duty were imposed on Russian sugar, within three months we should be receiving large quantities of sugar from Canada and Queensland, and there were hundreds of merchants in London who would be willing to acquire sugar estates in those colonies, and thereby rapidly make a fortune. This clause accomplished a complete reversal of our commercial system. It substituted protection and colonial preference for free trade—and colonial preference of the very worst character. If we were honest in our objection to bounties, we would abolish our own while calling on foreign countries to get rid of theirs.
Amendment proposed—
" In page 1, line 15, to leave out the word. foreign.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
Question proposed, "That the word 'foreign' stand part of the clause."
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the hon. Member who had expected him to jump up and accept his Amendment even before he had stated his reasons for proposing it, had evidently quite forgotten the declaration made on behalf of this country as a condition of our ratification of the Convention. He would remind him that His Majesty's Minister was instructed to declare at the time of ratification that "it is necessary to place on record that the Government of His Britannic Majesty will not consent under any circumstances to be bound to penalise bounty-fed sugar imported into the

1597
United Kingdom from any of the self-governing British colonies," and that the British Government were not prepared to accept any reference of this question to the permanent Commission to be established under Article VII. and that His Majesty's ratification of the Convention was deposited under that explicit declaration. With the words of that declaration before the Committee, the hon. Member had chosen to assume that the Government would accept an Amendment directly in contradiction of the special instructions given to His Majesty's Minister in Brussels. Of course they could do no such thing. All the Powers understood that this declaration would be made a condition of ratification by His Majesty's Government, and therefore it was impossible to contend that there was any sort of breach of faith. It was quite true that Germany and Austria reserved liberty of action in view of that declaration.
MR. LOUGH: And Holland.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR.: No, not Holland. Every other Power ratified it unconditionally and with full knowledge of the declaration. There was consequently no question of a breach of faith.
MR. ED MUND ROBERTSONsaid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had disclosed a still more serious aspect of the question. One of the functions of the permanent Commission was to deliver an opinion on contested questions, and in view of the fact that Germany and Austria contested our reservation in favour of the self-governing colonies, that would be a contested question on which the Commission might be called upon to pronounce an opinion. In his opinion, the Convention required us to impose countervailing duties or prohibition on all bounty-fed sugar coming from our colonies as well as from foreign countries. Ours was the only conditional ratification, and an acceptance of an offer subject to a condition did not result in a contract at all. Therefore it came to this—that there was no Convention, for how could there be a Convention accepted under a
1598
condition by one of the parties unless it could be shown that that condition was accepted by all the other parties? He contended that the sensible thing to do would be to withdraw the Bill, and to set up a new Conference in order to get a new Convention to which all parties would agree.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the Colonial Office policy in this matter had cut across the Board of Trade policy, and the result was that this Bill was now going to do exactly what Lord Herschell and his colleague, when law officers, told the Government they could not do. Did the present law officers take a different view? With regard to the declaration accompanying our ratification, that dealt solely with the case of the self-governing British colonies. But we had virtually in our power India and the Crown colonies—and possibly our protectorates. How were they affected? He did not believe the Bill had ever been thought out. The Government did not know what they were doing in using the word "foreign." What meaning did they attach to it? Did it apply to the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands, which were separate fiscal entities? Did it apply to a protectorate like Zanzibar? The decisions of the Courts of law on the definition of the word "foreign" had not been very illuminating. In one great case lit was held that a foreign country was a country inhabited by foreigners. Zanzibar was certainly not inhabited by British subjects. Was it then a foreign country? In Hall's "International Law there was a most excellent passage on the subject.
He says that —
Protectorate are, of course, by no means new facts, but they may be said to he new international facts. Until lately they have been exercised in places practically beyond the sphere of contact with civilised Powers. In this respect things are now totally changed, and very many questions arising out of such contact will undoubtedly, before long, press for settlement. To take but one example: are the native inhabitants of a protectorate to be regarded as subjects of the protecting State when temporarily within the territory or the protectorate of another civilized State? There can be no doubt that Germany will take the view that they are so."
And he put the case of North Borneo.and said that
"We have assumed a protectorate over that country, and in doing so we have gratuitously embarrassed ourselves by expressly recognising their independence, and by specific limitations upon our own freedom of action which are exceedingly likely to lead to difficulties with.foreign Powers"
That was the opinion of one of the leading authorities on the subject. The other was the words used in the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870. There it was defined, but not very clearly—and the ordinary British form of a definition was no definition at all, but a mere statement of some of the things which it included—
"'Foreign State' includes any foreign prince, colony, province, or part of any province or people, or any person or persons exercising or assuming to exercise the powers of government in or over any foreign country, colony, province, or part of any province or people."
He asked the right hon. Gentleman the specific question: Is a protectorate like Zanzibar within the meaning of the word "foreign"? That simple question would be a simple test of the position of the Government.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he quite agreed with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. This question had been inadequately thought out. However that might be, the Government had reached a stage at which they had decided not to prohibit bounty-fed imports from the self-governing colonies. That was clear. The Government bound themselves not to permit any bounties to be placed upon exports from the Crown colonies. That, also, was clear. But tins clause neither specified self-governing colonies nor Crown colonies. It used a phrase which had very different significations, and which created a confusion in definition which might involve the greatest difficulty. That ought to be cleared up, because in this clause the phrase used was "foreign country." Of course, they did get some help towards a definition of that expression by the negative term that neither a Crown colony nor a self-governing colony was to be a foreign country. There was a whole class of countries which might or might not be foreign, having regard to the standard by which one judged their
1600
international position. So far as the law was concerned Scotland was foreign to the English jurisdiction. The Isle of Man was a foreign country quo ad England. What was to be our position in regard to those Dependencies of the Crown which were not Crown colonies and which were not self-governing colonies? The right hon. Gentleman had referred to Zanzibar. Was that a "foreign country?" It was foreign for many purposes, because it had very large powers of local jurisdiction; and from a legal and international standpoint it was clearly a "foreign country." But it owed some sort of allegiance to the British Crown. Was this clause to be applied to Zanzibar and to other spheres of influence in the Continent of Africa? Was it to apply to Egypt? Egypt was not a Crown colony nor a self-governing colony. Was it to apply to the Soudan? Undoubtedly from some points of view Egypt was a Dependency of the British Crown, subject to very large powers which made it, from these points of view, not a "foreign country." He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give the Committee some canon of construction. He did not think there was any clause which defined the phrase "foreign country"—a phrase of enormous difficulty and complexity of shades of meaning. As the matter stood at present they did not know whether "foreign country" was used in a legal sense, a diplomatic sense, or a common sense.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he was not prepared himself to support any Amendment to the Bill which would interfere with the fiscal freedom of the self-governing colonies, to which he attached the greatest possible importance. But the Amendment under discussion was not intended to interfere with that fiscal freedom. It was quite clear that there was very great difficulty and complexity in regard to this question of the definition of what was a "foreign country"; and he did not think that it was treating the House of Commons fairly that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General were not present to advise the right hon. Gentleman. He noticed that the Solicitor-General had just cone into the

1601
House, and he hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to answer some, at least, of the questions that had been raised during the, debate by his hon. and learned friend behind him. Although he was not himself prepared to interfere with the fiscal relations between this country and the colonies, he could not understand the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to bounties. If bounties were so worked as to be injurious to the manufacturing industries of this country surely the Government ought to endeavour by negotiation to get rid of them in the colonies as well as in foreign countries. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, from beginning to end, there had been no ambiguity as to the position of the Government in regard to the self-governing colonies. As a matter of fact the question of the Government giving away the position of the self-governing colonies had been raised by the hon. Member for Kings Lynn, and it was only an afterthought that the Government had put in a reservation in the Protocol in order to save the situation. It was true that something was said by the British representative at an earlier stage of the proceedings, but that was not pressed, and nothing was said on the point at the time of the drawing up of the Convention. The German Government, and the other Governments concerned, were entitled to complain in regard to this matter. At any rate it was not made clear before the Convention was ratified. What the German Government said in answer to the circular paper of this Government was that "they consider they cannot attach any importance to this declaration, seeing that it was made at a time when no draft of a Convention existed, and when many remarks were made, which, in the end, have found no expression in the Convention, and are not in harmony with it. Later, however, and in fact in the final and concluding negotiations, the British delegates did not recur to that reservation." As a matter of fact it was only an afterthought that the Government made that declaration. But there was the question of the Crown colonies over which the Government have absolute and complete control; and what he wanted to know was, if the word
1602
"foreign" was left in, how that would affect the position of the Crown colonies? The Government had pledged themselves, in regard to the West Indies, to give no bounties, direct or indirect, and what was the reason for putting in "foreign" here, if the Government were going to carry out their pledges?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The self-governing colonies.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that the self-governing colonies were entirely protected by the declaration, and therefore those words were not required. The Crown colonies were excluded from the purview of the Bill, and the Government pledged themselves to allow no bounties to be given in these colonies. He was perfectly sure that there would be great difficulties between the British Government and the Permanent Commission as to whether or not they were giving bounties, especially in regard to the West Indies. There were questions of bounties in regard to giving shipping subventions and grants to the central sugar factories. The right hon. Gentleman said that in case of such disputes he would be bound to accept the decisions of the Permanent Commission.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: We will be bound to take them into consideration.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The Government would take them into consideration, but if they did not carry out these decisions the Convention would come to an end. The question was raised by the right hon. baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, as to what was actually a "foreign country." He would ask the right hon. the Solicitor-General if he would lie kind enough to give the Committee the benefit of his advice on this very specific question. If these words were left in would they include such sugar-producing countries as Egypt, and protectorates like Zanzibar and the Soudan? What was the advantage of having these words in at all? The Government had pledged themselves to penalise any country giving a direct or indirect bounty. Did that cover all cases? He could see no advantage in leaving in those words, as they were likely to

1603
lead to very serious displeasure and friction between this and foreign countries. As they were anxious that this Convention, bad as it was, should work smoothly, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment of his right hon. friend.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)said that they would have a right to call for another Convention in regard to the contracting parties, but not with regard to the non-contracting parties. The matter all depended on the interpretation which the Solicitor-General would put on the word "foreign." For instance, a man who settled in Uganda would not become a British subject as he would in a Crown colony or a self-governing colony after five years residence. Therefore Uganda was technically a foreign country. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs suggested that cane growing was a great possibility in Uganda. Let it be supposed that the railway which was being built by English money in Uganda carried the cane to the coast free of charge; that would be a bounty; but under the Convention the contracting parties could in that case call on this country to prohibit the importation of sugar from Uganda. Judging by the attitude of the Solicitor-General, his support of this Bill was like his support of the Irish Land Bill—exceedingly remote; but they were entitled to ask what his views were as to what the word "foreign" meant. They could not have a special interpretation of the word ad hoc, so to speak, for the purposes of the Convention. Did the Solicitor-General consider Uganda a foreign country? Any sort of indirect benefit given by this country to the producers of sugar in any part of the Empire might conceivably come within the meaning of the word "foreign," and would be prohibited. Apparently the colonies were to he kept by a kind of bounty-fed loyalty; but the Committee should be informed what meaning the Government attached to the word "foreign."
MR. BRYCEsaid that the Committee were being treated most discourteously. They were being asked to legislate without being given the slightest idea of what the result of legislation would be. It was quite impossible that the Government had not an answer. Surely they had considered the questions
1604
which must arise from this Convention. If the President of the Board of Trade would not reply, he hoped the Solicitor-General would respond to the request made to him. What the Committee should know was what they were making themselves responsible for. Austria and Germany distinctly reserved to themselves, in the amplest manner, liberty to ask the, permanent Commission to declare that this country was not carrying out the provisions of the Convention if any exemptions-were made in favour of the colonies. In addition to the countries which had been already mentioned, he wished to add Cyprus and the Malay States, which were practically under the control of this country. Would these countries he regarded as foreign? No doubt, no one could give subsidies in Cyprus, Egypt, Zanzibar, or the Malay States against the will of this country. The Committee should be informed what they were in good faith bound to do as regarded the. different countries under the control of the British Crown; and they ought to be told what case could be brought up against this country before the permanent Commission. The Committee ought to know the area to which the Convention was to apply. The speeches which had been delivered, and especially the silence of the Government, convinced him that questions of the very gravest importance were being opened up, and unless some satisfactory explanation were given he would feel bound to vote for the Amendment as a protest against the methods of concealment adopted by the Government.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the real and substantial difficulties which had arisen. To his mind the only difficulties which had been raised were entirely lawyer difficulties. None of the countries mentioned by hon. Gentlemen opposite, as to which they expressed doubt as to whether the word "foreign" would apply, were likely to export sugar to this country. The matter was not one which, from the practical point of view, it was now necessary to consider. If any such difficulty arose it would be time enough to consider it when the permanent Commission had expressed an opinion in the sense indicated by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did not, however, believe that any such question would arise.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid the whole sanction behind the enforcement of this clause was a legal sanction and nothing more. The right hon. Gentleman was seeking a right to prohibit the landing of goods in a British port. How were they to test whether the order of prohibition was lawful? It could only be tested in a Court of law. Its validity could only be examined from a legal standpoint. Yet the right hon. Gentleman made light of legal difficulties. Under this section it was possible to prohibit the landing of a cargo of sugar in a British port, but unless it could be shown that the port at which the ship loaded was a port of a foreign country, the prohibition would be bad, and the immediate result would be an action against the agents of the Government. There were scores of precedents for such a suit in other Departments dealing with shipping, involving the Departments in heavy expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have hidden his head in the sands or in sugar, for he had said he thought the difficulties apprehended in some quarters were not likely to arise because these various places, which were neither Crown colonies nor self - governing colonies, which were not foreign countries but protected states, were not producers of sugar. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to take on himself the mantle of prophecy? Was he going to predict that, under the possible stimulus given to the cultivation of sugar by improving markets, sugar was not coming from those countries?
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid what he said was that it was extremely improbable that sugar would come from those countries under a bounty.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he did not know. He believed in Egypt at that moment very large areas were being laid down for the cultivation of sugar. Was this experience likely to benefit Egypt? Indiarubber was now being grown in every quarter of the globe, whereas a few years ago it was grown in a very small area. If this legislation was intended to be operative the right hon. Gentleman must recognise the necessity.
MR. WHITLEYprotested against the refusal of the Law Officers of the Crown to give assistance to the Committee on the point at issue. It was very unsatisfactory that these gentlemen, who were paid large salaries, did riot assist, and that neither the Prime Minister nor the Colonial Secretary were present to render help. Unless they could get further answers from the Government, consideration of this matter should be postponed. He moved to report Progress.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid he should like, in one word, to say that in the question of Egypt this difficulty was not unlikely to arise. There was an enormous amount of sugar grown there under international administrations, not under our control.
Mr. LLOYD-GEORGEexpressed the opinion that it was positively discourteous to the House that when a number of men asked the Law Officers of the Crown for their opinion upon this particular question, which was relevant to the discussion, they should not respond. The question was, were these protectorates foreign within the meaning of the section? Was Egypt a foreign country? Was Uganda a foreign country? What about the Malay States and Sarawak? The President of the Board of Trade did not contest the point they made. All he said was, "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof," and that when these questions arose, they could be dealt with, but-everything could not be dealt with in that way. The Committee was entitled to an answer from the Law Officers of the Crown.
MR. HERBERT SAMUELpointed out that it was not impossible that this difficulty would arise very shortly in Uganda, where sugar grew wild everywhere, and where the rate of carriage down to the coast by the railway was unremunerative. If, after this Bill was passed, it was still carried at unremunerative rates, that might be held to be an indirect bounty. Again, in East Africa sugar could be grown with great ease. It had been proposed to give subsidies to ships trading with Mombasa. If that were done, and sugar were to be imported into this country by those ships, would that be held to be an indirect

1607
bounty? Because, if so, it became of great importance to know whether East Africa were a foreign country or not. Then there was the case of the Soudan, which was partly under the ægis of Egypt and partly under the ægis of England. Egypt, they had been told, in answer to a Question in that House, was a State under the suzerainty of the Turkish Empire, in British military occupation. Was that State a foreign State? and was the Soudan a foreign State? Would the Government be obliged to penalise sugar coming from the Soudan as sugar coming from a foreign country? The protected Malay States had been given as another example. In the Trade Returns those States were classed as foreign countries, and in the statistics of Singapore imports from them were regarded as foreign imports. It was surely better to settle this question at once, and the House earnestly appealed to the Solicitor-General to give his advice upon the matter.
THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARARD CARSON,)said it was not from any desire to be discourteous that he had not intervened earlier in the debate. The President of the Board of Trade had stated that the questions concerning all these countries to which reference had been made could not possibly arise for some time—until after certain judgments had been given by the tribunal set up by the Bill. As the questions were questions of the future, and depended on the view taken by the Commission, it occurred to him that in many respects it would he wiser not to express an opinion upon matters, which, if they arose in a practical form, must subsequently come before the Law Officers. However, as the Committee desired it, he would give his opinion, although, of course, it would not be binding upon either himself or anybody else, as nobody could at present foresee the circumstances or the manner in which the question would arise before the tribunal. The view he took was that the word "foreign" did include all the countries which had been mentioned. He should think there was no doubt whatever as regarded Egypt, which was still part of the Ottoman dominions. Although we had certain defined rights and other rights undefined within that country, he
1608
did not think it could be for a moment contended—taking the Convention and the Bill—that there was any intention whatsoever to treat Egypt as other than a foreign country. The same remark applied to the Soudan. As regarded Zanzibar, the same considerations applied, because, although we had certain protectorate rights, Zanzibar was in no sense a part of His Majesty's dominions, and could not be treated in these matters otherwise than as a foreign country. As the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, had observed, protectorates were always one of our difficulties. There were various kinds of protectorates, with different methods of government and ill-defined rights. The complexity of the question was increased by the fact that Germany took an entirely different view with regard to protectorates from that held by this country. Germany treated her protectorates as part of the German Empire, whereas we as persistently, for reasons it was not necessary to give to the Committee, had refused to regard them as part of the British dominions. While his opinion was that these protectorates would be considered as foreign countries within the meaning of this Act and under the Convention, there was at the same time this observation to be made—that in many of these protectorates we exercised absolute rights of legislation, and his own view, for whatever it was worth, was that, taking the spirit and purport of the Convention, His Majesty's Government would be bound, so far as they were able, to prevent bounties being given in those protectorates. If he was right in that view, no question as regarded prohibition would or could arise between the protectorates and this country, because if the country was prepared to prohibit and was in a position to prevent bounties being given, it would of course exercise its discretion in preventing bounties rather than in raising the question of prohibition.
MR.LOUGHthought the Committee were much indebted to the Solicitor-General, whose speech formed an agreeable contrast to everything they had previously had from the Treasury Bench. The hon. and learned Member had said that

1609
these questions would arise only when a case came before the tribunal. But that was not so. These questions would arise immediately the Bill was passed. Merchants in London would be offered 10,000 tons of sugar in some of the countries referred to, and what were they to do? How were they to know whether or not it was safe to buy? It was very necessary that these matters should be made perfectly clear. The
Solicitor-General had really increased the difficulty of the Government, because he had quadrupled the number of foreign countries and had left the matter open by distinctly saying he was not to be hound by the opinion he had given.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 147; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 213.)

AYES.

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Gardner, Ernest

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Purvis, Robert

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Randles, John S.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Gordon, Mai Evans(Tr H'ml'ts

Rankin, Sir James

Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitzroy

Gore, Hn G. R. C Ormsby-(Salop

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gorst, Et. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Balcarres, Lord

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Reid, James (Creenock)

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

Groves, James Grimble

Remnant, James Farquharson

Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch.

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

Baubury, Sir Frederick George

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Rolleston, Sit John E. L.

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Bull, William James

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Campbell, JHM. (Dublin Univ)

Hogg, Lindsay

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Horner, Frederick William

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

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

Johnstone, Heywood

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire

Kenyon, Hon. G. T. (Denbigh

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Kimber, Henry

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

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

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Spear, John Ward

Churchill, Winston Spencer

Lawson J Grant(Yorks.,N. R)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

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

Legge, Col. lion. Heneage

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Leveson-Gower, Frederiek N.S.

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

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

Thornton, Percy M.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tollemache, Henry James

Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S

Lowe, Francis William

Valentia, Viscount

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Dalkeith, Earl of

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

Davenport. William Bromley

Macdona, John Cumming

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dickson, Charles Scott

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburqh W

Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. C.

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E(Wigt'n

Wills, Sir Frederick

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Milvain, Thomas

Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

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

Faber, George Denison (York)

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Man'r

Myers, William Henry

Wylie, Alexander

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Nicholson, William Graham

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Fisher, William Hayes

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Flower, Ernest

Percy, Earl

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Forster, Henry William

Pierpoint, Robert

Sir Alexander Acland-

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Fyler, John Arthur

Plummer, Walter R.

Galloway. William Johnson

Pretyman, Ernest George

NOES.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Caldwell, James

Brigg, John

Burt, Thomas

Causton, Richard Knight

Broadhurst., Henry

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Channing, Francis Allston

Cremer, William Randal

Jacoby, James Alfred

Rose, Charles Day

Crooks, William

Jones, William(Carnarvonshire

Shackleton, David James

Delany, William

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh.)

Lewis, John Herbert

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Lloyd-George, David

Spencer, Rt Hn C.R. (Northants

Doogan, P. C.

Lundon, W.

Sullivan, Donal

Dunn, Sir William

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Elibank, Master of

M`Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

Fenwick, Charles

M`Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

Tomkinson, James

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Toulmin, George

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Grant, Corrie

Moss, Samuel

Ure, Alexander

Griffith, Ellis J.

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

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Hayter, Ht Hon Sir Arthur D.

Paulton, James Mellor

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Priestley, Arthur

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

Horniman, Frederick John

Rea, Russell

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Rigg, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Mr. Lough and Mr.

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Robson, William Snowdon

Whitley.

MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid the Amendment he wished to move was intended to bring the language of the Bill into harmony with the declared intention of the Government. The words of the Bill were—
"Where it is reported by the permanent Commission that any direct or indirect bounty is granted in any foreign country on the production or export of sugars, His Majesty may, by Order in Council, make a prohibition order, that is to say, an order prohibiting sugar from that foreign country to be imported or brought, into the United Kingdom."
They were told by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday that it was not the intention of the Bill, and particularly of this clause, that it should apply to the parties to the Convention. The theory of the Government was that offences by the contracting parties must be dealt with by the Committee of the Convention. The words he had quoted included all foreign countries, whether parties to the Convention or not, and any foreign country was liable to have a prohibition order made against it. They were told now that contracting parties were not concerned in this proposed legislation, and that it was only to apply to non-contracting parties. The Amendment he wished to propose was to insert after "country" the words "not being a party to the Convention." Those words absolutely expressed the intention of the Government as declared by the President of the Board of Trade. This was little more than a drafting Amendment which was necessary to make the Bill consistent with the intention of the Government. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 15, after the word country to insert the words not being a party to the Con yen thin '" (Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid there was one case which made it undesirable to insert those words. It was true that they would not be called upon to apply the penal clause to any of the contracting States in the first instance. Of course there would have to be a conference, and what might follow upon such conference it was difficult to say. It was conceivable that the result of the conference would he that they might be called upon to levy a countervailing duty. Although he agreed that the case was extremely unlikely to arise he thought it was undesirable to tie their hands in this respect.
MR. BRYCEpointed out that this Bill did not follow closely the language of the Convention. Instead of following that language they had put in the words "direct or indirect." He understood that it would be in the power and that it would he the duty of the Government to impose prohibition against any of the contracting parties who might give bounties.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It might be.
MR. UREsaid what was doubtful was what the procedure would be by which they were going to penalise the contracting If a contracting. State

1613
imposed a bounty a conference would be called, but the right hon. Gentleman would say that the Convention did not leave it in doubt what the conference was to do. It was imperative that the conference should take the decision. There was only one decision which it could take if one of the contracting States imposed a bounty, direct or indirect, if they passed a Bill absolutely prohibiting sugar from any foreign State that gave a bounty The permanent Commission could do only one thing, and that was to declare that such sugar must be excluded from this country. The circumstances did not leave it open to the permanent Commission to give any other decision, which would be absolutely ridiculous in the face of this Bill, which included all sugar which was bounty-fed in any foreign State. Unless the words suggested were added the Committee might take it as absolutely certain that the Act would apply to all the contracting parties.
MR. LOUGHsaid the duty of the Convention with regard to the contracting States was merely limited to making a Report which would necessitate the calling together of a new Convention. He found nothing in the Bill to sanction this. If the Amendment were put in then they would have an end of the dispute, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman upon this point. They would get on quicker with the Bill if he met them a little more, and he might take at least some of their recommendations. If he rejected this Amendment they would have to fall back on Article VII of the Convention, which provided:—
"This Commission shall be composed of delegates of the several contracting States, and a permanent bureau shall be attached to it.
"The duties of the delegates will be:
"(a) To pronounce whether in the contracting States no direct or indirect bounty is granted on the production or on the exportation of sugar."
That was their first duty. Then under (c) it was laid down—
"(c) To pronounce whether bounties exist in the non-signatory States, and to estimate the amount thereof for the purposes of Article IV."
What was the difference in the direction given to the permanent Commission of its duties with regard to the contracting States and the non-contracting States.
1614
He could see no difference whatever. Under Article VII exactly the same jurisdiction was given to the Permanent Commission over the contracting States as over those outside. The Bill was drawn in that sense. The duty of the permanent Commission was to report, and the same duty was put upon them with regard to the contracting States as well as the non-contracting States. Could the right hon. Gentleman point to any phrase in the Convention which established this difference between the two States.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that Article VII contained these words—
"The duty of the Commission shall be limited to findings and investigations.
"The findings and calculations referred to under letters (b) and (c) must, however be acted on by the contracting States."
MR. LOUGHsaid he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In the paragraph he had read no distinction was drawn between the contracting and the non-contracting State. So far as that went it applied to both. Sections (b) and (c) stood in a slightly different position. This paragraph gave directions as to what was to be done in the case of (b) and (c), but it did not say that (a) was excluded.
MR. GERARD BALFOURsaid it was excluded by implication.
MR. LOUGHagreed that the duties were limited to findings, investigations, and reports, because "calculations" did not occur until the last paragraph. The paragraph did not at all limit the duties of the permanent Commission with regard to paragraph (a). It simply described what they should do with regard to (b) and (c). Surely he might suggest that it was not satisfactory that the important category corning under (a) should be left to be settled by implication. The last paragraph left it open for him to conclude that the directions were just as wide with regard to (a) as to (b) and (c). Let the Government make it clear. The right hon. Gentleman was far too scrupulous in regard to this Bill. He was going too far to please foreign Powers. Let him accept this

1615
Amendment, and they would know where they were.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the right hon. Gentleman told them last night more than once most distinctly that it was out of their power to insist upon sugar from non-contracting States being penalised. He had stated that the Commission might or might not have the power of penalising the sugar of one of the contracting States. That put the matter in a different position from what the right hon. Gentleman stated last night, and raised one of the most dangerous points in connection with the Convention. The whole of the sugar trade
might he thrown into the hands of one or two Powers to which the Government objected. As the right hon. Gentleman had assured them that this was to apply absolutely and solely to the non-contracting States he did not understand why he refused to accept the words of the Amendment. The Government seemed rather to rejoice in the difficulties and disputes which, if the Bill was left in its present very inchoate state, would surely arise between the British Government and the Convention.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 68; Noes, 157. (Division List No. 214.)

AYES.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Runciman, Walter

Brigg, John

Horniman, Frederick John

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Broadhurst, Henry

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Shackleton, David James

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Burt, Thomas

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Jacoby, James Alfred

Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R.(Northants

Caldwell, James

Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

Sullivan, Donal

Causton, Richard Knight

Kearley, Hudson E.

Taylor, Theodore C. (Badcliffe

Cremer, William Randal

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Tomkinson, James

Crooks, William

Levy, Maurice

Toulmin, George

Delany, William

Lewis, John Herbert

Irevelyan, Charles Philips

Dewar, John A. (Inverness-shire

Lloyd-George, David

Ure, Alexander

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.

Doogan, P. C.

M'Kenna, Reginald

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Dunn, Sir William

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benj.

White, Luke (York, E.R.)

Elibank, Master of

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Eommott, Alfred

Mappin, Sir Fredk. Thorpe

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

Fenwick, Charles

Moss, Samuel

Yoxall, James Henry

Foster. Sir Walter (Derby Co.

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

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Griffith, Ellis J.

Priestley, Arthur

TELLERS FOE THE AYES—

Harwood, George

Rea, Russell

Mr. Edmund Robertson

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

Rigg, Richard

and Mr. Lough.

Hayter, Rt. Hon Sir Arthur D

Roberts, John FL (Denbighs.)

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Robson, William Snowdon

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Univ

Davenport, William Bromley-

Allhusen, Aug. Henry Eden

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Dickson. Charles Scott

Anson, Sir William Reynell

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

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Faber, George Denison (York)

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

Balcarres, Lord

Chamberlain, Rt HnJ. A. (Worc.

Fergusson, Rt. Hn SirJ. (Manc'r

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

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W(Leeds

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

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne-

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Fisher, William Hayes

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Flower, Ernest

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

Forster, Henry William

Bigwood, James

Corbett, A. Cameron (Clasgow

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick,S. W

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Eyler, John Arthur

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Galloway, William Johnson

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim, S

Gardner, Ernest

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Crossley, Sir Savile

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

Bull. William James

Dalkeith, Earl of

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr H'mlets

Macdona, John Cumming

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Gore, Hn. G.R.C. Ormshy-(Salop

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir HE(Wigt'n

Smith, James Parker.(Lenarks.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Middlemore, Jn. Throgmorton

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

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Milvain, Thomas

Spear, John Ward

Groves, James Grimble

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stanley, Hon. A. (Ormskirk)

Guest, Hon Ivor Churehill

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Hail, Edward Marshall

Murray. Rt. Hn AGraham (Bute

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Halsey. Et. Hon. Thomas F

Myers, William Henry

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G.(Midd' x

Nicholson, William Graham

Stroyan, John

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Percy, Earl

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pierpoint, Robert

Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

Heath, James (Staffords.,N.W

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Tollemache, Henry James

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Plummer, Walter R.

Valentia, Viscount

Hogg, Lindsay

Pretyman, Ernest George

Walker, Col. William Hall

Horner, Frederick William

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H.

Howard. J. (Midd., Tott'ham

Purvis Robert

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Johnstone, Heywood

Randles, John S.

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Rankin, Sir James

Williams, Rt HnJ Powell-(Birm

Kibber, Henry

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Wills, Sir Frederick

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wilson, John (Falkirk)

Lawrence. Wm. F. (Liverpool

Remnant, James Farquharson

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks

Lawson John Grant(Yorks.N.R

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn E. R. (Bath

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Renwick, George

Worsley-Taylor, Hry. Wilson

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Wylie, Alexander

Lock wood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Long. Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Lowe, Francis William

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Sir Alexander Acland-

Loyd. Archie Kirkman

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Hood and Mr.Austruther.

Lucas, Regl'd J (Portsmouth)

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

ME. LOUGHsaid that on a point of order he wished to ask the Chairman to reconsider his decision that the Amendment he had put on the paper in regard to a "Surtax set up against the import" was out of order. His object was to show that a surtax was the most effective form of bounty which could be set up. If, therefore, they were getting rid of bounties, they ought to get rid of the surtax. He wanted to show by his Amendment that this provision was hostile to the general principle of the Convention itself.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will look at Article I of the Convention he will find amongst the definitions of what are, and what are not bounties.—
"Advantage derived from any surtax in excess of the rate fixed by Article III."
I need not go into the Article III, but if the hon. Member's Motion is to the same effect then it is not necessary; and if it proposes something different from that, it is outside the Convention.
MR. LOUGHasked if it would not be in order to raise the point that a certain
1618
surtax allowed by the Convention was the most noxious form of bounty that existed.
THE CHAIRMAN: What the hon. Member proposes to do is to turn the Convention upside down and make the Convention his own. He must start with the assumption that the House has accepted the Convention, and that we are now engaged in carrying that Convention through.
MR. BRYCEasked if the Committee were to understand that all things in the nature of a definition, to be found in the Convention, were practically imported into the Bill, and that the Bill was to be interpreted by what was in the Convention.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think that is so. The object of this Bill is simply to carry out the Convention, and if there is a definition in the Convention the Committee must accept that definition.
MR. BRYCEasked if there ought not to be a means of ascertaining what was the meaning attached by the Government

1619
to the terms of the Convention which were open to question?
THE CHAIRMAN: The Committee has accepted the Convention, and has taken it with all its imperfections on its head. It is impossible now to go back and say that we do not approve of it because it is not sufficiently definite. We ought to take it or leave it.
MR. BRYCEsaid that what he meant was that they should be at liberty to move any Amendment which would not contravene any part of the Convention, but that they should get at the meaning of the Government in regard to the Convention. They were making the Convention part of the law of England, and they ought to have some means of knowing what the Convention really implied.
THE CHAIRMAN: If the proposed Amendment simply carries out what is contained in the Convention, then it is unnecessary; but if it implies a definition leading to a different conclusion than that in the Convention, it is outside the scope of the Bill.
MR. KEARLEYsaid he wished to propose an Amendment on Clause 1, page 1, line 16, to insert after "sugars" the words "or sugared goods." On the previous night they on that side of the House had put forward the case that if the Bill were to be a complete Bill it ought to incorporate the Convention itself. That was declined although no argument was given. The first part of the sub-section stated that if any direct or indirect bounty was granted in any foreign country for the production or export of sugars, something was to take place. As the Bill stood it dealt with sugar, and sugar only; but, as the House knew, sugar products —that was to say, goods which contained a large or small percentage of sugar—would not be excluded from importation from bounty-giving countries. That would have an effect on our manufacturers. We should be excluding the raw materials on which our industries had been built up, and on the other hand we should be allowing to enter into competition with those articles foreign manufactured articles, bounty-fed. Was
1620
that the intention of the right hon. Gentleman? The Convention, according to Article I, stated that the high contracting parties engaged to suppress direct and indirect bounties by which the production or exportation of sugar might profit, and not to establish bounties of such a kind during the whole continuance of the Convention. For the appplication of this provision sugar-sweetened products, such as preserves, chocolates, biscuits, condensed milk, and all other analogous products containing in a notable proportion artificially incorporated sugar, were assimilated to sugar. He therefore maintained that the Bill as it stood was against the expressed provision of Article I of the Convention. Unless the words he moved were inserted in the Bill our manufacturers would be at a considerable disadvantage in the open markets of the world. He begged to move.
Amendment proposed—
"In page 1, line 16, after the word 'sugars,' to insert the words or sugared goods.'"—(Mr. Kearley.)
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that to accept these words was to go beyond the provisions of the Convention. The hon. Member had referred to Article I, and he quoted the words at the end of the first paragraph of that article; but he would call attention to the fact that these words were expressly confined to the provisions of Article I. They did not apply to Article IV nor to Art cle VIII, both of which only referred to sugar and not to sugar products. If he were to accept this Amendment and insert "sugared goods" he should be absolutely going beyond the provisions of the Convention.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the right hon. Gentleman was beginning to alarm him. This was the most confused Convention that ever a set of mad diplomatists ever made, and this was the most confused Bill ever submitted to this House. He never dreamt, before the right hon. Gentleman spoke, but that he was going to say that the word "sugar" included sugar products." Now it seemed that the

1621
discrimination between sugar and sugar products was deliberate and intentional, and the effect would be that the bounty-fed sugar which had given to the manufacturers of this country such an advantage would be excluded, and that the same sugar would be put into the protected manufactures in bounty-giving countries which would come over here and drive our manufactures out of t he market most effectually. He maintained that that was perfectly monstrous. The Colonial Secretary jeered about jam and pickles. [GOVERNMENT Cries of "Hear, hear."] At all events the jam and pickle interest of the Empire was stronger than that of the sugar-refining interest, and that was the interest at which they were dealing a blow. He regretted more than ever that the Committee was not able to enforce on the Government the Amendment compelling them to put the Convention as a schedule into the Bill which they were now seeking to pass as the law of the land. They were in this difficulty—that the Chairman had ruled that any Amendment was out of order which did not carry into effect the Convention. He thought that that ruling should apply to both sides. He disputed altogether the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman had put on the provisions of the Convention. Article I, which was the governing provision, and which applied to the whole Bill, said that there was to be a suppression of all bounties, direct and indirect. Would it be stated in any Bill passed through this House that the word "sugar" included sugar products?
Mr. BRYCEasked what meaning the President of the Board of Trade attached to the words "assimilated to sugar"?
Mr. GERALD BALFOURsaid he would refer the right hon. Gentleman to a passage on page 184 of the picaès verbal, from which it appeared, not only from the text of the Convention but also from what passed during the discussion, that the assimilation of sugar products applied to Article I, and to Article I only.
MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that in that case the meaning of the
1622
Bill was that bounties were to be stopped not only in connection with sugar but also in connection with sugar-sweetened products. The paragraph to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred the Committee did not impress him as improving the right hon. Gentleman's point. He would, however, assume it did, and all he would say about it was that this monstrous Convention and this monstrous Bill were worse than the House supposed on the Second Reading.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he felt sure that the right hon. Gentleman must yield at last to the importunities addressed to him to introduce some explicitness into the vague proposals of the Bill. He confessed that he had not previously noticed the somewhat extraordinary language in the preamble of the Bill. It was now clear, although it had not been previously clear, that the Convention was incorporated in the Bill. The preamble stated that His Majesty had entered into a Convention; and it was to be enacted that it was expedient to give effect to it by legislation. The whole of the provisions of the Bill must therefore be construed as being subordinate to the terms of the Convention. If the Committee were to pass the clause they were now discussing, which gave the Government power to prohibit the importation of sugar, the question arose in what sense the word "sugar" was to be interpreted. Article I contemplated this very difficulty; and indicated in perfectly clear language that sugar was to be taken not merely as sugar in a raw state, but sugar which had entered into the composition of other articles. It was perfectly clear that the policy contemplated was not to be limited to the discontinuance by each country of the practice of feeding the manufacture of sugar by means of bounties; it was also to prevent the importation by other countries of bounty-fed sugar. In other words, the policy was that the contracting countries should not only not give bounties themselves but should suppress bounties in other countries, either by prohibition or countervailing duties. It might possibly be contended that the word "sugar" should be differently

1623
construed in Article I., and in Articles IV. and VIII., and if a Court of law had to construe the Act, it would be limited to the words of the Convention itself.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that if any question of doubt arose, reference might be made to the procès verbal.
MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he did not agree. This was to be an Act of Parliament which the Courts would have to construe, and on the interpretation of which important private rights depended; and he said, without the smallest fear of contradiction from any lawyer in the House, that if the Act came up for interpretation by any Court of law, regard would be had only to the terms of the Act itself construed in connection with the language of the Convention. In Article I. they got the clearest possible indication not only of what sugar was but of the policy to which effect was to be given by the Convention. That policy was to crush the system of feeding sugar by bounties, and not only sugar itself but sugar which was embodied in other products. For the purposes of this provision sugar included products of which sugar formed a notable proportion. Tile right hon. Gentleman did not give a single argument to show why a distinction should be drawn between sugar to be exported as such and sugar which was to be used in the manufacture of biscuits, chocolates, and other commodities. Certainly the Convention drew no such distinction. The right hon. Gentleman said that the word "sugar" in Articles IV. and VIII. did not mean sugar sweetened articles; but in construing Articles IV. and VIII. it would be necessary to look back on Article I., which stated that sugar was to be taken as including sugar products. As the Bill stood it would he certain to lead to the greatest confusion, because it embraced two distinct definitions of the commodity to which it referred. In such a state of confusion a case for a definition clause had been amply made out. If ever there was a Bill which was ambiguous it was the measure now before the Committee, and surely a clause was required to remove ambiguity and to throw light on its dark places. There were two or
1624
three distinct views as to what the word "sugar" meant; and the Committee ought to have some authoritative opinion on the subject.
SIR SAMUEL HOAREsaid he wished to express the hope that his right hon. friend would see his way to modify the wording of the Bill in order that the difficulty referred to might be removed. He confessed he himself, as one who had taken a great interest in the matter, had been puzzled by the wording of the Convention. He looked very carefully at the phraseology; and it conveyed to him that sugar did include sugar-sweetened products, and that that Convention did not merely refer to the production of sugar itself. He had supported this Bill because as a very strong free trader he was opposed to bounties of every kind. He thought this Bill was going to stop bounties, but if there was this uncertainty about thin point that would not be the result of the Convention, because these sugar-sweetened commodities would come in free. For instance, the greater proportion of chocolate was sugar, and in bounty-giving countries they might think it would pay them better to manufacture their sugar into chocolate. He expressed the hope that this matter might be made quite clear. It must be made clear that if they were to penalise those countries that gave bounties on sugar they would not allow them to enter into free competition with the manufacturers of this country, with these sugar sweetened commodities of which sugar-formed the chief part.
MR. BRYCEsaid they had often heard complaints of the obscurity of the statutes of this country and the vagueness of their drafting, but the worst drawn statute ever passed by the House was lucidity itself as compared with this Bill As he understood, the view of the Government was that Article I. was to be read in such a way that the term sugar was to mean sweetmeats, chocolates, biscuits, condensed milk and all analogous products, but that that definition was to be strictly confined to Article I. and did not apply to the other Articles of the Convention. Article IV. applied to sugar alone. There were two ways of stopping

1625
bounties, one by preventing the importation of goods into the country, and the other by imposing countervailing duties on bounty-fed sugars. This was not a Bill for the suppression of sugar bounties at all. It was a Bill for changing the form in which bounties were to be given. The bounty on sugar was to be turned into a bounty on sugar-sweetened goods which might still be bounty-fed. Nothing in the Convention prevented it. When they had to deal with any of the contracting States they relieved them from the only kind of pressure that could be applied, and as regards the non-contracting States the Convention was not worth the paper it was written upon. With regard to the non-contracting States Article IV. was of no effect at all. This Bill took the bounty from a branch of industry which did not affect Great Britain, and put it on a branch of industry that did affect Great Britain very largely, by bringing into competition with the manufacturers of this country, who would have to buy dear raw material, articles similar to those which they manufactured which might be bounty-fed. He was astonished at the number of faults that obtruded themselves in every line of this Convention, and he was astonished that the Government did not share in the demand that it should at least be intelligent.
MR. LLOYD-GEORGEsaid he could hardly believe the right hon. Gentleman had contemplated the evil that was being done. He believed the intention of all those who were present at the Convention was that these sugar-sweetened articles should be included in the definition of the word "sugar." The Convention was fearfully and wonderfully made. It was a Convention to benefit France at English expense. He was told that the profit on a pound of sugar manufactured into preserve was equal to the profit of fifty pounds of sugar dealt with in the sugar refineries. Sugar refineries in this country only employed 2,500 men, and under the Convention they might employ another 1,000, but those employed in other industries affected by this Convention, excluding the manufacturing of biscuits, were nearly 100,000. It was almost incredible that such a
1626
project should be seriously placed before the House of Commons for acceptance. This was a Bill, not for the suppression of bounties, but for the encouragement of foreign industries and the discouragement of British industries. It was the first example, out of a bulk, of the great new fiscal policy by which the drooping British industries were to be regenerated. The only thing to be introduced was glucose—that went into beer and was to be encouraged. The new policy, therefore, was one of cheap beer and dear jam. It was hardly to be believed that the Government had contemplated the possibility of these things happening. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the proposals applied only to non-contracting States. But some of the contracting parties were guilty of giving bounties, and they would help each other to evade the Convention. The effect of the Convention would be to exclude raw material which would be useful to us, and to allow bounties to be given upon manufactures which would shut out our products and make it difficult for us to compete in neutral markets. It was almost inconceivable that any Govern went in its senses could have done anything of the sort. The Government had been advised by only two experts, of whom one was engaged in sugar refining and the other in West Indian cane; they had been taken in by everybody; they had exercised no judgment, discretion, or knowledge; and they had shown a simplicity beyond belief. The position of the Government was that they had accepted the Convention, and could therefore do nothing. He suggested that they should allow the House of Commons to impose its will upon them; they would then be relieved of responsibility, and no blame could be placed upon theta by the other contracting parties.
Mk. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the whole of the Convention rested on the basis of sugar products being included under the denomination of "sugar." It was easy to see how the Government had got into their present mess. They first of all got into a difficulty over the self-governing colonies, and got out of it by a repudiation before the Convention was ratified The mess they now in was that if they were to

1627
carry out the Convention they would have to include all products into which sugar entered, which, according to our Customs tariff, would mean the inclusion of blacking, rose petals, violet leaves, and Angostura bitters. Surely, since the Bill was a violation of the Convention, it ought to be withdrawn. With regard to indirect bounties the Government proposed to carry out the Convention, and, no matter how remote, given a direct payment, the bounty might be, prohibition was to be applied. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that this unfortunate state of affairs could arise only in regard to non-contracting States. But that did not make it any the more just; it made it the more supremely ridiculous. if a non-contracting State gave a bounty on sugar or chocolate or biscuits, nothing short of prohibition would suffice, whereas if all the sugar was put into biscuits it could be imported to the extent of millions of tons without the imposition of countervailing duties, prohibition, or anything else. That was the absolute destruction of the Convention. The right hon. Gentleman positively proposed to stand in the ports and, in the case of a non-contracting State giving bounties, sternly to reject., as though it were false money or obscene books, every pound of sugar that might be sent, but if the sugar was sent in the form of biscuits, chocolate, blacking or Angostura bitters, it would be admitted without question. That was an absolute fraud on the States which had signed the Convention, and it was a greater violation of the agreement than the repudiation concerning the self-governing colonies, because in this case, after the Convention had been signed and a Bill introduced into Parliament, the Government had the unparalleled assurance to avow to the House of Commons that they did not mean to carry it out. That was what it really came to, and it could hardly be supposed that the contracting States would be satisfied with such a position.
SIR CHARLES DILKEasked the right hon. Gentleman to what document he was referring when he directed the
1628
attention of the Committee to a discussion which had taken place on this subject.
MR. GERALD BALFOURwas understood to say that it was the report of the proceedings of tile Conference at Brussels.
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that those documents had not been laid before Parliament, and he believed there had never been an instance of such negotiations leading to such a Convention where the protocols and the proceès verbaux of the whole proceedings had not been laid before Parliament. The documents which had been placed in the Library were the procès verbaux of the later sittings. In his opinion the reason why these documents had been concealed from Parliament was, that whereas the Government had argued that by their policy they had imposed a certain line on the other Powers, it was perfectly notorious that the whole desire for the abolition of bounties came from France arid Germany, who had put their heads together, settled a policy and imposed it upon our Government. The prods procès verbaux had been kept back, a proceeding for which there was no precedent in connection with any such negotiations.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESreminded the Committee that he had appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to lay these documents on the Table, especially as he had stated that the Convention was to be construed by the pricès verbaux
SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. and learned Member for Leeds had laid it down—and he believed it to be good law—that the Courts of law would be driven by the words of this statute to the Convention, and the Government had declared that the Convention was to be interpreted by the procès verbaux, which had not been laid before Parliament. The document which had been laid before Parliament was a most foolish Blue-book, consisting for the most part of votes of thanks from the West Indian Colonies to the Secretary of State for the Colonies

1629
As the hon. Member for King's Lynn had pointed out, they were obliged to surround their sugar duties with a perfect maze of duties upon all manufactured products into which sugar entered. In the Conference at Brussels those great British interests of jam and biscuit making into which sugar entered were not properly represented. Therefore as there was nobody to advise the Conference the interests of those industries had gone by the board. There was one other matter which had not been mentioned in connection with this subject, and to which attention must be called in the future. Various forms of preserved milk from abroad were competing with milk at home. This was very serious indeed, and the British farmer would not be pleased to find that the introduction of sweetened milk would be encouraged by foreign bounties while the Government were professing to destroy bounties by this Bill.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid they had certainly been very much astonished by the statement which had been made by the President of the Board of Trade, because he did not think there was a single hon. Member, when this question was first raised, who was not convinced that sugar meant also sugared goods. While they were to prohibit bounty-fed sugar they were prevented from penalising the bounty-fed products. The right hon. Gentleman said that this only applied to the contracting States. What fell from the hon. member for King's Lynn was very much to the point, because in this matter they were making their Convention with the contracting States on the supposition that they were all going to retire something for the common good, but they were going to give the other States an advantage in this branch of their work. He wished to know what would be the position of Italy, for she was a sort of semi-contracting State, and she did not come under the Convention until she began to export sugar. When Italy began to export sugar she would then become a party to the Convention. It was quite clear that in Article VI. the word "sugar" meant sugar and not sugared goods. Italy was one of their great competitors, and the result was that one of the contracting Powers would be practically able to export bounty-fed
1630
sugared goods in competition with those manufactured in this country. In Switzerland bounty-fed sugar was to be allowed to go in transit. In Switzerland sugar was used largely in milk and other confections in competition with this country. Bounty-fed sugar could go to Switzerland, where it could be made into sugared products and then come into competition with the English markets, and those goods could not be prohibited under the Convention. Take the case of Austria-Hungary. It was quite clear that they did not intend bringing their legislation in accordance with the Convention, and therefore they would be a non-contracting State.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In today's papers there is a telegram stating that Austria-Hungary has brought her legislation into harmony with the Convention.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Have His Majesty's Government themselves information to that effect?
MR. GERALD BALFOUR: No, but, we have had every reason to believe that Austria-Hungary would bring her legislation into accordance with the Convention.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that at all events the question might arise with regard to France. It was very likely that France might find she was not able to bring her drawback into accordance with the Convention, and she would then go out of the Convention, and compete unfairly with our manufacturers with her bounty-fed sweetmeats. As his hon. friend the Member for Norwich had said, this was a serious matter for the manufacturers of sugared goods. Under this Convention the cost of production of these goods would be raised, because they would have to pay more for sugar, while the foreigner, under the Convention, would pay less, because the price of sugar abroad would be lower, whilst in this country it would be increased. Under the Convention, as the right hon. Gentleman interpreted it, there would he this bounty-fed competition in the markets in which the cost of production had already been raised. The additional competition for these goods would be very severe

1631
indeed. He had several of those manufacturers in his own constituency, and there were many others in London who employed a very large number of men and women, and at present their margin of profits was very small, but under this Bill that margin would entirely disappear. They were going to have under the guise of this Convention and free trade this unfair competition. The difficulty in carrying out this Act was to define what was sugar and what was sugared goods. That would lead to considerable difficulty. The fact was that the right hon. Gentleman declined to accept any Amendment, however reasonable and however likely to improve the position of the country, because the Government had determined not to have a Report stage. He hoped the Government would reconsider their position and make sonic statement that they would exercise their own judgment and penalise sugared goods as much as they penalised sugar, because if they did not do so they would be doing a very serious injury to those particular trades.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn, who had accused the Government of a gross breach of faith towards the other contracting Powers, was not in the House when he explained why he could not accept the Amendment. He then pointed out that the Convention itself drew a distinction between sugar to which sugared products were assimilated for the purposes of Article I., whereas in the other Articles sugar alone was mentioned. To convince the Committee that that was not an unintentional oversight, he quoted certain words from the procès verbaux. He Was very sorry if those procès had not been laid on the Table, but he was bound to say that he thought the attention of his noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ought to have been called to it.
MR. LOUGH: I asked the noble Lord twenty times.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the Amendment could not be accepted, because it would distinctly go beyond the Convention in a Bill, the object of which was to give effect to that Convention. Before the Convention it was open to any countries giving bounties to give them on
1632
the production or export of sugared products, and it was still open to the non-contracting States to do so; but the effect of the Convention as regarded the contracting States was to prevent them from giving such bounties. But then it had been said that the contracting states instead of importing sugar into this country would import sugar products, and that their attention would be turned to sugar made articles rather than to the manufacture and export of sugar itself. He was bound to say he did not think that was a very serious danger at the present time. The only countries where that was at all likely to occur were Russia arid Switzerland. Russia would have to create an industry in sugar products in order to export them in such a way as to injure the manufacturers of chocolate in this country. In the case of Switzerland that country would be in no better position with the Convention than before. It was perfectly true that hon. Members opposite took it for granted that our confectioners would have to pay more for the sugar which they used in their industry than they did now. He very much doubted, as he had already explained to the House at great length, whether that would be the case, and therefore he did not entertain the apprehension which had been so freely expressed by Gentlemen on the Benches opposite. The hon. Member opposite was absolutely wrong in saying that confectioners would be worsened rather than improved by the provisions of the Convention with respect to the surtax. The Convention with respect to the surtax would reduce any possible advantage the home producer might have over the foreign importer to a maximum of six francs in the ease of refined sugar, and five francs fifty centimes on unrefined sugar. The result of that would be, he believed, that our sugar products would find a freer entry into the contracting States than they had hitherto done. Certainly the import of the articles into the contracting States would not be rendered more difficult. He granted it was conceivable that danger might arise, such as the hon. Member for Norwich laid great stress upon, and that we might find in future our confectionery and jam manufactures, and so forth, exposed to unfair

1633
competition. He said distinctly on behalf of the Government that if that was to occur they should certainly be prepared to consider the suggestion of the hon. Member for Poplar that, outside of any Bill for carrying into effect the provisions of the Convention, they should take such precautions as might be necessary to prevent injury to the trades concerned. It would he wrong in his judgment to insert in a Bill which was to give effect to the Convention provision against a danger which the Convention did not contemplate.
MR. ROBSONsaid the contracting States seemed to have so framed this Convention that no penalty should be attached to the export of bounty-fed products. The danger arose in the non-contracting States who were likely to disregard this arrangement It was quite clear that this country would not gain by it. They were now to have dearer sugar in this country, so that the German manufacturer of chocolate, confectionery, or biscuits would no longer have this country bountied against himself. He would be in a better position for competition with this country, because owing to the absence of supervision over his manufactures he would be able to get an exaggerated drawback, or, in other words, he would really get a bounty. It was almost impossible, as fiscal experience showed, to prevent drawbacks from becoming exaggerated. It Would seem as if the Commission had carefully excluded sugar productions from the provisions of the Convention, and therefore, if a bounty were placed on chocolate or any confectionery there would he apparently no remedy. So far as he could see this country must appeal in vain to the Commission. Even if the Commission took up the appeal, and reported that one of the contracting States was guilty of giving a bounty there would be no remedy, There was no penalty, so that, if the Convention stood as it was, the Government would be transferring the attack which they said was being made upon the sugar refining industry of tins country to all other industries that used sugar as a raw material. It was not a suppression at but a mere transfer of the attack. Such slipshod legislation ought not to be adopted when they were dealing with
1634
the interests of the people. It was not for the President of the Board of Trade to get up and say, "It may be that this legislation will be detrimental to some of our great industries, but the moment it turns out to be so we will deal with it in this House." It was not right that the Board of Trade should subject the industries which were so much greater than those they were seeking to protect to the danger which would be brought about by this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ought either to reconsider his position or adopt some attitude like Austria-Hungary and thus relieve this country from the present position. He hoped it would be clearly understood that the Government were undoubtedly interfering with a great trade, preventing the free course of commercial desires and tendencies, and were not really achieving the benefit they had promised by suppressing bounties.
MR. GERALD BALFOUR,said that as an attack had been made on him and the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs for not having provided hon. Members with copies of the procès verbaux he might say that the Solicitor-General for Scotland had just been to the Library and found two copies of the procès verbaux there.
MR. HARWOODsaid he wanted to reduce this matter to a practical point. In his constituency there were a large number of manufacturers who used sugar, and he had the duty of meeting them to-morrow to explain this Bill. Though he found it extremely difficult to keep his blood cool over this abominable measure he did not wish to be unfair. Most of those whom he was to meet used bounty-fed sugar and they would probably ask him "supposing a cargo of bounty-fed sugar arrives in the Mersey and the Government follows its principle of prohibition, that would have to be cast into the sea, but supposing a cargo of sugar goods comes to the Mersey, are the importers to be quite free to come into competition with us?" His constituents complained that they would suffer from a double draw back— that they would be deprived of the advantage of cheap bounty-fed sugar as raw material, and that they would be put into competition with bounty-fed

1635
sugar products. The Government did not think that that would be the case, but the Government had not shown conspicuously great prescience or prophetic gift. It was a very small comfort for an hon. Member to take back to his constituents that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the Govern-would take into consideration the advisability of meeting their views. He was afraid that his constituents would have to wait until the Greek Kalends, or in the meantime to go through the Bankruptcy Court.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that he did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had appreciated the meaning of the document he had quoted. The right hon. Gentleman now said that Article 1 only applied to the contracting States, and not to the non-contracting States, and he fortified himself by quoting from proceès verbal
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he quoted the procès verbal to show that it had been clearly stated by the permanent Commission that the definition of sugar products applied to Article I.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that it was clear from the procès-verbal that every member of the permanent Commission intended that sugar products should not be bounty-fed any more than sugar. Anything else would be nonsense. He wanted to bring this matter to a definite issue. The right hon. Gentleman knew that he had been already denounced by Russia as a violater of the most-favoured-nation clause With regard to the declaration made when he ratified the treaty, he was told by Austria, by Germany and by France that they entirely disagreed with his view of his obligation, and that they held themselves perfectly free to take such retaliatory action as they considered necessary. Had the right hon. Gentleman communicated this entirely novel view—novel to him, and certainly novel to the President of the Conference which he had sprung on the House of Commons—to the other contracting parties? Was there any answer to that? The right hon. Gentleman made no answer. He maintained that unless the
1636
right hon. Gentleman had done that, and had received the aquiescence of the other contracting parties to this non-natural view of the Convention, it was not fair or right to come to this House and ask to apply the prohibition to the contracting States, and leave the non-contracting States free. To ask them to believe that the penalties were not to apply to the sugar products of the non-contracting States was a mockery; it was making fun of the House of Commons. Again he put the question: "Did the contracting parties take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman held, that all sugar products were to be admitted free, if they were bounty-fed?" Had the right hon. Gentleman had any communication with the foreign Governments in regard to that point? He imagined not; he was sure not; he was quite certain not. The right hon. Gentleman's silence convinced him that he had not more than a most eloquent statement. The position taken by the right hon. Gentleman was humiliating to the Government, discreditable, and contrary to all good faith with the contracting States.
MR. EMMOTTsaid that the opinion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn was in agreement with the interpretation made by the high legal authority of the hon. Member for Leeds. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, took an entirely different view. This again raised a point, why were not the Law Officers of the Crown there? No end of time was being wasted, because the Committee could not get any proper legal opinion from the responsible legal advisers of h is Majesty's Government. If the President of the Board of Trade was right in his interpretation, the situation was of the utmost importance. Great businesses had sprung up and grown in this country under the stimulus of cheap bounty fed sugar. They were doing much to endanger the prosperity of these industries by raising the price of sugar, as he believed they would do under the Convention. But they were now going to make the position worse, because they were going to enable non-contracting States to import into this country confectionery, jam, and other

1637
things made from bounty-fed sugar. He thought that this was the most anti-English Bill that had ever been introduced into the House of Commons. Some hon. Members opposite wanted what they called fair trade. Were they going to get fair trade under this Bill? This was the first fruits of the new retaliatory policy They were not only going to raise the price of the raw materials by this Convention, and so handicap our own industries, but to encourage competition by foreign countries on an utterly unfair basis. They were going to condemn one kind of "dumping" which had paid us, and to encourage another kind of "dumping" which was detrimental. If the House of Commons was going to pass a Bill like this it was unworthy of the confidence of the nation.
SIR JOHN GORSTsaid the discussion this afternoon had been interesting and instructive. It had taught the House of Commons, as well as some members of the Government, what happened when they interfered with the natural course of trade. He thought the Government must be convinced that they could not possibly maintain the position they had taken up. They might bring in their supporters from the lobbies and smoking rooms and defeat the Amendment, but they must see that the Amendment was absolutely necessary. Two questions were involved. The first was were they bound by the Convention to prohibit the importation of sugar - sweetened articles? He should take the view of his hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn that the first Article governed the whole thing, and that Clause 4 applied equally to sugared articles as to sugar. The President of the Board of Trade, whether advised by the law officers or not, thought otherwise. Suppose the right hon. Gentleman was right, the terms of the Convention did not prevent Parliament from passing such an Amendment as this, which was quite in consonance with all the terms of the Convention They had a perfect right to do so if they liked. The power of the House of Commons was not quite curtailed by the Convention at Brussels. Was it desirable to give the Government this power?
1638
It had been shown that the British producer of sugared articles, after this Convention was enforced, would be in a very inferior position to his foreign competitors. In the case of the familiar example of Switzerland, although the conditions of the producer of condensed milk in Switzerland would not be altered, the condition of the British producer would be altered, because while the Swiss producer could get bounty-fed sugar from Russia, his British competitor would have to obtain his sugar at the price fixed by the Convention. If that was the case why should not the Government take in the present Bill a power to prohibit sugared articles. What harm was there in that? The right hon. Gentleman had said if the prognostications of so many hon. Members were right, he would come to the House later and ask for powers. Why should he not take the powers now? The Government then would have all the powers necessary, and they could at once say sugared articles should be prohibited. Time could be saved if the Government were now to accept an Amendment which might be necessary to carry out the terms of the Convention; which was not, at all events, opposed to the Convention, and which was necessary to protect the British manufacturer of sugared articles from unfair competition.
SIR CHARLES DILKEpointed out that this very matter was discussed at the twelfth sitting of the Convention on the 20th of June, at great length, in connection with the "certificate of origin," when it was proposed on behalf of all the contracting Powers except Great Britain that there should be words put into the "certificate of origin" which would have specifically dealt with this question of sugared articles, and the very instance brought forward on that occasion was the case of Switzerland. The words proposed to be put in were that the same description was to apply to sugared products. But Sir Henry Bergne, on behalf of Great Britain, expressed the opinion that no special words should be put in, and said it would be better to leave to the various contracting Powers the power to take those measures which each should think necessary from the point of view of the interests of their own trade. So that Sir Henry Bergne had evidently foreseen the very Amendment upon which they

1639
were engaged that afternoon. It was true that he had rather given the case away afterwards because he went on to say it would be better to leave the questions provisionally open until the month of October next, when they would be able to see what the difficulties were found to be in practice, and then the Commission would be able to see what measures it would be necessary to take to remedy them. That was quite a different proposal, and therefore he had thought it right to mention it, but the first proposal of Sir Henry Bergne was that each Power should deal with this question.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he should like an answer to the Question he had previously put in the form of a statement. Italy was not at present a contracting power. She would become a contracting power when she was in a position to export sugar. But supposing she exported sugared goods and not sugar, did she become a contracting State? If she did not there was nothing to prevent her giving large bounties on sugared articles and entering into unfair competition with home manufactured goods.
MR. GERALD BALFOURreplied that the question was one for the decision of the International Commission.
MR. BRYCEsaid the Committee ought to know what the effect of its legislation was going to be. They wanted to know now what they were committing the country to, and they were entitled to some expression of opinion on the part of the Government.
MR. GERALD BALFOURthought the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat unreasonable. The Convention left a great many matters to settle, and the right hon. Gentleman was now asking the Government to say beforehand what the findings of the Commission would be.
MR. LOUGHasked whether under those circumstances it would not be better to leave the whole thing to the Commission, and not to pass this Bill through the House? If the right hon. Gentleman did pass the Bill it ought to
1640
be a complete Bill, and an intelligent Bill, which our merchants could understand. If, after the explanations which had taken place, the Government proceeded any further with this Bill, they would give one of the most disastrous blows to British commerce that had been given to it for many generations. It was all very well for learned Members of the House to translate the Articles of Convention to the House, but he claimed that the Articles of Convention were not before the House until they were printed in English. He would not be surprised himself if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who he noticed was now present, was not at the bottom of all this difficulty, because if all these sugared articles were included in the definition of the word sugar a large number of factories and warehouses which were now free would have to be bonded. It was this difficulty of bonding the warehouses which had made the Government cut the Gordian knot by saying that all sugared products of this country were not going to be scheduled as sugar he would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer was it right to put these prohibitive provisions on raw material and allow the manufactured article to come in free? Generally speaking, the exactly opposite principle was adopted. If that was intended it was a monstrous thing.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,)said what the proposal would seem to involve was the placing the manufacture of all these products in this country in bond. However, he expressed no decided opinion. He did not believe there was the slightest probability of bounty-fed sugared products being imported. Certainly they could not come from any of the countries that were parties to the Convention. Then the question arose whether some of the other countries might not by means of bounty-fed sugar make these products and export them to this country. He did not believe there was the slightest probability of anything of the kind happening, but if it did then the Government would at once take action in order to prevent it. They did not want to put all the manufacturing trades in this country who

1641
made articles composed mainly of sugar to the inconvenience of manufacturing in bond. If, and when, the difficulty arose they should certainly proceed to take action.
Mr. LOUGHsaid that the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman reminded him of the scriptural maxim, "The way of the transgressor is hard." If it was not right to put all these factories in bond, why was it right to put any? Why were the sixteen sugar refineries to be placed in bond? The cat had now been let out of the bag. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now admitted it was the difficulty of administering the Act which had pressed the Government to take the tortuous policy they were adopting in the Bill. How could the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the probabilities? If the House of Commons had any of its old spirit it would not accept such a situation. Every explanation they got only made the matter worse.
MR. BUTCHERsaid he hoped before the Committee came to an end a provision would be inserted in the Bill that would prevent this country suffering from the importation of sugared articles made from bounty-fed sugar. The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say that such a thing was not possible, in fact lie admitted the probability of it, because he had intimated that if it did occur he would take measures to prevent our manufacturers being treated unfairly. As the matter stood, the right hon. Gentleman had not the power to do so, and therefore he urged the right hon. Gentleman to take powers under this Bill, so that when necessity arose, the Government would be able to take action at once. If it were not possible to accept the Amendment proposed, he would sudgest to the Government that they shoulg themselves bring forward an Amendment in this sense—that where they were satisfied that bounty-fed sugar products were being introduced into this country they would either prohibit them or impose countervailing duties. He felt very strongly that we ought to arm ourselves with these powers.
MR. REARLEYwas not surprised that the hon. and learned Member for Yrok had intervened, because the question
1642
seriously affected his constituents. What would the great firm of Rowntree feel to-morrow when they read that this House had decided that a free licence was to be given to foreign manufacturers to compete with their industry? And tins was the new policy! The question of bond did not arise here. The Chancellor of the Exchequer showed total absence of knowledge. The Colonial Secretary really ought to he sent for. They were knocking the bottom out of the new policy entirely. What were these wonderful expert advisers of the Government doing at the Convention to allow things to get into this state? The Government had not the slightest intention of protecting our home manufacturers against the dumping down of bounty-fed sugared articles. If the House of Commons submitted to this it was not worthy of the continued confidence of the people.
MR. MIDDLEMOREsaid that although the debate had lasted for sonic hours, not a single word had been said in real antagonism to the Amendment, and even the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill had not spoken in any radical way against it. Was not the real meaning of the attitude of the Government to be found in their determination to avoid a Report stage? Was that a dignified course to take? Would it not—and he spoke as a strong supporter of the Government—would it not be better almost to abandon the Bill than to think so lightly of it that the Government would seek to avoid the Report stage in regard to it? The President of the Board of Trade had said that the Amendment contravened certain clauses, and violated the spirit of the Convention. It seemed to him, however, to be a legitimate carrying out of the first clause, which they had been told was in the nature of a preamble. The Chairman had thoroughly admitted every point, and regarded the Amendment as in perfect order. He therefore submitted there was little in the right hon. Gentleman's contention. The next suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was that if the Amendment proved in the future to be necessary, a fresh Bill might be introduced. That was hardly a business-like proceeding. It ought to be a case of "now or never." The Government were getting into a rather tight place. He was bound to say that in any

1643
deliberative assembly in which Members had a free hand the Amendment would have to be accepted, and if the Government would give them a free hand now he was confident it would be carried by a large majority. The case for its acceptance had been made out. Great industries were involved; one of them employing 100,000 men. If they went carefully and methodically through the industries they would find that something like 500,000 men were affected by the measure. An Amendment of this sort was not a thing to scamp, and a Report stage, under such circumstances, was not a thing to avoid. If the Government could make no promise for the future, nor accept the Amendment, he should most unwillingly, and with great regret, be compelled to vote against them.
MR. WALTER PALMERsaid the basis of the argument of the hon. Member for Devonport was, in his opinion, entirely wrong. The hon. Member feared that the manufacturers in this country would suffer from the competition of foreign nations in sending to this country articles containing bounty-fed sugar, and he repeated the statement that the average price of sugar was likely to be higher in the future than in the past. As he had not been able to express his views during the Second Reading debate, he wished to take tins opportunity of saying that, after most careful study of the whole question, he believed that the President of the Board of Trade was perfectly correct in stating that apart from mere fluctuation in price for the moment, the average price of sugar in the future would not be higher than it had been in recent years. The underlying argument in all the speeches made by opponents of the Government was that the price of sugar would rise. He wished emphatically to say that he disagreed with hon. Members opposite. If this view proved to be correct, the contention of the hon. Member for Devonport fell to the ground. The insertion of this Amendment would probably render it absolutely impossible to work the Act. There were hundreds, probably thousands, of such articles coming into the country, and it would be quite impossible to carry out the clause if the words were inserted.
MR. PIERPOINTsuggested that the words of the Convention "sugar-sweetened products such as preserves, &c." were better than the words of the Amendment. He thought the President of the Board of Trade ought to let the Committee know whether he intended to resist any Amendment of this clause in order to avoid a Report stage, or whether it was because he considered himself bound by the Convention to permit no Amendment. If the desire was to avoid the Report stage he could understand the position; but if the right hon. Gentleman considered himself precluded by the Convention from accepting any Amendment, he could not understand it at all. The provisions of Article I. were not confined to Article I. That Article was obviously in the nature of a preamble, and the expansion of the meaning of the word "sugar" applied to all the Articles in the Convention. Then in Article I. there were the interpreting clauses as to bonuses and bounties, and he presumed that those interpreting clauses were intended to apply to other Articles also. With regard to what be looked upon as the very real difficulty in connection with the trade, it was not at all satisfactory to be told by the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if the difficulty arose, they would at once deal with it. For twenty-five years legislation on this bounty question had been awaited, and what guarantee was there that, if the difficulty arose, the Government of the day would at once deal with a particular industry if other matters pressed? On tins particular part of the Convention the Government had put themselves into such a position that it would be extremely difficult for some of their most faithful adherents to support them.
MR. MARKHAMasked whether any investigations had been made by the Board of Trade to ascertain the exact amount of bounty-fed sugar goods which came into this country from nations outside the Convention. On an important matter of this sort definite figures ought to be given. He further asked where the line was to be drawn, and at what definite point the Government would be prepared to take action.
MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it was a complete mistake to suppose that if power were taken to prohibit the importation of bounty-fed biscuits arid other commodities it would be necessary to manufacture those articles in bond. A most important point had been raised in the debate, and he understood that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was open to be convinced. The point was that if the Government were taking power to prohibit, under certain circumstances, the importation of bounty-fed sugar, they were bound by the Convention also to prohibit the importation of bounty-fed sugared products. The first clause was more or less an interpretation clause. If it was not an interpretation clause for sugar, how could it be contended that it was an interpretation clause for bounties? The contention of the Government that they could adopt the definition with regard to bounties and reject it with regard to sugar was a most unreasonable one. They surely could not intend to throw open all our ports to bounty-fed jams and biscuits while closing them to bounty-fed sugar. He hoped the Government would reconsider the matter, and either postpone the clause or undertake to amend it on Report. If that were done, he believed a great part of the difficulty could be got over. As to the Amendment before the Committee, he thought the words were not quite applicable; they were far too wide. The words of the Convention itself were much preferable.
MR. MARKHAMasked where was the dividing line in this ridiculous Bill. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must justify this proposal and state where the dividing line came in.
MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid it was impossible to draw such a distinction, and it would be far better to deal with the matter by a separate Bill. The Government were entirely averse to putting in a provision which would carry with it certain other products, for that course would be exceedingly inconvenient. In all probability if sugared goods were included it would be necessary to carry on every kind of manufacture, in which sugar was employed, in bond, and they wanted to avoid that. If the difficulty
1646
should occur it was better that they should deal with it unencumbered by a provision of this kind.
MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)said he found himself entirely at a loss to understand the position which the Government had taken up in regard to this clause. How did they stand? It was conceded that the effect of the Convention and of this Bill when they became law would be this. On the one hand it was proposed that the Government of this country under this Bill would have the power of prohibiting the importation of bounty-fed sugar in the ordinary sense of the term. Therefore, the raw material, which was an important ingredient in their supplementary manufactures, could no longer be imported into this country. That was clear. On the other hand, by the rejection of the Amendment which his hon. friend had proposed, it would be out of the power of the Government to take the same steps, that was to say, to propose a prohibition upon bounty-fed manufactured products. The raw material would necessarily be excluded, but there was no power to exclude the manufactured article, although that manufactured article was produced out of a bounty-fed raw material. That was very paradoxical and unbusinesslike, and, in view of the recent proposals, a more absurdly illogical proposition to lay before Parliament it was impossible to conceive. What was the answer which the President of the Board of Trade made when this difficulty was pointed out, not only from this side of the House, but by some of the firmest and unwavering supporters of the Government? He said that the Government would deal with the case when it arose. It was a danger, the occurrence of which was rendered distinctly more probable by the provisions of this very Bill, because if the effect of this Bill was going to he as they supposed it would be, to cheapen the price of sugar in those foreign countries, it would necessarily and pro pro tanto stimulate the manufacturing industries, and induce the countries which were not parties to the Convention to introduce an additional motive for giving a stimulus to those manufactured products. The Bill itself tended to accelerate and intensify the state of things against which the Amendment was

1647
directed, and the only answer of the Government was to deliberately throw away the only opportunity of remedying this. They were asked to wait until the danger was upon them, and until some serious encroachment had been made. Then, and not till then, the Government declared, they would make a belated application to Parliament to do that which they could do now. He would not inquire what were the motives of the Government. He had heard it suggested on the other side of the House that there was a desire to pass this Bill through without the necessity for further consideration on the Report stage. It was far too serious a matter to tamper with the interests and the security of one of the most valuable and the most growing industries of this country in order to save a few hours of Parliamentary time. Every argument which had been used pointed conclusively in one direction
and this was not disputed even by the Government themselves—namely, that when this danger did arise steps would have to be taken to deal with it. He strongly hoped that the House of Commons would rise superior both to the traditions of Parliament, and the desire for early holidays, and pass this Amend-merit
DIR. GIBSON BOWLESrose to speak, when
MR. GERALD BALFOURrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided:—Ayes, 161; Noes, 90. (Division List No. 215.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Duke, Henry Edward

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol,s

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Faber, E. B. (Hants, W.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Faber, George Denison (York)

Lowe, Francis William

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Lowther, C. (Comb., Eskdale)

Balcarres, Lord

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir.J(Manc'r

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Balfour, Rt. Hon. AJ(Manch'r.)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmonth,

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Macdona, John Cumming

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H.E(Wig'n.

Bhownggree, Sir M. M.

Flower, Ernest

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Bigwood, James

Forster, Henry William

Milvain, Thomas

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Foster, Philip S.(Warwick,S.W.

Montagu, Hon.J. Scott (Hants

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Galloway, William Johnson

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Bousfield, William Robert

Gardner, Ernest

Morgan, David J,(Walthamstow

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Gibbs, HnA.G.H(City of Lond

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Murray, Rt HnA.(Graham(Bute

Bull, William James

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

Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

Butcher, John George

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Nicholson, William Graham

Campbell, J.H.M. (Dublin Univ

Gore, Hn G.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Goulding, Edward Alfred

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

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

Groves, James Crimple

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Hall, Edward Marshall

Percy, Earl

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Midx

Pierpoint, Robert

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.J.(Birm,

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Plummer, Walter R.

Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Worc

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Pretyman, Ernest George

Charrington Spencer

Hatch, Ernest Frederick George

Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Purvis, Robert

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

Heath, James (Staffords,N.W.

Randles, John S.

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Hoare. Sir Samuel

Rankin, Sir James

Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

Hogg, Lindsay

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

Howard, J. (Midd., Tott'ham

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

Jeffreys, Rt. Fin. Arthur Fred

Reid, James (Greenock)

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Keswick, William

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Law, Andrew Boner (Glasgow)

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Renwick, George

Crossley, Sir Savile

Lawson, John Grant(YorksN.R

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Doughty, George

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Leveson-Gower Frederick N.S

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn, M.

Williams,RtHm1Powell-(Birm

Round. Rt. Hon. James

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Stroym, John

Wills, Sir Frederick

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hediey

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Wodehouse, Rt. H n. E.R. (Bath.

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

Thornton, Percy M.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Tollemache, Henry James

Wylie, Alexander

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Valentia, Viscount

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Smith. Abel H. (Hertford, E.)

Walker, Col. William Hall

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Smith, James Parker(Lancerks.

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H

Spear, John Ward

Warde, Colonel C. E.

TELLERS FOR, THE Ayes—

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Webb, Colonel William George

Sir Alexander Acland

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Hood and Mr. Austruther.

NOES.

Asher, Alexander

Harwood, George

Priestley, Arthur

Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

Rigg, Richard

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

Bell, Richard

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Holland, Sir William Henry

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Bowles, T. G. (Lyon Regis)

Horniman, Frederick John

Robson, William Snowdon

Briggs John

Humphreys-Owen. Arthur C.

Runciman, Walter

Broadhurst, Henry

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk,

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

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

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jacoby, James Alfred

Shackleton, David James

Burt, Thomas

Jones, Wm. (Cornarvonshire)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kearley, Hudson E.

Spencer, Rt HnC.R. (Northants

Caldwell, James

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

Taylor, Theodore C(Radcliffe)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Thornas, F. Freeman (Hastings)

Causton, Richard Knight

Lawson, Sir -Wilfrid (Cornwall)

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

Cawley, Frederick

Levy, Maurice

Tomkinson, James

Channing, Francis Allston

Lewis, John Herbert

Toulmin, George

Cremer, William Randal

Lough, Thomas

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Crooks, William

Lundon, W.

Ure, Alexander

Dalkeith, Earl of

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Wallace, Robert

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Markham, Arthur Basil

Warner, Thos. Cuurtenay T.

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Moss, Samuel

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Dunn, Sir William

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

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Elibank, Master of

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

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

Emmott, Alfred

Norman, Henry

Yoxall, James Henry

Fenwick, Charles

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES —

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

Paulton, James Mellor

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Griffith, Ellis J.

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Mr. William M'Arthur.

Guest Hon Ivor Churchill

Perks, Robert William

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Price, Robert John

Question put accordingly.
The Committee divided: —Ayes, 88; Noes, 156. (division List No. 216.)

AYES.

Asher, Alexander

Crooks, William

Holland, Sir William Henry

Asquith. Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Horniman, Frederick John

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Bell, Richard

Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

Dunn, Sir William

Jacoby, James Alfred

Brigg, John

Elibank, Master of

Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

Broadhurst, Henry

Emmott, Alfred

Kearley, Hudson E.

Bryce, Right Hon. James

Faber, George Denison (York)

Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George.

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Fenwick, Charles

Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

Burt, Thomas

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall),

Butcher, John George

Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Eldon

Levy, Maurice

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Griffith, Elks J.

Lewis, John Herbert

Caldwell, James

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Lough, Thomas

Causton. Richard Knight

Harmsworth, R. Leicester

Mansfield, Horace Rendall

Cawley, Frederick

Harwood, George

Markham, Arthur Basil

Channing, Francis Allston

Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

Moss, Samuel

Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasg.)

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

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

Cramer, William Randal

Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

Norman, Henry

Nussey, Thomas Willans

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Wallace, Robert

Paulton, James Mellor

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

Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

Shackleton, David James

Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

Perks, Robert William

Shipman, Dr. John G.

White, Luke (York,.E.R.)

Price, Robert John

Spencer,RtHn C.R. (Northants.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Priestley, Arthur

Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R

Rigg, Richard

Thomas, F. Freeman(Hastings)

Yoxall, James Henry

Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

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

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Tonikinson, James

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Robertson, Edmund (Dandee)

Toulmin, George

Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

Robson, William Snowdon

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Mr. William M'Arthur.

Runciman, Walter

Tire, Alexander

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Gardner, Ernest

Pretyman, Ernest George

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Gibbs, Hon AGH(City of London

Pryce-Jones; Lt.-Col. Edward

Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Purvis, Robert

Atkinson, Right Hon. John

Gordon, Hn. J.E.(Elgin & N'rn.

Randles, John S.

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

Rankin, Sir James

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gore, Hn G.R.C. Orinsby-(Salop

Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

Balcarres, Lord

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Rattigan, Sir William Henry

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

Groves, James Grimble

Reid, James (Greenock)

Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

Hall, Edward Marshall

Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Renwick, George

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Harris, Frederick Leverton

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Bigwood, James

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Robertson, H. (Hackney)

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Heath, James(Staffords., N.W

Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

Bousfield, William Robert

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Hogg, Lindsay

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Brotherton, Edward Allen

Jetrreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Bull, William James

Keswick, William

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Campbell, J.H M.(Dublin Univ.

Law, Andrew Boner (Glasgow

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. N R

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

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

Lee, A. H. (Rants., Farcham)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S

Spear, John Ward

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Stanley, Edwaid Jas.(Somerset)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Worc

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

Stirling-Maxwell, Sir Jn. M.

Charrington, Spencer

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Stone, Sir Benjamin

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Lowe, Francis William

Stroyan, John

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

Lowther, C. (Comb., Eskdale)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chirhester)

Collings, Right Hon. Jesse

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Thornton, Percy M.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

Tollemache, Henry James

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Lundon, W.

Walentia, Viscount

Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

Macdona, John Cumming

Walker, Col. William Hall

Grippe, Charles Alfred

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Walrond, Rt. Hu. Sir William H.

Crossley, Sir Savile

M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Webb, Col. William George

Doughty, George

Milvain, Thomas

Whitmore, Charles Algernon.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.)

William, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Elliot, Hon A. Ralph Douglas

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Wills, Sir Frederick

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks

Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Mait'r

Nicholson, William Graham

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, S.)

Wylie, Alexander

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

Fishier, William Hayes

O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

Flower, Ernest

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Sir Alexander Acland-

Forster, Henry William

Percy, Earl

Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Galloway, 'William Johnson

Plummer, Walter R.

THE CHAIRMANsaid the next Amendment which was in order was
1652
that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Linlithgowshire, to leave out

1653
from "Kingdom," line 19, to the end of line 21.
MR. UREmoved to report Progress.
Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  SUGAR CONVENTION BILL.
  (Considered in Committee.)
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  MR. KEARLEY,on a point of order, submitted that an Amendment standing in his name, which had been ruled out, was in order.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he did not think it could be for the reason that Article X of the Convention provided that the Convention should come into force on the 1st of September, 1903, and the three months' notice desired by the Amendment would carry it over the date when the Convention was to come into force.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid his Amendment only applied to the case where a prohibition order was issued. An Order in Council might be issued at a later stage owing to one of the contracting Powers contravening the Convention, and he desired to raise the question as to what would happen when such an Order was issued in Council.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought the Amendment, as drawn by the hon. Member, was drawn too wide. If it were accepted it would prevent a prohibition order being issued for a term of three months, and assuming that a prohibition order was issued within a few days of this Bill becoming an Act, that prohibition order would not come into force until a period of three months had elapsed, which would carry it over the date fixed for the Convention to come into force.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsubmitted that the terms of the Convention would be complied with by the issue of the order. All that the Convention required was that the order should be issued.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that was not so, the words in the Convention were "Come into force."
  MR. LOUGHsubmitted that the Amendment was a very necessary Amendment, because in the event of an order being issued it was very necessary that notice should be given to this country. He had no doubt that if the Amendment was too wide that his hon. friend would be willing to add any words that were necessary to bring it into order. He thought it was absolutely necessary for the commerce of this country that some notice should be given, and that the Convention would be effectively carried out if notice were given that after three months no more sugar would be allowed to come into this country from any particular part.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he thought as at present drafted the Amendment was not in order, though the hon. Member might find words to meet his objection.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he understood that he should not by not moving it now lose his opportunity of moving it later in a modified form at the end of the clause. It seemed to him that in this sub-section the opportunity occurred, and it might not occur again. He asked that his opportunity might be preserved to him.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he could not go so far as that, all he could say was that the hon. Member was not in a worse position by not moving his Amendment now.
  MR. UREmoved the omission of the words—
  "Subject to any provision, which may be made by Parliament in lieu of such prohibition, to impose a special duty on such sugar in accordance with the Convention."
  The Convention made the most serious inroad ever made within the memory of any Member of the House upon the rights of Parliament, because it devolved

  1655
  upon a body of foreign officials the right to intervene in the fiscal arrangements of the United Kingdom; but the Convention did not go so far as to say that having adopted the method of prohibition we should be for ever debarred from adopting the method of countervailing duties. The proviso in the Bill suggested that having adopted one method we were restricted to that method, and by striking out these words in the clause he wished to leave Parliament free to deal with bounty-fed sugar in the future as the circumstances of the time and the changes that might occur would dictate. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 19, to leave out from the word 'Kingdom,' to the end of line 21."—(Mr. ure.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had listened with great attention to the argument of the hon. Gentleman, but had failed to find out what his objection to these words was. There were two alternatives in this matter. One was to penalise sugar by countervailing duties, and the other was prohibition. He could not see that any reason had been adduced for omitting this proviso. The object of the proviso was to indicate to all whom it might concern that this country, whilst adopting by preference the plan of prohibition, still regarded it as a perfectly open question whether in certain circumstances it should not have recourse to the remedy of imposing countervailing duties.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONobjected to the words as simple surplusage. It was bad drafting to introduce into a Bill words that were unnecessary. The Chairman had indicated that nothing was to be introduced into the Bill that was outside the scope of the Convention, and if that was a good ruling it should tell both ways. These words were entirely beyond the scope of the Convention. The right hon. Gentleman had said that this was an indication or suggestion that
  1656
  this country might take a different action if it became necessary. It was not the business of the British Parliament to make suggestions to foreigners or anybody else, and to introduce a suggestion of this sort into a Bill of this kind was derogatory to British institutions.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he could not agree that these words were mere surplusage. They had considerable effect in certain eventualities. In certain eventualities only was His Majesty allowed to do certain things. His. Majesty was to sit mute and do nothing until a Commission of foreigners reported. Then His Majesty assembled his Privy Council and issued an order prohibiting the importation of certain sugar, though not against the articles made from it. That was what was suggested, but it was all make-believe. What really happened was that a clerk drew up in his own phrases an order which was submitted to one or two members of the Privy Council, who were members of the Ministry, and, if approved by them, a new law was forever fixed upon the country. No provision for the second alternative could be made by Parliament without the-sanction of the Ministers of the Crown, who were the same persons as those who sanctioned the Order in Council, who would have to propose it. This was one of the amusing features of the Bill, His Majesty could prohibit the importation of sugar, but the very much milder course of imposing countervailing duties would require the whole machinery of Parliament, because such action would partake of the nature of a duty imposed on the people. These words, therefore, were not surplusage from the point of view of Parliament, though they were from the point of view of the Government. The Government had announced over and over again that their policy was prohibition pure and simple, and these words were put into this section merely in order to throw dust in the eyes of Parliament. The Government wanted to persuade the House that, under certain circumstances, they would come down and propose not prohibition but some lighter penalty on the offending sugar. Under what circumstances would the Government propose to come down

  1657
  to the House and say, "We propose to abandon prohibition and adopt some other measure?" It was not as if this section gave to the King power to impose countervailing duties, which would, perhaps, be a more reasonable tiring than giving him the power of prohibition. Once having adopted the principle of prohibition it would be rather remarkable for the Government to come down and propose to repeal it. This was one of the great defects of this Bill, as hon. Members would see if they only read the last finding of the permanent Commission, which provided that the Commission should ponder and weigh arid decide the exact amount of the bounty.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR,on a point of order, submitted that this matter had already been discussed and decided.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid he hardly thought it was Out of order. The ground was gone over several times on previous nights, and he hoped the hon. Member would bear that in mind.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: It seemed to him that it the right hon. Gentleman desired to take that course he ought to come to Parliament for a new Act. His contention was that the whole thing was contrary to the spirit of the Convention, which was to equalise competition, whereas this dis-equalised competition. The Bill was very badly drawn. He believed that the draftsman desired to carry out the Convention, but he did riot get over the difficulties in his way by this proviso. In fact, the proviso amounted to nothing at all. It seemed to him that there was a very wide difference between Executive and Parliamentary action, and that there were objections of every kind, practical and constitutional, to the words proposed to be left out. He was strongly of opinion that these words ought to be left out.
  MR. LOUGHsaid lie could not agree with his hon. friend the Member for
  King's Lynn that the right of imposing countervailing dirties should be given to the King in Council. His hon. friend suggested that these words were surplusage; he would complete the argument and say that they were merely nonsense.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that the word "subject" was not happy. What conceivable use could there be of putting in a phrase like that, which had absolutely no meaning. The proviso practically amounted to a statement that if Parliament should legislate hereafter on this subject, its legislation would take effect, notwithstanding any Order in Council. Was it not ridiculous that Parliament should be asked to state that it had power to legislate. not withstanding such an Order? Why. it had power to legislate, notwithstanding previous statutes. What possible use could there be in keeping in these words?
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that the proviso effected more than the right hon Gentleman had indicated. The Government wished, in drafting this Bill, to give due notice to the various countries concerned, that while they adopted the principle of prohibition so far as the rough and ready powers given to the Privy Council were concerned, they still did not exclude from their minds the probability or possibility of employing another remedy.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that ex hypothesi the remedy of countervailing dirties was less violent and less dangerous than that of prohibition, and, therefore, he could not appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's argument. If they wanted to give notice to foreign Powers they could do so by a diplomatic note or protocol.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 114 Noes, 54. (Division List No. 217.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner James Tynte

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Balfour, Rt. Hu. G. W. (Leeds

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Banbury, Sir Frederiek (George

  Arnold-Foster. Hugh O.

  Balfour, Rt. Ho. A. J. (Man'r

  Bhownaggree, sir M. M.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Randles, John S.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Groves, James Grimble

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Butcher, John George

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Campbell. J.H M.(Dublin Univ

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Renwick, George

  Cavelolish, V.C. W.(Derbyshire

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Ritchie, Rt. flu. C. Thomson

  Charrington, Spencer

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Cochrane, Hon. Thomas H.A.E.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney).

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Heath, James(Staffords., N.W.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Howard, J. (Midd. Tott'ham

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

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

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Spear, John Ward

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. O.

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Doughty, George

  Keswick, William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Douglas. Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Stroyan, John

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Law, Andrew Bonar(Glasgow)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dinning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chiebester)

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Valentia, Viscount

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lowther, C. (Cuamb.,Eskdale

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Lowther, Rt. Hon. Jas. (Kent

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Webb, Col. William George

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Lvttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Williams Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H. (Yorks

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Milvain, Thomas

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

  Flower, Ernest

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Forster, Henry William

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham(Bule

  Wylie, Alexander

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, SW.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Percy, Earl

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin & N'rn

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pryce-.Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir T. Eldon

  Purvis, Robert

  NOES.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Runciman, Walter

  Bell, Richard

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham,

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Shackleton, David James

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn. Regis

  Humphreys-Owen. Arthur C.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Brigg, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fred k.

  Spencer, Nt. Hn. CR.(Northants

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Jones, William(Cornarv'n shire

  Sullivan, Donal

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Thomas, Freeman (Hastings)

  Burt, Thomas

  Levy, Maurice

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

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Caldwell, James

  Mansfield, Horace Reudall

  Toumin, George

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cawley, Frederick

  Moss, Samuel

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Price, Robert John

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Crooks, William

  Rigg, Richard

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

  Roberts, John Bryon (Eifion)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Mr. Ure and Mr. Lough.

  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that the Bill made no provision for the discontinuance of an order except by special revocations. The Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper made the continuance of an order dependent upon the continuance of the circumstances which had brought it into existence. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman that this was a very
  1660
  serious thing for our trade. This strong penal clause ought to be strictly guarded and limited. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page I, line 21, after the word ' Convention,' to insert the words and such order shall he in force until the permanent Commission reports that such bounty is no longer granted in such foreign country.'"—(Mr. Edmund Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that in his opinion the Amendment amounted to an absurdity. When the reason for an order had expired the order would be revoked.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that what was wanted was to have a business conclusion to these transactions. None of the other Powers had any interest under this clause except this country. We were the only importing Power, and, therefore, we wanted to provide a machinery to have an end put to these transactions at some time.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he did not know what sort of methods might sway future Governments, but this Bill placed the whole fiscal system of this country at the discretion of the Government for the time being, so far as the' prohibition of sugar was concerned. The right hon Gentleman had said that was not exactly what was proposed, but his (Mr. Bowles) opinion was that the order should be revoked when the permanent Commission reported that the bounty had ceased to be granted. It seemed to him to be only reasonable that when they made a provision for the prohibition of sugar they should also allow for the cessation of the order.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not like the words because they gave too much power to the permanent Commission. He would give some discretion to the Executive Government, and he thought something was to be said for putting in some word so that when the permanent Commission reported that the bounty was to be taken off, it should not be in the power of the Government to continue the duty. Circumstances might easily arise in which there might be sonic delay or reason whereby the prohibition was not taken off, and he failed to understand why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept some Amendment to settle the matter.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid it was important that inasmuch as the publication of the order was made
  1662
  in such a way that the traders had notice of it, so the revocation of the order ought to be published with the same formalities, and its effect made known over an equally wide area. His objection to the Amendment was that time moment the Commission sitting in Brussels came to report that the bounty had ceased to be given, then, ipso facto, the operation of the order of the Council in this country came to an end. But how was the world at large to know the precise moment at which the Commission in Brussels came. to the conclusion to publish a report that the bounty had ceased? It was. necessary, therefore, that the order formally issued should be as formally withdrawn by the same authority, with the-same publicity, and with the same sanction, Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognised that when the justification of the order had been withdrawn the obligation would be cast upon the Government. to formally withdraw the order.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONdid not propose to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, arid asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, at the same-time suggesting that when Clause 3 came to be considered the point could be dealt with by the Committee.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he wished to propose an Amendment. that was not upon the Paper. It was clearly laid down in the Convention what would happen under certain conditions, but the sugar traders were not supposed to know what the Convention contained, and this Bill, which was going to enact so much, did not contain what would be. the penalties to be imposed, under certain conditions, at a later date. His object was to make clear in the Bill the liability of the merchants to the States with whom they had forward contracts.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the-effect of this Amendment would be to prolong the time which was fixed by the Act at two months.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he thought that a country legislating, as they were that

  1663
  night, should fix when the new duties should come into operation He suggested that they should fix the time at one month.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he thought they must fix it at two months.
  MR. BRYCEasked the meaning of the words, "to take effect in two months' time."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid they meant that the contracting States must prohibit countervailing duties within that time.
  MR. REARLEYsaid his Amendment contemplated the position in the event of the bounty existing after this Convention ca me into force. He wanted it clearly put in this Bill so that the merchants and traders in this country would know the limit of time in which they could clear their contracts. Otherwise the buyer would find that he had sugar on which he was liable in this country, whilst he would have no claim upon people outside this country. It was monstrous that a Merchant should be put in such a position. He begged to move to add at the end of Sub-section 1 the words "provided that any prohibition order issued against any non-signatory State found to be giving a bounty after the Convention collies into force, shall take effect in two months from the date of issue of such order."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 21, at end, to insert the words 'provided that any prohibition order issued against any non-signatory State found to he giving a bounty after the Convention tunes into force shall take effect in two months from the date of issue of such order.'"—(Mr.kearley)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. LOUGHsaid he understood it would happen that when the permanent Commissioners had the matter brought to their notice, and had reason to suppose that any bounty was given by any particular non-signatory State they would report, and, within two months of the date of that report, the contracting State in order to comply with the Convention must either issue a prohibition order or
  1664
  impose countervailing duties. If the hon. Member's Amendment were to be inserted it would give two months from the making of the order, and would carry it on beyond the date provided for in the Convention. He would suggest that the date should be shortened to one month.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid he would act upon the suggestion and alter the date from two months to one month in order that the Commissioners need not he called together under a month, and having come to a decision they need not put that decision into force for two months. He imagined that the signatory States would be in a much better position than the non-signatory States. His object was that merchants or brokers in this country, who had entered into contracts with States who put themselves out of order at a later period by giving a bounty, might know how long they had to clear their contracts, He was endeavouring not to put anything in the Bill that was not in accordance with the terms of the Convention, but only to protect the interests of the British trader.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the hon. Member had said he moved the Amendment in the interest of the British trader, but he could not understand how the shortening of the period from two months to one month would promote that interest.
  Amendment, as amended, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOUGHmoved to omit Subsection 2 of Clause 1 He said that in Sub-section 1 it was clearly put that if sugar came from any countries and prohibition orders should be issued against those countries, the effect would be that sugar from those countries could not he landed here. Sub-section 2 went a great deal further, and said that, when a prohibition order was in force, the laws relating to Customs should apply as if sugar were specified in the table of prohibitions and restrictions contained in Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876. The members of the Committee would not know what that meant, but he would tell them. ft dealt with a number of artic'es which no one

  1665
  could bring into this country without committing a crime. These articles were books copyrighted in this country, false coins or silver of the realm not of the established weight, indecent or obscene prints, articles of foreign manufacture bearing an English name, watches or clocks having on them the name of an English maker, and finally it dealt with infected cattle or sheep, that, on purely sanitary grounds must be excluded. It gave the Customs authorities drastic powers of dealing with these prohibited articles. He proposed to omit that sub-section because any one of those articles might be rightly forfeited or destroyed, hut there was no cause to destroy sugar sent to this country from Russia or Egypt, or any other country which might by chance be condemned by this Commission. There was no relevancy between t his Act and the provision necessary to be made with regard to sugar. The truth was that the Government were in a difficulty. They had no precedent for prohibition, and did not know how to find means for disposing of the prohibited goods. It was, he contended, not right to give the Customs Commissioners power to destroy or dispose of this property. The provision had been hastily incorporated in the Bill and was not a necessary part of it. The Convention told them in Article ill what they ought to do; it did not say that it could be destroyed, and he could not imagine the slightest use for this subsection, as it simply applied to sugar. He begged to move to omit Sub-section 2 of Clause I.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1.line 22, to leave out Sub-section (2)—(Mr. Louyh.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that was a very simple one. Some kind of machinery was needed to deal with prohibited goods, and the machinery which had been provided in the case of prohibited sugar It was, however, an entire mistake to suppose the there would be a
  1666
  destruction of the sugar. In practice the goods were not allowed to be landed, but the Customs authorities might allow the sugar to be taken away to some port where a similar prohibition did not exist. The provision here was in the interest of those who brought in the prohibited cargo, and though the owner was not allowed to land it he could take it away under conditions laid down by the Customs. If this machinery was not adopted it would be impossible to deal with prohibited goods and make effective the prohibition provided by the clause Instead of setting up new machinery, the Government had thought it better to adopt the machinery which already existed in the Act of 1876.
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that Section 42 of the Act of 1876 prescribed that certain goods should be forfeited.
  Mk. RITCHIE: Or otherwise disposed of.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: No, it specified that certain goods should be forfeited, and that, after being forfeited, they might be destroyed or otherwise disposed of as the Commissioners of Customs might direct. Under that Act the Customs officers would not be entitled to order the owner of a cargo to take it away. He failed to understand why the right hon. Gentleman had interpreted the section as he had done.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the hon. Member for Poplar had misapprehended Section 42. It was true goods might be forfeited, but in effect they were given back on payment of a fine. He remembered that on one occasion he was threatened with the forfeiture of ins yacht, because some of his crew had smuggled tobacco, but he was told that if he paid a fine of £15 10s., he could have it back. He objected to embodying the section in the Bill, because it gave too much latitude to the Customs officials.
  MR. BRYCEasked what instructions would be given to meet a case of the kind under this Bill.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that the instructions would certainly not contemplate

  1667
  anything like destruction of the sugar. The phrase "forfeited" in the Act of 1876 was a mere technical phrase as applied to the present Bill. Whether a fine would be inflicted or not, would of course depend on the circumstances of the case, but undoubtedly the sugar would he allowed to leave. There would not in any case be any question of destruction.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSONsaid that forfeiture implied a loss of property, and the sugar would consequently become the property of the Crown, who would allow the owner to buy it back for a specified sum.
  MR. ROBSONthought the right hon. Gentleman had made a most excellent speech in favour of the Amendment, and had entirely justified it. Sub-section 2 was simply a provision which added certain penalties to prohibition. If the sub-section were omitted, we should have prohibition without further penalty. That was a reasonable course to adopt. There was nothing wrong in bringing sugar from a bounty-giving country to this country, especially if the cargo were on its way to some other place. Section 42 of the Customs Act, however, would cover this latter case, and the cargo would become subject to forfeiture. It had been suggested that forfeiture was merely a technical term. But the section of the Customs Act said that the cargo should be forfeited, arid might be destroyed or disposed of as the Commissioners thought fit. In these circumstances, if the Commissioners restored the cargo, lie thought a Court of law would take the view that they were refusing to perform the obligation which the section cast upon them.
  MR. RITCHIE: It is done every day.
  MR. ROBSONsaid that in that case it was done wrongly every day. He urged that they should confine their action to simple prohibition. They ought not to place sugar in the same category as indecent literature, and he would remind the Committee that the Convention did not pledge us to impose any penalties of this kind.
  MR. KEARLEYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained that these goods would be forfeited temporarily, but the objection was to honest goods being forfeited at all. There was no justification for their being so treated. Why could not the right hon. Gentleman be satisfied with refusing the goods access? Lower on the Paper he (the hon. Member) had placed a proposal to add the words "provided that such sugar should not be forfeited or destroyed." If the Chancellor of the Exchequer desired to hasten the proceedings of the Committee he had only to intimate his willingness to accept that Amendment. Unless such an intimation was given they could only consider the matter as it stood in the Bill, and that was that the goods should be forfeited or destroyed.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he could not accept the Amendment to whcih the hon. Member referred. Circumstances could be conceived under which the forfeit must be a very real one. The powers of the Customs under the Act to which reference had been made, would be more. clearly understood if he read Section 209. (The right hon. Gentleman read the section.) It would thus be seen that the Customs had full power to deal with a cargo of this kind in the way he. had suggested. Section 42 was governed by Section 209.
  MR. LAWSON WALTONsaid he fully appreciated the point of view of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if the administration of these powers was in the hands of the right hon Gentleman they would doubtless be exercised with great consideration. But it had to be remembered that the Government and Customs, officials, to whom the discharge of this, duty under the system would be entrusted, would be subjected to all kinds of pressure. In some cases it would be indicated that an example ought to be made, and a forfeiture, followed by a remission on a nominal payment, would not meet the demands of persons interested in maintaining the position which those engaged in the trade occupied under this legislation. In such cases a very invidious duty would be cast upon the Custom House officials if they were

  1669
  given the stringent powers conferred by this section. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether powers of a far less drastic character would not meet the necessities of the case. Where cattle were imported in an infected condition the mere fact that their condition was a danger to the health of the port entitled the Customs official to have the cattle destroyed, but where cattle were shipped from an infected port there were powers simply to refuse permission for them to be landed. Surely a similar power would be quite sufficient in this case. The section applied in the Bill was applicable to owners of property who were infringing what they knew to be the law, and every one of the cases referred to was a clear infringement of either the statute or the common law. The Government were now proposing to apply to an innocent person the power of forfeiture, which under the section incorporated, was applicable only to guilty owners who were seeking to evade the law. Such drastic powers were quite unnecessary, and he suggested it would be perfectly sufficient to say that any cargo arriving at a British port while an order, was in operation, would be refused the ordinary rights of landing, and the ship-owner ordered to take the cargo elsewhere.
  MR. NUSSEYsaid that apparently the Customs officials were to have an open mind and hold an inquiry into each special case as the ship came in. He could understand the Government sympathising with that attitude, but he desired to ask whether in the event of the Customs officials giving a harsh verdict, making an example, and insisting on the ship being forfeited. and imposing a heavy fine, there would be any appeal from their decision. Would the owner have any opportunity of placing his case before any other tribunal? If not, he thought this was a very hard provision. In many cases mere prohibition of landing would be quite sufficient.
  MR. RUNCIMAN (Dew-bury)instanced the case of a ship entering Liverpool with a part cargo, the remainder of which was to be discharged at
  1670
  another part, and asked whether such a vessel, coming say from the River Plate with a part cargo to be discharged in Copenhagen, and landing the first portion in an English port, would be subject to seizure in the same way as if she brought a cargo of sugar to an English port. It was a most important pint, and one which did not arise in the case of cattle. He hoped, therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make some statement in relation to the subject.
  MR. RITCHIEwas understood to say that not being a lawyer he could not give an opinion on the point of law, but, what he imagined would happen in such a case as that referred to, was that although liable to forfeiture, it would be dealt with, without any fine or penalty of any kind, under Section 209, and would not be interfered with in any way.
  MR. BRYCEinstanced the case of a cargo for the Argentine and another for this country. Technically, it would be brought into the United Kingdom and become subject to the order, although it was never intended to be landed here. He asked whether that was not a matter to be dealt with by instructions to the Customs officials. If the regulations were such as to prevent the part cargo being discharged and the vessel allowed to continue her voyage to the other port, the operations of merchants would be seriously interfered with. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer could state that no obstacle would be put in the way of such a vessel coming into a British port so long as she did not attempt to land her cargo, it would relieve the difficulty.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that if such a case occurred, so far as his power was concerned, he would endeavour to secure that it was dealt with without inconvenience to the ship concerned.
  MR. LOUGHrecognised the disposition of the right hon. Gentleman to make a genial arrangement, but the great principle raised by the Amendment had not been met in the least degree. The Government were inaugurating a system of protection, in which this measure was the first step, and there ought to be fair protective laws. Recourse ought not to

  1671
  be had to a law passed twenty-five years ago in the era of free trade which did not contemplate present circumstances at all. He was sorry to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was believed to be a free trader, lending the support of his good name to such a bad system. This sugar ought not to be forfeited, as no offence had been committed. Instead of such a stigma being thrown upon an importer, he should be told, "We have made new regulations, and you must go away." This was the easiest Amendment. the Opposition had suggested, and if there was any disposition to do so the Government could very well meet them.
  Sin JOHN GORSTsaid the president of the Board of Trade had declared that the Bill was not to go one inch beyond the Convention. But this proposal distinctly went beyond the Convention,
  because, whereas the Convention contemplated only countervailing duties or prohibition, this provision contemplated forfeiture in addition.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he was really astonished at his right hon. friend, a lawyer, assuming that they could enact a law prohibiting the entry of certain goods without providing means for carrying the law into force. Such a position was totally indefensible. With regard to goods in transit, he desired to correct his previous statement. He did not think any regulation would be necessary, because the Act would not apply to goods in transit.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 171; Noes, 76. (Division List, No. 218.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Howard. J. (Midd., Tott'ham

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Jos. O.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doughty, George

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Johnstone, Heywood

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

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Keswick, William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N.R

  Bigwood, James

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir. J.(Manc'r

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bill, Charles

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Flower, Ernest

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Forster, Henry William

  Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

  Bull, William James

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Butcher, John George

  Gardner, Ernest

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Campbell J. H. M(Dublin Univ.

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

  Lucas, Reginald. J. (Portsmouth)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Godson, Sir Angustus Frederiek

  Lyttelton. Hon. Alfred

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

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  M`Arthur, Charles (Liever pool)

  Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Gore, Hn GR. C. Ormsby- (Salop

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A.(Wore.

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Milvain, Thomas

  Charrington, Spencer

  Greene, W. Raymond (Combs

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott(Hants.

  Churchill. Winston Spencer

  Groves, James Grimble

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Midx

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Percy, Earl

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cox. Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Hermon-Hodge. Sir Robert T.

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Cripps, Charles Alfred.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Purvis, Robert

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Randles, John S.

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Rnefrew

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm,

  Rattigan, Sir William Henry

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H (Yorks)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Spencer, Sir E. (W.Bromwich)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Renwick, George

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Stroyan, John

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hood and Mr. Austruther.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Thornton, Percy M

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Valentia, Viscount

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Harwood, George

  Rigg, Richard

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas Scale-

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt Hy

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Hemderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee

  Bell, Richard

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles, Fredk.

  Rose, Chares Day

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James,

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Shackleton, David James

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Jones. Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Burt, Thomas

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Spencer, RtHn C. R. (Northan's

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Kilbride, Denis

  Sullivan, Donal

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid(Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Thomas, F. Freeman-(Hastigs

  Cawley, Frederick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Tomkinson, James

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Toulmin, George

  Crooks, William

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Ure, Alexander

  Dilke, Rt Hon. Sir Charles

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Moss, Samuel

  Warner Thos. Courtenay T.

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Elibank, Master of

  Partington, Oswald

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whitley, J. H. (Holifax)

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Lough and Mr.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Rea, Russell

  Runciman

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Rickett, J. Compton

  MR. LOUGHsaid he desired to move the Amendment standing in the name of his hon. friend the Member for Loughborough. To him it did not seem to be necessary to make all those costly inquiries with regard to sugar which was only in transit. This question affected this country more than any other country, for England had been called the carrying nation of the world. He did not think they ought to go one single step further in the imposition of restrictions on the shipping trade than was absolutely necessary. It would have been much better if the Government had been satisfied with confirming the present law, which would have been sufficient for all purposes. Sugar in transit should be free from all restrictions. He wished to know if a barge came down the Elbe
  1674
  with 1,000 tons of sugar, some from Austria and some from Germany, consigned to one hundred different people in the United Kingdom, would there have to be one hundred certificates of origin, and would the sugar have to be traced to all the places from whence it came? At present a bill of lading, say from Hamburg to Hull, was all that was necessary, and that ought to be sufficient He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 2, to leave out the words whether in transit or otherwise,' and insert the words except sugar in transit.'"—(Mr. Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. GERALD BALFOURopposed the Amendment on the ground that it was necessary to take this power of requiring certificates of origin to carry out the provisions of Article VIII. of the Convention. For that reason he should resist the Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the answer of the President of the Board of Trade, with which he was disposed to agree, showed the enormous danger this new system would expose the trade to. He believed that under this Bill they were bound to introduce some system of tins kind and apply it to all goods in transit. This showed that we should have to resuscitate our old Customs system in all its horrors, as a consequence of interference with British trade.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid the second Article, concerning the certificates of origin, in the findings of the permanent Commission, said that bounty-fed sugar might be admitted in transit. This had been translated "shall be" admitted. There did not seem to be anyone in the Foreign Office who could translate French. There were no fewer than seven articles specifying in the most minute detail the sort of certificate of origin that would be required. There was thus set up a system of certificates of origin which had failed all over the world, and wherever it had been tried it had always been given up as a failure. It was notorious that under a similar system a very large quantity of timber from Canada had been grown in Norway, sent over to Canada, and afterwards re shipped to this country. Again, the certificate of origin was a document of an extremely complicated character, and the Government had not yet decided what form the certificate should take. This was a very serious matter to those engaged in trade.
  MR. BRYCEalso called attention to the extreme minuteness of these Articles. As he understood the view of the Government, it was t hat whatever this permanent Commission chose to say must be done, in order to carry out Article VIII, we were bound to do. They might impose a very heavy burden upon this country. He could not see
  1676
  the necessity for this elaborate provision. The system was bound to cause an immense amount of trouble. It would be a sample of what this country would have to undergo if there was any departure from its system of free trade.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked the President of the Board of Trade to give some reason why it was necessary to demand certificates of origin when sugar was passing through open ports for purposes of transhipment. The right hon. Gentleman had referred them to Article VIII of the Convention, which provided that—
  "The high contracting parties engage, for themselves and for their colonies or possessions, exception being made in the case of the self-governing colonies of Great Britain and the British East Indies, to take the necessary measures to prevent bounty-fed sugar, which has passed in transit through the territory of a contracting state, from enjoying the benefits of the Convention in the market to which it is being sent."
  He failed to see what could be the use of demanding certificates of origin merely for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of that Article, which did not throw any responsibility upon this country to prevent bounty- fed sugar from entering any of our ports. The right hon. Gentleman apparently did not fully realise how important were the transhipments in the United Kingdom. They ran to an enormous tonnage. Cargoes were brought in large ships for transhipment into a great fleet of smaller vessels, and the cargoes were delivered all over the world. The right hon. Gentleman was throwing obstacles in the way of transhipments, and was going to put a premium upon fraud. If the Bill went through in its present form, the certificate of origin would not be worth the paper on which it was printed. The right hon. Gentleman would throw every obstacle in the way of distributing goods from the ports of this country, which would amount to a restraint of English trade, and would add to the disadvantages under which the country would labour through this Convention.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid they were bound by the findings mentioned on page 12. Certificates of origin must accompany all sugar, although a certain discretion was left as to the form of the

  1677
  certificate. The whole transhipment must take place under the eye of the Customs authorities, and this country was bound by this arrangement to that objectionable system.
  MR LAWSON WALTONsaid that as he read the provisions of the Convention on page 12 they did not seem to apply at all except to sugar which entered the United Kingdom. Not only so, but they were limited to sugar for certain specified purposes. He thought there would be no difficulty in dealing with that large class of sugar to which reference had been made, which was brought into British ports on vessels merely calling for orders and on their way to European ports.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR.repeated that it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the Commission had decided that certificates of origin must accompany all sugar imported into the contracting States, and rules had been laid down in regard to this matter.
  MR. LOUGHsaid the President of the Board of Trade had mixed up the findings of the permanent Commission with the Convention itself. If the permanent Commission went further in their findings than the Convention required, they had no authority, and he had no respect for them whatever. Judging by the findings it seemed to him that they had left undone those things which they ought to have done, and done those things which they ought not to have done. The first duty they had to perform was to give information with regard to the sugar trade of the world and the bounty-fed sugar of various countries, but they had not given a scrap of information. The Foreign Office had supplied the bit of information given at the end of the findings. The duties of the Commission were set out in Article VII, and there was nothing there authorising them to fix the laws under which sugar should be sent in transit through this or any other country. The Commission were really not a judicial body as they ought to be. They were a cartel of
  1678
  protectionists who were trying to set up a system which would destroy the free-trade institutions of this country.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Committee were in a very difficult position. He thought they might appeal to the law officers of the Crown to give some light on the matter. There was great difference of legal opinion on the matter and he did not think it was treating the Committee rightly to leave the interpretation of the clause to the right hon. Gentleman. They were entitled to have an opinion from the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. It was perfectly clear from the wording of the Article that there was very great confusion as to its meaning. If our transport and transit trade was to be jeopardised by the findings of the Commission, the right hon. Gentleman should bring the facts and particulars before them and show how our trade would be injured.
  MR. ROBSONsaid it was difficult to see from the Convention itself how there was any necessity for such a sub-section being imposed on any of the contracting States. It enacted that sugar passing in transit should produce a certificate of origin. He turned to the Convention to see where any provision of that nature was made.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid the Convention enabled regulations to be made.
  MR. ROBSONsaid he took that correction, if it was a correction, but it did not affect the substance of his argument at all. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman referred to Article VII, but it imposed no such obligation on the Government. It said—
  "The high contracting parties engage, for themselves and for their colonies or possessions, exception being made in the ease of the self-governing colonies of Great Britain and the British East Indies, to take the necessary measures to prevent bounty-fed sugar, which has passed in transit through the territory of a contracting State, from enjoying the benefits of the Convention in the market to which it is being sent. The permanent Commission shall make the necessary proposals with regard to this matter."

  1679
  He should like an explanation of what was meant by "the benefits of the Convention in the market to which it is being sent." It appeared to him that it was meaningless so far as England was concerned. It might have some remote connection with the benefit of the surtax, or something of that kind, in other countries. The President of the Board of Trade did not seem to be able to point out what it meant. How could they carry out the object of that Article by saying to an importer of bounty-fed sugar, "Where do you come from?" and then, when he told them, allowing him to pass on. They did not, by putting that question, prevent his sugar from enjoying the benefits of the market to which it was being sent. Whoever drafted the Bill ought to be able to explain in what way he meant this subsection to carry out that Article. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who had not taken a very active or aggressive part in the debate, might he permitted by his official superiors to give some explanation of the Bill, and to state how the object of the article could he carried out by this sub-section.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid it seemed to him impossible to carry out the article without having certificates of origin.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked whether certificates of origin were necessary for goods in course of transhipment. The question was of the utmost importance.
  MR. WHITLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he could give an estimate of the cost which would be involved in supervising these ques-tiens at all the ports in the United Kingdom. He was informed that thousands of men would have to be
  added to the staff of the Customs to carry out this provision.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid one of the greatest grievances which our traders had against the laws of France had been the Sur-tax d'entrepot, which was an additional tax on sea-borne goods that passed through a foreign country on their way to France. This Bill would virtually impose that tax on goods which passed by this country on their way to foreign countries.
  MR. BRYCEappealed to the President of the Board of Trade to reply. He said this Bill would make the Convention part of the law of England, and they were entitled to know what the Convention meant.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid he had expressed his opinion more than once on this subject. Under Article VIII certain obligations were placed on the contracting Powers, and in respect of those obligations the permanent Commission were to make the necessary proposals. They had made those proposals, and the effect of them appeared to him, and also to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean, to make it necessary for us, in. certain contingencies at all events, to require certificates of origin in the case of sugar in transit. Even if this country was not absolutely bound by the proposals of the permanent Commission, those proposals must be taken into serious consideration, and, whether these powers were ultimately exercised or not, it was necessary to take them in order to enable us to carry out those proposals.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 168; Noes, 70. (Division List No. 219.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Bigwood, James

  Butcher, John George

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bill, Charles

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

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

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

  Bowles, T. Gibson (Lynn Regis)

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Bull, William James

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A(Worc)

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Rasch, Major Frederic Carne

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Reid, James (Greenock)

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

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Collings, Rt Hn. Jesse

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Renwick, George

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Johnstone, Heywood

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg)

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Keswick, William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lawrenue, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, Jn. Grant (Yorks.N. R.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

  Doughty, George

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew

  Douglas, Rt. Ron. A. Akers

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spear, John Ward

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants., W

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

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Brmwich)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Mane'r

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Stroyan, John

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Stunt, Hon. Hamphry Napier

  Flower, Ernest

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Forster, Henry William

  Maedona, John Cumming

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  M'Killcip, W. (Sligo, North)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Melville, Beresford Valentine

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Gibbs, Hn. A.G.H. [Cityof Lond.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Walrond Rt. Hn. Sir Wm H

  Godson, Sir Augnstus Frederick

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Gordon, Maj. Evans(Tr.H'ml'ts

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Williams, Rt Hn Powell(Birm

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Mount, William Arthur

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Greene, W. Raymod(Cambs.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H.(Yorks

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R(Bath

  Groves, James Grimble

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Gunest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Wylie, Alexander

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Palmer, Waiter (Salisbury)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Hamilton, Rt. Hn. Ld.G(Midi x

  Percy, Earl

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Plummer, Walter R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick G.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W

  Purvis, Robert

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Handles, John S.

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt.Hy.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  M`Kenna, Reginald

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Bell, Richard

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Harwood, George

  Moss, Samuel

  Brigg, John

  Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Partington, Oswald

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Hutchinson, Dr.CharlesFredk.

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Price, Robert John

  Caldwell, James

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Priestley, Arthur

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Russell

  Cawley, Frederick

  Kearlev, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Cremer, William Randal

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rigg, Richard

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roherts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Levy, Maurice

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanar k

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Elibank, Master of

  Lough, Thomas

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Emmott, Alfred

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Rose, Charles Day

  1682

  1683

  Runciman, Walter

  Thomas, F. Freeman (Hastings

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Tomkinson, James

  Shackleton, David James

  Toulmin, George

  TELLERS. FOR THE NOES—

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ure, Alexander

  Mr. Warner and Mr.

  Spencer, Rt Hn C.R(Northants

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Whitley.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  White, Luke (York, E R.)

  MR. GERALD BALFOURrose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill' be now put"
  Question put
  "That the Question 'That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill' be now put"
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 155; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 220.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Percy, Earl

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr H'ml'ts

  Piatt-Higgins, Frederick

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Gore, Hn. G.R.C.Ormsby(Salop

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Combs

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Mauch' r

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Pryee-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Groves, James Grimble

  Purvis, Robert

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Handles, John S.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn. Ld.G (Midd'x

  Rasch, Major Frederic Came

  Bigwood, James

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bill, Charles

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo

  Renwick, Georga

  Boseawen, Arthur Griffith

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Heath, James (Staff's., N. W.)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Robertson, Hertert (Hackney

  Bull, William James

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Butcher, John George

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Campbell, J.H.M(Dublin, Univ

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham

  Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

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

  Cavendish,V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Keswick, William

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

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

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. A.J(Worc

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm' th

  Spear, John Ward

  Charrington, Spencer

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. NR

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Cochrane, He. Thos. H. A. E.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Stroyan, John

  Colomb,Sir John Charles Ready

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Sturt, Hn. Humphry Napier

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg)

  Lockwood, Lieut. -Col. A. R.

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Taylor, Austin (Eest Toxteth)

  Cox, Irwin Edwd. Bainbridge

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim, S

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Valentia, Viscount

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Lowe, Francis William

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Doughty, George

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Webb, Col. William George

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Wiliiams, Rt. Hn J Powell(Birm

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks

  Faber, Edmund B. (Heats., W.

  M Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

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

  Faber, George Denison (York

  Milvain, Thomas

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir J.(Manc'r

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finch, Rt. Ho. George H.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Forster, Henry William

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Foster, Philip S. (Warwick,S. W

  Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Jones, William (Garnarvonsh.

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Brigg, John

  Lawson Sir Wilfrid (Cronwall

  Rose, Charles Day

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt. Hn C. R(Northants

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  M`Kenna, Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Cremer, William Randal

  M`Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Thomas, E. Freemai(Hastings)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Tonikinson, James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moss, Samuel

  Ure, Alexander

  Elibank, Master of

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Partington, Oswald

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Eenwick, Charles

  Paulton, James Mellor

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Price, Robert, John

  Whitley, J. B. (Halifax)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

  Priestley, Arthur

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Rea, Russell

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Itickett. J. Compton

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Hutton. Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rigg, Richard

  Mr. William McArthur.

  Question put accordingly, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 154; Noes, 65. (Division List No. 221.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Leveson-Gower, Erederick. N.S

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lockwood, Lieut-Col. A. R.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fellowes,Hon.Ailwyn Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir.I.(Manc'r.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W(Leeds

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Prancis William

  Balfour, Kenneth E. (Christch

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, C. (Comb. Eskdale)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Eyler, John Arthur

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Bigwood, James

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred

  Bill, Charles

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

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Gordon, J.(Londonderry, South

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh w

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr.H'ml ts

  Milvain, Thomas

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gore, Hn G.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Bull, William James

  Greene, W. Raymond. Cambs

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Morgan, David J(Welthamstow

  Butcher, John George

  Groves, James Grimble

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Campbell, J. H.M.(Dublin Univ,

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute,

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Msdx

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cavendish, V.C. W. (Derbyshire

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Honor)

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon.(Birm.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A(Wore.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Percy, Earl

  Charrington, Spencer

  Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Plummer, Walter R.

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Purvis, Robert

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Randles, John S.

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Rankin, Sir James

  Corbett, T. L. (Dowa North)

  Jeffreys, Ht. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Keswick, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Renwick, George

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn Chas. Thomson

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Doughty, George

  Lawson, john Grant(Yorks. NR

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Douglas, Ht. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead.

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Hound, Ht. Hon. James

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Stull, Bon. Humphry Napier

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Smith, Abel H.(Hertford, East)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wylie, Alexander

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

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George.

  Spear, John Ward

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wyndham- Quin, Major W. H

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Walrond, Rt Hon Sir William H

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Wanle, Colonel C. E.

  TELLEES FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Alexander Acland-Hood

  Stroyan, John

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  and Mr. Anstruther.

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Jones, William(Cornarc'nshire

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Asquith. Rt. Hon. Herbt. Hy

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rose, Charles Day

  Brigg, John

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Bryce, Et. Hon. James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Shackleton, David James

  Caldwell, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Causton, Richard Knight

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Spencer, Rt Hn. C.R (Northants

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  M`Kenna, Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Cromer, William Randal

  Mansfield, Horace Kendall

  Thomas, F.Freeman (Hastings

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Tomkinson, James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kikenny, N.)

  Moss, Samuel

  Toulmin, George

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ure, Alexander

  Elibank, Master of

  Partington, Oswald

  Walton, J. Lawson (Leeds, S.)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Paulton, James -Mellor

  Warner Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pearson Sir Weetman D.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Price, Robert John

  Whiteley, J.H. (Halifax)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Priestley, Arthur

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale

  Rea, Russell

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rickets, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Riga, Richard

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone and

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Mr. William M'Arthur.

  Clause 2.
  THE CHAIRMAN: All the Amendments to Clause 2 are out of order, as they suggest conditions outside the Convention, except the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Islington, "In line 40 to leave out 'fifty ' and insert five hundred.'"
  SIR CHARLES DILKEmoved to omit the words "in the United Kingdom" front line 3, in order to ask what would be the position of the Isle of Man under this Bill. Foreign nations usually, and even our own re-presentatives frequently, forgot the extraordinarily anomalous position of countries in the neigh bourhood of the United Kingdom. Jersey and Guernsey were independent kingdoms, bound to this country simply by a personal union; they had a fiscal system of their own, over which we had no control whatever; they could grant bounties as they pleased and were entirely outside the scope of this Bill. The Isle of Man
  1688
  was not in that position. It was not a part of the United Kingdom, but yet we bound it and were bound for it. On the Order Paper was a Customs Bill applying the sugar duty of this year to the Isle of Man, and he took it that a similar course of introducing a separate Bill would have to be introduced with regard to this Sugar Convention. Ho asked whether that matter had been considered by the Government, whether it was proposed to follow the present Bill by a similar statute, arid what would happen with regard to the Isle of Man until that second Nil was passed. In order to raise the point he begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page2, line 3, to leave out the words 'in the United Kingdom.'"—(Sir Charles Dilke.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  SIR EDWARD CARSONhad no hesitation in saying that the words

  1689
  "United Kingdom" did not include the Isle of Man.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid his point was that the words "United Kingdom" never included the Isle of Man for any purpose whatever, and that in connection with all matters of this kind a special Bill had to be passed for the Isle of Man. That being so, he desired to know whether the Government intended to introduce another Bill in this case.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he was not certain whether it would be necessary, and, as the Amendment bad not been placed on the Paper, he had had no opportunity of considering it. He had not the slightest doubt, however, that whatever obligations were placed on the United Kingdom by the Bill would be applied also to the Isle of Man.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: Then it will require a statute.
  MR. RITCHIE: If a statute is required it will be brought before the House, but I am not certain that one will be required.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid there was no doubt that the words did not cover the Isle of Man, and that with regard to ordinary legislation it had always been necessary to pass a separate Act for the Isle of Man. He submitted that a similar course would have to be followed in this case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. WHITLEYasked whether the Committee were not entitled to ask on what grounds all the Amendments save one to the second clause had been ruled out of order.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. JEFFREYS, Hampshire, N.), who was now in the Chair, said the matter could not now be raised as the ruling had been given and business proceeded with.
  MR. BRYCEsaid it would be a convenience to the Committee for future guidance if they were told on what grounds the Amendments had been
  1690
  ruled out of order. Many of the Amendments primâ facie appeared to be in order. He had no doubt the Chairman of Committees had good reasons for his decision, but it would enlighten the Committee to know what they were.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid they could not discuss the reasons which had actuated the Chairman of Committees in giving his decision, but for his own part he conceived that the reason the Amendments were ruled out of order was that they were contrary to the Convention.
  MR. LOUGHmoved to substitute "500" for "5O" in line 40. The clause provided that the maximum penalty for breach of the rues for carrying on the business of sugar refining should be £50. He thought the amount mentioned in his Amendment would be a more adequate penalty.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 40, to leave out the word 'fifty' and insert the words 'five hundred.'" —(Mr. Lough.)
  MR. RITCHIEsaid he did not think it was wise to have an excessive amount. He had consulted the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and they stated that they were satisfied that £50 was quite sufficient.
  MR. LOUGHasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he could quite understand why sugar factories on the Continent should be placed in bond because sugar factories abroad stood much in the same position as distilleries in this country. But in this country there was no production of sugar, and it seemed to him that there had been great negligence on the part of their representatives abroad in not making an arrangement, more suitable to the requirements of the United Kingdom, than that which had been embodied in this clause. Surely they might have had some arrangement which would have been less expensive, for they already had a very heavy duty on sugar.

  1691
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer might very well have continued to take his revenue at the port. This was a point in this miserable business which showed how the interests of this country had been entirely neglected by the representatives of this country. He did not see the slightest necessity for any such arrangement, and no case whatever had been made out for the bonding of sugar factories in this country. It was unfortunate that the representatives of this country did not make some arrangement that would have been less expensive. He contended that our interests had not been properly guarded in so readily accepting these onerous arrangements, and he hoped they would express their feelings upon this matter by taking a division.
  MR. ROBSONsaid there seemed no reason why English sugar refiners' factories should be placed in bond at all. He could understand why this was necessary in the case of Germany or France where drawbacks were given on exportation, but nothing of that kind happened in this country. This clause contained a costly and irritating provision which was quite foreign to the habits of English trade, and it was also contrary to the general line of English legislation.
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that the Convention could not be carried out without this clause. Whether rightly or wrongly, we were bound to carry out the Convention, and one of the terms of the Convention was that sugar-refining should be carried on in bond. As a matter of fact there were no sugar factories in this country, but there were on the Continent. In the new condition of things the duty would not be collected on the raw sugar, but on the refined sugar as it came out of the factory. One of the conditions was that the duty should be levied on the refined sugar so that there could be no question at all of any bounty. It was perfectly true that but for this Convention they might have gone on without supervision, but so far as the sugar refiners themselves were concerned, he did not understand that there was the least complaint as to the conditions
  1692
  under which they would in the future have to carry on their work.
  MR. BRYCEsaid that no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given a valid reason why what had been agreed to in the Convention should be embodied in the Bill, but surely it would have been only proper for our negotiator to have had a provision inserted to meet the case of England, instead of imposing conditions which were annoying and vexatious to them.
  MR. MANSFIELDsaid that after the explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he did not feel so strongly on the subject. Penalties of the kind proposed were more suitable for anarchists than for people carrying on a lawful trade. He thought the sugar refiners ought to have had some opportunity of giving their views before such clauses, which went so far to revolutionise the existing state of things, were introduced.
  MR. LEVYsaid it seemed to him that the rules proposed were too drastic. If a man wanted to continue, or to start, in the trade he would have to go to the Commissioners and ask to be allowed to do so. He did not think people should have to do this in order to carry on what was a legitimate trade. It was especially hard that they should be called upon to do so in this country, where raw sugar was not produced. In his opinion there was absolutely no justification for putting on this embargo.
  MR. WHITLEYsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer had informed them that this clause was imposed by the Convention. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman meant the permanent Commission. He thought it would have been very much more proper if, instead of starting the clause "His Majesty may by Order in Council" do so and so, the words had been "When instructed by the permanent Commission in Brussels, His Majesty shall" do so and so, for that was the real state of the case. He really thought the House should adjourn after passing a vote of

  1693
  thanks to the permanent Commission in Brussels for doing their legislation for them. It would be for their convenience if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would explain whether the words in italics would interfere with the power of himself or his successor to propose a remission of the existing sugar duties.
  Mr. RUNCIMANsaid the clause made further restrictions on our trade. In drawing attention to Sub-section C, in which provision was made for the processes of manufacture to be open to the officers of the Commission, he said he could quite conceive that the processes of manufacture might in the immediate future be very much improved, and it might not be possible for the refiner to patent the process. Secrecy would be impossible to him under the sub-section, since the officers of the Commission might see the process, and take all particulars of it, and such
  secrecy as the manufacturer had been able to obtain in the past would be-entirely gone. As to the last sub-section of the clause, which dealt not only with heavy penalties in the event of the Act being infringed, but also provided for the forfeiture of the articles used in the process of manufacture, he declared that from beginning to end the penalties were so drastic as to be almost absurd. The refineries would also be open to the inspection of the representatives of the Home Office. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that the refiners did not object to these regulations. He could well understand that, for they were getting a particularly good bargain out of the Bill.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 144; Noes, 59. (Division List No. 222.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn Sir.J(Manc'r

  Long, Rt Hn. Walter(Bristol,S.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lowe, Francis William

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

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

  Foster, P.S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Balfour, Rt Hn. GeraldW(Leeds

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Lucas, Reg'ld J. (Portsmouth)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christh.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

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

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bill, Charles

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  M'Iver Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, J.(Londonderry, South

  Milvain, Thomas

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(Tr. Hmlts

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Gore, Hn G.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Bull, William James

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Morgan, David J.(Walth'mstow

  Butcher, John George

  Grevilie, Hon. Ronald

  Mount, William Arthur

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward H.

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.

  Harris, Frederick Leventon

  Percy, Earl

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J.A(Worc.

  Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Charrington, Spencer

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Plummer, Walter R.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Heath, James(Staffords., N.W.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Pryce-Jones. Lt.-Col. Edward

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

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Purvis, Robert

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Randles, John S.

  Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Rankin, Sir James

  Compton, Lord Alywne

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Corbett. A. Cameron (Glasgour)

  Keswick, William

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Renwick, George

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Doughty, George

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. NR

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

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

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

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

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Spear, John Ward

  Valentia, Viscount

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  Walrond, Rt. Hn Sir William H

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  TELLERS FOR THE AVES—

  Stroyan, John

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell (Birm

  and Mr. Anstruther.

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

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

  NOES.

  Asher, Alexander

  Jones. Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rooson, William Snowdon

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rose, Charles Day

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Runciman, Walter

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Caldwell, James

  Lougth, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Causton, Richard Knight

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Spencer, Rt Hn C. R.(Northants

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Thomas, F. Freeman(Hastings)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Moss, Samuel

  Tomkinson, James

  Doogan, P. C.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Toulmin, George

  Elibank, Master of

  Partington, Oswald

  Ure, Alexander

  Emmott, Alfred

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Price, Robert John

  Whiteley, G. (York, W. R.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Rea, Russell

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rigs, Richard

  Mr. Levy and Mr. Mansfield.

  Hutton. Alfred E. (Morley)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.)

  Clause 3.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Loughborough on page 37 are out of order.
  MR. ROBSONasked what there was in the Convention to alter this. It was a very serious matter if it was held that the discussion of this important question could not take place.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The House might not be sitting at the time.
  MR. ROBSONsaid he could not see how that affected the fact of the Amendments being out of order. It might be an objection, but surely it could not make the Amendments of his hon. friend out of order.
  MR. LOUGHsaid he was afraid that the ruling which had just been given might prevent him moving the new clause he had put down.
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss his new clause now.
  MR. ROBSONsaid he thought that when this Bill was laid before the House it was laid before them for the purpose of being discussed in order that the House might modify or alter the measure if it thought fit. It seemed now that all further discussion was out of order, and modification was also not in order. They were bound to accept the rulings of the Chair, but he thought they were entitled to protest against the way the House of Commons and the country had been treated in this matter. What was the meaning of putting a Bill before the House?
  THE DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That question is certainly out of order upon the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.
  MR. ROBSONsaid he was confining his observations to Clause 3. What avail was it to them to propose Amendments to Clause 3 when the Government

  1697
  had made up their mind that no Amendment would be accepted. The whole discussion was ridiculous from beginning to end, and it was nothing less than a discredit to the House of Commons, and it was not respectful either to the House of Commons or the country. It was not only discreditable but it was insulting the House of Commons that they should be called upon to discuss this Bill for the ostensible purpose of amending it when, as a matter of fact, it was a mere farce and pretence, because the Government had made up their mind to avoid subsequent proceedings and to admit no Amendments whatever. Such a proceeding was not respectful or fair to the House of Commons, or the country, or the mercantile classes whose interests were so seriously involved. If any kind of measure required full discussion it was a trade Bill, and that was just the kind of Bill which the Government had determined should not have the ordinary stages of discussion in the House of Commons. He thought the House ought to register its protest against such conduct in the Division Lobby.
  MR. LOUGHsaid there was the strongest reason why they should take a. division upon this clause, because it contained precisely the same policy
  which his hon. friend had denounced. It stated that this Act might be altered, revoked, or added to by an Order in Council. Why should machinery be set up to do that? They might abolish by one of those Orders all that Parliament had done. That was another of the indignities thrown upon the House of Commons by t his Bill. The Government had shown the utmost contempt for the House of Commons. By an Order in Council, which the country and the House did not understand, the Government took the right to set aside this law or make, additions to it, and to do exactly what they pleased. If a Government should happen to be returned more anxious to preserve the interests of the country than the present Government, this clause would give them an opportunity of revoking this measure.
  MR BROADHURSTasked why glucose was exempted. Was it because the brewers were interested in it?
  MR. RITCHIEsaid that glucose did not fall under the term of sugar.
  Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 135; Noes 50. (See Division List No. 223.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G.(Mid'x

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Man'r

  Doughty, George

  Heath James (Staffords, N. W

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A Akers

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Kemp, Lieut-Colonel George

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Keswick, William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Faber, George Denison (York..)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow

  Bull, William James

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edw.

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Camphell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J.(Mad'r

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks, N.R

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

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Forster, Henry William

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S.W

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Wore

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Colonel A.R.

  Charrington, Spencer

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

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Churchill Winston Spencer

  Godson, Sir Augustus Erederick

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

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, South

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Gordon, Maj. Evans(T'rH'mlets

  Lowe, Francis William

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Colomb, Sir. John Charles Ready

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Groves, James Grimble

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Macdona, John Cumming

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinb'rgh, W

  Renwick, George

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Walrond, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Warde, Colonel C. E

  Murray, Rt Hn. AGraham(Bute

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Webb, Col. William George

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Nicholson, William Graham

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

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Percy Earl

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

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Spear, John Ward

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich

  Pryce Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Randles, John S.

  Stroyan, John

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  NOES.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Rigg, Richard

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bryce, Right Hon. James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shackleton, David James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Dilke, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Elibank, Master of

  Moss, Samuel

  Ure, Alexander

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Winans

  Warner, Thomas Conrtenay T.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Partington, Oswald

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayne, Rt.Hon. Charles Seale-

  Pearson Sir Weetman D.

  Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

  Price Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Lough and Mr.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rea, Russell

  Robson.

  Clause 4.
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid he would like to move to insert the word "dear" before "sugar," in line 11, Clause 4. His object was to draw attention to the true character of the Bill, and the transactions which had led up to it.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot really accept that Amendment. The Act is one to bring in force the Sugar Convention, and not the "Dear Sugar" Convention. The Amendment is only tendered in mockery.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: May I remind you, Sir, that in connection with the Home Rule Bill introduced into this House the preamble set forth that it was a Bill for the better Government of Ireland, and an Amendment was moved which resulted in a long discussion to leave out the word "better," on the ground that it was an
  1700
  attempt to foist sham loyalty into a Bill He should be happy to support the-Amendment of the hon. Member for Dewsbury if it were in order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept the Amendment.
  MR.WINSTON CHURCHILL: It is suggested only in the interests of accuracy. The object of the Bill is in fact to increase the price of sugar, and therefore the measure would be much more accurately described as the Dear Sugar Convention Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the Commission
  MR. RUNCIMANsaid his object was to draw attention to the fact that this Bill referred not to any previous or succeeding Convention, but to the Dear Sugar Convention which they had been discussing during the last few weeks. On

  1701
  that ground he submitted that his Amendment was in order.
  THE CHAIRMANthought the Amendment was moved in a spirit of mockery.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked whether he was in order in moving to substitute 'prohibition" for "convention."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid there was nothing about sugar being prohibited. The short title was, "An Act to make provision for giving effect to the Convention signed on March 5th, 1902."
  MR. BROADHURSTthen asked whether he might move to substitute "sugar supply limitation," for "Sugar Convention."
  MR. BRYCEasked whether, according to Parliamentary usage it was not within the power of the House itself to determine the title to be given to an Act. If it was thought that a particular description was more apt or suitable to the character of the measure, might not the House express its own opinion?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I will not contradict the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BRYCEsubmitted that in that case the Amendment of his hon. friend was in order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The words proposed are—?
  MR. BROADHURST: To substitute "supply limitation" for "Convention."
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 11, to leave out the word 'Convention,' and insert the words 'supply limitation.'"—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Convention' stand part of the clause."
  MR. RUNCINIANsubmitted that the description of his Amendment as having been moved in a spirit of mockery ought not to have been applied. Not even a Chairman of Committees was entitled inaccurately to impute motives. He asked whether his Amendment was ruled out of order as being contrary to Parliamentary practice.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, for the reason I have given—that this Act is to bring into force the Sugar Convention. There is nothing about dear sugar in that Convention.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 51. (Division List No. 224.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld. G.(Mid'x

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Doughty, George

  Heath, James (Staffs., N. W.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A.J. (Manch'r)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Keswick, William

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glassgow)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks NR

  Bull, William James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Forster, Henry William

  Leveson-Gower, Fredk. N. S.

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

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Cavendish, V C W (Derbysh.)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Galloway. William Johnson

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

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm

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

  Lonsdale,.John Brownlee

  Chamherlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Lowe, Francis William

  Charrington, Spencer

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Green, W. Raymond (Combs

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmonth

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Groves, James Grimble

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Milvain, Thomas

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Morgan, David J (Walthamstow

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Valentia, Viscount

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bute

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

  Webb, Col. William George

  O'Neill, Hon. Robers Torrens

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

  Williams, Rt HnJ Powell(Birm

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Skewes-Cox. Thomas

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Percy, Earl

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

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

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

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

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Spear, John Ward

  Wylie, Alexander

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Purvis, Robert

  Stanley, EdWard Jas. (Somerset)

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Randles John S.

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Rankin, Sir James

  Stroyan, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Reid, James (Greenock.)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  Renwick, George

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  NOES.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kilbride, Denis

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Lawson Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Caldwell, James

  Levy, Manrice

  Runciman, Walter

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Lough, Thomas

  Shackleton, David James

  Cremer, William Randal

  MacVreagh, Jeremiah

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Toulmin, George

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Ure, Alexander

  Elibank, Master of

  Moss, Samuel

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Emmott, Alfred

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Pearson Sir Weetman D.

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Broadhurst and Mr.

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Rea, Russell

  Fenwick.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rigg, Richard

  MR. MANSFIELDasked if it would be in order to move to add the words the Sugar Convention price raising Bill."
  THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a true description of the Bill?
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the clause stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 133; Noes, 50. (Division List No. 25.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Charrington, Spencer

  Fergusson, Rt Hn Sir J. (Manc'r

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Atkinson, Right Hon. John

  Cochrane, Hon. T. H. A. E.

  Forster, Henry William

  Bailey, Janie, (Walworth)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W.(Leeds

  Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Balfour, Kenneth R (Christch.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'r H'mlets

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.

  Bull, William James

  Doughty, George

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Campbell, J. H. M(Dublin Univ

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Groves, James Grimble

  Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Guest. Hon. Ivor Churchill

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

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor.

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn.J. (Birm)

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J A (Worc,

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Mount, William Arthur

  Spear, John Ward

  Heath, James(Staffords, N.W.

  Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham(Bule

  Spencer, Sir E (W. Bromwich

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)

  Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

  Keswick, William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Stroyan, John

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Palner, Walter (Salisbury)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Lawrenee, Sir Joesph(Monm'th

  Percy, Earl

  Sturt, Hon. Hummphry Napier

  Lawrence, Win. F. (Liverpool)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks,. NR

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Purvis, Robert

  Valentia, Viscount

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Randles, John S.

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir WilliamH.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Renwick, George

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell(Birm

  Lowe, Francis William

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Repner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Sandys, Lieut-Col. Thos. Myles

  M'Ivain, Thomas

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

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Sir Alexander Acland

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Smith,. James Parker (Lanerks

  Hood and Mr, Anstruther.

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

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

  NOES

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Rigg, Richard

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert.

  Runciman, Walter

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shackleton, David James

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Elibank, Master of

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe

  Emmott, Alfred

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Moss, Samuel

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Scale-

  Pearson, Sir Weettuan D.

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Horniman, Frederick John

  Priestly, Arthur

  Mr. Broadhurst and Mr.

  Hutton, Alfred E. ( Morley)

  Rea, Russell

  Ure.

  Preamble.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the preamble of the Bill."
  MR. SHACKLETONmoved to leave out "the King's Most Excellent Majesty," and insert the words "divers foreign Powers."
  THE CHAIRMANsaid that was out of order because it was contrary to fact.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 134: Noes, 50. (Division List No. 226.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Brodrick. Rt. Hon. St. John

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Bull, William James

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

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

  Cavendislt, V.C. W. (Derbyshire

  Corbett, A.Catiteron (Glasgow)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Cecil. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Corbett. T. L. (Dawn, North)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch

  Chamberlain, Rt Hon J (Birm

  Craig, CharlesCurtis(Antrim S.

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J A (Worc

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Charrington, Spencer

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, John Grant(Yoeks, NR

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Doughty, George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Robertson, H. (Hackney)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Rolleston, Sir John E. L.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lockwood, Lieut -Col. A. R.

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants,W.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Long, RtHon Walter(Bristol,S)

  Seely, Maj. J.E.B.(Isle ofWight

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Ed.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Man'r

  Lowe, Francis William

  Smith, James Parker(Lanarks.)

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

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

  Fishier, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Spear, John Ward

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Spencer, Sir E. (W Bromwich)

  Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset

  Fyler, John Arthur

  M'Arthar, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Iver Sir Lewis(EdinburghW.

  Stroyan, John

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

  Milvain, Thomas

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hodley

  Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stunt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Gordon, J. (Londondeyry, S.)

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Talbot, Lord E.(Chiehester)

  Gordon, Maj Evans (Tr. Hmlts

  Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxieth)

  Greene, W. Raymondt (Cambs.)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Murray, Rt Hn A.Graham(Bute

  Valentia, Viscount

  Groves, Janses Grimble

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G.(Midx

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Webb, Col. William George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Percy, Earl

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pretyman, Ernest, George

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

  Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Purvis, Robert

  Wylie, Alexander

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Bandies, John S.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Keswick, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H.

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasaow

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th

  Renwick, George

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C. Thomson

  Hood and Mr. Anstruther.

  NOES.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Jones, William (Carnarconsh.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Kearley, Hudson, E.

  Rigg, Richard

  Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighsh.

  Caldwell, James

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Causton Richard Knight

  Levy, Maurice

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Cremer, William Randal

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Runciman, Walter

  Devlin, Joseph (KillKenny, N.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Shackleton, David James

  Doogan, P. C.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Elibank, Master of

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radecliffe

  Emmott, Alfred

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Toulmin, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Moss, Samuel

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  White, Luke (York, E.R.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Partington, Oswald

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

  Price, Robert John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Horniman Frederick John

  Priestley, Arthur

  Mr. Ure and Mr. Broad-hurst.

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Rea, Russell

  Motion made and Question put, "That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment,to the House.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 124; Noes, 41. (Division List No. 227.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Charrington, Spencer

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

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

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Bull, William James

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Man'r

  Cavendish, V.C.W (Derbyshire

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim, S

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Chamberlain. Rt Hon J (Birm

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J A (Worc

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, John Grant(Yorks. NR

  Ritchie, Rt. Hn. C.Thomson

  Doughty, George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (BirKehead)

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Sackville Col. S. G. Stopford-

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Smith, Jas. Parker (Lanarks.)

  Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r

  Lowe, Francis William

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

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdate)

  Spear, John Ward

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bremwich)

  Forster, Henry William

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmonth

  Stanley, Edward Jas.(Somerset

  Foster, Philip. S(Warwick, S.W

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)

  Fyler, John Arthur

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Stroyan, John

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

  M'Iver. Sir Lewis(Edinburgh W

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Grodson, Sir Augustits Frederick

  Milvam, Thomas

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Gordon, Maj Evans(T'r Haml'ts

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Morgan, D.J. (Walthamstow)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Mount, William Arthur

  Va1entia, Viscount

  Groves, James Grimble

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Walrond, Rt Hon Sir William H.

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G(Midd'x

  Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Perey, Earl

  Williams, Rt Hn J Powell-(Birm

  Harris, Frederick Leverton

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Willox, Sir John Archibald

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

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

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Purvis, Robert.

  Wylie, Alexander

  Keswick, William

  Randles, John S.

  Lambton, Hon. Fredk. Wm.

  Rankin, Sir James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monm'th)

  Remnant, Jas. Farquharson

  Hood and Mr.Anstrnther.

  Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool

  Renwick, George

  NOES.

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Rigg, Richard

  Bolton, Thomas Dolling

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Levy, Maurice

  Runciman, Walter

  Caldwell, James

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland

  Cremer, William Randal

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Elibank, Master of

  Moss, Samuel

  Toulmin, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Ure, Alexander

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Partington, Oswald

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Hayne, Rt. Hon. Chas. Seale-

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Hayter, Rt Hon Sir Arthur D.

  Price, Robert John

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Priestley, Arthur

  TELLEES FOR THE NOES—

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.)

  Rea, Russell

  Mr. Lough and Mr.

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Wanier.

  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.

  RAILWAYS (ELECTRICAL POWER) BILL.
  (Considered in Committee.)
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith, in the Chair.]
  Clause 1.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 6, after the word 'may,' to insert the words 'upon the application of a railway company.'"—(Mr. Loder.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  ME. J. H. LEWISsaid he wished to know if precautions would be inserted in these Orders to prevent railway companies from seeming the control of existing electrical companies, by purchasing the majority of the shares and working them for their own benefit. They had seen many instances where railway companies had absorbed other undertakings to the disadvantage of the general public. He hoped the Board of Trade, in framing these Orders, would carefully bear that point in mind.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, to leave out lines 22 to 21, in clusive."—(Mr. J. H Lewis.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW Glasgow, Blackfriars)said this matter had been brought to the notice of the Board of Trade, and they were doing their best to see that the interests of the public would be safeguarded.
  MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he was satisfied with the hon. Member's reply, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 2.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 17, after the ward 'Committee,' to insert the words 'or if the two Houses of Parliament think fit so to order to a Joint Committee of those Houses.'"—(Mr. Calswell.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 withdrawn.
  Clause 4.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 2, line 41, after the word 'made,' to insert the words 'by the Council of any County, any local authority, or other person.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 2, at end of line, to insert the words 'and if after consideration the Board decide that the objection should be upheld, the Board shall not make the Order or shall modify the Order so as to remove the objection.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  MR. MARKHAMsaid he had several times referred to the rules of the Board of Trade, but the Department did not appear to be willing to grant to railway companies powers for establishing high voltage current.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the Board of Trade certainly did not desire to put any obstacles in the way, and they were doing all they could in the direction indicated by the hon. Member consistent with the convenience of the public.
  Clause 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 25, to leave out the word 'Commission,' and insert the words 'and Canal Commissioners.'"—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  PATRIOTIC FUND BILL.
  (Considered in Committee.)
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Schedule 1.
  MR. LOUGHthought this schedule ought to be explained to the House. There would be some 300 or 400 people included in this corporation, and he would like to know if the Government could quote any precedent for setting up such a body as this. He begged to, move his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 3, line 4, to leave out Sub-section 1."—(Mr.Lough.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the schedule."
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PNETYMAN, Suffolk, Woodbridge)said it was clear that the management of this fund must necessarily involve a numerous body, and the object of the Bill was to give power to all the local interests concerned to have their views represented on the central association, which would number altogether 215. The executive committee would be a business-like body of small dimensions. The suggestion that beneficiaries should be represented was practically impossible.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR A. HAYTURmoved to insert in the schedule "the lords lieutenant of counties." He said the object of the Bill was to form a central advisory council which should be in communication with the Committees for local funds in the counties. Hitherto most valuable assistance had been received from the lords lieutenant of counties, who were to a certain extent representatives of their respective counties, and at a meeting recently held at the United Service Institution they offered to continue that assistance. If the lords lieutenant were added to the body considerable sums, at present in their hands, which otherwise would remain locally in the counties, would be paid into the general fund.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In pare 3, line 8, after the word 'members' to insert the words '(b) The lords lieutenant of counties.'"—(Sir Arthur Hayter.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. KEARLEY (Devoriport)said the reason this Bill had been introduced was that the Patriotic Commissioners had lost the confidence of the public, and the cause of that loss of confidence was the unrepresentative character of the Commission. This Amendment would introduce
  1714
  the very element which had made the existing body so unpopular. If the new body was to succeed it was necessary that it should gain public approval at the outset, and that would be rendered impossible by the acceptance of this Amendment. He might say that he was consulted before the Measure was introduced; and in the scheme as originally drawn, the lords lieutenant were included, but after considerable discussion the Prime, Minister and his advisers came round to his way of thinking, and the lords Isieutenant were struck out. He hoped that that decision would not now be gone back upon.
  MR. HAYES FISHERthought the country would not share the alarm of the hon. Member for Devonport with regard to the admission of the lords lieutenant. In the composition of this body he presumed the Government had mainly in mind the collection of funds. During the late war t he country showed its confidence in the lords lieutenant by placing in their hands enormous sums of money for distribution, and he believed the collection of funds in the present instance would be greatly assisted by the lords lieutenant being added to the authority. The body was already so large and unwieldy that the addition of another hundred members would not matter. The best beggars in the world were parsons and Peers, and if they could not get the parsons they might as well have a few of the Peers.
  SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the argument of the hon. Member for Fulham was in favour of placing all the Peers and all the Bishops on this body. It was already exceedingly unwieldy, and he assumed that the decision to appoint the chairmen of the County Councils had been taken as an alternative to putting on the lords lieutenant. He understood on the introduction of the Bill that a decision had been come to against this change, and he hoped that decision would be adhered to.
  LORD EDMUND TALBOThoped the Amendment would be accepted. It would be a

  1715
  great improvement to the Bill, and would greatly facilitate the collection of money at critical times.
  MR. STOPFORD SACRVILLEsaid that if the choice were between chairmen of County Councils and the lords lieutenant of the counties, he should say that the latter were the better men for appointment on this body. The chairmen of County Councils were elected for a year, and might not have any interest in military matters, whereas he did not know a single lord lieutenant who was not greatly interested in charities and military affairs.
  MR. PRETYMANsaid it was perfectly true that this matter was considered by the hon. Member for Devonport and those who were preparing the Bill, and that, in order not to have too large a body, it was thought that the lords lieutenant should be excluded. That
  was the arrangement then made. Of course it was open to reconsideration, and the House would agree that there was a good deal to be said on both sides of the question. They did not want a too unwieldy body, but, on the other hand, the lords lieutenant were those who had mainly identified themselves with the collection of subscriptions. He would, however, leave the House to decide the question for itself.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHthought they were entitled to have the views of the Government. Surely they had some predilections upon it.
  SIR A. HAYTER,speaking from practical experience, commended the good work done by lords lieutenant.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 103; Noes, 29. (Division List No. 228.)

  AYES.

  Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir A. F.

  Godson, Sir Angustus Frederick

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Anstruther, H. T.

  Greville, Hon. Ronald

  Purvis, Robert

  Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.

  Groves, James Grimble

  Bandies, John S.

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Rankin, Sir James

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Hamilton, Rt Hn Ld.G. (Midx

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hayne, on. Charles Seale-

  Rigg, Richard

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Heath, James (Stappds. N. W.

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Bull, William James

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Campbell J.H.M. (Dublin Univ.

  Law, Andrew Bonar Glasgow

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

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

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cavendish, V.C.W. (Derbyshire

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. NR

  Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Chamberlain, Rt.Hn J.A (Worc.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

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

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

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

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasg.)

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

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

  Staidey, Edward Jas. (Sowerset)

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Stanley, Lord (Lanes.)

  Crossley, Sir Savile

  Lowe, Francis William

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Doughty, George

  Lueas, Reginald, J.(Portsmouth)

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.

  Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Elibank, Master of

  Milvain, Thomas

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomson

  Faber, Edmund B.(Gamts, W.)

  Morgan, David. J. (Walthamst'w

  Wylie, Alexander

  Fellowes. Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Murray, RtHn A. Graham (Bute

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Murray, Charles J.(Coventry)

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S.W.

  O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

  Sir Arthur Hayter and

  Fyler, John Arthur

  Partington, Oswald

  Mr. Hayes Fisher.

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

  Percy, Earl

  NOES.

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Moss, Samuel

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Caldwell, James

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Taylor, Theo. C. (Radcliffe)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Pearson, Sir Weetman D.

  Toulmin, George

  Fenwick, Charles

  Price, Robert John

  Valentia, Viscount

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Priestley, Arthur

  Warner, Thos. Courtenay T.

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Rea, Russell

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Levy, Maurice

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbt. L. (Cleveland)

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Shackleton, David James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Mansfield, Horace Rendall

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Mr. Kearley and Mr. Ellis

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Spear, John Ward

  Griffith.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  MR. SHACKLETONmoved to insert in the first schedule, line 15, after "county" the words "and municipal." He said the object was to enable the mayors of municipal boroughs to be appointed. He knew about the work in connection with the local funds, and it would be for the advantage of all concerned to have the corporations represented.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 4, line 15, after the word 'county' to insert the words 'and municipal.'"—(Mr. Sharldeton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. PRETYMANsaid he had great sympathy with the Amendment, but he could not accept it. He did not think it was necessary to appoint the mayors of municipal boroughs. It had not been the practice in the past, and probably would not be in the future, to raise a fund in all municipal boroughs. It had been done in a few exceptional cases, but they could not legislate for exceptional cases. He thought the municipal boroughs were amply represented by the chairman of the County Council or other representatives of the county.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS [REMISSION OF DEBT.]
  Resolution reported, "That it is expedient to authorise the remission of a
  1718
  certain debt clue to the Public Work Loan Commissioners by the Port Seton Harbour Commissioners, in pursuance of any Act of the present session relating to Local Loans."

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time to-morrow.
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS BILL [LORDS].
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BELL [LORDS].
  Order for Second Reading read, and. discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
  Read a second time, and committed for to-morrow.
  CHARITABLE LOAN SOCIETIES (IRE-LAND) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
  IRELAND DEVELOPMENT GRANT BILL.
  Read the third time, and passed.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged: Bill withdrawn.
  MARRIAGE LEGALISATION BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported; Bill, as amended, to be considered this day.

  POST OFFICE (CONTRACT FOR ACCELE-RATED MAIL SERVICE TO AND FROM IRELAND VIA CARLISLE, STRANRAER, AND LARNE.)
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3rd August], "That the contract, dated the 8th day of November, 1902, with the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company, the Portpatrick and Wigtownshire Joint Committee, and the Belfast and Northern Counties Railway Company, for an Accelerated Mail Service to and from Ireland via Carlisle, Stranraer, and Larne, printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 56, of session 1903, be approved."—(Mr. Elliot.)
  Question again proposed: Debate resumed.

  MOTOR-CARS (EXCISE DUTY)
  (Considered in Committee.)
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the imposition of an Excise duty on persons employed as drivers on motor-cars of the same amount as is payable on male servants, in pursuance of any Act of the present session to amend The Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896.—(Mr. Walter Long.)
  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.
  Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 28th day of July, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
  Adjourned at ten minutes after Three o'clock, a.m.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Hainault Forest Bill; Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
Glasgow Corporation (Police) Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; returned from the Commons agreed to.
Somerset and District Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Birmingham District Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Beckenham Urban District Council Bill: London County Council (Money) Bill; London County Council (Tramways and Improvements) Bill; Mullingar, Bells, and Drogheda Railway Bill; Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
Wood Green Urban District Council Bill; Returned from the Commons with several of the Amendments agreed to, and one disagreed to, with reasons for such disagreement.
Fife Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Returned from the Commons with the Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed, not insisted on.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  CLERGY (WEST INDIES).
  Return of the amount payable on 5th January, 1903, out of the Consolidated Fund, for ecclesiastical purposes in the West Indies.

  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Return for the year ended 31st March, 1903, of the Army and Navy Officers permitted, under Rule 2 of the Regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the
  1570
  Superannuation Act, 1887, to hold civil employment of profit under public departments.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PATENT OFFICE (EXTENSION) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
  PISTOLS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
  LICENSING ACTS (SCOTLAND) CONSOLI-DATION AND AMENDMENT BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  LONDON EDUCATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  POOR LAW (DISSOLUTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND ADJUSTMENTS) BILL.
  [SECOND READING.]
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD KENYON: My Lords, the only object of this Bill is to remedy two minor imperfections in the existing Law which have been found to cause practical difficulties. Under the Poor Law Acts unions have, in some instances, been combined into districts for the purpose of providing institutions for the maintenance and education of pauper children, The Acts only enable a district of this kind to be dissolved if it is contained wholly or partly in the Metropolis. There are at present cases where it is desirable that some of these districts which are wholly outside the Metropolis should be dissolved. Clause 1 of the Bill will enable this to be done. Where areas are altered under the Poor Law Acts, the necessary adjustments between the unions and parishes concerned have to be made by the Local Government Board. Circumstances have much altered since the enactments on this subject were passed, and difficulties have

  1571
  arisen in the working of them which have led to litigation. Where areas are altered under the Local Government Act, 1888, the adjustments are settled by agreement between the local authorities affected, or in default by arbitration. The provisions in the Act of 1888 with regard to adjustments are much more elastic than those in the Poor Law Acts, and it is proposed by Clause 2 of the Bill to apply them to adjustments under those Acts. Sub-clause 1 of Clause 2 accordingly makes Section 62 of the Local Government Act, 1888, applicable to such adjustments, the modifications which are set out in the first schedule being merely consequential and necessary for adapting the provisions of the section to the circumstances of guardians, boards of management and parochial authorities. Clause 3 and the second schedule merely repeal the existing provisions, with regard to these adjustments, which will be rendered unnecessary. The net result of Clauses 2 and 3 is to make the ordinary methods of adjustment, which now apply to all the various alterations of area which are constantly taking place under the Local Government Acts, applicable to the case of alterations of areas under the Poor Law Acts in place of the cumbrous, obsolete and imperfect methods of those Acts. The Bill passed the House of Commons without alteration or objection, and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Kenyon.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a (according to order, and committed to a Committee of the whole House to-morrow.

  MARINE STORE DEALERS (IRELAND) BILL.
  The Report of Amendments to be received to morrow.

  PATENT OFFICE (EXTENSION) BILL.
  Read 1a; to be printed and referred to the Examiners. (No. 193.)
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.