Sitting of 15 June 1903

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.

MILITARY MANŒUVRES (ORDER IN COUNCIL).
The COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address of the 18th May, as followeth:—
"I have received your Address praying that I will make the Order in
922
Council under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, a draft of which was presented to your House on the 17th February last.
"I will comply with your advice."

CHEW'S FOUNDATION.
The COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address of the 28th April, as followeth:—
"I have received your address praying that I will withhold my assent to the Scheme under the Endowed Schools Act, 1869, and amending Acts, for the management of the Charity of Chew's Foundation, in the parish of Dunstable, in the county of Bedford, founded by deed of the 16th day of December, 1724.
"I will comply with your advice."

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill; Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.
  Ordered, that the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (East Ham, &c.) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, that the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING (LONDON) BILL [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 11th day of June, That, in the case of the following Bill, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—
  Electric Lighting (London) Bill [Lords].
  Dover Corporation Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Knott End Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords]. Read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.
  Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council Bill; Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Aston Manor Improvement Bill [Lords]; British Gas Light Company (Norwich) Bill [Lords]; Cardiff Railway Bill [Lords]; Chard Corporation Gas and Electricity Bill [Lords]; Dewsbury, Batley, and Birstal Tramways Bill [Lords]; Hastings Tramways (Extensions) Bill [Lords]; Jewish Colonisation Association Bill [Lords]; King's College, London, Bill [Lords]; London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Bill [Lords]; Pontypridd Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Port Talbot Railway and Docks Bill [Lords]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [Lords]; St. Philip's Chapel (Regent Street) Bill [Lords]; Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Bill [Lords]; South Lancashire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Torquay Corporation Water Bill [Lords]; Tynemouth and District Tramways Bill [Lords]; Worthing Corporation (Tramways Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.
  Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14) Bill; Local Government Provisional Order (No. 16) Bill; Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Bill; Edinburgh Corporation (Markets, Slaughter Houses, &c.) Order Confirmation Bill; Grangemouth Water Order Confirmation Bill; Lanarkshire Electricity and Refuse Destruction Order Confirmation Bill. Read the third time and passed.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords]. Read a second time, and committed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Lanarkshire and Ayrshire Railway Order Confirmation Bill; Dundee Royal Lunatic Asylum Order Confirmation Bill; Burgess Hill and St. John's Common Gas Bill; Scarborough Gas Bill; Sittingbourne District Gas Bill, without Amendment.
  Midland Railway Bill, Winchester Water and Gas Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendment to—Cleveland and Durham County Electric Power Bill [Lords].
  Amendments to — India Rubber, Gutta Percha, and Telegraph Works Company Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend The Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894." [Prevention of Cruelty to Children (Amendment) Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the North British Railway." [North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899 relating to St. Luke's Church and Parish Quoad Sacra, Edinburgh." [St. Luke's Church and Parish Quoad Sacra, Edinburgh, Order Confirmation Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Hastings Harbour District

  925
  Railway Company to construct deviation railways and new railways; to raise additional capital; and for other purposes." [Hastings Harbour District Railway Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Rochester to construct tramways and street improvements; and for other purposes." [Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the North Western Electricity and Power-Gas Company; and for other purposes." [North Western Electricity and Power-Gas Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to incorporate the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Company, and to empower that Company to make and maintain tramways and other works in the counties of Nottingham and Derby; and for other purposes." [Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for incorporating and conferring powers on the Fife Electric Power Company." [Fife Electric Power Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to separate University College, Liverpool, from the Victoria University, and to merge it in the University of Liverpool when constituted; and to transfer all the property and liabilities of the said University College to the University of Liverpool when constituted; and for other purposes." [Liverpool University Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the time for the completion of certain railways by the Barry Railway Company; to confirm an agreement between the Company and certain landowners; to empower the Company to raise additional capital, and for other purposes." [Barry Railway Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway
  926
  Company." [Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for extending the time for the purchase of certain lands and completion of certain railways by the Taff Vale Railway Company; for enabling the company to work their railways by electrical power; and for other purposes." [Taff Vale Railway Bill (Lords).]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers on the Urban District Council of Willesden with respect to their electric lighting undertaking and recreation grounds, streets, buildings, sanitary, and other matters for the good government of their district; and to transfer to them the powers of the Vestry of the Parish of Willesden; and for other purposes." [Willesden Urban District Council Bill (Lords).]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to enable the Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, to create preference stock; to enlarge its powers; and for other purposes." [Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill (Lords).]
  Hastings Harbour District Railway Bill [Lords]; Rochester Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [Lords]; North Western Electricity and Power Gas Bill [Lords]; Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways Bill [Lords]; Fife Electric Power Bill [Lords]; Liverpool University Bill [Lords]; Barry Railway Bill [Lords]; Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Railway Bill [Lords]; Taff Vale Railway Bill [Lords]; Willesden Urban District Council Bill [Lords]; Scottish American Mortgage Company, Limited, Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  St Luke's Church and Parish Quoad Sacra, Edinburgh, Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. To be considered to-morrow.
  North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 23rd June, and to be printed. [Bill 245.]

PETITIONS.
  CHURCH DISCIPLINE BILL.
  Petition from Liverpool, against; to lie upon the Table.
  COUNTY COURTS JURISDICTION EXTENSION BILL.
  Petition from Macclesfield, in favour to lie upon the Table.
  DETENTION OF POOR PERSONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour: from Wiston and Roberton; and Avondale; to lie upon the Table.
  EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN BILL.
  Petition from Forres, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING LAW (COMPENSATION FOR NON-RENEWAL) BILL
  Petitions against: from North Derbyshire; and Barnard Castle; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENCES RENEWAL AND TRANSFER BILL.
  Petitions against: from North Derbyshire; and Barnard Castle; to lie upon the Table.
  LICENSING (SCOTLAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Petition from Inverness, for alterations; to lie upon the Table.
  PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION BILL.
  Petition from Leicester, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES.
  Petitions for alteration of law: from Bootle; and Macclesfield; to lie upon the Table.
  PORT OF LONDON BILL.
  Petition from Chatham Corporation, against (praying to be heard by Counsel); to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.

  EXPLOSIONS (EXPLOSION OF GUN-POWDER AT SEDGWICK, NEAR KENDAL).
  Copy presented, of Report by Captain M. B. Lloyd, His Majesty's Inspector of
  928
  Explosives, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the circumstances attending explosions of gunpowder which occurred in the glazing and corning houses of the Factory of the Sedgwick Gunpowder Company, Limited, at Sedgwick, near Kendal, Westmoreland, on the 30th March, 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1898.
  Copy presented, of Return showing the Total Payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account for the financial year 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Copy presented, of Forty-fifth Report of the Board of Superintendence, with Appendices, for the year 1902–3 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Copy presented, of Twenty-first Report of the Royal University of Ireland, being for the year 1902 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 AND 1896.
  Copies presented, of Fourteen Orders relating to the landing in Great Britain of Foreign Animals [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 2994 and 2995 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  AUSTRALIAN MAIL SERVICE.
  Copy presented, of Despatch to the Governor General of Australia relating to the Exclusive Employment of White Labour [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copies presented, of Colonial Reports, Nos. 386 (Falkland Islands, Annual Report for 1902) and 387 (Gibraltar, Annual Report for 1902) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVY (BERTHING ACCOMMODATION).
  Copy presented, of Report of the Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to consider the question of the Berthing Accommodation for His Majesty's ships in the dockyards and other waters, and also the moorings and material required [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Importation of Milk.
  SIR EDWARD STRACHEY: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Chairman of the Board of Customs is prohibited by statute from giving the names and addresses of persons importing milk from abroad; and whether, if it is desired that the names of such persons should be made public, legislation would be required; and, if so, if the Government will introduce a Bill for such purpose.
  (Answered by Mr. Elliot.) The Board of Customs are not prohibited by statute from giving the names and addresses of the importers of milk. The names of such importers are in fact published in the periodical Customs Bill of Entry for certain ports, which are available to subscribers. It is, however, the duty of the Board of Customs to exercise discretion as to the supply of information to persons making inquiry about the business of others.

  Life-Saving Precautions on Board Ship.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, with a view to the saving of life among passengers in the event of ships colliding at sea or meeting with other accidents, he will consider the advisability of requiring passenger lines to place a notice over every berth, showing to which boat station the occupant should repair in the event of collision, fire, or mishap requiring taking to the boats.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) I appreciate the motives of my hon. and gallant friend, but I fear the adoption of his suggestion is impracticable. In the opinion of the Board of Trade, any
  930
  attempt to allot boat stations to passengers by previous notice would, in the event of disaster, be not only useless but dangerous. The first duty of the captain in case of serious accident is to save the women and children; and the responsibility of doing the best for all is one that can only be safely left to him.

  Preservation of Big Game in Africa.
  SIR HARRY SETON-KARR: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the provisions of the International Conference, held in London in May, 1899, for the preservation of big game in Africa have now been ratified by all the Powers represented thereat; and, if not, what Powers have not done so and for what reasons; whether the provisions of the conference are now being carried out in all parts of Africa under the control of the Foreign Office, and particularly if the prohibition of the export of elephant tusks under 11 lbs. in weight is being strictly enforced, and by what means; also whether, having regard to the regulation that licensees must make a return of game killed, these returns from the date the regulation come into force can be collected from all territories in Africa under the control of the Foreign Office and presented to Parliament; and whether he can state in what game reserves in Africa officials and natives are allowed to kill game, and to what extent and under what conditions; also to what extent and at what cost the sanctity of the game reserves in Africa is enforced by game wardens, police, or otherwise.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) The ratifications of the Powers have not been deposited owing to the fact that in signing the Convention the French Government reserved its obligation to ratify until Abyssinia and Liberia had acceded. These Powers had been repeatedly urged to accede, but have hitherto hesitated to do so owing to their fear that they may not be able to carry out all the provisions of the Convention. Negotiations with them are still proceeding. The provisions of the Convention are now being carried out in all the Protectorates under the control of the Foreign Office by means of the game

  931
  regulations. These regulations forbid, amongst other things, the export of elephant tusks under 11 lbs. in weight, and it is the duty of all administrative officers of the Protectorates and of the Customs officials to see that they are strictly enforced. It was at first found impossible to collect accurate returns of the game killed under licences, but the returns for 1901–2 for the British Central Africa Protectorate were laid before Parliament in August last (No. 2872 of the Annual Series of the Diplomatic and Consular Reports); for Somaliland in April last (see Appendices in No. 2948 of the Annual Series of the Diplomatic and Consular Reports). Those for East Africa and Uganda will be laid shortly. Officials are not allowed to shoot game for the purposes of sport in any of the reserves in the Protectorates administered by the Foreign Office. It has not yet been found possible to deal with the natives in those reserves in such a way as to prevent their hunting game within them, but the importation of firearms is carefully checked and natives are not allowed to own weapons of precision as defined in the Brussels Act. As already stated, it is the duty of all administrative officials to see that the game regulations are enforced; and in the East Africa Protectorate a special officer with the title of game ranger has been appointed for the purpose at a salary of £250, with £100 for expenses. There is no other sum specially appropriated to game preservation. Observations on the preservation of game in the Soudan will be found at page 80 of Egypt, No. 1 (1903), laid before the House in April of this year.

  Treatment of Jews in Roumania.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether recent correspondence relating to the treatment of the Jews in Roumania can now be laid upon the Table.
  (Answered by Lord Cranborne.) I fear that I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to my hon. friend on the 18th of November last.† There has been no further correspondence since that date of any material importance.
  † See (4) Debates, cxiv., 1231.

  Issue of Silver Coinage.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £425,000 of small coins held by the Bank of England ready for issue to the public are coinage of the late or present reign; and whether supplies of coin can be obtained by others as well as bankers.
  (Answered by Mr. Ritchie.) Of the £425,000 silver coin held by the Bank of England, £417,000 is Victorian and fit for circulation; the balance of £8,000 consists of new coin of the present reign. Silver coins of any denomination, and in any quantity desired, are issued to the general public on personal application at the head office of the Bank in exchange for gold or Bank of England notes, and at country branches of the Bank of England in exchange for gold or notes of the particular branch of the Bank at which application is made. A further sum of £10,000 in sixpences of this year's date was issued to the Bank on the 9th instant and is available for issue.

  India—Examination of Packages crossing the Tibetan Frontier.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that an order has recently been issued to open and to examine all export packages passing from India across the Tibetan frontier; and whether the Government of India will take steps to prevent this interference with trade along this route.
  (Answered by Secretary Lord George Hamilton.) The Government of India have found it necessary to establish posts on our side of the frontier to prevent the export of military stores to Tibet. I see no reason to disapprove these precautionary measures.

  Importation of Canadian Cattle.
  THE MASTER OF ELIBANK: To ask the hon. Member for Huntingdonshire, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the attention of the Department has been directed to the circumstances of the alleged outbreak of contagious pleuro-pneumonia among a cargo of Canadian cattle in 1892, on

  933
  account of which an embargo was imposed and is maintained on the importation of these cattle; and, if so, whether the Department can now remove it in the interests of British feeders and Canadian ranchers.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.) The circumstances to which the hon. Member refers are of course well known to the Board of Agriculture. They are fully detailed in Parliamentary Papers which were issued at the time. There is no special embargo applicable to cattle imported from Canada, but in pursuance of The Diseases of Animals Act, 1896, all animals imported to this country from abroad must be slaughtered at the port of landing. This requirement cannot be set aside by any order of the Board. I may add that the question of the admission of store cattle into the United Kingdom has been carefully examined, and that my noble friend sees no reason to depart from the policy adopted by his predecessor and endorsed in this House by a very large majority so recently as February last.

  New Road from the Mall to Charing Cross.
  MR. WHITMORE: To ask the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will have placed in the Tea Room plans and drawings showing how it is proposed to carry out the opening of the Mall into Charing Cross.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The plan that it is hoped will be carried out is substantially the same as that shown in a plan attached to the Report of the Select Committee upon the Public Offices (Appropriation of Sites) of 1896 (House of Commons Paper, No. 310).

  Experiments on Dogs without Anæsthetics.
  MR. PERKS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, as reported at a recent meeting of the Committee of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society, Professor Schafer has obtained permission to conduct
  934
  experiments on dogs without anæsthetics for the purpose of investigating the phenomena of death from drowning; is he aware that these experiments have hitherto been conducted under chloroform; and will he take steps to prevent the infliction of cruelty which the experiments authorised involve.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) Professor Schäfer has obtained the certificates required by the Act to enable him to perform certain experiments on dogs for the purpose of investigating, not the phenomena of death from drowning, but the best means of effecting resuscitation in cases of apparent drowning The experiments will be performed on behalf of the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society of London, who have appointed a committee to consider this question. I am aware that Professor Schäfer has performed experiments on the effect of immersion on anæsthetised dogs, but I am informed that the use of anæsthetics frustrated the object of the experiments. In view of the great importance of the subject in connection with the saving of human life, and of the strong recommendations received in support of the experiments, I have not felt justified in disallowing the certificates.

  Hooliganism in the Metropolis.
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the death at Southwark of a young man, through injuries received on 29th May in the Walworth Road, owing to assault by three roughs, and to the remarks of the coroner upon the amount of hooliganism in the district, and of the danger of walking about the Borough, even in broad daylight; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to increase the police protection in that district, especially owing to the small increase in the police force in the Metropolitan area during the last ten years.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) So far as I can ascertain by inquiry into the case to which the hon. Member refers, the young man was struck by two men with whom he was

  935
  walking; he was at work next day, and it was not till a day or two afterwards that he complained of being ill. The death may have been attributable to injuries received on the 29th May; but the coroner's jury found that the evidence was not sufficient to show the cause of it, and they returned an open verdict. No complaint was made to the police by the deceased, nor does the case appear to be one of hooliganism at all. No complaints have been received by the police from the coroner, and I have no reason to suppose that the number of police in the Borough is not adequate for the reasonable requirements of the district.

  Tuberculosis Commission—Report of Progress.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: To ask the President of the Local Government Board what progress has been made in the investigations by the Royal Commission on Tuberculosis during the past twelve months on the two farms at Stansted, lent by Sir James Blyth; and whether a Report will shortly be issued.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I am informed that considerable progress has been made in the investigations instituted by the Royal Commission. It is stated, however, that the ground to be covered by the experiments is very extensive, and that some time must necessarily elapse before any Report by the Commission can be issued.

  Education Committees—Eligibility for Membership.
  MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether the Nottinghamshire County Council have any power under the Education Act of 1902 to prevent the chairman of the Sutton-in-Ashfield Urban District Council, who is the head teacher of the central Board schools, from serving on the local education committee; and whether the fact of this gentleman being the head teacher of the Board schools disqualifies him from being a member of the Urban District Council.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) If the local education committee referred to is the committee of the Nottinghamshire
  936
  County Council, that Council can certainly determine the personnel of its education committee. As Sutton-in-Ashfield is not an autonomous area, there is nothing to disqualify the head teacher of the Board school in that area from being a member of the Urban District Council, unless, in the view of the Board of Education or the County Council, his duties on the Urban District Council should interfere with the proper discharge of his duties as a teacher.
  MR MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to a circular issued by the Nottinghamshire County Council to the Urban District Councils of this county with reference to the appointment of school managers under the Education Act of 1902 in which the Nottinghamshire County Council have decided that no one shall be eligible to be appointed by the County Council as a manager of any school if a member of his family is employed in that school; and will he state if the Nottinghamshire County Council have any power under the Education Act to enforce this rule, and if not, will he call upon them to at once withdraw this circular.
  (Answered by Sir William Anson.) My attention has not been called to the circular in question. There is nothing to prevent a County Council from determining the qualifications or disqualifications for managers chosen by itself, but not for managers chosen by the minor local authority. Under the circumstances stated in the Question I see no reason for the intervention of the Board of Education.

  Rental of Lands in Irish Land Court.
  MR. BUTCHER: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the gross rental of lands in the Court of the Irish Land Judge in the hands of receivers before the application of the Act of 1896, and the gross rental of lands at present in the hands of such receivers.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The rental of lands in this Court in the hands of receivers in the year 1895 was £793,821. In the year 1902, the latest

  937
  period for which the figures are at present available, the rental was £449,106. It is right to state that these amounts include the rental of non-agricultural hereditaments as well as agricultural, and of estates managed for other Judges of the Chancery Division where no order for sale has been made.

  Inquiry into Condition of Irish Blind.
  MR. NANNETTI: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commission appointed by the Lord Lieutenant to inquire into the Poor Law system will embrace an inquiry into the condition of the Irish blind; and, if not, can he see his way to widen the scope of the inquiry with a view to securing this object.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) It will be competent to the Commission to inquire into the condition of the blind who are relieved from the poor rates.

  Salary of Manual Instructresses in Irish National Schools.
  MR. GILHOOLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that manual instructresses in national schools give instruction in needlework, kindergarten, hand and eye training, and object lessons, and give service during the entire school day, and that £24 per annum is the maximum salary for such service, he will recommend that a portion of the Equivalent Grant or some other fund be allocated for increasing their salaries.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I am not yet in a position to make an announcement in reference to the allocation of this Grant.

  Evictions in County Tipperary.
  MR. CONDON: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant a Return of the names, valuations, and causes of evictions of tenants in the county of Tipperary during the fifties, sixties, and seventies, where such lands remain on owners' hands, together with names of local representatives of each evicted tenant.
  938
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There are no official records in existence that would enable such a Return to be prepared.

  Fixing of Rates in Cork.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieuten ant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a difficulty now experienced by the County Borough Council of Cork, due to the impossibility of levying the rates in time to provide funds for Poor Law and municipal purposes, owing to the fact that the revised valuation lists do not come to hand from the General Valuation Office, Dublin, before 1st March, the time fixed by statute; that the financial year begins on 1st April, leaving only one month for fixing the rates and the preparation of the rate book, which requires at least seven weeks; and whether, seeing that the Board of Guardians are how instructing their law agents to proceed against the corporation, while the Local Government Board will not permit the Council to pay interest to the bank on an overdraft, he will say what steps he proposes to take to deal with this difficulty.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) My attention has been directed to this matter by a communication received from the hon. Member. In the case of counties no difficulty should be experienced in paying these demands in advance, as the Councils receive an instalment of the Agricultural Grant at the end of March, as well as other advances from the Local Taxation Account. But in some of the county boroughs difficulty has been experienced in making the payments referred to in the early part of the financial year. I am inquiring whether it is practicable by administrative action to provide a remedy to meet the latter difficulty.

  South African War—Militia Officers' Gratuity.
  MAJOR RASCH: To ask the Secretary of State for War why an officer of Militia who has served in South Africa for two years with embodied battalion is not eligible for the £100 allowance.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) It is not clear to what grant reference is

  939
  made, but the terms on which the outfit allowance was granted have been explained in previous replies † to Questions put by my hon. and gallant friend, to which I fear I can add nothing.

  South African War Compensation Claims.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the fact that the Colonial Office is unable to state the number and amount of claims for compensation which have been lodged by the Transvaal and Orange River Colonies, will he state how the Department arrives at the sum required for the satisfaction of these claims.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Chamberlain.) The Government has never undertaken to satisfy claims for compensation for war losses in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony. As far as ex-burghers of the late Republics are concerned, the £3,000,000 which has been set apart for them was fixed by Article 10 of the Terms of Surrender. It will be distributed pro rata among those who have suffered war losses and are in actual want of relief. The £2,000,000 set apart for British subjects, neutral foreigners, and natives will be distributed pro rata among all who are held to be entitled to some compensation for war losses. It is a sum estimated by Lord Milner to be sufficient to provide each recipient with a larger measure of compensation than the ex-burghers will receive from the £3,000,000 above referred to.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Army Veterinary Department.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can say when the recommendations of the Committee appointed to consider the condition of the Army Veterinary Department will be brought into force, as the last meeting of this Committee took place in February; and, whether, seeing that there are now 35 vacancies in the Army Veterinary Department, and it is 20 per cent. below its authorised peace establishment, he will state how many candidates there are for these vacancies.
  † See (4) Debates, cxvi., 911.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. BRODRICK,): The Report of the Committee is now under consideration. There are at present five candidates and thirty-six vacancies.

  The Somaliland Operations.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to give with reference to the statement in the Press to the effect that the Mullah has cut the British lines of communication between Galadi and Bohotle; whether Colonel Cobbe, now at Galadi, can return to General Manning; and whether General Manning can render any assistance to Colonel Cobbe.
  *MR. BRODRICK: The Government are not in possession of more information with regard to the position of Colonel Cobbe and the movements of the Mullah than has been published in the Press this morning. On the other hand, some five or six weeks ago instructions were sent to General Manning to concentrate at Bohotle; and, according to the estimate given us, a considerable portion of General Manning's force would be already concentrated at Bohotle. But I have telegraphed for particulars from the officer commanding at Bohotle.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: But the force is cut off from its base?
  *MR. BRODRICK: I have said nothing to indicate that in any way. I have no information corroborative of some private telegrams which have appeared in one of the newspapers to that effect.

  New Army Cap.
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War who is responsible for the design of the new German cap for the British Army; whether it was adopted with a view to increasing the popularity of the service; and whether he is aware that there has been a marked falling off in the number of applicants for enlistment since the new cap has come into wear.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Before the right hon. Gentleman

  941
  answers may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman will consider the desirability of referring the whole question of the new military outfit to a Committee of Milliners?
  *MR. BRODRICK: The new cap was designed to give better protection to the head, with the addition of a cap cover, than the late field cap which was not found to give sufficient protection in the manœuvres of 1898. It was designed by the Army Clothing Committee in 1901, and the year following its introduction the largest number of recruits joined the Army who have enlisted since the short service system was instituted.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was it at the instance of the War Office that this cap was sent over to the Irish police?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Naval Bases.
  MR. ROSE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to establish a naval base at Sydney (Cape Breton), at an early date in view of the maintenance of a strong French squadron at St. Pierre, Miquelon.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The reply is in the negative.

  Germany and Canadian Tariffs.
  MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that Canada has differentiated against Germany as compared with certain European nations other than the mother country, he proposes to protect Canada from being on this ground removed by Germany from the category of a most favoured nation by imposing retaliatory duties in Great Britain against Germany.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN,): Canada has only differentiated against Germany after it had been for five years excluded from the most-favoured-nation treatment in that country in consequence of the preference voluntarily given by Canada to the mother country. The situation thus
  942
  created is one of the subjects to which I have recently called the attention of the country, and in regard to which I have invited discussion.
  MR. BLACK: May I take it that Canada did not differentiate in favour of France at the same time that she differentiated in favour of the mother country.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is aware that the differentiation was in favour of the mother country, accompanied by the statement that certain preferences would be given to any British possession, or, in fact, to any other country which gave reciprocal treatment.

  Boer Grievances.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether General Louis Botha has summoned a public meeting at Heidelberg, Transvaal, for the 20th June, to discuss various political grievances; and, if so, will he state what is the nature of the matters to be brought before the meeting; and whether any communications on the subject have passed between Lord Milner and the Colonial Office, and in that case will he lay copies thereof upon the Table.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on the subject beyond what I have read in the Press.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this serious matter?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

  Dynamite Duty in South Africa.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, during the autumn of last year, he received petitions from British dynamite manufacturers protesting against the attempt of the De Beers Company and others to establish a new dynamite monopoly in South Africa; and whether, seeing that a coast duty of 7s. 6d. a case has recently been sanctioned by Lord Milner, and that the mining companies of the Transvaal other than those controlled by the

  943
  Directors of the De Beers Company and their friends are opposed to this monopoly, will he instruct Lord Milner to remove this duty in the interest of British manufacturers and the general mining community.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received petitions of the nature stated in the Question. Under the new Customs Unions Convention, which has been laid on the Table, the duty on explosives at the coast ports is fixed at 1½d. per pound or 6s. 3d. a case. The question of an Excise duty of equal amount to the import duty is under consideration.

  Alleged Ill-treatment of Indian Storekeepers in South Africa.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, seeing that in the letter addressed to him by Mr. Abdool Gani, chairman of the British Indian Association, last month, specific charges were made in relation to the ill-treatment of respectable Indian storekeepers at Heidelberg, Johannesburg, and Potchefstroom, he will say whether a definite statement was made by Mr. Abdool Gani on behalf of the association that under Mr. Kruger's administration British Indian subjects were never subjected to the physical ill-treatment they are at present suffering; and what steps he has taken to put an end to this condition of affairs.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have not received any letter making these charges.
  MR. MARKHAM: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say last week he had received a letter?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member asks if I have received a letter making specific charges. I say I have not, but I have received a letter from Mr. Gani.

  Irrigation Works in India.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the allocation of capital expenditure in the current
  944
  year (as per Return 137) of 59,000,000 rupees for railways and 4,500,000 rupees for irrigation projects is open to revision; and, if so, whether it is the intention of the Government of India to increase the grant under the latter head with a view to promoting the extension of water storage in India as a precaution against future drought.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord GEORGE HAMILTON,): The figures of 4,500,000 rupees given in Return No. 137 refer only to expenditure on Major Irrigation Works actually in course of construction at the date of the Return. The financial statement for this year shows that in 1903–04 it is proposed to expend £666,700 on the construction of Major Irrigation Works, £166,700 on the construction of Protective Irrigation Works, and £810,500 (net) on the construction and maintenance of Minor Irrigation Works, the last two amounts being charged against the revenue of the year. This gives a total expenditure of £1,643,900 on Irrigation Works. The Government of India, after full consideration, deliberately put forward this Estimate of expenditure, and I know of no reason why it should be now altered.

  Brussels Sugar Convention.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the secret Commission now sitting at Brussels is the Permanent Commission provided for under Article 7 of the Sugar Convention; if so, who is the English delegate; whether it is authorised to name the sugar exporting countries, outside those which have approved of the Convention, against which the ports in this country are to be closed under the Sugar Convention Bill; if so, whether, before any decision is reached in their case, due notice will be given to these countries and whether they will have an opportunity of appearing by counsel, or otherwise, before the Commission; and, if not, whether Great Britain will be obliged to put in force the decisions at which this secret Commission may arrive.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord CRANBORNE,): The Commission now sitting at Brussels is the permanent Commission provided for under Article 7 of the Brussels Sugar Convention. The British delegate is Sir Henry Bergne, K.C.M.G., and he is accompanied by four assistant delegates. The answer to the third Question is in the affirmative. The decisions of the Commission will no doubt be announced without unnecessary delay, but, subject to the terms of the Convention, their procedure is a matter for the determination of the Commission itself. With regard to the last Question, Great Britain is of course bound by the terms of the Convention.
  MR. LOUGH: Will any opportunity be given to any country against which proceedings are to be taken to be heard?
  LORD CRANBORNE: That is a matter of procedure to be determined by the Commission itself.

  Shanghai-Nanking Railway.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received official information as to the issue of the Imperial Decree sanctioning the construction of the Shanghai-Nanking Railway, and as to when the final contract will be signed; and whether he is in a position to state the main provisions of the contract.
  LORD CRANBORNE: On the 11th instant His Majesty's Chargéd' Affaires at Peking telegraphed that an Imperial Decree had been issued and officially communicated to him sanctioning the Agreement for the construction of this railway. He had previously reported that as soon as the Imperial assent had been given the agreement would be signed at Shanghai. The railway, which is to be built and financed by the British and Chinese Corporation, must be begun within twelve months and finished within five years of the conclusion of the agreement. It is to be the property of the Chinese Government and to be administered by a Board of Control consisting of two Chinese nominees and three
  946
  members appointed by the British and Chinese Corporation. The railway is to be mortgaged as security for the loan to be made by the Corporation to the Chinese Government.

  The Assassinations in Servia.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: In accordance with private notice I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government propose to continue diplomatic relations with those persons who, having been concerned in the assassination of the late King and Queen of Servia, now assume to act as the Government of Servia; what attitude the Government proposes to assume, and what steps it proposes to take in consequence of these recent events; and whether negotiations with other Powers are going on with a view to common and concerted action.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I can only say that at present the matter is under consideration; but as far as diplomatic relations are concerned, they came ipso facto to an end with the death of the King of Servia, because our representative in Servia was accredited only to the late King. Those relations have therefore terminated of themselves. If my hon. friend thinks this an inadequate answer—as perhaps he may—he can put a Question on the Paper.

  Income Tax on Foreign Bonds.
  MR. ROSE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the system adopted for the collection of Income Tax on foreign bonds to bearer held in England, the interest on which is payable abroad.
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. RITCHIE,): The Income Tax on foreign bonds to bearer, the interest of which is paid abroad, is for the most part collected under the provisions of the Act 48 and 49 Vict., Chap. 51, Section 26, which prescribes that a banker or other person who obtains payment of the coupons shall deduct Income Tax from the proceeds, and account therefore to the Special Commissioners of Income Tax.

  947
  In cases where the owner of the bonds obtains payment of his coupons direct from abroad, he would be liable to include the proceeds in his return for direct assessment under Schedule D.

  Treatment of Lunatics.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the death of Charles Joseph Smart in the Middlesex County Asylum; and, if so, will he state whether this man was just before his death placed in a strait-jacket without the doctor's orders, and whether inquiries will be made into the whole matter.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): This man died on the day after he was received in the asylum, to which he had been removed in a strait waistcoat from the Isleworth Workhouse. I understand that the latter part of the Question is being made the subject of inquiry by my right hon. friend the President of the Local Government Board.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is it not only unusual but improper to put a patient into a strait-jacket without the doctor's orders?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: That Question should be addressed to the Local Government Board. This case only came under my notice when the patient was brought into the asylum from the workhouse.

  China and Earthenware Industries and Workmen's Compensation.
  *SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of firms manufacturing china and earthenware in the Potteries district, and the number of these firms insured under the compensation scheme; also the number of persons employed in the manufacture of china and earthenware in the district, and the number insured under the scheme.
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: According to the latest Returns in my possession there are in the North Staffordshire Potteries district 364 works at which earthenware and china are made, employing 4,857 persons. In ninety of these works, where 2,750 persons are employed, an insurance scheme has been adopted.

  Alien Immigration.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can say when the Report of the Royal Commission upon Alien Immigration will be presented; and, if so, can he state when he will be prepared to introduce legislation in conformity therewith, having regard to the disturbances between the native population and Aliens; has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to further murders by aliens recently?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW,): I understand that the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration has concluded the taking of evidence and is now considering its Report. Until the Report is received I am not able to make any statement with regard to legislation.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: May I ask what time is likely to elapse before the Report is presented, and whether it will be in time for legislation this session.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I see no prospect of its being in time for legislation this session.

  The Tariff Question—Treatment of British Trade by Foreign Countries.
  MR. LAMBERT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will name the countries which deny to British imports treatment accorded to imports from other foreign countries.
  MR. BONAR LAW: Generally speaking, the only countries, so far as I am aware, in which imports from the United Kingdom do not receive complete most-favoured-nation treatment are the

  949
  United States of America, where we do not enjoy the benefit of the reductions on certain articles conceded to France and other countries under reciprocal agreements, and Portugal, which withholds from certain British goods the reductions conceded by treaty to Russia, Norway, and Holland, also certain of the South and Central American Republics grant special favour to the citizens and products of the neighbouring States, which are not enjoyed by British subjects and products.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Is there not a most-favoured-nation arrangement between this country and the United States?
  MR. BONAR LAW: Yes.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Can you name any country in which British goods get the same treatment as foreign goods do in this country?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Have we not a most-favoured-nation arrangement with Portugal?
  MR. BONAR LAW: Yes, but there are exceptions which I have read out.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I fail to understand what is meant by "exceptions."

  Edinburgh Magistrates and the Wellington Reformatory.
  MR. JOHN DEWAR: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been directed to the fact that there are sixty-six lads sentenced by Edinburgh magistrates at present inmates of the Wellington Reformatory, and that application has been made to the Home Secretary for authority to discharge these lads, in respect that the Town Council of Edinburgh refuses to contribute towards their maintenance; and whether, in view of the statement of one of the sheriff substitutes that the Reformatory Act is a dead letter in Edinburgh, and that the Judges of the city are prevented from inflicting the only sentence which promises any permanent good to the criminal, he is prepared to take such
  950
  steps as may be necessary to remedy these matters.
  In putting the Question the hon. Member asked further if it was the fact that a boy had already been discharged from the Reformatory, because of the refusal of the magistrates to pay the cost of his maintenance, although his sentence of five years had not expired. Would the right hon. Gentleman take steps—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! That should be the subject of a separate Question.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question on the Paper. I am aware of the position of matters in Edinburgh referred to by the hon. Member. The Secretary for Scotland has made repeated representations during the last twelve months to the Town Council drawing their attention to the responsibility they are incurring in regard to the maintenance of Edinburgh children in reformatories. I understand from my right hon. friend the Home Secretary that as responsible for the administration of the Reformatory Acts he has also been in communication both with the Town Council and with the Wellington Reformatory managers, and that there is some prospect of an arrangement being reached which will obviate any necessity for taking any steps as proposed by the hon. Member.

  Galway Docks.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken to carry out the portion of the scheme under The Marine Act, 1902, for the dredging of waterways; and if he would make inquiries in reference to the entrance into the Galway Docks which, from silting in the channel, large vessels are now prevented from entering, necessitating the discharge of cargoes in the roadstead, causing loss and expense to the shipowners and merchants in Galway.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The scheme under the Marine Works

  951
  Act does not deal with the dredging of waterways except so far as may be necessary in connection with works proposed to be undertaken under the Act. That Act does not embrace such a case as that of Galway Harbour. It is the duty of the harbour authority to make provision for clearing the channel.

  Corofin District Council Chairmanship.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Local Government Board in Ireland have refused to sanction the election of Mr. Flanagan as chairman of the Corofin District Council.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The election of chairman of a District Council does not require the sanction of the Local Government Board. But Mr. Flanagan, having been convicted and sentenced to a term of imprisonment with hard labour, is disqualified by law from being a member of the Corofin District Council.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the peaceful state of affairs in Ireland, the Government cannot do something to remove this disqualification, which causes very widespread dissatisfaction and may cause a great deal of trouble?
  MR. WYNDHAM: It is a disability which could only be removed by legislation.

  Proposed Pier at Salthill, Galway.
  MR. CHARLES DEVLIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he has received from various bodies, municipal and otherwise, of Galway city and county, representations of the dangers to which the fishermen are exposed in violent weather owing to their inability to reach the harbour and the loss to their business through delay in reaching the markets, and of the advantages which would accrue from the construction of a pier at Salthill; and, if so, will he state what grant has been proposed in the matter.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Representations to this effect have been received. The
  952
  County Council has been informed that it will not be practicable to expend any money on the proposed undertaking under the Marine Works Act.

  Irish Agricultural Holdings.
  MR. CAREW: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of agricultural holdings in Ireland valued at over £200.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The number is 4,745, according to the last Census.

  Irish Trade Statistics.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government can arrange to provide complete monthly and annual statistics of all commodities exported from and brought into Ireland, with a view to providing that country with information respecting its progress, such as is furnished in other civilised States.
  MR. BONAR LAW: As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, statistics of the trade done directly by Ireland with foreign countries and British possessions are contained in the volumes of the "Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom." No official records exist of the trade passing between Great Britain and Ireland, and I fear that any system that could be devised for collecting such information would prove a hindrance to trade.
  MR. LOUGH: In view of the fact that practically the whole body of Irish trade is with Great Britain, will not the hon. Gentleman promise to consider whether these vital statistics cannot be provided.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Irish Agricultural Department in Ireland is most anxious to get these statistics?
  MR. BONAR LAW: I am sure if the Irish Office approaches the Board of Trade in that matter we shall be glad to consider their suggestions.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Has the hon. Gentleman no settled convictions on the matter?
  [No answer was returned.]

  Charitable Loan Fund (Ireland) Act, 1900.
  MR. JOHN CAMPBELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether it is his intention to have the Charitable Loan Fund (Ireland) Act, 1900, amended at an early date by granting an extension of the time for collection, so as to enable the receivers of the societies to collect the outstanding debts which have been blocked through the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Reiley v. Magistrates of Tyrone and Fermanagh.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,): An amending Bill with the object stated in the Question has been drafted, and I should be prepared to introduce it upon receiving an assurance from hon. Members that it will be treated as a non-contentious measure.

  Railway Delivery of Irish Butter around London.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that Irish butter, which arrives in London thirty-six hours after consignment from the south-west of Ireland, takes forty-eight hours longer to be delivered at any place within a radius of twenty-five to forty miles of London, while foreign butters are delivered punctually in the same districts; and, if so, will he, in the interest of the Irish saltless butter trade, take steps to have this state of things remedied by the railway companies over whose lines this produce is carried.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The Board of Trade have received no representations alleging such delay in the delivery of Irish butter by railway as compared with foreign butter, but if any specific cases of delay are submitted to the Board, inquiry will at once be made into the circumstances.

  Greenwich Hospital Fund Pensions.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the loss of life occasioned by the recent explosion on H.M.S. "Good Hope," he is now able to announce the decision of the Government with regard to granting State pensions to the widows and orphans of those seamen and marines who lose their lives on duty similar to those awarded to the widows and orphans of men killed on war service.
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. Arrangements have now been made by the Admiralty that the pensions granted from the Greenwich Hospital Fund to the widows and children of the seamen and Marines who lose their lives by accident shall be supplemented from the Navy Votes so as to bring them up to the war scale laid down in 1901. This arrangement will cover the cases of existing widows and orphans.
  MR. KEARLEY: Will the concession be retro-active?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir, I said so.

  Inquiry into Preferential Tariffs.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury how the inquiry into the relative advantages and disadvantages of a fundamental change in our fiscal system, involving the taxation of all food stuffs from foreign sources and their free entry from our self-governing colonies is to be pursued; whether it is to be an official inquiry; if so, to whom it is to be entrusted, and to whom inquiry is to be addressed, and how long is it expected to last; and whether an opportunity will speedily be given for the constituencies to express their opinions in regard to the contemplated change, in order to limit as far as possible the injury to trade and commerce which a lengthy uncertainty might produce.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The inquiry will, of course, be conducted by His Majesty's Government and on the responsibility of that Government.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: By the Board of Trade?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It will be conducted by the Government on its own responsibility.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: By what Department? By the Board of Trade? And what will be the form of the inquiry? Will it be by Royal Commission?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry that I have been so obscure. It will not be by Royal Commission, or by Committee of this House, or by a Departmental Committee. It will not be concerned with any one Department.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Will the Proceedings and the Report be published?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member below the Gangway has never served in the Cabinet, but the right hon. Gentleman has; and he must know that inquiries of this sort conducted by a Cabinet do not necessarily lead to a Report.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Is it wholly to enable the Cabinet to make up its mind?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The inquiry is in order that the Cabinet and the House and the country may be informed. These are really most extraordinary Questions. I do not object to them. I rather like them. Hon. Members show extraordinary ignorance as to the ordinary methods by which the proceedings, legislative and administrative, of the Government are carried on. Most of them are preceded by Government inquiry, and the House of Commons and the country are at the proper time taken into the confidence of the Government.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Is it intended that the inquiry shall be completed before the General Election?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I do not know the length of the inquiry nor the time when the General Election will take place, I am not in a position to answer the Question.

  NEW MEMBER SWORN.
  Denis Kilbride, Esq., for the County of Kildare (South Kildare Division).
  MUNICIPAL TRADING.
  Ordered, That the Report and Minutes of the evidence of the Joint Committee on Municipal Trading of Session 1900 be referred to the Select Committee appointed by this House to join with a Committee of the House of Lords on municipal trading.—(Mr. Powell-Williams.)
NEW BILL.
  CONGESTED DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
  "To amend the provisions of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act, 1897, as to the application of the fund constituted by the Act," presented by the Lord Advocate; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 244.]

  IRISH LAND [ADVANCES, ETC.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Resolved, That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present session to amend the law relating to the occupation and ownership of land in Ireland, it is expedient—

  (a) To authorise the creation of capital stock for raising money required for the Irish Land Purchase Fund and the Land Purchase Aid Fund, and to authorise the National Debt Commissioners to borrow and lend money for the purposes aforesaid, and to charge on the Consolidated Fund the payment of the dividends on such stock so far as not paid out of the income of the Irish Land Purchase Fund, and to authorise the payment out of money

  957
  to be provided by Parliament of sums sufficient to pay the dividends and sinking fund required for the Land Purchase Aid Fund.

  (b) To authorise the payment out of money to be provided by Parliament of the salaries of the Estates Commissioners, the Public Trustee, and of officers and persons employed by them, and of certain expenses of the Land Commission; and

  (c) To authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of superannuation allowances to certain Land Commissioners.—(Mr. Wyndham.)

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  On the order for Committee being read—
  *MR. SPEAKERruled out of order an instruction standing in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil giving the Committee power to extend the provisions of the Bill to Wales and Monmouthshire. It was quite out of the question, he said, to apply the Land Purchase laws of Ireland, which formed a separate Code, to England or Wales by instruction.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1—
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONmoved to insert in line 1 of Clause 1, after "sale of," the words "one or more holdings, or." He said this raised the question of the principle on which the Bill was founded. Both sides were agreed in the desire that land purchase in Ireland should work as smoothly as possible, and that there should be no difficulties thrown in the way either of landlord or of tenant. Now the Bill said that what the landlord was to be enabled to sell, and what the tenant was to be
  958
  enabled to buy, was an "estate," and an estate was defined in Section 85 of the Bill as "any lands which the Estate Commissioners may see fit to be regarded as a separate estate for the purposes of the Act." Thus, before any sale could take place, before any agreement could be made between landlord and tenant, they would have to find out whether the particular property to be dealt with was or was not an estate. That would throw a great difficulty in the way of sales, for a landlord would be loth to deal with any of his tenants, and the tenants would be loth to deal with the landlord without some assurance that the property in question would be considered to be an estate under the Act. The landlord would be forced, in the first instance, to go to the Estates Commissioners and ask the question—"If I agree to make an arrangement with such and such a tenant will you deem the property an estate?' He would have to ask even more, and would have to inquire—"If I fail to agree with a tenant as to a certain part, will you accept the remainder as an estate?" Surely it was not necessary that the word "estate" should require any definition, and surely if the property constituted a holding subject to the Irish Land Law, that ought to be sufficient to enable landlord and tenant to come to an agreement in the knowledge that the necessary money would be advanced. The only possible objection was that there might be some holdings which it would not be advantageous to advance money upon. True, there might be certain uneconomic holdings, but if that were so, they ought to be dealt with by way of exception, and there should be in the Act some means by which rules could be laid down to provide for such cases. If the plan he suggested were adopted it would much simplify the working of the Act.
  Amendment proposed.
  "In page 1, line 8, after the words 'sale of' to insert the words 'one or more holdings, or.'"—(Mr. Herbert Robertson.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,)said he was unable to accept the Amendment.

  959
  It was admitted that great advantage would accrue from dealing with large areas, and it would strike at the very foundation of the Bill if those advantages were to be given separately in the case of what he might call small isolated purchases. This Bill took away no existing rights, and as the law now stood these small purchases could be carried out, but it was not to be expected that in cases where only two or three farms were the subject of the agreement, the parties should enjoy all the advantages of the costly machinery erected under the Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid it was quite true that under the present Land Purchase Act a tenant could buy an individual holding from his landlord, and that that right was not taken away by this Bill. He should be inclined to limit the clause in the direction to be proposed by the hon. Member for Louth, and did not, therefore, propose to either support this Amendment or to propose the one he had himself placed on the Paper, to insert after "estate" the words "or any part thereof."
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBregretted that the Chief Secretary had not been able to give a more satisfactory reply. As he now understood it, any sale carried out must be of an entire estate. ["No, no."] Then what was the intention? The marginal description of the clause was to regulate "advances for purchase of holdings where a whole estate is sold." He understood the right hon. Gentleman objected to putting in anything that would enable part of an estate to be sold under Clause 1. It was desirable to have some definite idea, then, as to what the word "estate" really meant. If it did not mean the whole estate, or if it would apply to a single holding, what objection could there be to the Amendment?
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that his hon. friend had fallen into an error which nearly everybody fell into at first blush. The word "estate" meant in common parlance the whole property of an owner; but "estate" in the Bill meant that which the Estate Commission believed
  960
  was an area of land which could be conveniently dealt with in globo.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBasked if it would be possible for a landowner to know before he entered into negotiations with the tenant how the matter was going to end—whether the Land Commission would regard it as an estate or not.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that they could not anticipate by statutory enactment all the difficulties that might arise in administering an Act of Parliament; but if his hon. and gallant friend would consider the composition of the Estate Commission, and all the provisions in the Bill, he himself would find no difficulty in discovering what the result of the clause would be. If they went the extreme length of appointing a public officer, a public trustee who might be consulted by private individuals, he thought that that was as far as they could go.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid that the point raised was of the greatest importance. It was essential before the landowner opened negotiations with his tenants that he should know whether what he proposed to sell was considered an estate or not. He might take all the trouble of negotiating with his tenant and then bring the agreement to the Land Commission who might say "That is not an estate at all, and therefore we will not sanction the sale." His object was to render it an easy, cheap, and satisfactory process for the landlord to sell and the tenant to buy, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not at some subsequent stage introduce some provision which would render it possible for the landlord to consult with the Estate Commission and say "I propose to sell this portion of my land, will you consider it an estate? And, if so, will you sanction the sale?"
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that his hon. and learned friend had overlooked the fact that in the Bill he had reserved as an alternative the procedure introduced last year. In an ordinary case no one could be in any doubt as to the result;

  961
  but if there were exceptional circumstances, the number and character of which could not be anticipated, the best plan would be to sell the estate to the Land Commission instead of by private bargain.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBasked if it was not the case that under Clause 1 the bonus entirely depended on the land being an estate or not.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that that question could be more conveniently discussed on another Amendment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out of line 8, Clause 1, the word "whether" and insert "except," in order to understand what the position was in regard to this particular clause. He understood that the provisions in the clause were necessary in order, in certain cases, to protect the rights of the remainder man. But surely no such provisions were necessary in the case of a sale to the Land Commission. Was it to be supposed that the Land Commission would allow sales to take place by which the remainder man would be in the least degree prejudiced? What he wanted was free transactions, free sales between landlord and tenant. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 8, to leave out the word 'whether' and insert the word 'except.'"—(Mr. T. M. Healy.)
  Question proposed, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid that this was a very important Amendment. It raised perhaps the most important question in the whole Bill, but in a partial manner and in a manner on which the point could not be fully and satisfactorily discussed. The question raised by the Amendment was whether these restrictions and limitations should apply to holdings that were sold through the Land Commission; but it
  962
  left the Bill to apply to cases f direct sale between landlord and tenant. He understood that the object of the Government was that the ordinary case of the sale of land should be the result of direct bargaining between landlord and tenant, and that the sale through the Land Commission should be the exception. In laying down that basis to their Bill the Government had followed the recommendation of the Land Conference, which most people in Ireland approved of. If this Amendment were carried one result would be that sales through the Land Commission would be carried out under more favourable conditions than sales direct; in fact, the tendency would be to abolish direct sales altogether. That was a purpose which he and his friends around him could not sympathise with at all. This question of limitations could not be satisfactorily dealt with piece-meal or in compartments, and it should be reserved till another Amendment further down on the Paper was reached.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that he was unable to accept the Amendment for many reasons, but also for one not yet adduced. The Amendment, coming at this stage of the Bill, would decide the questions raised in Sub-sections 2 and 3 of Clause 5, in which directions were laid down to guide the Estate Commission in their estimate of the price which it would be proper for them to offer to a landlord. It was not confined to the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Waterford, but applied to many other cases. He could not consent to the omission of these most important sub-sections.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he had put down the Amendment as showing his aversion to the principle of the clause. He thought the whole clause was bad; that the entire system of zones was bad, and that the true system was a free market between landlord and tenant. At all events, now that they had it confessed, as the result of discussion, that one of the objects of the zone system was not to protect the remainder man, or the person under disability, but some other object, he had thought it would be a reasonable thing to attack the principle

  963
  of sale through the Land Commission. But as the Government would not accept his Amendment, he had no desire to kill time, and he would withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. THOMPSONmoved as an Amendment—"In Clause 1, page 1, line 11, after 'holding,' insert 'whether subject to a judicial rent or not.'"
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 11, after the word 'holding' to insert the words 'whether subject to a judicial rent or not.'"
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Mr. WYNDHAMpointed out that the Amendment of the hon. Member would not carry out the object he had in view, and, if accepted, would only make the Bill more cumbersome. He could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *Sir JOHN COLOMBsaid the Amendment he now proposed was to take out the words which limited the advance to £3,000 to any single purchaser. It was true the exceptions might be made under special circumstances, with the special sanction of the Treasury, but with those exceptions the advances were limited. Such limitation excluded all occupiers of agricultural land who paid £150 a year rent. He attached extraordinary importance to this Amendment. There was only a limited number of tenants in Ireland whose annual rent amounted to over £150, but all those second term tenants who paid £150 a year were to be excluded. The acceptance of his Amendment would not therefore involve any considerably large transaction, and it was desirable for several reasons. The big farmers of Ireland were the advanced pioneers of agricultural progress, and on that ground, in considering a measure of this kind, the State should favour them. They were a highly respectable body of men and the guardians of social order; and they were also the employers of
  964
  labour and the purchasers of young stock from small occupiers. It was most important to the small occupiers that they should have a market for their young stock, because, although they were able to breed them, the carrying capacity of their land would not enable them to carry older stock than yearlings, which were not fit for the British market, and, therefore, it was most desirable that the large farmers should not be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. It was the more important that no one could say whether, under this Bill, the landlords would remain in Ireland or not; and, if they did not, it was extremely important that someone should be left to take their place. The exclusion of the large farmers from the operation of the Act would only lead to subdivision. In order to come within the limits of the Act a large farmer would subdivide with his son, and he, therefore, entreated his right hon. friend to agree to the omission of these words. He begged to move.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out from the word 'then' to the first 'the' in line 14."—(Sir John Colomb.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."
  Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIEN, who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the exact proportions of this question had entirely escaped the attention of the hon. Member. The full advance of £5,000 would, on the ordinary calculation, enable the tenant to pay a rent of £146, and, in the case of a nominal reduction—even so moderate a reduction—a full advance of £5,000 would enable him to pay a rent of £200 a year. He did not think there were in Ireland more than 20,000 men who held more than £200 so that this Amendment represented only the interest of 20,000 out of 94,000 agricultural holders in Ireland, and those who were best able to take care of themselves; men whom the banks were only too happy to accommodate But there was a much stronger argument against this Amendment, and

  965
  that was that if these big graziers, who were not, as a rule, employers, were to purchase their holdings through the State, the last chance of carrying out what was the main object of this Bill would be lost. An Amendment appeared lower down dealing with the large tillage farmers, who were extensive employers and a blessing to the community, and in whose case some exception might be made, but as to the central portion of Ireland—Meath, West Meath, and part of Tipperary—the people there had not sufficient land, and the rich lands were in the hands of the big graziers, and if this Amendment were accepted a new system of landlords would be set up which would keep the people out of the land for ever. These graziers were not farmers in any sense of the word, and were not entitled to benefit by the Bill. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would have no hesitation in rejecting the Amendment.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid the hon. Gentleman was obviously in favour of his Amendment, so far as the tillage farmers were concerned. He pointed out that these large grazing tracts were largely held under grazing agreements of eleven months. This Amendment largely concerned not only Ireland but England and Scotland as well. The agriculturists of England and Ireland relied entirely on Irish stock to work their farms. The stock they required was two or three years old stock, and they could not get it if this Amendment was not accepted, and the result would be the ruin of the Irish stock-breeding industry and of small holdings unable to keep young stock beyond yearlings. The grazing farms and big farms therefore had a large economic interest, and it was not so much for the personal interest of the farmers that he urged his Amendment.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he did not know the view of the Government on this question, but he would suggest they should insert the words, "As amended by this Act," and leave the question of limits to be settled by a new clause. It might be of interest to the Committee to know how the limits got into the Bill at all. There
  966
  were no limits put into the Act of 1885, their first appearance was in 1888, when the limit was placed at £3,000 to be extended to £5,000 if deemed desirable. That limit was inserted because there was only £5,000,000 to expend under the Act, and it was felt unfair to the small holders that large holders should be allowed to come in and swamp them. But they now had £100,000,000, or as much more as they wanted.
  MR. WYNDHAM, who was indistinctly heard, said: I do not propose to enter into a discussion of graziers or large farmers, but I take exception to one part of the arguments of the hon. Member for South Tyrone—that in which he said we had £100,000,000, or as much more as we wished. That is a contention which governs, and which must be held to be governed by, what I said in introducing this Bill. There are many Members absent from the House now who were present on that occasion, but on that occasion I urged the House to accept this Bill largely by using financial arguments at very great length, and I laid great stress on certain features of the Bill which would put no rigid, but still certain, limits to the tax we might have to place on the credit capacity of this country. Among these I mentioned that the total amount advanced to any one person would not exceed under this Bill what was permitted under previous Acts—namely, £3,000 with a permissive extension to £5,000. I think it would be wrong on my part, at the very outset of our proceedings in Committee, to depart from the attitude I took up in consultation with my colleagues, and to which I intend to adhere—namely, that I would not accept Amendments which increased the pecuniary obligations of the general taxpayers. That would be the case with this Amendment, but under this Bill you will always be able to get the £5,000 limit in the case of a whole estate when it is desirable. If any difficulty arises over a large farm, rather than not sanction the sale of that farm, of course it will be the usual practice for the sale commissioners to sanction an advance up to the higher limit of £5,000. But then the hon. and gallant Member said more than that ought to be sanctioned because

  967
  you will force the landlord to retain part of his property which he wishes to dispose of. That is not so. In the case of such a farm outside the concession, but not outside the estate, other arrangements would have to be made to get the additional £1,000 or £2,000. Even if I accept the Amendment it would not meet the difficulty as put by my hon. friend; therefore I must adhere to the limit provided in the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the decision of the Government not only dealt in advance with the case of the graziers, but killed the hope of all tenants of tillage holdings. As he read the Bill, no tenant with any hope of getting a reduction of 25 per cent. would be able to purchase under the Act, if his valuation was more than £95 or £96, so that the real effect of the Government's decision was to exclude from the purview of the Bill practically all tenants of over £100 valuation who expected to get any reasonable reduction of rent. In the case of Lord Lansdowne's estate it was the big men who led the agitation and induced the smaller men to act with them; and they were usually the most intelligent men on the estate. As the Bill was very complicated, it would need a good deal of explanation to make the twenty-five years purchase palatable to the small men; consequently the more the Government excluded the more intelligent of the larger tenants the more unworkable would they make the measure, and the less likely it would be to work smoothly. He was anxious to see the land question settled, even on the high terms of this Bill; it would pay the country to settle it on those terms, and that was why he should support the Amendment. As to the apprehensions which had been expressed about the graziers, by Sub-section 4, holdings on congested estates were excluded from the clause, and that might be construed to mean that the very men against whom the hon. Member for Cork protested, were to benefit by the Bill. The Government had announced a most serious decision, which would cut out Amendments dealing with the dairying and tillage men, and, while not affecting the graziers, would seriously hit the honest tillage farmers. He pressed the Government
  968
  to retain an open mind on the matter.
  MR. DILLONthought the hon. Member for North Louth was mistaken in supposing that under the clause the limitation would not apply to the congested districts in the West. Vast tracts of grass land in Tipperary, King's County, Clare, and Roscommon would not be at all congested estates, although they might be within the limits of a congested county. But his purpose in rising was to urge the Government not to adopt any irreconcilable attitude on this question. The limitations required to be considerably increased in some directions and relaxed in others. They were not sufficient to secure that the grass lands, which were essential for the resettlement of the people and the rescue of the population of the West from a condition described by the Chief Secretary as worse than that of Hottentots or Kaffirs, should not pass into the hands of graziers. On the other hand, he entirely sympathised with the view of the hon. Member for North Louth, that tillage and mixed farms, which gave a great deal of employment, should not be excluded from the operation of the Act, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to insist on a decision which would shut out any future discussion of this interesting and most important point.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONregretted the Chief Secretary had taken so firm a stand with regard to a point on which all parties in Ireland were agreed. As the present landlords were disappearing as a class, it was very desirable that they should be replaced by men having amongst them people of substance with a considerable stake in the country. But they would be excluded by this decision. Never had a Bill started under such favourable auspices as the present; the Irish lions and lambs were smilingly waiting to be fed with the same food by the same hand; it would be very unfortunate if, at the very commencement of the proceedings, the Government adopted a non possumus attitude, declaring that under no circumstances would they allow any of these large farmers to become the owners of their land.
  MR. LEAMYexpressed his surprise that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken up his present attitude at the commencement of the consideration of the Bill, seeing that, for the first time for a quarter of a century, landlords and tenants had come together with a most earnest desire to bring the fight to a conclusion. It was necessary to abolish the landlords, but nothing would be gained by abolishing landlords who afforded a great deal of employment, if large grazing tracts were to be left untouched. In the case of large farms, on which for years employment had been given, it was undoubtedly desirable that the farmers should be given facilities to come under the Act. He wished to know whether they would have an opportunity of discussing this point later on. He thought it was very unfair that at the outset they should be debarred from considering this question. If the Chief Secretary had made up his mind he might get up and tell them on which points he intended to stand firm. One of the Amendments put forward by the Convention was to bring in large mixed farms, and that was now to be swept aside by the decision of the Chief Secretary without any argument at all.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he wished to make a suggestion to avoid coming into sharp conflict at this point in the discussion. The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman was of such a wide and far reaching character that it was impossible for Nationalist Members to vote for it. The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Kildare expressed their view, and he suggested to the hon. and gallant Member that he should withdraw his Amendment, upon which there could not be that Irish unity which had been spoken of. It would not be possible to carry out the arrangement he had suggested unless the Chief Secretary accepted the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. It was a pity that the Chief Secretary on this most vital point had declared himself somewhat prematurely before he had heard the full arguments, and before they had had an opportunity
  970
  of moving the well considered Amendments which stood on the Paper. By taking this course the Chief Secretary would not be doing anything undignified, and it would enable them, when they arrived at the proper time, to have a full discussion upon the real merits of this question. The right hon. Gentleman had not heard the whole of this case, and therefore it was most unfortunate that he had come to a decision. He did not think this proposal would very largely increase the pecuniary liabilities under the Bill. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would for the present withdraw his Amendment, and if the right hon. Gentleman would accept the words of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, then this discussion could take place at the proper time. He presented this suggestion as a possible solution of the difficulty, in the earnest hope that it would be accepted, because it would be most unfortunate, if within the first hour of the debate, the Government came to an absolute decision without hearing the whole of the facts.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid that by accepting this suggestion they would be landing themselves into another difficulty. The policy proposed gave great liberty to one class of farmers, but he thought that many hon. Members would be violently opposed to drawing such a distinction, and the limit would have to be increased in respect of all farms under the Bill. He did not think he would be acting at all wisely if he set up another bone of contention between the parties who were now in substantial agreement. The hon. Member for Cork City had stated very definitely his opinion upon the subject of not giving greater facilities in the future than in the past, to those who farmed large grazing ranches. If he adopted the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford he did not think he would be proposing a peaceable and almost unanimous solution, but he rather thought he would be precipitating a very keen debate from those who would not extend the limits in respect of grazing farms. As the hon. Member for Louth pointed out, grazing farms would already be excluded because, assuming that Sub-section A must stand,

  971
  it dealt with the Land Law Acts which applied, but they would not apply to farms of more than £100 valuation It seemed to him that, underlying all the appeals which had been made, there was an impression that these farms were excluded by the refusal to advance more than £5,000, but that was not the case at all. If a farmer was ready to give £8,000 it was true he would borrow £5,000 on very easy terms from the State, and there ought to be no difficulty in arranging by way of mortgage for raising the extra £3,000. Hon. Members knew that at the present time very large sums of money had been given for these valuable farms in excess of £5,000. None of the arguments he had previously used could cover the ground of having to come to the taxpayer to lend money to people who were wealthier than the landlords. He knew a case in which one man was tenant of seventeen of those large farms and was conducting great monetary transactions. Therefore he could not ask hon. Members representing English constituencies to say that more than £5,000 should be advanced. When it was said that he was adopting an obstinate attitude, he asked hon. Members to consider how far the present provisions of the Bill went. The hon. Member for Louth said that if a tenant agreed to buy upon such terms as would give him a reduction of 25 per cent., he would be excluded from the benefits of this Bill supposing his rent was £200 a year. In such a case he would pay £75 a year, and £2,360 would be advanced. Under the existing law £5,000 could be advanced to facilitate the sale. With regard to the sale of estates, they might take it that the £5,000 limit would be available. In the sale of an estate the limit was £5,000, and not £3,000. In the case put forward by the hon. Member for Louth, £2,360 would be advanced, so that on that scale a £200 rental could be disposed of inside the limit of £5,000. He contemplated many cases in which farmers would be prepared to accept a much less reduction. Take the extreme case, the smallest reduction of 10 per cent., and even upon that a man with a farm worth £100 a year would get the whole of the money advanced by the State. If the tenant agreed to purchase, then it would be £90 instead of £100, and the general taxpayer
  972
  would advance £2,832, and even that was inside the £3,000 limit. He hoped hon. Members would agree that he had not prematurely rejected this Amendment; on the contrary, he had considered it very carefully, and it would be inconsistent with what he had said if he were to hold out any hopes that he was prepared to extend this money limit, which he thought was large enough to embrace all the transactions which were likely to arise.
  *MR. HEMPHILLsaid he hoped the Chief Secretary would accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. He did not think there was any question upon this Bill more important than the one they were now discussing. By this proposal a great number of tenants would be excluded from the benefits of this measure. He was not speaking of grazing tenants, because if they held the land for only eleven months they did not come within the Act at all. A great number of large farmers had grass farms, and while the great inducement held out to Parliament to pass a comprehensive Act was to abolish dual ownership, by excluding that particular class of tenants they were leaving dual ownership in full force. That appeared to him to be an evil system. He could assure the Committee that great injustice would be wrought if there was not some relaxation of this limit of £3,000 or £5,000, as the case might be. He asked the Chief Secretary not to decide the question now. It had not been fully discussed, and materials had not been laid before the Committee to enable them to solve the problem. By adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and adding the words, "as amended by this Bill," they would afterwards have full opportunity of considering where the line should be drawn. He would be very sorry indeed to have to vote against the Government at the first stage of the Bill, but he would have to do so unless some concession of this sort was made.
  MR. KILBRIDEsaid there was a large estate in Kildare, with which he was sure the Chief Secretary was acquainted, which would be more affected by his decision than almost any other property in Ireland. It was the Leinster estate,

  973
  which was not composed of grass farms. The district consisted entirely of agricultural property, and if the right hon. Gentleman adhered to what he had said, that no amount greater than £5,000 should be advanced in any case, the largest employers of labour in Kildare would be absolutely shut out from the benefits of the Bill. He had no objection that the right hon. Gentleman should limit the amount in the case of grass farms, and even in the case of residential grass farms, but he did object to have large agricultural tenants paying more than £200 shut out from the benefits of the Bill—the men who in South Kildare were of the greatest good to the community. He supposed the Chief Secretary was aware that the agriculturists of South Kildare compared favourably not only with those in any other part of Ireland, but also with those of England and Scotland. In many cases their forefathers came from Scotland and introduced improved methods of agriculture. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the suggestion of his friend the Member for North Kildare, and leave the question open.
  MR. HARRINGTONexpressed the hope that the Chief Secretary would take time to consider whether the limit stated in the Bill might not be increased to some extent. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman had not obtained full information as to all the districts of the country. In the eastern counties, Dublin, Louth, Wicklow, and portions of Meath and Kildare, the proposed limit would have the effect of restricting the operation of the Act to 100 acre farms. The men who occupied farms at a higher figure were those who were most useful, so far as the labouring class was concerned. The smaller farmer tilled the land with the assistance of his own children, and gave little employment except to his own family. The larger farmer employed a large number of people, and he was the very man whose presence in the community was most desirable. Of course the Chief Secretary said that man could buy his farm. He understood that one of the objects of the Bill was to prevent Irish tenant farmers from buying under conditions which would compel him to mortgage the land, but under the proposal in the Bill the purchasing tenant
  974
  must mortgage the land to the landlord or some one who was prepared to lend him the money. How would that work? Suppose the case of a landlord who was desirous of selling the whole of his estate, and he found that he had to deal with men holding 100 acres or more who could not borrow the whole of the money under this Act. What would the landlord do if he wanted to sell the whole of his estate? He had only to arrange with the tenant as to the conditions on which he would sell. The tenant would still have the landlord as mortgagee. He appreciated the difficulty of dealing with this question, but still he thought if the right hon. Gentleman considered the question in all its bearings he would see that the limit in the Bill was considerably too low. It was most desirable that the holders of these farms of over 100 acres should not be excluded from the operation of the Act. He hoped the Chief Secretary would still see his way to make some modification of the proposed limit. He was sure that he spoke the feeling of the great body of the Irish people when he said that they considered the limit too small.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid it was unfortunate that the Chief Secretary should refuse to listen to the voice of united Ireland in this matter. The Committee were engaged at present in the operation of terminating the most pernicious system of dual ownership of land in Ireland. That was the professed object of the Bill, and yet they were going to make these large and important exceptions. Who were the men to whom they were going to deny the opportunity of taking advantage of the benefits of the Bill? Why, they were the men, as had been pointed out by the hon. Member for South Kildare, whom they ought to desire to benefit—men who in many cases were large employers, and who conducted operations on the land in an entirely satisfactory way. Was it wise or necessary to force the continuance of the existing system upon this large and important class of men? He ventured to think that if the Government insisted on the limitation they would in many cases stop the sale of the whole estate. Take the case of a man who had fifty tenants; four or five of whom were outside the limit. Was the landlord going to sell

  975
  his estate to those tenants and have five separate occupiers in the middle of the estate who would still be tenants subject to the objections of dual ownership and of the rent-fixing system. In such a case the landlord would probably say: "If I cannot sell the whole of my estate, I will not sell any of it." In that way there would be a material diminution in the benefits to be derived from this Bill. He appreciated the position of the Chief Secretary, who said that he was bound to protect the interest of the British taxpayer, but there was really no risk in allowing these men to borrow. Were they not the very men who would be most certain to pay their instalments? By bringing these men within the benefits of the Bill they would satisfy the desires of practically the whole of the Irish representatives, while they would impose no real extra liability upon the British taxpayer at all. He hoped the Government would remove what otherwise would be a most serious objection to the measure.
  MR. CLANCYsaid that as the representative of one of the constituencies which would be chiefly affected if the Chief Secretary adhered to the position he had taken up, he desired to join in the protest which had been made against the limit proposed in the Bill. The Chief Secretary had warned the Committee by saying that he would not give way, no matter what might be said. He must say, for one, that that remark did not indicate the spirit in which he had hoped the Government would come to the discussion of the Amendments on the Paper. He was afraid if that spirit was maintained the result would be a different sort of discussion of the clauses of this Bill from what he himself personally would desire. The right hon. Gentleman had also said that he did not wish to plunge into a discussion as to the claims of large graziers and large tillage men, but he must be perfectly aware that there was an Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for North Kildare, which raised that question, and he was greatly mistaken if, notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman had said, that Amendment would not be proposed. The Amendment would be proposed and it would be supported
  976
  by almost every Irish Member in the House. The reason the right hon. Gentleman had given for not acceding to the Amendment now before the Committee was really absurd and ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman had represented that the change which would be made in the financial proposals of the Bill by the Amendment was one of vast magnitude and one calculated to justify Members in saying that the Government had broken faith with the British people. It would not be any financial change at all to let in the large farmers who used their land on a mixed system and who employed a lot of labour. That could easily be tested from the figures which the right hon. Gentleman himself had given to the House. This was not the time to discuss this question in detail, but it could be shown that if the Amendment were adopted it would add 10,000 to the number of purchasing tenants in Ireland. It was preposterous for the right hon. Gentleman to reject all Amendments of this character, because, forsooth such an enormous additional risk would be placed on the shoulders of the British taxpayer! That excuse was ridiculous. On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman did not accede to the demand of the Irish Members on this question, some of his recent speeches in Ireland, and also in England, in regard to Ireland and the land question, would bear a very different construction in the future. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken in deprecatory language of the stream of emigration from Ireland, and had expressed the hope that that stream would soon be stopped; but by opposing the concession demanded by the Amendment he would increase that stream; because these large mixed farms would not continue to employ such large numbers of labourers as in the past if the advantages given to the small farmers were not also extended to them.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONthought it was very desirable that the Government should enlarge their scheme. He knew graziers who were as real bonâ fide farmers as the men who cultivated thirty or forty acres. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of his duty to the people of England, but as an English Member, and one interested in Ireland, he was certain

  977
  that there was no one in England who had laid any stress on this question of £3,000 or £5,000. Nobody had thought about it at all. As the hon. and learned Member for York had pointed out, these 3,000 and 5,000 pounders were the best men to whom the English Government could lend their money. He presumed that what the right hon. Gentleman was thinking of was the bonus which would go to the landlord, but in the case of very large farms some kind of arrangement could be made for adjusting the difficulty. The hon. Member for Waterford had proposed that this question should be postponed. He agreed that a great deal had to be thought of yet, and the certainty of litigation was going to be a very serious hindrance to the working of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should leave a loop-hole for the reconsideration of the matter.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be afraid of breaking faith in any way with the British taxpayer in regard to this matter. The British taxpayer did not seem to be very much concerned about it. What the British taxpayer was interested in was to see this question settled; and anything more or less added to the loan and the bonus was not of enormous importance. What was of enormous importance, however, was that this Bill should be the means of settling the Irish land question, and that no portion of the loan should be repudiated. From the standpoint of the British taxpayer he had been very much struck by a remark made by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, viz., that some of the farmers who would be excluded by the £5,000 limit under the Bill as it at present stood, were most intelligent men, who would be leaders of opinion on the estates where they were tenants That was a matter of great importance. When such farmers found that the £5,000 limit would not be sufficient to allow of their farms being purchased, or that outside the £5,000 they would have to make arrangement, by no means so favourable as in the case of the farmer just below the £5,000 limit, that might possibly turn the balance and lead to the
  978
  sale of that estate falling through. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn in the meantime, and that this most essential point should be raised at a later stage, on an Amendment of which notice had been given by the hon. Member for South Tyrone.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that this was a matter on which the Irish Members were united. They did not wish the large farmers in Ireland to be excluded from the benefits of the Act. They knew the dire effect it would have on Ireland, and the heartburning it would produce. He had received many letters, some from gentlemen who were not of his own political Party, urging him to try and bring these large farmers within the purview of the Act. Why should the gentlemen farmers of Ireland, whose land was worth more than £5,000, be debarred from the purchase of their farms and from the joys of ownership? The right hon. the Chief Secretary would forgive him for saying that he had not been quite fair in, so early in the debate, bringing in the matter of the British taxpayer. The gentlemen farmers of Ireland were as honourable men as the gentlemen farmers of England or Scotland, and would fulfil their obligations to the very letter. The right hon. Gentleman knew how the ordinary tenant farmers had behaved. Out of 76,000 purchase transactions there had been only two bad debts; and it was not likely that the gentlemen farmers would be remiss in paying their debts. If this concession was not given to them there would be discontent. As to the British taxpayer, he did not stand to lose one farthing by the transaction, and when £250,000,000 had been given for the War in South Africa, why should they not have a few millions for Ireland? England overtaxed Ireland every year £2,500,000 beyond her proper due. The arguments which applied to other Land Acts did not apply to the present Bill. They were to relieve the poorest of the poor; but this Bill was to effect a pacification throughout Ireland, and to bring about a social revolution. Therefore any person who belonged to the tenant class should not be excluded. The Chief Secretary had not commenced

  979
  the discussion in the conciliatory manner in which the Irish Members were determined to carry it on. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to have an open mind on the question, because he knew the discontent, the heartburning, and the disappointment which his declaration would produce.
  MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.)said he did not think the attitude taken up by the Chief Secretary was at all in keeping with the attitude which he displayed on the Second Reading of the Bill. Knowing the evils of dual ownership, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the arguments put forward with such great force by the hon. Member for York. So far as Ulster was concerned, unless the Amendment was accepted the Act would not be operative over at least half of that province. In an estate of say 200 tenants, thirty would be over the limit. Was the landlord to sell to 170 tenants, and keep up his estate office, retain his agent and bailiffs to collect rent from the remaining thirty? In his opinion the clause would be fatal to the working of the Act in many districts. Clause 49 showed how important the Government regarded the mortgaging of farms in Ireland. It provided that a farmer should not be in a position to mortgage his holding after having purchased it without the consent of the Land Commission. But now the right hon. Gentleman stated in the debate that the only remedy for the large farmer was, in addition to mortgaging his farm to the Government, to borrow the balance required for purchase, from a bank or a money-lender. In his opinion, that would be fatal to the working of the Act so far as the large farmers were concerned, and it would prevent landlords selling to the smaller tenants. Further, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment pointed out that the Bill as it stood would have the effect of sub-dividing holdings between father and son in order to enable the farmer to take advantage of the Act. He would ask the Chief Secretary if he could not accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, to accept the Amendment
  980
  suggested by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. If neither of the Amendments was accepted, he would be prepared to support the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the division Lobby.
  MR. GORDONsaid he understood that the object of the Government was to get rid of dual ownership of land in Ireland, and as far as possible to bring peace and prosperity to that country. It was now, however, proposed to leave a certain quantity of land in the position it was at present. The point of view of the British taxpayer had been referred to, and he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to pause and consider what that was. If the Government were willing—and he for one was perfectly satisfied that they were right in taking that course—to advance money for the purchase of small holdings, and were satisfied that the money would be secured and would be repaid, then they ought to be doubly satisfied with reference to the money to be advanced for the purchase of larger holdings. He was most anxious that this Bill should put an end to the differences between landlord and tenant in Ireland; and if his hon. and gallant friend went to a division he would be prepared to support him.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid that the Government could not have considered this matter with reference to Clause 17, which provided that where an estate was purchased by the Land Commission and tenants on the estate, to the extent of three-fourths in number and rateable value, had agreed to purchase their holdings, no proceedings to fix the fair rent of any holding on the estate should be taken. The one-fourth, therefore, would not be allowed to purchase, nor would they be allowed to have fair rents fixed. That was a position which the Government never intended to take up, and it was clear that some Amendment would have to be made. Unless the Irish Secretary was fettered by some invisible bond, and was obliged to take his sailing directions from a right hon. Gentleman who was not now present, he would suggest that the question be

  981
  postponed. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that when all the Irish Members, the representatives of both landlords and tenants, were agreed, that the clause would be allowed to stand as it was in another place? Did the right hon. Gentleman wish that those large tenants would, for the first time in their lives, exclaim "Thank God we have a House of Lords"?
  MR. COGHILLsaid he was glad to hear the Chief Secretary talk about the British taxpayer, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would resist the Amendment which was being very strongly pressed upon him. He did not complain of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it seemed to him that some hon. Gentlemen representing English constituencies had a very curious idea of how such constituencies should be treated. It was very hard to bring home to the British taxpayer the liability he was incurring; and he trusted that as the Bill proceeded in Committee, the British taxpayer would wake up to the burdens which he was taking upon his shoulders. He hoped that the Bill would emerge from Committee very considerably altered in the direction of limitations; and he trusted that on the present occasion the Chief Secretary would show himself firm and keep to the determination he had announced.
  *MR. DUKEsaid he did not at all agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. He thought the Chief Secretary might rest assured that as far as the British taxpayer was concerned, the only failure with which he would reproach the right hon. Gentleman would be the failure to make a settlement of this matter. They had gone a great deal too far already in reliance on the benefits which they hoped to purchase, even at the cost of some possible sacrifices, to shrink now from making an addition to the Bill which was agreed to by both parties, and which was necessary to make it symmetrical and satisfactory. The first essential of the Bill was that it should satisfy both parties in Ireland, and give a fair start to the regeneration of the agricultural population. That would satisfy
  982
  the British taxpayer; but a great many hon. Members on that side of the House, if they found, on the Third Reading, that the measure was not likely to receive the assent of both the great parties in Ireland, would not hesitate to vote against it.
  MR. TOMKINSONsaid he had had an opportunity of addressing his constituents on the Bill; and he found it was a matter on which they were prepared to act generously. Although it was true that the British taxpayer would become responsible for the whole of the purchase money, yet it was only the landlords' interest that was being purchased; and in a great many cases, especially in the case of a small holding, a great part of the property was the creation of the tenant. Therefore the amount for which the British taxpayer would be liable would in many cases be less than half the total value of the holding. That was an aspect of the case which he had put before his constituents, and they were quite satisfied that the security was good, and that the responsibility would not be by any means serious. The Amendment, if accepted, might enlarge the scope of the transaction by something like 20 per cent. But even if it did, he hoped the Chief Secretary, having regard to the great public object to be achieved, would not shrink from it.
  MAJOR JAMESONsaid there was no greater argument in favour of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary trying to meet both sides of the House than that used by the hon. Member for Stoke, who had pointed out to the Committee that there could be no risk. That was absolutely clear, and for the sake of the general harmony of the Committee he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to give way on this point, which was not one that affected the principle of the Bill.
  MR. WYNDHAMsaid the Committee certainly ought to arrive at some decision. He had given his ground for arriving at the decision he had, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman pressed that matter to a division he would be obliged to vote against him. Personally he thought

  983
  that was the proper course, but in the absence of the British taxpayer he would not perhaps be justified in taking a course which might preclude the question being considered on a future occasion. It was possible that it might be held that having passed the words in the Bill as they at present existed, any change would be of a monetary character, and that the question could not be reopened. Although he thought there was a good deal to be said for not drawing largely on the funds of those best circumstanced in Ireland, still he should allow that consideration to germinate in the minds of hon. Members opposite, and discuss the matter at a later stage of the Bill. That, however, could not be done except by the hon. and gallant Member withdrawing the Amendment, when they could put in the words of the hon. Member for South Tyrone "as amended by this Act."
  MR. JOHN REDMONDcongratulated the right hon. Gentleman on the suggestion he had just made, and pointed out that the hon. and gallant Member in withdrawing his Amendment would not be in any way prejudiced.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he should withdraw his Amendment with great pleasure. He would just like to say he was extremely glad the right hon. Gentleman had taken the course he had, and he hoped the debate which had taken place would have a good effect.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 13, after the word 'Acts' to insert the words 'as amended by this Act.'"—(Mr. T. W. Russell.)
  Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the Amendment he now proposed to move raised the most important question, in the opinion of the Irish Members, in Clause 1, and, in fact, the most important question in the whole Bill. It raised the question of zones of limitation. He was extremely glad he had been called upon to move this Amendment in the
  984
  face of similar Amendments on the Paper, as it was necessary that there should be a clear-cut issue on which to take the decision of the House. The universal opinion on the tenant side in Ireland an opinion which was largely shared by a certain class of landlords, was that the zone limits of this Bill were absurd and iniquitous. There were two limits. There was the limit on the minimum price and the limit on the maximum price which the tenant was called upon to pay before he could take advantage of the Bill. Take the minimum price first. Some Gentlemen were in favour of the abolition of both these limits, and one of the Amendments on the Paper before him proposed to abolish both, but the opinion of the tenants of Ireland was that so far as the limitation of the minimum reduction and the maximum price was concerned it ought to be retained. In the Bill it was fixed at 10 per cent., but the tenants thought that was too low, and that it ought to be raised from 10 to 25 per cent. It might be asked why not abolish these limits altogether and leave the law as it was at present? In the law as it stood there was no limitation, but, on the other hand, the duty was thrown on the Land Commission to hold an inquiry into the value of the land in order that they might be able to say that the price at which it was bought was not too high, and that the holding was a good security for the loan. In such a case there was no need of a limit. But this Bill was based on a different principle. This Bill was based on the theory that the value of the holding should be abolished, and that the Land Commission should be compelled to sanction the loan. In those circumstances it was almost necessary that there should be some limitation of the maximum price the tenant should pay, otherwise if he paid too large a price the security of the State would be impaired or destroyed. Therefore the convention of the tenants of Ireland advocated this limit. He therefore did not ask for its abolition, but a small enlargement of the limitation. But he saw no reason whatever for the other limitation. As the Bill stood, no tenant could purchase his holding unless he paid at least

  985
  the minimum price mentioned in the Bill. Although landlord and tenant might agree to a price as fair and reasonable, it would not be possible to carry out the purchase unless the price complied with this limitation. Could it be seriously argued that under a so-called voluntary Bill the State should step in and upset bargains on the ground that the landlord was selling his land too cheaply? Irish landlords, by their ability, keen business instincts, and power of organisation and resistance, were well able to take care of themselves in this matter, and it was ludicrous to say in a voluntary Bill that the State must have power to step in and prevent a landlord selling his land at a price which he considered was fair and just. The restriction was not wanted for the protection of the State, because the lower the price the tenant paid the better the security of the State. Furthermore, not only was the restriction absurd, but it might work manifest and gross injustice.
  Everybody knew that all over Ireland there were holdings which were not worth anything like twenty-two years' purchase of the second-term rents. That was admitted by the framers of the Bill, because they had provided that the limitation should not apply to congested districts or congested estates, which were defined as being estates on which one half of the tenants were under a certain valuation. Scarcely an estate could be found on which there were not holdings so poor and small that a price of twenty-two years purchase would be an absurdity. Under the operation of the Bill either those holdings would be excluded from any proposed purchase, or the unfortunate tenants would be tempted into offering an extravagant price, with the result that the security of the State would be imperilled, if not destroyed, and the whole future of this question endangered. He had not heard a single sound argument in favour of the proposal from any point of view whatever. He had anticipated that the Chief Secretary's reply would have been that the Commissioners would put these holdings together and call them congested estates, but it was clear from his declaration that the right hon. Gentleman had no idea of the Commissioners
  986
  holding one or two such holdings to be an estate within the meaning of the Bill. On the Chief Secretary's own admission, therefore, something would have to be inserted to protect these poor holdings. He had shown that this limitation was not in the interest of the State and the taxpayers, and that it was manifestly against the interest of the tenant and against common justice. Was it in the interest of the landlord? He could not conceive why the Irish landlords as a body had not joined heartily in the demand for the abolition of the limitation. The only defence of it that he had heard was a reference in passing by the Attorney-General for Ireland to the effect that it was necessary to protect the landlords from undue pressure to sell at a low price. Such an argument would not stand examination for a moment. If a landlord pleaded the provision of the Bill as a reason for not selling at, say, eighteen years purchase, the tenants would at once reply that under the Act of 1896 he could declare a reduction of his existing rents for the purpose of the sale, and thus come within the limitation. From that point of view, therefore, the limitation was absolutely worthless. But it had been argued that the abolition of the limitation would lead to renewed agitation and conflict between classes in Ireland. If he really believed that, it would have a serious influence on his mind, but he believed exactly the opposite. If the Government abolished the limit, and left the landlord and tenant free to bargain, there would be no undue interference, and the bargaining would go on amicably all over the country. But, if they retained the limit, the maximum reduction would inevitably be taken by the people as the minimum they ought to ask, and all over the country there would be an organised attempt to obtain that as the minimum reduction. He was convinced, therefore, that, in the interests of the landlords themselves, as well as of the peace of the country, and in order to destroy the chance of a renewal of class conflict, this limitation ought to be abolished.
  Possibly it would be said that the tenants' representatives agreed to this at the Land Conference. The Report

  987
  of that Conference was the result of a compromise. Each side gave up something for the sake of peace. The tenants' representatives originally proposed there should be a minimum but no maximum reduction, but in order to prevent the absolute breakdown of the meeting, and in return for concessions on other points, they gave way on this. For his own part, if the Chief Secretary had embodied the Conference Report in full in the Bill, he would have upheld it, and he believed the Irish tenantry would have accepted it; but it was childish and not honest to pick out one portion, and, rejecting others, declare that the tenants had agreed to it and were bound by it. He certainly did not feel himself bound by one portion of the Report, when other portions which had been conceded by the other side in return were struck out. It was impossible to exaggerate the importance of this Amendment. If the Chief Secretary could see his way to make a concession on this point, there was no earthly doubt that on almost every other part of the Bill they would be able after argument to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement. But if the right hon. Gentleman adopted a non possumus attitude, he feared it would be beyond the power of the best friends of the Bill, and the policy it represented, to make the measure appear attractive or satisfactory to the people of Ireland. He felt most keenly upon this subject, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman to weigh carefully what he and others had said on various sides of the House. The fate of this Bill depended upon these discussions. He did not mean so much the passage of the Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman had the power to pass it in spite of anything they might say; but he was speaking more of what would happen in the future in regard to whether this Bill was going to provide a practical settlement of the Irish land question, and whether it was going to carry out the hopes cherished by them during the last few months, or whether it was going to be one more of the many failures of British statesmen to deal satisfactorily with this question. He earnestly commended the Amendment he had now the honour to move to the favourable consideration of the Committee.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word 'advance,' to end of Sub-section (2), and insert the words 'provided that the purchase annuity payable under this Act will be, in the case of the purchase of a holding, subject to a judicial rent fixed or agreed to since the passing of the Act of 1896, not less than 15 per cent. below the existing rent, and, in the case of the purchase of a holding subject to a judicial rent fixed before that date or of a holding which is not subject to a judicial rent but the tenancy in which is one to which in the opinion of the Land Commission the Land Purchase Acts apply, not less than 25 per cent. below the existing rent.'"—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'or' in line 18, stand part of the clause."
  MR. FLOWERsaid he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford that upon the question of Amendments to Clause 1 depended, he would not say the whole future of the Bill, but undoubtedly to a very large extent its successful working in Ireland. They ought not to forget that this was a Bill to facilitate voluntary purchase in Ireland. The real force behind the Bill was that notable Conference in Dublin, which achieved the remarkable result of uniting the owners and the occupiers of the soil in Ireland. He joined with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford in regretting that the Government did not accept the terms drawn up in the Report of that Conference. In March last the Chief Secretary said that in view of the recommendations of the Conference Report and other recommendations from authoritative sources he was willing to provide that the landlord might make his own arrangement if they fell within the policy of the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had not complained that the provision in the Bill, which provided for a 10 per cent. reduction, had been raised to 15 per cent. The hon. Member wanted to know why they objected to sweeping away altogether the lower limit. He wished to know why landlord and tenant should not be allowed to agree for a lower price than the minimum in the Bill. A good many answers might be given to this point. The hon. and learned Member ought to consider something about the remainder man. He had been told that the great insurance

  989
  companies in England had several million pounds invested in Irish securities. They knew how necessary it was to provide reasonable security against the undue depreciation of a huge amount of capital invested like that. They ought to prevent the limit for sacrificing his estate, and they should remember that under this Bill no notice whatever was given to the remainder man. One had to bear in mind the necessity of looking after the interests of the remainder man upon this question. He thought they did get roughly a Court of uniformity under this Bill, and they prevented the sum being made very much lower than others. If they had a great fluctuation between those annuities they might have fresh sources of discontent in Ireland. Those were some of the reasons which made these limitations necessary. As to whether the limitations proposed were the best he had some doubt. He believed the Conference terms were far more favourable to the landlords and the tenants than the terms under this Bill. He thought if the Government had risen to the full height of a great occasion this measure would have been far more satisfactory to the great bulk of the Irish people, and would certainly have worked without the slightest injury or danger to the English Exchequer, and would have been far more satisfactory than the measure they had before them.
  People were apt to forget the difference between second-term and first-term rents. He would give the Committee the particulars of a farm in Ireland. The old rent was £150 a year. The first rent was fixed in 1881, and showed a 20 per cent. reduction, which reduced it virtually to £120. The second-term rent in 1896 gave a reduction of 18 per cent., which reduced the rental to about £100. Under this clause, if it is passed, the highest price the landowner could get was obtained by allowing the tenant a minimum reduction of 10 per cent. on the second-term rent, and charging him at £90 for his annuity. That was in accordance with the terms of the Bill. The purchase money worked out at £2,832, and if they added to that sum 12 per cent. all round it made a total of
  990
  £3,172, which, if invested at 3¼ per cent. would yield about the present income of the farm. This was about the most favourable case which could occur under Clause 1. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford would see that if this Bill was to be accepted in Ireland by the land-owning classes it must be framed in such a way as to induce those owners to sell who had not hitherto been willing to bring their estates into the market. The present Land Purchase Acts had come to a standstill, not from the unwillingness of the tenants to buy, but from the reluctance of the owners to part with their estates upon what they considered to be unfair terms. If this Bill was to be the great measure which they all hoped it would be, it must bring in those landlords who had hitherto stood aloof. He hoped the Chief Secretary would not lightly abandon the position he had taken up. He had not brought forward an argument which weighed with a large number of people, namely, that these limitations would prevent agitation or undue pressure being placed on tenants by organisations, or the landlords themselves. He was not inclined to think that was a contingency which, under present circumstances, was not likely to occur. He preferred to base his argument in favour of the retention of these limitations on the ground that they were essential to the satisfactory working of a voluntary Bill, and that without them they would not get co-operation between the occupying class and the landlords in Ireland, whose help in the working of the measure was essential to success.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLhoped the Committee would not complain if the debate upon this measure should occupy a little more time than they expected. He could assure the Committee that the debate on Clause 1 would go a long way towards settling the whole Bill. Everything else would be much simpler and much easier. He would have been glad of a Motion to leave out the clause and leave a free and open market as that market existed now under the Land Purchase Acts. But if the Bill was to be amended it must be amended on its own frame, and therefore they were shut

  991
  up to a consideration of the Bill as it stood. The Chief Secretary had very properly referred to the difficulty of dealing with the subject, at least as regarded finance in the absence of the British taxpayer. The greater part of that afternoon they had had an Irish Parliament, and so far they had got on very well indeed. If the Chief Secretary was anxious about the British taxpayer a few moments ago in regard to the limit he would desire a much larger audience of the representatives of the British taxpayer on the present Amendment. These limits affected the State seriously, and they affected the tenant and the landlord. He had beside him a volume, not a very popular one, of the Dublin Gazette. People did not often look at it, but it contained a mass of information on this question well worth study. He took from the Dublin Gazette of April 3rd—so that it was not ancient history—a decision given by the Irish Land Commission on the application of the Protestant Bishop of Limerick, the right Rev. Dr. Bunbury, in regard to the sale of his estate. That estate consisted of nine holdings and the rent was £632, something like an average of £70 for each holding. This was not a piece of bog in any part of Ireland, but rich substantial land and rather large farms, as they would say in Ireland. The Bishop arranged for the sale of these nine holdings on his estate at eighteen years purchase and the result came to £11,444. The Land Commission sitting in Dublin refused to sanction the advance of £11,444 on the ground that the farms did not give adequate security for that advance. The minimum which the Bishop could receive under the Bill was twenty-two years purchase of these second-term rents—that was the worst that could happen to him—which would bring him £13,904. He could get, if the tenants agreed, twenty-eight years purchase, £17,696. The Land Commission refused to sanction £11,000 on the ground that these holdings were not security for that sum, but the minimum he could get under the Bill would be £13,000 and the maximum £17,000, and he would get his bonus in addition. Where was the British taxpayer now? He wanted hon. Members now to bristle up a bit.
  992
  If the Chief Secretary was going to appeal to the British taxpayer, he wanted to know what earthly defence there was for a proposal of that kind.
  Now he came to North Down. Lord Clanwilliam had an estate there. He had exercised the right which the Land Purchase Acts gave him to sell a single holding. The rent was £16 and the money to be advanced was £320. The Land Commission refused to sanction an advance on the ground that the security was not adequate. What would Lord Clanwilliam get under the Bill? The least would be £352. If the Land Commission felt itself unable to advance £320 on a single farm, how were they to meet the British taxpayer when, without any investigation whatever, they were compelled to pay at least £352 for that farm? He would take the Plummer estate in county Limerick, and he referred to the Dublin Gazette of June 5th. This estate was not a congested estate at all. He did not think there were many congested estates in that county. The landlord and the tenant agreed to sell and buy at a little over seventeen years purchase, and the purchase money was £15,961. The sanction of the Land Commission was refused on the ground that the security was inadequate. Would it be believed that under this Bill, without any inspection at all, the least this man would receive would be £17,908, and the highest would be £22,792, with the bonus in addition? He wanted the British taxpayer to take an interest in this matter. They were now coming to close quarters. Now was the time for his hon. friend the Member for Stoke to get his war paint on. He said that there could not be any possibility of defence for proposals of this kind. They could go over the Dublin Gazette and find case after case such as he had put now. These were not solitary cases. He asked the Chief Secretary a Question the other day. He asked how many applications had been refused since the Land Purchase Acts came into operation because he security was inadequate. Under the Acts of 1885 and 1888, 1,286 applications had been refused, involving £467,872, on the express ground that the security was inadequate, and under the Act of 1891, there were 789 refusals for £175,154, or in all, during the

  993
  seventeen years the Acts had been in operation, 2,075 cases had been refused for the gross sum of £643,026.
  The real truth of the matter was this, and the Committee had better realise it, that there had always been a danger of tenants in arrear with rent being pressed to give more than they ought to give for the land. Up to the present the British taxpayer had had a judicial inspection of the holding; he had got the report of the Land Commission as to the security being adequate; but that now vanished under Clause 1. The taxpayer had no defence whatever against the weakness of the tenant and the pressure of the landlord. He maintained that these limits opened up the gravest question which they would have to discuss. During the Second Reading of the debate the right hon. the Chief Secretary, when speaking of the question of the limits, said that the Land Conference was responsible for the suggestion. Now, that was not so. He entirely agreed with his hon. friend the Member for Waterford on that point. He would, however, give a little more in detail what the Land Conference actually proposed. He would not enter into the question of what the tenants' representatives desired. His hon. friend said that when the Conference met the tenants were in favour of a minimum reduction of 20 per cent. on the second-term rents; but that was not the finding of the Conference. A proposal was made by Lord Dunraven that the reduction on the second-term rents, or the fair equivalent, should be not less than 15 or more than 25 per cent., taking the reductions as in the Act of 1896. It was a curious thing that when that decision was quoted the last part of the sentence was invariably left out. The Government Bill was based on the idea of the Land Conference; that was on the idea of a limit, but it altered every figure, and wholly ignored the proposals for a decadal reduction. In altering 15 to 10 per cent. it lessened the security of the British taxpayer for the advance. That was the first difference made, and he repeated that if they had not the security of inspection they had nothing between the landlord's pressure and the tenant's weakness.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSON: What is landlord pressure?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that where the tenant was in arrears and likely to be evicted pressure could be put upon him to purchase his holding at a price that he ought not to give; and the fact that more than 2,000 cases of proposed purchase were rejected by the Land Commission showed what the pressure was. The maximum reduction of the Conference was 25 per cent., but that was altered in the Bill to 30 per cent. Clearly it was imagined that that was to the advantage of the tenant; but how would it operate? The Government were extending the tenant's privileges and advantages, where in ninety cases out of 100 they would be of no use, because the majority of the tenants would not get more than a 20 or 25 per cent. reduction of second term rents. Very few landlords, unless on uneconomic holdings, would sell at more than a 20 or 25 per cent. reduction, therefore the tenants had no advantage in increasing the Conference 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. They struck at the State assuredly in altering 15 to 10, and they struck at the tenant in altering 25 to 30. He maintained, therefore, that it was not fair to quote only one part of the Conference Report and leave the other out.
  He came now to the question of ignoring the decadal reductions. Let them see how these operated. There were 80,000 second-term rents fixed. If one of these holdings were taken with a rent of £100, that rent was reduced in 1882 by 20 per cent. In 1897 the tenant again went into Court and had another 20 per cent. taken off the £80 rent, and that brought the rent down to £62 instead of £100. They commenced the purchase operation on a £62 rent, and suppose a tenant got a mean reduction of between 20 and 30 per cent. he would be in the position of paying an annuity for sixty years of £50 instead of £100. That man would be placed in a tolerably good position; but the Conference Report put him in a still better position, and with no loss either to the State, the landlord, or anybody else. The Conference Report proposed that a tenant at the end of ten years should get a 10 per cent. reduction, and at the expiration of a second term of ten years another reduction, and, at the expiration of a third term of ten years, a further reduction. All that was done by the Act of 1896. It had this enormous advantage; it was a great help to the tenants

  995
  if bad times came, to have a lessening annuity to pay; and it was an enormous security to the State. Who had asked for the limits in the Bill? He had heard from the hon. Member for Bradford that day, for the first time, what he considered to be something like a real reason for these limits. The suggestion was that a limited owner, an owner who had very little interest in his estate might sell at a low rate, and so set the price for the whole district, his object being to get hold of the bonus. He was not saying that that was not a good object; he thought it was very likely to happen. There were a whole lot of "scallywag" landlords in Ireland who would sell their holdings for half nothing, accept the bonus, and bolt with the proceeds. That was a thing which ought to be guarded against. But was not that a small object, indeed, compared with the price which the British taxpayer was going to pay? Beyond and above everything else, the Committee ought to devote its attention to these limits. Who asked for them? He challenged the Chief Secretary to show a single document from the Landowners' Convention—he had carefully read all their literature for years; he was impregnated with it—asking for a minimum price. He could perfectly understand that if this were a Bill for the compulsory sale of land, it would be absolutely necessary to put in a minimum price; but a minimum price in a voluntary Bill was a contradiction in terms.
  The whole thing meant a system of preferential tariffs for the Irish landlords, and he objected to all preferential tariffs. He objected on another ground. The first limit of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. Has not only defensible, but, when they had abolished the inspection of estates, it was absolutely necessary. Judicial rents were all very good, but they were not infallible; and it was little enough that the British taxpayer should have a 15 per cent. reduction before the advance was sanctioned. But there was no logical defence for the maximum reduction of 30 per cent. It was so absurd and outrageous that, if the British taxpayers were properly represented in this House, it would be impossible to carry such a proposal. They were told
  996
  that the maximum reduction was to prevent pressure being put on the landlord. That was the suggestion of his right hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland. What pressure had been put upon the Irish landlords to sell during the seventeen years that the Land Purchase Acts had been in operation? He would prove that the pressure had been all the other way. The cases which had been refused showed that pressure had been put by the landlords on the tenants to agree to terms that could not be sanctioned. If no pressure were put on the landlords in time of war, when the landlord and the tenant never met except in a Land Court, or some other Court, and when his right hon. friend the Attorney-General never met the tenants except in a Crimes Court, how could pressure arise in the milleninum that had now arrived. The truth of the matter was that the tenants could not put pressure on the Irish landlords. The landlords were in possession of the soil, and the Bill was not compulsory. His right hon. friend the Attorney-General represented, as he himself did, an almost purely agricultural constituency. Did his right hon. friend anticipate that in any part of the North of Ireland any undue pressure would be put upon a landlord to sell his estate at a price at which he ought not to sell it. With a voluntary Bill the tenants could exercise no pressure whatever that he was aware of. Why should the Committee assume that the old war was going to break out again? Why should a limit be put in the Bill which meant, "Thus far you shall go and no farther." Above all, why should the same terms be exacted for an agricultural slum as would be exacted for good land. He held that the Irish landlord was doing uncommonly well, and did not need protection. He was getting an enormous price for his land, and a large bonus in addition. He would be materially aided in the cost of transfer, and he would get payment in cash instead of in depreciated stock. There was no logical defence for the maximum reduction; and he hoped the Government would be induced to withdraw it.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he sincerely hoped that his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary would not accept the

  997
  Amendment, or anything like it. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had only a very cursory knowledge of a great part of Ireland. He had no doubt scurried through other parts of the country.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he represented an Irish constituency, which the hon. Gentleman did not.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMBsaid he did not see the point of that observation. The hon. Gentleman, and also the hon. Member for Waterford, said it was not fair to take the Conference Report, the reason being that the Conference was composed of men representing a variety of conflicting interests, and that it was very difficult to arrive at any conclusion at all. But the Conference did arrive at a conclusion; and he maintained that the Government was, for the very same reasons entitled to adopt the principle in the Bill, because the same difficulty of arriving at a conclusion was equally great in this House. In expressing that hope, he echoed the universal demand of the Irish landlords that the Government should adhere to the zone principle. The hon. Member for South Tyrone spoke as if every landlord was a devil, and every tenant an angel. As a matter of fact, landlords and tenants were very much of a muchness in looking after their own interests. With reference to pressure being put on the landlords, did the hon. Member or the Committee never hear of groups of tenants, oftentimes under outside leadership, coming to the agent or the landlord, and saying, "We want to purchase, and we will only give you so much, and pay 4 per cent. on the purchase money." The pressure would be now still worse when the percentage was reduced. He entreated the Committee, when landlords were spoken of, to picture the great proportion of the landlords of Ireland as men who had by their own industry, or by the industry of their fathers or grandfathers, invested money earned in business in what they conceived to be the best security—the land of their own country. Those were the men who had to be considered; and it was mainly for their protection that the minimum and maximum reductions were required. The
  998
  hon. Member for South Tyrone punctuated almost every sentence of his speech by a reference to the interests of the British taxpayer. It was a new thing to hear the hon. Member talk of the interests of anyone except a tenant. It was new zeal on his part to talk about the British taxpayer. The hon. Member referred to instances where landlord and tenants had agreed to sale and purchase, and in which the terms had been refused. He himself had in his mind a particular property, the landlord of which was driven to sell to the tenants, the tenants agreeing to pay seventeen and a half years purchase. Four years afterwards, the Land Commission honeycombed the agreement by allowing no tenant to pay more than sixteen years purchase, and some only paid twelve years purchase. One tenant who had agreed to pay seventeen and a half years purchase, after four years, had his price fixed at thirteen years purchase. His original rent was £17, and his annual instalment after purchase was only £9. He recently sold that holding for £250. In a case of that kind the interest of the State would have been sufficiently safeguarded, had he purchased at twenty-one years on the original rent.
  The hon. Member for South Tyrone had left out of the question the position of middlemen, the leaseholder, the encumbrancers, the mortgagee, and the remainder man, all of whom had to be considered. Were they going to make it mandatory on the Land Commissioners to agree to any price which the landlord and tenant chose to agree to, no matter how it extinguished the rights and interest of all others concerned. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had said he did not remember a single passage in the Report of the Convention which dealt with the maximum and minimum prices. That might be true in the letter but not in the spirit. Both the Landlords' Convention and the Tenants' Conference arrived at practically the same conclusion that the landlord should receive so much cash as would yield him at 3 per cent. his former income, and that fixed the minimum price of the land at once. The universal opinion of the landlords of Ireland was that if the Government gave way on this question of zones the Bill would be wholly inoperative, and trouble would arise in the south and west of Ireland which would defeat the object

  999
  they all had, which was to come to a compromise and settle the difficult and complicated question of the land in Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIENsaid that up to the present not one of the 101 representatives of Ireland had said one word against the Amendment. The objections to it had been confined to two Irish gentleman who represented English constituencies. The hon. and gallant Member assumed to speak for the universal opinion of Ireland, and laid stress on the fact that unless these limitations were preserved the result would be conflict with the tenant. Would there be no possibility of that conflict if these limitations were fixed? It was almost impossible to imagine why the landlords should object to the Amendment. The fact was that the retention of these limitations would be an incentive to, and would absolutely force, combination, and keep up the whole evil conflict and agitation in Ireland. If the Irish tenants were to be restrained within the limitations which would unquestionably worsen their position by two or three years purchase, the inevitable result would be that they would be driven to go for the highest maximum price the law laid down as a reduction, whereas if the Amendment were agreed to, and if the law only laid down the one standard of maximum price, anyone who knew the people and their present position knew that the tendency would be that they would be content with exceedingly little more than the maximum price laid down in the Act. In the great majority of cases there would be the strongest disinclination for anything like strife and conflict and the whole thing would be arranged on moderate terms. If the British taxpayers were anxious to keep out bad blood and agitation in Ireland, they would not hesitate a moment about giving up these limitations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's attitude was part of the old vice of not trusting the people. No people in the world understood their own interests better than the Irish, and the moment fair terms were offered to them they would at once endeavour to get out of their horrible position and to improve their holdings, but if they were confined within these limitations their worst traits would be brought out, and they would be forced to fight for the greatest limitation.
  1000
  Everybody was agreed that the State could not be the gainer by the tenants paying excessive rents; on the contrary men who were seduced by this Bill to make an improvident bargain would be a burden and a danger by-and-bye to the State The landlords who had got their money, and had got out of the partnership, might not care whether the Bill succeeded or not, but the State would have to deal with these men in future years, possibly years of severe distress or some terrible national calamity. There was no danger of general repudiation, but if the tenants were forced into improvident and impossible bargains the State might easily find honest poverty much more difficult to deal with than any conspiracy of repudiation. For the sake of the future peace of Ireland it was of the utmost importance these limitations should be removed. Under the Bill even the poorest tenants might be seduced into paying twenty-eight years purchase, and before ten years had elapsed they would be in a state of bankruptcy. Possibly not many would make so foolish a bargain, but why should the temptation be placed in their way?
  Hon. Members could not realise what a powerful attraction the prospect of any reduction of rent was. Large bodies of tenants would risk anything to get some immediate relief, and the danger of these improvident bargains would apply principally to the poorest and most defenceless class of the community. The definition of the new congested estates would leave at least 100,000 of the poorest tenants in the country isolated and unprotected, to become victims of this minimum price. It was an extremely narrow definition, entirely depending on what the Estates Commissioners chose to consider as mountain or bog land, and in any case applying to a very small number of estates. In the richest parts of the country, side by side with the better-off tenants, would be a mass of these poor people; the weakest would go to the wall; they would have to do as their richer neighbours did, with the result that they would soon be in arrears, they would be sold up, and their farms would be grabbed. By excluding tenants on congested estates the Government themselves confessed that this minimum price

  1001
  was dangerous and indefensible. It would place a legal premium upon the creation of a new, and possibly more troublesome, Irish difficulty. As to the second portion of the Amendment they admitted that for the protection of the State, as well as of the tenant, it was as necessary to retain the minimum reduction as it was to abolish the minimum price. Unless that were done a minute inspection and valuation of over 300,000 holdings would have to be made, with the result that generations would probably pass before any general transfer of land was effected. While, with a view to the more expeditious working of the Bill, he recognised the necessity for this minimum reduction, he strongly urged that the existing minimum reduction of 15 or 20 per cent. would be totally inadequate for the protection either of the State or of the tenant. Experience had shown that the better off a man was the better the bargain he would make. The poorest men were almost certain to make the worst bargain the Bill would allow. In the matter of rent fixing, out of 330,000 judicial rents 140,000 were not fixed in Court at all, but were dictated in the rent office by the landlord or his agent, and submitted to by the tenant under the pressure of arrears or some other element of compulsion. The consequence was that Mr. Gladstone's Act, while it had done wonders for the better-off tenants, had done next to nothing in the way of a radical remedy for most of the poor tenants. The same thing had happened in the case of second-term rents. Of the 79,000 which had been fixed, about 34,000 were fixed, not in Court, but in the rent office. The result was that where tenants fought the thing out in Court they got reductions averaging 23 or 24 per cent., while the poor people who were wiled into so-called voluntary agreements got only 19 per cent., and in Connaught the reduction went as low as 16 per cent. Much the same thing would happen under this limitation. The poor people in arrears, desperately anxious for any relief, would be induced to make the worst bargain possible. The Bill would be the salvation of the landlords. As many of them as pleased would be enabled to remain, while to the remainder the Bill would give at least five more
  1002
  years purchase than they could obtain under the Ashbourne or Balfour Acts. He did not grudge them those generous terms so long as they did not insist on the tenants being two or three years purchase worse off than under the Ashbourne Acts. That was the crux of the whole situation. As the hon. Member for Bradford had stated, if the recommendations of the Land Conference had been adopted in their entirety, and the additional £8,000,000 bonus given, the Bill would have gone through without a single night's friction. The trouble was that a section of the landlords were attempting to use the advantage given them by this minimum price to extort from the tenants the £8,000,000 which the British Treasury refused to bear, and that, from the Irish point of view, was simply intolerable.
  If the landlords were willing to accept the tremendous advantages they had been offered owing to the magnanimity of the tenants, which gave them at least five years additional purchase above what they could have got under the Ashbourne Acts, and if they were willing to accept from the tenants the prices which had ruled in the open market for the last twenty years, he thought the landlords would make a superb bargain. Beyond that he did not think the intelligent tenants in Ireland would go. Irish tenants had no interest whatsoever in bidding one pound more for their land than had been given in the open market for the last thirty years. The prospects of agriculture in Ireland had become gradually worse, and so had the prospects of the landlords until the Land Conference showed them the daylight. If once the magnificent terms now open to the landlords owing to the tenants' hearty desire for peace, were rejected, and if the Land Conference bargain should unhappily break down completely, the tenants would have no alternative but to return to their old methods, and then the landlords' interests would not again be a very saleable commodity. Those who honestly desired to be the friends of the landlords ought to bear that fact in mind. As to any attempt to inflate the price of the landlords' interest he agreed that the landlords had not tried to do that at the Conference, but if they did try to do it

  1003
  the tenants would have no alternative but to make efforts to restore the land market to its natural state. In justice to the landlords of Ireland he was bound to say that up to the present there had not been any considerable attempt in that direction, and he hoped there would not be. The whole question came to this—let the Irish people have the land substantially on the Ashbourne Acts terms, and then the whole trouble in Ireland would be over. He said that to-night with more confidence than ever, but he was bound to add that if the landlords were ill-advised and were not content with the splendid advantages that had been given, and with being at least five years purchase better off than under the Ashbourne Acts, if they insisted upon attempting to make the Irish tenants two or three years worse off than they would be under the Ashbourne Acts, or than they would be if this Act was not passed at all, then the thing would be certain to end badly both for the landlords and the tenants.
  This Amendment represented the unanimous opinion of the people of Ireland, and of 100 out of 103 Irish representatives. Therefore in proposing this Amendment his hon. friend spoke in the interests, not only of the people of Ireland, but also of the vast mass of the British taxpayers. If the right hon. Gentleman would only put down his foot upon this question and say that he recognised that they ought not to fetter the tenants any more than they fettered the landlords, and if he would recognise that this wretched minimum price was only really demanded by one very small section of the Irish landlords, who did not love this Bill any more than they loved the Irish people, and who did not represent more than one-tenth of the Irish landlords; if the right hon. Gentleman in this matter would only yield to what was the unanimous opinion of Ireland and to what was in the interests of the British taxpayers who understood this question; if he would yield upon this question he agreed with the hon. Member for South Tyrone that the rest of the progress of this Bill would be a very smooth and easy matter, and he would lay the best foundation for the complete success of this Bill in Ireland by trusting the
  1004
  people and not putting upon them the almost intolerable disability which this clause would inflict.
  MR. THOMAS SHAWsaid he did not think there could be any division of opinion upon the Opposition side of the House when they saw how this provision squared with the rights of the British taxpayers on the one hand, and the rights of the Irish tenantry on the other. It appeared to him to be a very strange proposition that His Majesty's Government should propose a hard and fast line in regard to the price for every variety of Irish land. That seemed to him to go to the very root of the entire situation. There were tracts of land in Ireland which any landlord or tenant in Ireland would say that to pay twenty-two years purchase of the present rental to acquire it would be a perfect outrage, and yet that was what was proposed as the minimum under this Bill. The hon. Member for Tyrone gave various illustrations, and two of them he would venture to repeat. He mentioned two cases, one from Limerick and one from County Down. In the Limerick case there was an agreement for a sale at eighteen years purchase, and the entire figure was £11,444. Under the scheme of this Bill if they insisted upon the minimum the sum total would be not £11,444, but £13,904. In this case four years purchase would be added by this Bill to what the landlord and tenant were willing to agree upon. In the County Down case £320 was agreed upon, or twenty years purchase, and under this Bill the sum would be £400, or, in other words, the figure would be raised from twenty to twenty-two years purchase. What he wanted to know was why should Parliament commit itself to a situation antagonistic to what landlords and tenants were willing to arrange between themselves? They had to consider the finances not merely from the point of view of the Irish tenant, but in this way, that unless the Irish tenant was put squarely upon the land and made to live under conditions of peace and contentment and comparative prosperity, to that extent the security of the British Exchequer

  1005
  was impaired. How did the British Exchequer stand? The two cases referred to showed eighteen years and sixteen years purchase, but the Land Commission declined to sanction that transaction, and why? Because they said there was not adequate security for the State. If there was not adequate security under the existing law to deal with these transactions; if there was not good security in eighteen and twenty years transactions to justify the Land Commission, what was there to justify the Government in imposing a minimum of twenty-two years purchase, thus impairing the security of the British Exchequer.
  The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Irish tenants must be placed in a position to work out their own salvation. The people asked to have the Ashbourne terms, because these were the terms which had been arrived at after investigation by competent tribunals throughout Ireland. Was it exorbitant for the people to say, "Start us with the privileges we have been accustomed to in times past?" That was denied apparently on account of some superior force at the back of the proposal. The superior force was to operate so cruelly that this beneficent measure would be withdrawn from every class of tenantry unless they would pay more in order to take advantage of the Act than they would have to pay under private arrangement without the Act. He knew perfectly well what the land hunger was—how these men were driven to accept hard terms. He was glad to hear the expression of opinion that there would be a long continued attempt to make the best of these terms, however harsh, but the British Exchequer had got to be considered. They were to put these men in a financial situation in which they would be placed on a proper economic position, and in which they would be able to make a living and to work out their own destiny for a long period of years. If we started on a false and usurious basis we would find strained relations between the British Exchequer on the one hand and the tenant on the other, which he for one did not contemplate with much satisfaction. He put this to the Chief Secretary, it was not merely a settlement of terms here. Under this Bill there was no compulsion, but, if these terms were refused, and if the landlords of Ireland forced the tenants of Ireland
  1006
  to make a bargain so tight, then the tenantry would ask the assistance of this House to make the Bill a good deal tighter for the landlords than was expected. If terms were forced on them the tenants, too, might have the right in all the disturbed districts to use the weapon of the Land Commission which was now granted under Section 5 only to the owner, and to start by that operation a system of compulsion wherever a majority of the tenants on the estate demanded a settlement and that the peace in a particular quarter should be secured thereby. He saw, however, difficulty in the cardinal proposal of the Government. This proposal to make a hard and fast line seemed to him inconsistent with every interest involved. It was inconsistent with the land itself, which varied so much—which yielded only eight to ten years purchase in some districts and thirty years purchase in others. It was inconsistent with the tenants' claim that they should have their historical position under the Ashbourne Acts. It was inconsistent with the British Exchequer, because it was landing us in the position of financing a transaction which on voluntary lines, apart from this Bill, would never have been attempted by landlord or tenant. It was a matter for the taxpayers of the United Kingdom, and he for one, here and now, entered his definite protest against a financial scheme which would set a class of tenantry on their feet in Ireland in a tottering instead of a firm and settled position. He thought that the scheme of the Government, by drawing this line, was faulty and harsh, and that in the end it might prove injurious.
  MR. MURPHYsaid he wished to join in the appeal to remove the limits stated in the Bill. The working of the Land Purchase Act in County Kerry showed that a great danger would be obviated if these limits were removed and the tenants allowed to come to a fair and free bargain. As a young politician, he could not understand why the landlord section in the country should be allowed freedom to do as this Bill proposed, in regard to the sale of land, and to get a bonus for doing it, while the tenants, who had as much interest in the land, and whose future

  1007
  would be connected with it, should be limited between certain points. As had been pointed out by several speakers, the poorer class of tenants in certain districts were to a large extent dependent on the intelligence of the larger and better class. It would be easy for the larger class of tenants to give a larger price for their holdings, and it might be supposed that they, acting on the usual dictates of human nature, would be inclined to argue the poorer classes into bargains which, before many years were passed, they would have reason to regret. He knew some cases where purchases had taken place under the Ashbourne Acts, and where the tenants were now regretting their desire to become owners, because they had been induced to give prices for their holdings which rendered it hard for them to maintain themselves. He instanced the case of land on the estate of the Earl of Kenmare, all round the town of Killarney, where owing to different conditions they found different classes. Terms which would be quite reasonable and proper in one parish, where there was good land, would be quite unjust and unbearable in another where the land was mostly bog and moorland. The highest reduction obtainable under this Bill might be reasonable where there was good land, but it might be totally inadequate for the poorer holdings. The tenants were only too anxious to become owners of their holdings, and the Irish representatives would be slow to do anything to kill that honest and laudable desire. That desire, however, was so strong that they might be induced to enter into bargains which were unsuitable from every point of view. The Government ought to stand evenly between the landlords and tenants. There were landlords who might be inclined to enter into fair and reasonable bargains with their tenants, but there were others who would utilise the limits within the Bill to excuse themselves from entering into reasonable bargains, in the hope that the tenants would agree to small reductions in order that they might become owners of their holdings. He knew cases in Kerry where small farmers, side by side and similarly circumstanced, had to pay rents as widely different as it was possible to imagine.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this evening.

EVENING SITTING.

  IRISH LAND BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:—
  Another Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word 'advance' to the end of sub-Section (2), and insert the words 'provided that the purchase annuity payable under this Act will be, in the case of the purchase of a holding, subject to a judicial rent fixed or agreed to since the passing of the Act of 1896, not less than 15 per cent. below the existing rent, and, in the case of the purchase of a holding subject to a judicial rent fixed before that date, or of a holding which is not subject to a judicial rent but the tenancy in which is one to which, in the opinion of the Land Commission, the Land Purchase Acts apply, not less than 25 per cent. below the existing rent.'"—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word 'or,' in line 18, stand part of the Clause."
  MR. MURPHY, continuing his speech, contended that whether this question was looked at from the larger or the smaller point of view these limitations ought not to be retained. On large estates the difference in the condition of the various tenants was enormous, and nobody but the tenants themselves could say what were fair terms. The landlords in Ireland had vast power, which could be exercised most successfully under the Bill as it at present stood, when dealing with the tenants who were not financial experts and who desired to become the owners of their holdings, to induce them to give a price without considering whether it was such a price as they could pay. Every argument which had been adduced showed the price fixed in

  1009
  this Bill was greater than the average rate that had been paid by the tenants under any previous Act. In the county of Kerry several purchases had taken place of estates equal to any in the country, and the highest price had never exceeded eighteen years purchase and the price had dropped as low as 12·9 years. Under the present Bill tenants would have to pay twenty-two years purchase, a most extravagant price compared with that paid by their neighbours, and that would result in a feeling of unrest which would culminate in another land agitation. It was desirable, therefore, that the maximum limit of reductions should be swept away. The minimum limit should be retained because the State must have some protection. If the maximum limit was removed the landlord would not be compelled to sell, whereas on the other hand the tenant would be able to say what price he was able to purchase at. This Bill dealt with the first-term, second-term, and ordinary tenants as if they were all the same class, but as a matter of fact they were very differently situated. He could not see the use of this limitation. Why not give the tenants the opportunity of deciding for themselves in the matter of these reductions? In the best interests of the government of the country it was desirable that the Government should commence to display to the Irish people some sign that they were willing to conciliate Irish feeling. This Bill was looked forward to with hope and impatience, and the Government should show that they desired to conciliate the Irish people. He was an extreme advocate of the tenants in this matter, and under the Bill the and lords were getting a good deal more than he would have given had he had the power, but the Irish Party had come to the conclusion that there ought to be some give and take in this matter, and they were willing to give up everything to secure peace for the Irish people, and if those were the signs of conciliation displayed by the extreme advocates of the tenants surely there should be similar signs of conciliation on the other side.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid every person in Ireland who wished to live in peace in Ireland would echo the sentiments of the hon. Member. The hon. Member was very much mistaken if he supposed that the landlords objected to the zones. He had not come across a single landlord who was not distinctly friendly to the Bill, but at the same time, he had not come across one who desired to get rid of the zones. It was desirable that they should be retained. With regard to each class of tenants receiving separate treatment he would point out that in all the recent legislation passed for Ireland, Ireland had been treated as a whole, and all these estates had been attempted to be placed on the same footing. It did not matter that one estate was particularly bad land, and another was good land—that had been taken into account in the fixing of the rent. If the 1881 Act had had any success at all it was because the land had been assessed at its real value, therefore the separate treatment of each individual estate seemed to be absolutely unnecessary. The Bill did not treat all estates equally. In the treatment of estates there was a very wide margin in this Bill between the 10 per cent. and the 30 per cent. reduction. Many landlords thought the limitation was too wide, but to say that the treatment of all estates in Ireland was the same was an entire mistake. The Amendment itself was divided into two separate parts; one portion increased the minimum reduction, and the other abolished the maximum reduction. In both cases the tenant was to be favoured. The tenant, in every case, was to be in the position of being able to say to the landlord, "You must give me this or that reduction." But the Committee must bear in mind, in considering this question, that the whole success of the Bill depended on the landlords working in friendly accord with the tenants. If the Bill was made so that it would not work, nothing would be got out of it. In considering this Bill he had never lost sight of the British taxpayer, who was, in settling this question, making an excellent bargain. The hon. Member for Plymouth had said that all that the people of England required was to see that this question was really settled.

  1011
  It appeared to him that the taxpayer was perfectly safe. If he got the minimum reduction he got his consideration for the advance he was making. He got the security of the landlords' interest in the land, and he got the tenants' interests. Nobody suggested that the rents now fixed were the full rents of the holdings. It had never been suggested that the tenant could not let his holding for more than he was paying, and the difference between the amount paid and the rent at which the holding could be let, plus the landlords' interest, would be the State's security. In the working of this Bill he did not think this Amendment would affect an enormous number of holdings in Ireland. Bargains would not take place either at the maximum or the minimum, but at some intermediate point, and, therefore, in the bulk of the cases, it would be no use to the tenant to increase the maximum reduction. But what was clear on the part of the landlords was that a certain number of people who did not care about their property, and who would like to be relieved of it, might sell at a low rate and establish a kind of precedent, and that would be a dangerous thing.
  In his opinion, the maximum reduction was no benefit to the landlord. He did not argue this matter from the point of view of the landlord alone, but from other points of view as well. From his own point of view he should prefer that the only sum mentioned in the Bill would be 10 per cent.; that the bargain should commence on that basis and be decreased downwards. The landlords of Ireland, as a whole, distinctly thought that the mention of 30 per cent. was an advantage to them. There was a much more important reason for retaining the zones. If they were once abandoned, the position between the landlords and the tenants would be so vague that he himself did not anticipate that they would come to any agreement at all. The great advantage of the zones was that they pointed to both landlords and tenants what the effective limit of their power was; it did not leave it perfectly indeterminate as to what was to be sold and bought. Again, under the Bill, as framed, the landlord and the tenant might settle the matter between them. The landlord might say, "I will give you 15 or 20 per cent.," and the tenant would say, "I agree." Now they knew that
  1012
  the Irish landlord was very seldom absolutely unencumbered; there were either mortgages or family charges, and in addition to that there were, in a large number of cases, reversionaries. In other words, the landlord was only a tenant for life. One of the great advantages of the Bill would be that these persons need not be consulted in negotiating the price. If the zones were destroyed altogether, and the maximum reduction taken away, it could not for one moment be said that the price to the tenant could be fixed in the absence of the mortgagee, or the chargee, or the remainder man. They would have to bring in all these persons to say whether or not they approved. It might be said, would not these persons have to come in at any rate? The answer was, No; because the reduction being a certain agreed sum, the mortgagee, chargee, and remainder man got all the benefit out of the property which could be got, and so the transaction could be completed without their presence. Another argument hinted at was what might be called the De Freyne Estate argument. That was, there might be a certain number of people who had no particular interest in the property not being sold at a very low rate; and while people on the estate would be benefited, the whole turmoil raised on the Dillon Estate would be repeated. It was not desirable to bring about that state of things. What was wanted was to make Ireland a comfortable place to live in, and he held that the Bill would not work well unless they brought it into conformity with the wishes of the landlord, as well as the wishes of the tenant.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid he wished to make his protest once for all against the doctrine of a minimum price. His hon. friend who had just sat down had made the best defence of the minimum price during the discussion, but it was a very bad one at the best. The hon. Gentleman had a great interest in Ireland, and though his relations with the Irish people were of the best, he did not speak in the House with the power and force of an Irishman. He sat for an English constituency, and however great his experience of Irish questions might be, his sentiments on Irish questions were simply his own. He pointed out that no Irish Member had spoken a word in favour of the minimum price. There was a spectre

  1013
  at every feast, and the two learned Gentlemen who alone, at the moment, represented the Government on the Treasury Bench, were silent. He had seen it stated that the Irish law officers were in favour of a minimum price, and that if that doctrine were destroyed they would resign office. He would be really as much amazed if either of these learned Gentlemen resigned their situations as if an earthquake shook Primrose Hill. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General for Ireland made contradictory speeches and used contradictory arguments in favour of the minimum price. The Attorney-General had criminal combination on the brain, and he said that if there was not a minimum price there would be a criminal combination to reduce the price. The members of the Estate Commission could not join with the tenants in a criminal conspiracy to reduce the purchase money, or force an unfair bargain on the landlords. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had made a speech to the Commercial Unionists — what a delightful expression — and defended the minimum price exactly on the ground on which he assailed it. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that unless the minimum price was retained, there might be a spendthrift landlord anxious to get the bonus who would get rid of his estate at any price; and that the price he received would rule the market in the district. Why on earth should it not rule the market? Under the old system of the Ashbourne Acts the land itself was security for the repayment of the advances, whereas, by fixing a minimum price, the British taxpayer became the security. The landlords were to get independently of the minimum price £12,000,000, while they only got £3,000,000 sterling for carrying the Union, with a few peerages thrown in by way of consolation stakes. He wondered if the Chief Secretary had considered the case of the British public. They wished this Irish Land Question to be settled finally, once and for all; but the British public would not consider it settled if there was any sense of wrong on the part of the Irish tenant. He was no particular protector of the British Exchequer, but he believed that the British public who had given £250,000,000 for the South African
  1014
  War would give a few millions for the settlement of the Irish Question.
  The leading objection to a minimum price was that it was utterly contrary to the principle of a voluntary Bill. The bonus to the landlords exceeded by 60 per cent. the compensation given wherel and was taken for railways, or other public improvements. Another objection to a minimum price was that while it inflated the price it diminished the security for the repayment of the advances. It would also prevent the landlord from settling the transaction in a way satisfactory to himself. Everyone knew what an enormous bait an immediate reduction of 20 per cent. would be to the tenant; but there might come changes—competition with America, a fall in markets, possibly preferential tariffs—and the tenant would find he was bound to his price for ever. That might lead not to independence and solvency, but to bankruptcy, and bankruptcy meant that the price must be paid by the British Government. He was not anxious for the British taxpayer, but for the Irish tenant; and he thought they should not bribe the tenant into making a bargain which he might bitterly repent of. He could not help thinking that fixing a minimum price was intended and designed, and whether intended and designed or not, it would have the effect of minimising the disparity between the tenant purchaser and the ordinary purchaser. He could prove that this Bill without the minimum price at all, embodied the landlords' proposal of last October as far as they could be embodied in a voluntary Bill. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had been constantly drawing comparisons between this measure and the Bill of last year. Could the Chief Secretary give them any voluntary Bill in which there was a restriction in favour of one party as regarded bargain and sale? The minimum price was suggested in the Act of 1891, but in that case the legitimate conditions of sale and purchase were invaded, and provision was made that a purchasing tenant could not obtain for the first five years an annuity less than twenty per cent. of his original rental. Of course the surplus would go to the Sinking Fund. From the year 1891 to 1896 purchase decreased, and the moment these irritating conditions

  1015
  ceased the purchase of land increased in Ireland until the South African War commenced. That showed that anything like a restriction in reference to the annuity to be paid restricted land purchase. He did not think it was fair between man and man to give to the 2,000 Irish landlords not merely £12,000,000 of money, but also by a legislative contrivance mulct the Irish tenants to the extent of a sum of £28,000,000 more. This was not fair either to the tenants or to the Irish landlords, because it made them the creatures of privilege, and was calculated to give a fallacious peace to Ireland, and would not settle the Irish question. The Ashbourne Acts should be left as they were, and the Irish landlords ought to be content with £12,000,000, cash down, which would enable them to pay off their mortgages with public funds and renew them at about half the rate of interest. Besides this, the landlords were getting five years purchase beyond the ordinary market price of the moment.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid if anyone who had never read a line of this Bill had heard the speeches of hon. Members opposite, he would have come to the conclusion that this was a Bill to confer enormous benefit upon the landlords and no corresponding benefit upon the tenants. Nothing could be further from the truth. If a sale were carried out upon the most favourable possible terms the landlord would receive less than he would now; and if the sale was carried out on the terms most unfavourable to the tenant, he would have to pay less than at the present time. The second-term tenant was already paying 40 per cent. less than his original rent, but under this Bill he would get from 10 per cent. to 30 per cent. reduction upon his rent, and at the end of twenty-two years he would become the owner of the land. Was there any tenant in this country who would not gladly accept such terms? Even the hon. Member for South Tyrone was obliged to admit that the second-term tenant, who paid in purchase instalments 20 per cent. less than the second-term rent, was in an exceptionally favourable position. He asked the
  1016
  Committee to affirm that these limits were really necessary for the successful working of this Bill. The existence of a limit ensured the fixing of a price without delay and expense, and without the tedious and troublesome investigations which had to take place under former Acts. Under the former Acts it was open to the landlord to make any bargain he liked with the tenant, but it did not follow that that bargain was necessarily carried out, because it had to come before the Land Commission for sanction. He thought that was a very great disadvantage, because it meant delay and often a refusal to sanction sales which would otherwise have taken place. Again although the landlord and tenant might have come to terms they had still to give notice to the other parties interested in the estates, with the result that the sale could not be sanctioned without enormous delay. It was one of the leading features of this Bill to avoid all that delay, and to ensure that when a price was fixed within the limits the sales should be carried through and sanctioned at once, and carried through automatically. In the majority of cases in Ireland, the man who was called the owner and who made the bargain was not the absolute owner at all but a strictly limited owner. Often there were mortgages on the estates, and unless they had the limits fixed in the Bill, it would be necessary to resort to the old procedure and give notice to the mortgagees and everyone else interested. One of the great advantages of this Act was that by ensuring a reasonable price within the limits laid down they ensured the sale being carried out without delay. The question had been asked why they did not adopt the procedure under the Ashbourne Acts? The answer was that there was no reason whatever why a landlord and tenant who desired to utilise the existing machinery should not do so. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone with the most profound dissatisfaction. The hon. Member had spoken about the number of years purchase, but that had nothing whatsoever to do with the question so far as the tenant was concerned. The question which affected the tenant was how much reduction he would get upon

  1017
  his present rent? It was most unfortunate that hon. Members professing to lead public opinion in Ireland should divert the tenant from the real question to a wholly erroneous and false issue as regarded the number of years purchase. The hon. Member for South Tyrone said that eighteen years purchase was enough.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he did not say whether it was enough or not.
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid he was afraid he did not understand the views of the hon. Member, but in another part of his speech the hon. Member admitted that a tenant who obtained a reduction of 20 per cent. on his second-term rent was in a favourable position. If a tenant purchased on these terms it would mean twenty-five years purchase for the landlord. He thought, therefore, he was justified in calling the hon. Member as a witness that twenty-five years purchase was a reasonable amount. He wished to point out that eighteen years purchase would mean a loss to the landlord of something like 42 per cent. of his income. The hon. Member for South Tyrone signed his name to a certain proposal in the Conference Report the very basis of which was that the landlord should get such a sum of money as if invested would bring him in 90 per cent. of his former income. He should like to know if the hon. Member still adhered to that view. The hon. Member appeared to suggest that the price might in some cases be too large, because there would be landlords' pressure on the one hand and tenants' weakness on the other; but he seemed to remember speeches of the hon. Member in former days the staple of which was not landlords' pressure, but tenants' tyranny. He was very sorry to have entered upon controversial channels, because he was extremely desirous that they should come to an amicable arrangement. [An HON. MEMBER: You are not doing much to promote it.] But for his part he did not see where landlords' pressure was likely to come in; he thought pressure was rather likely to be exercised upon them than by them.
  *MR. HEMPHILLregretted the line of argument adopted by the last
  1018
  speaker, and said the House had something more to deal with on the present occasion than the opinions or changes of opinion of individual Members. The clause with which this Amendment dealt was the keystone of the present Bill. The Bill purported to be a voluntary measure for transferring the land from the landlords to the tenants by voluntary agreement. For his part he believed that without the element of compulsion the effort would never be a complete success. But still it would go some way towards achieving that which they were all anxious on both sides of the House to see—viz., that the land question should once and for all be settled in Ireland. Hon. Members, of course, wished to deal fairly with both landlords and tenants, and they would naturally ask why, in a voluntary Bill, there should be what were called zones. Why should there be any restriction on the volition of the landlord and the tenant. He thought the hon. Member for the City of Waterford—the leader of the Irish Party—was to be congratulated on the moderation of his Amendment retaining the minimum reduction and the maximum price. Why did he retain these? In the interests of the tenants and in the interests of the Exchequer, it was necessary that there should be a maximum price fixed by Act of Parliament, because in the absence of any inquiry or investigation such as was made under the Ashbourne Acts, there would be no security that the tenant in his anxiety to become the purchaser might not undertake a burden which he was unable to discharge. That was the reason for pressing for the minimum reduction or maximum price at 15 per cent. in the case of second-term rents, and 25 per cent. in the case of other rents. Though it might operate harshly on the tenant it was only fair to the House of Commons and to the public because they must recollect that one of the peculiarities of the Irish tenant always had been his anxiety to get possession of the land. That led to the exorbitant rents which had originally necessitated Land Reform in Ireland, and unless there was some restriction that land hunger would lead to the tenant in his anxiety to become the owner, offering a price which,

  1019
  is cooler moments, and when he came to farm the land, he would find was so high that he could not possibly pay it. Therefore, it was only right, although it might be inconsistent with the idea of voluntary purchase that the maximum price should be retained. He did not gather that any hon. Member who had spoken had objected much to that part of the argument, indeed the hon. and learned Member for York hardly touched upon it, although it was the very gist of the Amendment.
  This was a subject which it was not easy for any but Irish Members fully to understand. He would like very much to impress upon the House how much the hearts of the Irish people were set on having this question put into a proper train for settlement. He well knew that if the Bill should pass in its present shape it would wholly fail in what he believed was the intention of the Government; it would, in fact, prove to be still-born. In his own constituency—North Tyrone—the tenant farmers were by no means enamoured of the Bill as it stood, and he had received many representations strongly urging him to object to the first clause. Indeed, he was not sure that he had authority to support the very moderate Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford. It so happened that in that part of Ireland there had been, under the Ashbourne Acts, several estates sold at rates varying from sixteen to seventeen years purchase. These purchasers had all the benefits of the decadal reduction, and they were in a far better position than purchasers would be under this Bill, and the result would naturally be that would-be purchasers would realise the difference, and the object of passing this Bill would be altogether defeated. Care must be taken that the burden accepted by the tenant was not too heavy for him. As this Bill now stood without any provision for decadal reduction the tenant purchaser undertook for sixty-eight and a half years to paya fixed immutable rent, immutable no matter how prices fell or how bad the times might be. He would have no means of escape from his obligation except by surrendering his holding. He should not, therefore, be allowed to agree to pay an extravagant price. He had the utmost respect for
  1020
  the landlords, but they could not expect, when their income was to come from gilt-edged securities, to get as much as they nominally did from their rents under the old system of landlord and tenant. They were to get a bonus as an inducement to sell, a bonus which would go into their own pockets, irrespective of the remainder man and encumbrances, and with which the tenants had no concern whatever. The great point was the capacity of the tenant to bear the burden for sixty-eight and a half years, and, seeing that the Irish Party had shown much moderation in this proposal, he should give it his hearty support. There was no similar limit imposed under the Ashbourne Acts and he failed to see any reason for introducing one here. If this clause were retained in its present form the Bill instead of being received with pleasure and satisfaction by the tenants of Ireland would only lay a new foundation for increased discontent and dissatisfaction with the policy of the British Parliament in dealing with the Irish land question.
  *MR. DUKEregretted to hear the concluding words of the last speaker, for if the result of passing this measure was to be a recrudescence of the agitation which had existed for so many years in Ireland the British people would feel inclined to withdraw the consent they had given to it as a measure of conciliation. A very considerable cost was to be incurred under the Bill, and the electors of this country had only consented to bear it because they believed it would be a good thing for this country as well as for Ireland that a settlement of the land question should be brought about. But if at every stage in the discussion they were to be told that the Bill would not be accepted by one party to the bargain, they were not likely to go very far in the way of amicable discussion. Now he had no interest, direct or indirect, in Irish land, and he, like most English people, supported the measure on the ground that there had been a concordat between the landlords and tenants of Ireland. But it was complained that the Government were not carrying out that concordat in its entirety. He would like to point out that even if that were so the Government, on the other hand, had not released the landowners of Ireland from the most onerous clause of all and had not permitted them to make the best

  1021
  terms they could with their tenants irrespective of the interests of the State. The first governing condition of the operation of the Bill was that there should be compulsory loans of public money. The second governing condition of the Bill was that its operation should be automatic. If public money was to be compulsorily loaned to persons who made a certain class of agreements, that class of agreements must be defined. It was conceded on the other side that the agreement must be so defined that the landlord should not be able to impose upon the tenant such a rate of purchase as would extinguish the economic security of the State. What was the landlord to get in exchange? In order to placate the British taxpayer, the one party to the bargain agreed to the minimum of reduction, and, in return the other party conceded the maximum of reduction. If the mean of those limits of reduction was preserved in the Bill, it was impossible to say there had been a departure in spirit from the agreement arrived at in the Conference. If the alteration of the minimum from fifteen to ten was a possible advantage to the landlord, the shifting of the maximum from twenty-five to thirty was in favour of the tenant. The Amendment, however, proposed to retain the limit against the landlord, while abolishing that against the tenant.
  Freedom of contract in the matter of Irish land had long passed away, and one of the objects of this Bill was to restore it. But this was not a question of freedom of contract: it was a question of fair dealing with the landlords, the great body of whom were not in favour of this maximum of reduction being withdrawn. That was a practical objection to the Amendment. It was said that if this provision were retained the tenant would be unable to negotiate freely with his landlord. But the very men who advanced that argument declared that the landlords had such control over their tenants that they would be able to compel the purchase of their land at the maximum price. If the landlords had that overwhelming influence over the tenants the absence of the upper limit would not matter, because the tenant, being at the mercy of his landlord, would be compelled to buy at
  1022
  the minimum reduction. On the other hand, it was said that the maximum of reduction would operate as the minimum on which the tenants would insist. Would not the striking out of the maximum reduction be taken as a tacit assertion on the part of the Government that the minimum of price was too high, and that the limits of the bargain ought to be outside those now proposed? Again, would it be a fair thing in the case of settled lands to omit the maximum of reduction? The fact could not be lost sight of that, for the sake of public peace, an astounding bonus was being offered to a large class of persons in Ireland to induce them, in many cases against their will, to sell property which was only partly theirs. If in any other country than Ireland such a proposition were made, capped with the promise that the transaction should be carried through compulsorily, and no questions be asked, it would be characterised as a monstrous inducement to acts of commercial immorality. It was now said by the other side that the landlords were proof against such a temptation. They were not so credited in all quarters. The hon. Member for South Tyrone had said there were among the Irish landlords a lot of "scallywags" who, for the sake of such a bonus, would sell the land of which they were the tenants for life at any price that could be got. Was it possible for the State to leave the matter in that condition?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid he expressly stated that that ought to be provided for. His contention was that the price by which it was to be provided for was excessive.
  *MR. DUKEwas afraid that if the question was discussed purely from the pounds, shillings, and pence point of view, as a hard commercial transaction, this Bill would not go much farther. It was notorious, however, that they were not considering this matter on the doctrines of Adam Smith, or seeking to drive the hardest bargain that could be arranged; but the same measure must be applied all round The Chief Secretary in his Second Reading speech instanced the case of a large estate in the West of Ireland, the life owner of which

  1023
  for eleven months in the year was an inmate of the workhouse. Would Parliament offer a bonus of 10 per cent. upon the purchase price of a considerable property and give it to that gentleman without inquiry as to the incumbrances on that estate? It would be impossible. Then there was the case of a man of sixty or seventy years of age, with an encumbered estate worth £50,000 or £100,000, of which the greater part of the beneficial interest was obviously in the remainderman. Was it fair to offer that man £5,000 or £10,000 to induce him to come to terms with his tenants, and leave the remainder-man to shift for himself? The policy of the Bill was to avoid the necessity for elaborate investigation, in order that the operation of the Bill should be automatic. It was therefore essential in order to guard against such dangers as he had suggested to have such limits as those proposed in the Bill. He was told though, and he fully believed, that in the case of estates where there were no judicial rents, and where there were isolated holdings not held on economic terms, the Bill would have an unintended operation. Those were the exceptional cases no doubt, but there could be little doubt that they existed in large numbers, and ought to be dealt with. The Land Conference agreed that there were certain limits within which the operation of the Bill might be treated as normal, and the State might safely make the advances proposed, and under which the remainder men would be fairly dealt with. While it was essential that those limits should be retained, he hoped the Bill would not be marred by the exceptional cases to which he had referred being left unprovided for. The view of the Government was that these limits were of the essence of the Bill. He suggested as a compromise that while those limits were retained where the operation of the Bill would be compulsory, some means should be provided for dealing with the exceptional cases. But it had to be borne in mind that the Bill had been so drawn that its operation wholly depended upon the mutual effect of its several parts, and unless the limits which were here in question were retained he did not see how the Chief Secretary's scheme could be carried into effect.
  *DR. THOMPSONsaid he had taken a great interest in the land question for many years, and had discussed this question with many people, but he had never met a tenant who gave much consideration to the number of years purchase. What the tenant considered of importance was the amount he would get back on purchase and the number of years he would have to pay his rent, though this was a minor consideration. The tenant would not mind how many years purchase the landlord was given provided he himself got 6s. or 7s. in the £ reduction on his first-term rent. As to the matter before the Committee, surely some compromise would be possible if exceptional cases were referred to the Land Commission for settlement.
  MR. EMMOTTcontended that the limits suggested in the Bill were not likely to work out satisfactorily. While he deprecated comparisons of the benefit landlords and tenants respectively were likely to secure under the Bill, he asked whether it was not the fact that the tenants who had bought during the last five years had in most cases done better than they could possibly do under the present proposals, and that the landlords would have enormously improved their position by waiting? On the point of the necessity of these zone limits, the Commissioners would be unable to refuse the ratification of a bargain provided it came within the limits of the Bill, and possibly tenants who were in arrears with their rent would be compelled to accept a 10 per cent. reduction for fear of being turned out of their holdings. In the interesting report of Mr. Bailey, attention, was called to the one class of cases in which purchase had been unsatisfactory—the cases in which tenants had had insufficient capital. Such tenants, being in arrears, might be forced to make a 10 per cent. bargain, and they would be in the position of impoverished occupying owners, likely to fail. If many tenants were to be placed in that position there would be a danger of a serious breakdown. The interest of the general taxpayer was that there should be safety, that the price should be reasonable, that the two parties should bargain on equal terms. He preferred that the minimum reduction put down at 10 per cent. should

  1025
  be made 15 per cent. With regard to the side of the landlord he asked, did it seem to be an unfair bargain for the landlord? Upon that point he was short of information. What instances were there of recent years where such a bargain would have been passed by the Land Commission? On the other hand they had been told of many cases where such a bargain, or even more favourable bargains, had been refused by the Land Commission. In reference to the maximum reduction he thought there ought to be no barrier to a free bargain. Many recent bargains allowed a reduction of more than thirty per cent. In face of this fact why should a greater reduction than thirty per cent. on second-term rents be debarred. Looking at it from the standpoint of the general taxpayer, he thought there should be no limit to the reduction made on a fair bargain between landlord and tenant. Take the position of the landlord, for it was no use passing a voluntary Bill unless the terms were fair. What would the landlord get? The landlord would get in hard cash under this Bill, by the intervention of State credit, five years' more purchase at least than anything he had ever got before; and by the lower rate of interest and the increased number of years for repayment the landlord got an extra five years' purchase above what he would have got at the present time. Take a case where the rental was £100. Under the old conditions the advance would have been £2,500.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, if it had been agreed.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid the landlord would get in this case between £3,000 and £3,100. That was the difference between 4 per cent. under the old Act and the 3¼ per cent. interest he would have to pay under this Act.
  MR. WYNDHAM: When my hon. friend takes £100 as the amount it is
  1026
  difficult to follow. I would suggest that he should take £80.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid he would call the old rent £100 and the new rent £80, and that would represent an advance of £2,000. Under the new Act upon a 3¼ per cent. basis that would allow of an advance of something like £2,500. Therefore the landlord got five or six years' extra rent in cash over what he would get under the old Act. Under these circumstances he thought the landlord as well as the tenant was getting a fair inducement even if the maximum reduction were struck out of the Bill. Looking at the matter from the standpoint of the general taxpayer, and having regard also to the position of the landlord, he supported the Amendment.
  *MR. CULLINANsaid the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth generally spoke from behind the Front Bench, and judging from the promptings he received he imagined that the Front Bench supplied him with his facts and figures.
  *Mr. DUKEdenied that he had received any promptings from the Front Bench. The Chief Secretary had been good enough to communicate with him through an hon. friend sitting near him to ask what precisely an Amendment which he had set down meant, and he had endeavoured to explain what he thought the Amendment meant. Beyond that he had had no communication with the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. CULLINANsaid that according to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument it would appear that a great boon was being conferred upon the tenant. If they judged this measure from past experience in Ireland it could be shown that this Bill was a great boon to the landlords, and one which they ought to be very ready to accept. The hon. and gallant Member below the gangway had spoken on behalf of the landlords in

  1027
  a manner which showed that his great affection for the tenant farmers of Ireland was to get as much as he could out of their pockets for the benefit of the landlords. The arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Yarmouth had been met in a friendly and conciliatory manner, but the hon. and learned Member for York had imparted a bit of that spirit of hostility which was behind the remarks of a great many gentlemen like him, who spoke on behalf of the landlords. He did not wish to introduce anything bitter into this discussion, but when the hon. and learned Member opposite spoke of the tyranny of the past, and ridiculed the idea that landlords could put pressure upon the tenants, all he could say was that he remembered the first occasion when the hon. and learned Member came over to Ireland—when they were having a big fight with the landlords—as the political emergency man, and he went on behalf of the Crown to give evidence against his fellow Nationalists. That was the hon. Gentleman who now imputed petty tyranny to Irish Nationalists. The hon. Member for York spoke of the facilities given for the sale of estates, and said this would be a great saving to the tenant. On the contrary, those facilities, instead of being a benefit to the tenant, were altogether a benefit to the landlord. The hon. Member said that they ought not to deal with the number of years purchase, but this was distinctly a question of purchase, because it was on the basis of the number of years purchase that all the sales had proceeded up to the present time. Hon. Members who thought that this was not so were making a very serious mistake. In his own constituency a great number of sales had taken place, and from the first year after the passing of the Purchase Acts up till last year the highest number of years
  1028
  purchase obtained had been nineteen, and some of them had been as low as fifteen years. In 1902 a number of sales took place, and the average was 17·4 years purchase. He thought those tenants who had not purchased in his own constituency would find it very hard that under this Bill they would be expected to pay twenty-two years purchase when their neighbours had bought at from fifteen to nineteen years purchase. This Bill with Clause 1 was not at all the great boon which hon. Members tried to dangle before the eyes of the tenant. With regard to the argument that landlords could not put on pressure he would point out that for years past Irish land lords had been working to deprive the tenants of a great many of their privileges. He had known of landlords who had gradually been depriving their tenants of certain privileges which they had hitherto enjoyed in order to gain by purchase. In his own locality a landlord offered to sell at twenty-two and a half years purchase to his tenants who were paying exorbitant rents, and in order to get out of their arrears the landlord induced them to buy at twenty-two and a half years purchase. When the Land Commission sent down a representative they distinctly refused to advance the money at such an exorbitant rate. If the Land Commission refused to sanction twenty-two and a half years purchase how was it that the Government were now fixing twenty-two years purchase as the lowest price? He thought it was most unfair and unreasonable that this reservation should be in the Bill at all.
  MR. J. P. FARRELLsaid this Amendment asked the Committee to give the tenants of Ireland a

  1029
  free market, and not bind them to a minimum or a maximum price, but leave them in a position to make their purchase agreement in a free market. What good was it to a tenant farmer to be able to purchase his holding with the prospect of having only a 10 per cent. reduction of his rent for a series of sixty-eight and-a-half years. It would be madness for an Irish tenant farmer to make such a bargain, and they would get very few Irish farmers to avail themselves of this provision if they were tied down to a 10 per cent. reduction.
  *SIR JOHN COLOMB: They are not tied down.
  MR. FARRELLsaid he was afraid that his hon. and gallant friend did not quite understand the provisions of the Bill. The 10 per cent. limit would not be put there if it was not intended to affect the position of the tenants. He should like to know if the Chief Secretary had studied the interesting tabular statement which had appeared in the Freeman's Journal, giving the whole figures for voluntary purchase in Ireland for the last seventeen years. The statement showed that in the county of Longford the purchase agreements for the last seventeen years averaged between 12·5 and 17·5 years purchase. How had the second-term rents been fixed? A storm of indignation was arising amongst Irish tenant farmers at the way in which a regular conspiracy amongst the Land Commissioners had arisen, for they appeared to have resolved not to give reductions on the first-term rents, and in certain cases they had increased the second-term rents. He was expressing his own honest conviction upon
  1030
  this subject as the representative of a body of tenant farmers, very many of whom had purchased upon the terms he had mentioned, namely, between twelve years and seventeen years purchase. If they kept this restriction in the Bill, of a 10 per cent. minimum and a 30 per cent. maximum reduction, they would be taking the surest way of rendering this Bill practically inoperative. The Chief Secretary said in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill that it was hoped that this would finally settle the Irish land question. The British House of Commons had been tinkering at the question during the past fifty years. Nobody would be more glad than himself to see the right hon. Gentleman having the credit of finally and satisfactorily settling the land question, but if he listened to the bad advice he received from Irish landlords representing English constituencies, who sat behind him, he would never settle the question. The Bill as it stood contained clauses which were retrogressive as to their effect even on the existing land legislation, but no clause was more absolutely repugnant to the ordinary tenant of the country than Clause 1, which as it stood practically gave compulsory powers to bind the tenant with respect to the price he was to pay for the land. Let them look beyond the present. It might be that agriculture was paying better this year than it did some years ago, or than it would do in the future. Foreign competition was daily increasing, and he did not think there was any prospect of the Imperial Zollverein materialising as some gentlemen fondly hoped. Perhaps it would do Ireland no harm if it did. It had been suggested that by a system of motor-cars farm produce would be

  1031
  brought quickly to the markets in future. He did not know how far that would materialise, but he hoped it would do some good. He had no great faith in it personally. He thought the Chief Secretary could not complain that any member of the Irish Party, whether leader or humble ranker, had done anything to thwart his design or to meet his policy in a spirit of nagging, but there were certain conditions which they could not accept the responsibility of seeing passed into law without protest. He warned the right hon. Gentleman that if he persisted in giving effect to them a great deal of his labour would be in vain.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid it had been shown in many speeches that under the operation of the existing Land Purchase Laws, tenants had been able to buy at a much lower figure than they would have been able to do under this Bill. The hon. Member for North Longford had shown that in his own constituency twelve to seventeen years purchase was given by a number of tenants for their land. Of course, all were agreed that if these terms could be generally applied to Ireland they would be better than the terms offered by this Bill, but unfortunately they knew too well that the process of sale and purchase in Ireland under the existing Purchase Acts had pretty well come to a standstill. The position they were in was that if they were to induce the landlords to sell they must offer terms considerably in advance of those which had hitherto prevailed, and it was altogether a question for the tenants themselves to consider whether in order to obtain the sanction of their landlords for purchase they were prepared to give something
  1032
  in excess of the prices which had hitherto prevailed. The question how much more should be given was one which the tenants would be perfectly free to decide for themselves under the provisions of this Bill, but the Amendment which was at present before the Committee dealt with a particular point which was very justly regarded as one of the most important in the Bill, namely, the proposal that under no circumstances whatever could the tenants obtain more than a certain reduction of the instalments in the purchase transaction. The hon. Member for Oldham had pointed out with perfect truth that under the existing Purchase Acts many of the tenants had obtained for themselves terms equal to a great deal more than a 30 per cent. reduction upon the rents they had hitherto paid, and there could be no doubt whatever that there were a certain number of tenants who would, because of the nature of their holdings, be justly entitled to receive a settlement which would be more to them than 30 per cent. on the rents they were paying at the present time. He was perfectly satisfied that, taking into consideration the bonus which was to be provided by the Government under this Bill, many of the landlords—he did not say the whole or anything like the whole of them—would be quite prepared to make settlements with their tenants upon terms which would mean more to the tenants than the 30 per cent. maximum reduction provided by the Bill. Could it possibly be argued that in a case where landlord and tenant were perfectly willing to come to terms which would mean more than 30 per cent. reduction of rent, it was not perfectly reasonable that they should be allowed to do so?

  1033
  It might be said that in a great many cases in Ireland a reduction of 30 per cent. would not be reached, but the Chief Secretary knew that in some parts of the country where the land was not so rich there were cases where it would not be unreasonable for tenants to expect, on a final settlement such as everybody hoped this would be, to receive more than the 30 per cent. which was allowed by the Bill. Why in the name of common sense should a hard and fast line be drawn in this Bill which would have the effect of preventing a settlement in cases where the landlord would very likely be glad to come to an arrangement which would mean more than 30 per cent. reduction to the tenants? It was the desire of all parties in Ireland that the settlement under this Bill should be of a satisfactory and permanent character. As far as he was personally concerned, he could tell the Chief Secretary without the slightest hesitation that he would be extremely sorry to see a single estate sold or purchased in Ireland upon terms which were not in themselves likely to stand well the test of time, and to be, as far as one could humanly judge, permanent and satisfactory to the tenants who bought. What was there sacred or magical about the figure 30 in regard to the reduction which the tenant might hope to obtain? Why 30, instead of 31, or 29, or some other figure? There was no argument by which this hard and fast rule could be justified. He asked the Chief Secretary to look at it from a reasonable point of view, and to realise that there must be numbers of the most deserving people excluded from the operation of the Bill if this hard and fast rule was made. It had been said that this particular zone had been
  1034
  agreed to by the landlords and tenants in conference, but it was only one item in a general agreement. He thought it was unreasonable and unfair to expect the representatives of the tenants to accept one particular portion of the Report to which they agreed, when it was admitted that other portions of the Report had been repudiated by the representatives of the landlords and by the Government. He had been asked over and over again why this particular figure of 30 per cent. had been adhered to by the Government, and he had never been able to answer the question. He would look forward with the greatest interest to the explanation of the Chief Secretary why this particular figure had been chosen. He was perfectly convinced that if the right hon. Gentleman maintained this figure the Bill would not provide a satisfactory or permanent settlement for very many tenant farmers, and that the result in some cases to men who might be induced to purchase would be disastrous. They would find themselves in difficulties in the future, and then this Bill would have to be amended. He appealed to the Chief Secretary to consider this important point seriously, and to see whether a change in the proposal could not be made whereby landlords and tenants would be left perfectly free. He could understand the proposal to fix the limit if this were a compulsory Bill, but under a perfectly voluntary Bill landlords who were willing to give more than 30 per cent. reductions to tenants should be free to make that arrangement.
  Motion made, and Question "That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  Put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY [11TH JUNE].
  Resolution reported.
  CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATS, 1903–4.

    CLASS II.
    "That a sum, not exceeding £136,907, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the salaries and expenses of the Local Government Board."
    Resolution agreed to.

  SUPPLY [8TH JUNE, EVENING SITTING].
  Resolutions reported.
  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  1, "That a sum, not exceeding £2,549,430, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the salaries and working expenses of the Post Office Telegraph Service."
  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

    CLASS IV.
    2. "That a sum, not exceeding £88,619, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the salaries and other expenses of the British Museum, and of the Natural History Museum, including certain grants in aid."
    3. "That a sum, not exceeding £7,027, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day
    1036
    of March, 1904, for the salaries and expenses of the National Gallery, and of the National Gallery of British Art, Millbank, including a grant in aid for the purchase of pictures."
    4. "That a sum, not exceeding £2,445, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the salaries and expenses of the National Portrait Gallery, including a grant in aid for the purchase of portraits."
    5. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,281, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for the salaries and expenses of the Wallace Collection (Hertford House)."
    6. "That a sum, not exceeding £23,780, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for sundry grants in aid of Scientific Investigation, etc., and other grants."
    7. "That a sum, not exceeding £77,100, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1904, for grants in aid of the expenses of certain Universities and Colleges in Great Britain, and of the expenses under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889."
    Resolutions agreed to.
    Adjourned at two minutes after Twelve o'clock.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that His Majesty had (by Commission) appointed the Earl Waldegrave Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, the Earl of Morley, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, the Earl de Montalt, and the Earl of Halsbury; and the Lord Ribblesdale Speaker of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, the Earl of Morley, the Earl of Cork and Orrery, the Earl de Montalt, the Earl of Halsbury, and the Earl Waldegrave: The said Commissions were read.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with: Naval Works Provisional Order; Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas); Middlesbrough Corporation; Lanarkshire and Dumbartonshire Railway; South Yorkshire Joint Railways; Wolverhampton and Cannock Chase Railway (Extension of Time); Great Northern, Piccadilly, and Brompton Railway (Various Powers); Midland Great Western Railway of Ireland; Great Western Railway; Woolwich Borough Council; Great Southern and Western Railway; Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway; Plymouth Corporation; Hainault Forest; London County Council (Money); Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway; North-Eastern Railway; Wood Green Urban District Council.
And the Certificates that no further Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills: Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 6); Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 8); Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11).
And also the Certificates that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have not been complied with: London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway; Stroud and District Tramways; Romford and District Tramways; Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway; Beckenham Urban District Council.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Manchester Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Supplemental Report from His Majesty's Attorney-General, received, and ordered to lie on the Table.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill: A petition of Mr. William Howard Gray, of 63, Queen Victoria Street, London, solicitor, praying for leave to present a petition of Messrs. Frederick Boyd Brown and Charles Wells, praying to be heard by counsel against the Bill, although the time limited by Standing Order No. 93 for presenting such petition has expired; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and Standing Order No. 93 to be considered to-morrow in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said petition.
Gas Light and Coke Company Bill; Great Eastern Railway Bill; Bournemouth Gas and Water Bill [H.L.]. Committee to meet on Thursday next.
Manchester Corporation Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Select Committee, that the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The orders made on 23rd March and 25th May last discharged, and Bill committed.
Market Drayton Gas Bill: Read 3a, and passed.
Chatham and District Light Railways Bill [H.L]: Read 3a; Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
Dover Corporation Bill; Merthyr Tydfil Urban District Council Bill;

835
Wigan Corporation Tramways Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Metropolitan District Railway (Various Powers) Bill; London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill; Beckenham Urban District Council Bill; Stroud and District Tramways Bill; Romford and District Tramways Bill; Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Bill. Examiner's Certificates of non-compliance with the Standing Orders referred to the Standing Orders Committee on Tuesday the 23rd instant.
Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Gas and Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; City and South London Railway Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; Great Central Railway Bill; London County Council (General Powers) Bill; Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill; New Hunstanton Improvement Bill; Lancashire and Yorkshire and London and North-Western Railways (Steam Vessels) Bill. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; (viz.)—
D. Wellington,
E. Malmesbury,
E. Belmore (chairman),
E. Powis
L. Manners;
agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Tuesday the 23rd instant, at eleven o'clock; and all petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the petitioners praying to be heard by counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also counsel for the Bills.
Manchester Southern Tramways (Lancashire) Bill [H.L.]; Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Wellington (Salop) Gas Bill [H.L.]; Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. To be read 2a to-morrow.—(The Lord Wolverton.)
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [H.L.]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No.) 2 Bill [H.L.]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. House to be in Committee to-morrow.
Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills. Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 72 and 82 be suspended for the remainder of the session.
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill. Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

PETITIONS.
  LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition against: of Messrs. Millar and Bryce; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of: of the National Chamber of Trade; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LOCAL TAXATION ACCOUNT (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1898.
  Return showing the postal payments into and out of the Local Taxation (Scotland) Account for the financial year 1902–1903.
  COLONIES (ANNUAL).
  No. 387. Gibraltar; Report for 1902.
  AUSTRALIAN MAIL SERVICE.
  Despatch to the Governor-General of Australia relating to the exclusive employment of white labour.

  EXPLOSIVES (EXPLOSIONS OF GUNPOWDER AT SEDGEWICK, NEAR KENDAL).
  Report to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department by Captain H. B. Lloyd, His Majesty's Inspector of Explosives, on the circumstances attending explosions

  837
  of gunpowder which occurred in the glazing and corning houses of the factory of the Sedgewick Gunpowder Company, Limited, at Sedgewick, near Kendal, Westmoreland, on the 30th of March, 1903.

  ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF IRELAND.
  Annual Report for the year 1902.
  DUBLIN HOSPITALS.
  Forty-fifth Report of the Board of Superintendence; with appendices, for the year 1902–1903.

  NAVY (BERTHING ACCOMMODATION).
  Report of the Committee appointed by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to consider the question of the berthing accommodation for His Majesty's ships in the dockyards and other waters, and also the moorings and material required.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACT, 1894 AND 1896.
  Fourteen orders relating to the landing of foreign animals in Great Britain. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  THE FISCAL POLICY OF THE COUNTRY.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN, in rising to call attention "to recent declarations of Members of His Majesty's Government on the subject of preferential tariffs, and to move for Papers," said: My Lords, I will offer no apology to your Lordships' House for introducing the question of which I have given notice. The House of Lords is not supposed to have much power with reference to financial subjects; but it strikes me that, as an Estate of the Realm, all that concerns, and vitally concerns, the commerce and trade and revenue of the country is of deep interest to your Lordships' House and is entitled to discussion at your hands. But, my Lords, I would offer an apology in this sense; the subject is so vast and goes so deeply into the roots of our prosperity and future financial soundness, that I feel myself oppressed by the vast materials which it may be necessary to traverse. I know it is impossible
  838
  in a single speech to deal with the great question, the great plan, which has been placed before us. Therefore, your Lordships will be indulgent, I am sure, if upon some parts I only touch the fringe, and endeavour merely to indicate the light in which the features of the plan strike me. I associate myself to the full with all those friends and opponents of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary who have seen that on his return from South Africa he had a real conviction of the great issues which he has placed before the country, and that, fresh from his Imperial mission in South Africa, which he performed with such distinguished and memorable success, it was natural for him, if he had conceived a plan by which that Empire for which he had worked so hard might be consolidated and expanded, to feel it was right that he should place it before the country.
  I do not propose to entertain your Lordships with any discussion, criticism, or comments upon Ministerial perplexities or Party divisions. All I would say in reference to those matters, at present, is that I would wish the noble Duke who leads us in this House to pronounce himself with as much frankness, with as little reticence, as has characterised some of his colleagues in the Ministry. I think we are entitled to such frankness at his hands. One further request I would make to the noble Duke; and that is that it should be made distinct and clear by him, to whom we look up with such respect, that those who differ upon one side or the other of the Party shall be as free to discuss and to urge their views as the other; that there shall be absolute fair play, and that those should not be considered as mutineers, or as disloyal, who cannot take the view which possibly—though I am not certain of it—the majority of the Ministry may entertain I can assure the noble Duke that there is no disloyalty whatever. I hear the word "mutineer" is being used. But that word does not apply to either section of the Party. They are equally free to discuss and urge upon the country the views which they take.
  I would wish, in one word, to explain the spirit in which I am anxious to approach the subject myself and to examine this great project. There is a large floating opinion in the country which has not made up its mind one

  839
  way or the other. A new generation has sprung up since the days of Cobden and Bright, who, I think I may say, are not acquainted with the old arguments of free trade. There are a large number of men who wish to be enlightened, not with reference to the formulas of the past, but with reference to the application of new economic doctrines to the phenomena of present and existing facts. If I may use the expression, there are a great many agnostics in economics. I wish myself, as a free trader, to look at this matter in such a way as may appeal to those on whom a mere reference to the creeds of the past would not make a sufficient impression. So I will make no reference whatever to what I may call the doctrines and creed of free trade; I will make no reference to Cobden or Bright; I will not speak of the immense prosperity which free trade has given us for the last fifty years, because I find that those are arguments which do not appeal to the very mass of opinion that I should like to see influenced—namely, those who are open to conviction by facts, but are not open to conviction by the repetition of the old formulas. But there must be reciprocity in this matter; and if the free traders—those who are against the plan which has been launched—do not appeal to the old doctrines or to their authorities—their infallible Popes—there must be on the other side no claim of infallibility for the modern doctrines. If the steady light of the well-known beacons by which we have steered, and steered successfully, during the past are to be ignored, at all events let us not be blinded by the dazzling brilliancy of the comet which has flashed across the fiscal sky.
  I will make but the briefest possible reference to the unhappy and mysterious subject of the corn duty. I advocated that tax. I held, and I hold now, that it would make an infinitesimal difference, if any, in the price of the food of the people. I think it increased the revenue of the country. It had, in happy and undisturbed obscurity, under Conservative and Liberal statesmen, yielded many millions; and Mr. Gladstone himself raked in millions which that tax gave, with innocent unconsiousness that it was a financial sin. I do not regret the repeal of the corn tax from the point of view
  840
  which has been put forward by Sir Michael Hicks Beach and others in the House of Commons. It was said that, as it stood, it was a constant temptation to the introduction of preferential tariffs. It was regarded as a stepping-stone to preferential tariffs. And whatever we may think of the new plan, at all events it is better that there should be a clear field, and that we should not have this policy brought before us as a clause in the Budget Bill imposing a shilling duty; but that it should be brought forward in such a distinct manner that the nation may be able to pronounce whether it is prepared to enter upon the fiscal revolution which is embodied in the plan now before the country. I maintain that there is a plan. I see that plan before my own eyes in sharp outline, and I may almost say in colossal proportions; and it is essential that we should distinguish clearly between the various matters which are included in that plan, some of which are interdependent and some of which stand alone. What is embodied in the plan is preferential tariffs to the colonies, with an imposition on the food of this country; preferential tariffs for the colonies, with the grand idea of increasing their prosperity, and, by bringing new corn-growing districts into cultivation and by making the colonies better customers of ours, to do for the colonies so much, in order that they may take more of our goods, resting upon the taxation of food.
  I think I have fairly stated the great dream which we would all wish to see realised—closer union with the colonies and the expansion of their prosperity by the extension of their corn-growing districts. That is the first object. Then there comes the second. Revenue is raised by the taxation of imports on food, and that revenue, in the plan as I may call it, is to be applied to old-age pensions. The third object is to secure the power of retaliating on hostile movements on the part of trusts or of trades fed by bounties or by such barriers of high tariffs as would tend to crush the industries of this country. These are the three avowed objects of the plan. But associating themselves with the champions of these three objects there are two other bodies to whom the dazzling prospect appeals. One is the agricultural interest, which hopes that by a tax on corn an impetus

  841
  may be given to that distressed industry. And another is made up of those who are concerned about the physique of the people, and who believe that by the taxation of corn the labourers may go back to the land, and thus we may receive a fine addition to the strongest and most physically fit portion of our population. These are the objects; and we have to examine them fairly to see what are the means by which these objects, so excellent in themselves, can be accomplished. But, my Lords, I would have you note that the key of the whole plan is that the boon I have mentioned rests upon a taxation of food. What has got to be settled is, in the first instance, how the taxation on food will act upon our population, and whether that condition is not too great a price to pay even for the great boon and benefits offered us by the plan. It is not only a question of taxation of corn and of the grain which is consumed in the fattening of the cattle, but of the taxation of meat—of mutton and of beef. Depend upon it, the humble bacon will follow in this train. All this food will have to be taxed. At what rate will the tariff stand? Will it be 1s. or 2s.? I think, as you look for the objects which are hoped for, you will see that the shilling duty will do extremely little for the plan; 1s. would not be enough to fertilise and to extend the wheat-growing area of Canada; 1s. would not be enough to protect agriculture; 1s. would not be enough to bring the labourer back to the land; and I would point this out to those who believe that in this scheme everything is to tend to the improvement of the physique of the people that it is an odd way of beginning, to tax their food, especially as you must operate, if effect is to be given to this object, by a far larger tax than that. The agricultural interest, I think, hope for 5s.; they do not come out into the open, but that is their hope. And I think the promoters of this scheme ought to face the question boldly and let us know as soon as may be, what rate of taxation on food will be necessary to carry out their plan. My Lords, I now approach the question of the colonial tariff. I may say that I have not a bad record in respect to the question of the colonies. Long before the present enthusiasm, which I rejoice to acknowledge, I was always one of those in the
  842
  Liberal Party in the old days who clung to the possession of the colonies. I always rejected the idea that we should be better without the colonies, and I have always taken a deep interest in them, and as much as anyone have desired to see consolidation with the colonies, and the ties between us and them drawn as closely as they can safely be drawn. My Lords, the proposal is that the colonies should decrease their tariff in favour of our goods and that we, on the other hand, should tax certain imports, thus establishing a mutual advantage. Now, I hope the colonies will see that what they ask of us is infinitely more than they are prepared to grant to us. What they grant to us will touch certain trades—certain special trades where the British manufacturer competes with the colonial manufacturer. But what they ask of us touches the whole of the population. There is surely there a very great difference.
  It is sometimes asked, What do we do for the colonies? At all events, we admit everything which they produce free, while they maintain a tariff against us. In some colonies there is hope of a reduction of their tariff in our favour; but, on the other hand, I also note that there are some who think that the object will be gained by keeping the tariff as against us, but increasing the tariff against the foreigner. I am bound to say that I think that will be a very poor boon to give in exchange to us who are asked to tax the food of the people. Mr. Seddon is rather impetuous. He has already held language to the effect that if we do not grant what is now asked—that is, a preference to their exports—they would see whether it is not necessary to make arrangements with foreign countries. That is not the way to tackle the public opinion of this country. The Canadian Ministers are beginning to consider whether they would not have to go back upon what they have given us. That is not very encouraging. What the colonies must see is this, that they are asking a very large thing. It is not merely a question of a trifling rebate of duty; it is a question that eats into the very vitals of the country. There is also the difficulty, as regards granting a preferential tariff, as to what other countries might do by way of reprisal, and what part the United States might take. I do

  843
  not propose to examine into this elaborately, but it is a matter which requires most careful examination. We may see our way to a conclusion that there are no dangers which for a great object—and the object is great—we ought not to be prepared to face. But, at any rate, let us note that there are these difficulties, and let them be examined. The whole question of commercial treaties and our relations with foreign countries must be carefully examined, and must form portion of that inquiry which the Government deem it to be desirable to make.
  Well, my Lords, I have spoken of the position in the colonies. I would add this further remark, which applies both to the colonies and to ourselves. It is a question how far it is wise to tie our hands, and to tie their hands in a manner which will affect both their treasuries and our treasury in ways that at present one cannot foresee. I will put this test. We make a commercial treaty with our daughters; Mr. Chamberlain asked why should we not make them with our daughters as well as with others. But there is this one risk about the particular arrangement now asked for, and that is it contemplates our putting a tax on food. Suppose we had made a bargain with our colonies, and suppose that before long dear bread should ensue, not from this protective duty only, but from other causes, such as short crops and other defects, may there not be a considerable popular feeling calling for the repeal of that tax? But however much that repeal may be asked for, however great the pressure put upon us, we are tied hand and foot, we have agreed with the colonies; and we should have to go to the colonies and ask them, perhaps after vested interests had grown up in consequence of the privilege we had granted, to tear up the arrangements which we had made, in order that we might free the people and admit all the imports of grain and food for which the country was so clamorously calling.
  I think it is admitted by the authors of the plan that the effect of a taxation on food would mean an increase in the cost of food, although there may be great differences of opinion as to the question of degree. But it is said there will be at the same time a great increase in wages. Well, now, let that be proved. That is the first question to which all those who
  844
  are engaged in this controversy ought to turn their attention. Will dearer food mean higher wages? Let no reference be made to text-books by some economist to show that high wages will follow dearer food. I want to examine the facts; I want to know by what economical process, and not by any spinning of a figment of the brain, by what actual process an increase of wages is to follow an increase in the price of food. It is said that in Germany dear food has been followed by high wages, and that in the United States high wages have followed upon the strong establishment of protection. No argument can be drawn from the example of America to show that what has happened in America would happen here. I want to know the process by which wages are going to be raised. And, another important question, I want to know whose wages are to be raised. Are all the wages in the country to be raised? Is a wave of prosperity to flow from protection? But they say, "We are not asking for protection, but only for retaliation in certain cases." I want to know how the rise in wages is to come about. Assuming, as I will not grant, that through a certain limited amount of fair trade or protection the wages in the manufacturing districts in the trades which are protected should be raised, what certainty or likelihood is there that the rise in wages would extend throughout the country? It may be said that it would extend to general prosperity; but do not let us get to generalities. Let us rather analyse it and look at the different classes affected. Take first the case of the vast body of men who are employed by the Government, by municipalities, and by public bodies. Are we to pay the dockyard hands higher wages? If so, the difference in the charge will have to come out of the taxation of food which has been pledged for old-age pensions. Then there is the Post Office. Are the wages of all Post Office employees, of all the railway men, to be raised? Who will take the responsibility of saying, "Let us put a tax on food and I will guarantee to you all that your wages shall be raised?" I say that is a tremendous responsibility, and one which I for one would be most reluctant to undertake.

  845
  What would become of the industries remaining unprotected? They would all have to pay an increase in the price of food without any compensating advantages, so far as I can see, such as the protected industries might gain. Then there is a class which generally inspires deep sympathy. I mean the lower middle class, the class of men who are as poor as or poorer than many of the working classes, and whose wages are kept down by competition. Is it seriously contended that their wages will be raised in consequence of a protective tariff being applied to certain industries in the country? I do not think that can be expected. There was a time when there was some hope for a free breakfast table; but under the present plan not only would there be no free breakfast table, but no free dinner table, no free tea table, and no free supper table. Every meal would have to be taxed, and those vast classes would gain nothing by the imposition of a tax on food followed by higher wages. If the wave of prosperity is to come at all, it would be years before it would reach this submerged class who are hovering on the brink of poverty, the class to whom a few shillings make a considerable difference in their annual expenditure. But another boon is promised which is to be paid out of the tax on food. The money is to go to old-age pensions. To that I would make the obvious objection that, if the hopes of the authors of this plan are to be fulfilled and the colonial wheat-growing area is to be immensely increased, the taxes will diminish every year, and the amount which is being set aside to pay for old-age pensions will be a diminishing quantity On the other hand, the liability for pensions once undertaken can never be stopped, and the country may be landed in a position which I know the Government do not desire, and which Mr. Chamberlain himself has repudiated, that without this taxation on food the country would still be saddled with old-age pensions. The liability is there. How is the money to be found? Every class who derived no benefit from the taxes on food would have to pay for old-age pensions, which at the time of their imposition would be considered as covered by the taxation
  846
  on food. My lords, I call that a gamble. It is a gamble with the food of the people; and I trust that the noble Duke will tell us that in that gamble he will not take a hand.
  I pass now to the third departure in this great controversy—namely, the question of what may really be called protection. I will not call it so, because it is denied by the authors of the scheme that there is any desire to bring about protection. I will call it "retaliatory duties." Well, my Lords, that branch of the subject is of special interest for the Prime Minister. Mr. Chamberlain seems to aim at the consolidation of the Empire, while Mr. Balfour's chief anxiety is the decline of exports and the difficulty of meeting trusts and that class of subjects which comes under the general head of retaliation. The Prime Minister is specially concerned in the condition of the people of this country. His object in having an inquiry is in order to see whether steps ought not to be taken to remedy or to meet the dangers which he foresees. Many people seem to see signs of incipient decay, and in the main they justify that view by the decline in our exports. I am not sure that there are symptoms of decay of so serious a nature as are pointed out. Let us look at several tests. My noble friend Lord Rosebery has pointed to the increased returns of Income Tax. Well, these are very satisfactory, and more especially are they satisfactory in that, although the tax is to-day levied on a narrower area, every penny of the tax to-day produces 10 per cent. more than it did ten years ago. It may be said that the Income Tax returns are no real criterion, that they only represent the incomes of certain classes. Let me point to another symptom, a very satisfactory symptom—namely, the deposits in savings banks. I have the figures extending over fifteen years. The deposits in savings banks, the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks, were in 1887 £101,000,000. In 1901 they were £187,000,000. Now these savings come from the pockets of the lower middle classes and the poorer classes, and do not represent in any way the savings of the rich. Then pauperism has declined in the last fifteen years 9 per cent., while

  847
  the population has increased 18 per cent. I give you these figures as a counterblast against the statement that there are symptoms of decay.
  We must make this distinction. In deducting coal from our exports as being capital we must not deduct the whole, but we must only deduct so much as represents the coal itself; for when foreign countries pay us for our coal they pay also for the wages of the men. It is said that our exports are declining. I was amused to find precisely the same arguments carried on to-day as were carried on in 1881. At that time the fair-traders and retaliators and all the various denominations who belonged to the class who predicted ruin to the country, said that we were eating up our capital, and that that had gone on for the last ten years. Well, if that was so, it has been going on now for thirty years. Nevertheless, even if it has, we do not suffer in our income, in the wages of the people, in the population, or in any other respect that I can see, except in a certain, not declining, but slackening of the increase of our exports. It is that slackening of the exports which has mainly attracted the attention of those who fear for our industries and our commerce. It is that, I think, which attracted the attention of the Prime Minister. But before we go to what that decline is to be attributed to, and whether or not it is to be attributed to the hostile barriers abroad, we have got to ask ourselves the question whether our exports have only diminished to the countries where there are high tariffs, or whether they have also diminished to those countries where there is fair trade all round, such, for instance, as China and Japan, and where we compete on equal terms with all the other nations. If it could be proved that the slackening of our exports was due simply to those countries that have raised high tariffs against us, some step in the proof which the fair traders desire would have been given. But if we find that the slackening of increase is in those countries where fair trade prevails, if Germany or France are beating us in China, then I say we must look to other causes besides protection for the further advance which Germany and the United States are making as compared with ourselves.
  848
  It was only about a year ago that the great question of the necessity of more technical education was agitated, when it was believed and asserted that it was through our less developed technical education that we were suffering in the markets of the world; and it would be a sad thing if, through any hasty judgment, through any hasty generalisations, you were now to go on a wrong tack, and to attribute to protective tariffs that falling off which might be due to a want of energy or a want of technical education, or other causes apart from free trade. This is of the essence of the question. I would point out that the Germans have got several advantages over us which cannot be reduced to paper. They are more economical in their methods, their expenditure on their staff is less, they are content with smaller profits; and it is some of those qualities of the Germans which have been found to make them such formidable competitors in many of the markets of the world. Let me admit a decline—I mean a slackening—in the increase of our exports; and now I come to the point of what is desirable in order to arrest it. There are some rather interesting points. The Prime Minister was thinking of retaliating on special occasions, but there are symptoms that more retaliation and more protection is distinctly contemplated. It is highly probable that the scheme which is before the country will, rightly or wrongly—possibly wrongly—attract a considerable number who believe that it means a beginning of the protection of their interests or manufactures. I am told that in Glasgow the workmen hail the new departure because it would mean protection for the industries of Glasgow.
  A very curious correspondence took place between my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary and Mr. Vince, which has been published in the papers. The right hon. Gentleman was asked with reference to protecting trades, and he said that he would not protect trades against legitimate competition, but against illegitimate competition; whereupon his correspondent asked him whether sweating on the Continent, the conducting of a business in insanitary quarters, would be illegitimate competition. The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said "Yes." If so, then

  849
  you get, not the germ, but the plant of protection, already grown to a considerable height. If the conditions under which production takes place abroad are to determine whether we are to put on or take off taxes on certain goods, that is getting nearer to protection, and those who are in favour of protection may congratulate themselves. Those who go into this business only as retaliators, or as fair traders only, will find that in the end they will be landed in protection with all its difficulties, with all its dangers, with all the competition of one industry with another, with all the clamour of this industry against that industry, with all that mischief which we know exists in Colonial Legislature, and with regard to which Colonial Governors will be able to give us some information.
  As regards retaliation, what is asked for, and no doubt it is very serious, is such powers as would enable the Government to take measures if some gigantic trust were crushing some industry of the country. I do not well see how that can be put into a mandate; but I believe if some extreme cases were to occur for which an absolutely heroic remedy was required the Government of the day, if they were strong enough, would take such measures as seemed indispensable to such an emergency. But, with a view to such an emergency, to recast our fiscal system seems to me inaugurating a new machinery for an emergency that may seldom, and perhaps never, occur. It is perfectly right of the Prime Minister to face the question; I honour the honesty with which he has spoken his mind on this subject, it shows how anxious he is to master these complicated problems, and to see what would be the best course to take to protect the country. He asked for retaliation. Now I would ask my noble friend in this connection whether he can produce correspondence with the German Government to show what has really taken place with regard to themselves and Canada. Here I am entirely with the Prime Minister, I would wish to have the commercial treaties examined. I wish to know precisely how we stand, and how far commercial treaties would support this or that object which is desired. I do not myself see my way to the review of all the commercial treaties at present. I would further wish to know the history of retaliation between
  850
  different countries—how the countries have fared who have carried on this war of tariffs, a phrase which has an ugly sound certainly in the minds of those who belong to the past. But let us have the experience of how they have fared who have conducted this retaliatory campaign. I should like further to ask the Government what is their view—because I am sure they have got no plan in this respect—how are you going to retaliate? If you desire to retaliate, are you going to fix upon a particular industry which is supposed to be threatened, and in order to protect that retaliate by acting on the same industry abroad? In many cases you would be quite unable to do that. You would have to tax some foreign export to this country of a different character from your own export which you wish to protect; in fact it would be a competition and a clamouring between all the various interests.
  There is no saying how deep a question of that kind goes. You retaliate in one direction and you make something dearer; those using that which is made dearer in this country clamour for similar treatment, or for the repeal of the particular injury which is being done their trade. You cannot protect one trade separately without protecting a number of others, you cannot protect one trade without injuring another. I say, therefore, that in this respect I wish an inquiry, not theoretical—I wish that it should be possible to place the facts before the country. I need not ask, I am sure, that in such an inquiry the utmost impartiality should prevail, and that we may count upon this, that the official organisations and the various Departments shall observe absolute neutrality and independence, and that no Departments are to collect statistics to serve any particular side, if there are sides taken in this matter. I shudder when I think of the electoral leaflets that will be spread over the country with regard to this plan on both sides. I would wish that the matter should be calmly discussed and taken out of the hands of the local agents, and that the local agents should have no instructions from headquarters as to the line it would be desirable to take. Let there be fair play all round in this respect. I have seen allusions to tables which might be prepared on hypothetical calculations and which would

  851
  prove to the working man that he would have to pay only so much more for food and that he would get so much more wages. Hypothetical calculations are very dangerous things with which to deal when you pledge yourselves to the masses of the country as to any particular policy which you intend to pursue. Let there be perfect fair play in this respect.
  I would make another appeal to the Government. The Prime Minister has told us that the plan would not come before the country for two or three years. His mind is unconvinced; and so, if his mind is unconvinced, I take it the Government as a whole is unconvinced. It is possibly conceivable, perhaps not very probable, that some catastrophe might happen which would precipitate a dissolution and would require this matter to be dealt with, one way or another, now instead of after the discussion which the Prime Minister thinks indispensable for the true eliciting of the opinions of the people. Well, then, I ask, and I think we almost have a right to demand, that, if there were such a dissolution, the mandate which is only to be asked for after conviction has been strengthened on a number of subjects, should not be made the mandate at the election before that inquiry has taken place, and before all the facts have been elicited. If it should take place, I for one have no hesitation in saying that I should think it the duty of all those who saw danger in this fiscal revolution to do their utmost to see that such a mandate should be refused. This discussion is to go on, and one thing I will ask his Majesty's Government which I am not in a position to ask except as one of the public. I would ask that the discussion may be so conducted, if possible, that, if the result should not be that we can assent to the views of the colonies, no rankling memories should be left behind from anything that is said on either side, by one political Party or the other here, or in their turn by the colonies.
  Impatience is natural. There may be impatience; but let there not be irritation. Let us hope, if we do not see eye to eye, and if the colonies realise that they cannot press us in this matter because it involves the taxation of food,
  852
  that no ill-feeling will be left behind, and that we can go forward on the road towards consolidating our Empire with equal confidence as in the past. The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary used some words of terrible eloquence pointing to many lost opportunities—and opportunities have been lost—and pointing on the other hand to the glory of a consolidated Empire. He said—
  "That unless the question of trade and commerce were settled satisfactorily he for one did not believe in the continuance of the union of the Empire."
  They are strong words, and he continued—
  "We have our chance, and it depends upon what we do now whether this great idea of consolidation is to find fruition, or whether we will for ever and ever dismiss this consideration and accept our fate as one of the dying Empires of the world."
  We are to accept our fate as one of the dying Empires of the world if we refuse to tax the food of the people! Is the doom of the Empire to be pronounced on every platform if the people refuse to see their food taxed? Is it fair to put the mandate before the people—"No preference, no Empire?" I think it is unjust to the people of this country, I think it is unjust to the people of the colonies. I think it is unjust to the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary himself, who has done so much and made such steady, and I hope permanent, progress in knitting the Empire together. That is his creed. Surely it is not to depend on commercial bargains with the colonies. Without commercial bargains the colonies have lavished their blood in South Africa, and without commercial bargains we have lavished our millions in the protection of our Empire, which includes the colonies, asking but little in return; and, under these circumstances, I am not to be told that if we cannot accept this plan we are to accept the fate of a dying Empire. The resources of statesmanship, I hope, are not exhausted. Before this idea was mooted many and many were the plans by which it was hoped the colonies might draw closer to us, and we retain our hold over the colonies. On that road the statesmen of both hemispheres must continue to work, undiscouraged if the result should be against the plan, undiscouraged by failure. Forward this Empire must go, not as a

  853
  dying Empire, but as a living Empire in the world, and our statesmen must endeavour to realise the fair dream of a cemented Empire without the nightmare of tampering with the people's food.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, the noble Viscount who has just sat down began by saying he did not think he need apologise for introducing this subject to the notice of the House. I am sure everyone of your Lordships will agree with him in that statement, for it would indeed have been strange if a subject of such universal interest to every inhabitant of this Empire should not receive discussion in your Lordships' House at the earliest possible date. Certainly no apology could have been needed from the noble Viscount himself in bringing forward the subject, for nobody could have introduced it with such authority as the noble Viscount, both from his experience of private business and from his experience in managing the fiscal affairs of the country; and I think your Lordships will agree that he subjected the question to a most searching and, at the same time, most judicial analysis, in a manner which probably could not have been approached by any other Member of your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, sitting as he does immediately behind Ministers, naturally devoted himself rather to the policy which has been brought before the country than to the other question of the singular manner in which that policy has been brought in. Perhaps I may be permitted, from this side of the House, to make one or two remarks on the latter subject. That policy, so far as we know it at present, is the policy of a single Minister. The noble Viscount stated in strong terms his conviction of the absolute honesty of purpose with which that policy had been brought in. I am quite willing to join with the noble Viscount in expressing that belief. I have not the least doubt that on this subject the mind of the Colonial Secretary is in a condition of genuine, even if somewhat excited, conviction, and in bringing it in the right hon. Gentleman has aroused in the minds of some of his colleagues a feeling of exceedingly strong opposition, while he has hypnotised others, including
  854
  the Prime Minister, into a condition of coma or suspended animation.
  We are told that this subject is one on which a difference of opinion may properly be held within the walls of the Cabinet, just as differences of opinion are held on many minor subjects. But what is the obvious difference? It is perfectly true that the Prime Minister holds, and has expressed, opinions on various subjects, such, for instance, as female suffrage, bimetallism, and Catholic education in Ireland, which are not those of the whole of his Party, but although the Prime Minister may have stated his opinion on these questions he has never made them the subject of propaganda. If you will allow me I will illustrate the matter by a hypothesis. Suppose that instead of becoming converted—if it is conversion—to the principles of fair trade and retaliation, the Colonial Secretary had instead become converted—perhaps I ought rather to say reconverted—to the principle of Home Rule for Ireland. It would have been possible for him no doubt to retain his position in the Ministry by stating that he did not consider the subject to be one now before the public, and after once expressing his opinion he could no doubt have gone on sitting as a colleague of noble Lords opposite. But if he had gone about the country instituting a Home Rule propaganda, would it have been possible for him to remain a member of a Unionist Government? And similarly one is inclined to ask: Is it possible for a fair trade Minister to remain a member of a free trade Government? But is this a free trade Government? If it is not a free trade Government but a fair trade Government, then, in turn, we ask the question: How is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer remains a member of a fair trade Government?
  We are told that all these differences are smoothed over by the fact that it is proposed to institute an inquiry into this question of preferential duties. I admit that the idea of an inquiry is exceedingly alluring and attractive. I am certainly one of those, and I know there are many in your Lordships' House, to whom any scheme would be welcome which would further consolidate the

  855
  Empire, and bring us into closer connection with the colonies, and if it were not that I am convinced that there is very considerable risk attaching to what is called an inquiry itself, as well as to the policy which that inquiry is intended to lead to, I for one would be most unwilling to express disapproval of the proposal to inquire into the subject. What is exactly meant by inquiry? So far as I know, inquiry can only take two forms, namely—a collection of statistics relating to our trade in all parts of the world, and the ascertaining of the opinions of our colonies on the questions involved. Anything else is not in the nature of an inquiry, but in the nature of a discussion, which is a totally different affair. Now, as regards statistics, I imagine that no person or body of persons is in a position to obtain statistics bearing on the question except His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Government, through the reports of their Consuls and Vice-consuls to the Commercial Department of the Foreign Office, can secure all obtainable information with regard to the trade of other countries. Through the Colonial Office they can obtain any knowledge they wish with regard to the trade of our colonies, and they can obtain similar information through the India Office with regard to India. If that is so, if all the statistics could have been obtained, would it not have been desirable to have obtained them, supposing they are not obtained, before the Colonial Secretary started off on the war-path?
  Again, as regards the views of the colonies, it seems to me that it is impossible to obtain any idea of those views unless you are prepared to set positive proposals before each colony in turn. Of course, it would be possible to obtain an expression of general assent from the colonies as a whole if you were prepared to announce a general scheme entirely in favour of the colonies, and entirely from that point of view disadvantageous to this country. I mean that if you go to the colonies and say we are prepared to grant a preference to them on food stuffs—and also, I think, you must necessarily say to some extent on raw materials, because I cannot understand how any scheme of this kind could be carried
  856
  through without a duty on timber and on wool—if you go to the colonies and say you are prepared to make these concessions, but, on the other hand, although you ask for a preference for your manufactured goods, you will not ask a preference which can in any way endanger the protected manufactures in the colonies themselves, and that, further, although you think as a matter of opinion that it would be a desirable and a pleasant thing if the colonies would contribute some larger proportion to the defence of the Empire, yet you have no idea of making any such question a bargain with them—if you go to them in that way I can well believe that you will receive a considerable measure of assent. But if, on the other hand, you are going as part of your inquiry to discover from each colony on what terms that particular colony will engage in a kind of preferential treaty with you, I think you are embarking on an exceedingly dangerous course. It must be a dangerous course to excite hopes in a colony, hopes which for all you know, because you have not yet taken the opinion of the country, may never be realised. I cannot conceive any course which is more likely to cause friction between us and the various Colonial Governments.
  There is one person who sees no need for inquiry, and that person, of course, is the Colonial Secretary himself. The Colonial Secretary's mind on this subject is not open; on the contrary, it is absolutely closed. Speaking in Birmingham on May 16th the right hon. Gentleman said,
  "My policy is to meet everything the Colonies do"
  —that is to say, in the way of preferential duties. He said—
  "Even if the price of food is raised, the rate of wages will certainly be raised in greater proportion. If we were able to bargain on equal terms, I believe that the duties now imposed on our produce would be generally reduced."
  And, he continued, as regarded old-age pensions—and this seems to me a very strong thing to say—he would not himself look at the matter—that is to say, the matter of increasing the price of the food of the people—unless he felt able to promise that a large scheme for the provision of such pensions for thrifty and

  857
  well-conducted persons would be assured by a revision of our system of import duties. There are other statements made by the right hon. Gentleman in another place, which are, if anything, stronger. I do not see much of the humble but earnest seeker after truth in those remarks. They are the utterances of a man who has finally made up his mind. The noble Viscount deprecated, as I think properly, recourse to mere authority and the introduction of famous names into this controversy. Well, Mr. Chamberlain invokes the shades of Cobden and Bright in support of his theory. He says—
  "I cannot believe that if Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright had been present among us now they would have hesitated to make a treaty of preference and reciprocity with our own children."
  I confess, when I read that, that my only feeling was one of astonishment that during the late war Mr. Chamberlain had not declared his conviction that if Mr. Bright had been here he would probably have raised a troop of yeomanry to be despatched to the front under the title of Bright's Horse. Mr. Cobden died in 1865, but Mr. Bright lived on till 1889, and Mr. Bright, therefore, not merely directed the original free trade controversy, but was in the thick of the fair trade and retaliatory controversy to which the noble Viscount alluded. What did Mr. Bright say then? He wrote, on this very question of protection—
  "Victoria may discover that industry has no greater enemy than protective or restrictive tariffs."
  And in the same letter he spoke fully of attempting to build up special interests before their time. In 1879 he wrote that—
  "The reciprocity notion is exactly adapted to catch the considerable class of simpletons who have memory and no logic."
  After that I confess, unless, of course, the Colonial Secretary is able to show that the circumstances of the Empire have entirely changed during the last twenty years, that it seems to me a strong order to invoke the name of Mr. Bright in support of this scheme. I can only arrive at this conclusion. The Secretary for the Colonies is, as I said, absolutely positive that his views are correct. If so, he must have some new data not accessible to the world, showing
  858
  that a new state of things has arisen, at any rate, one may say, since 1891, when this subject was last debated in your Lordships' House, on the motion of the noble Earl, Lord Dunraven, and when Lord Salisbury considered that the matter was not one of practical politics; and of course one must assume he has communicated those new facts to his colleagues sitting opposite. If so, I repeat my surprise that the Cabinet, before allowing this question to become a matter, as it must become, of somewhat heated controversy, did not publish those facts to the world; but if not, if Mr. Chamberlain has formed his decided opinion only on facts of common knowledge which are accessible to anybody who has the industry to read the Bluebooks, then it appears to me that he in his turn is repeating shibboleths, the only difference being that his are fair trade shibboleths, and those which we are told we cannot repeat are free trade shibboleths. Therefore I cannot see on what ground the statement is made that we should suspend our judgment, and not express our conviction of the danger involved in the proposal.
  The noble Viscount made an appeal to His Majesty's Government to preserve an absolute impartiality in the campaign which is about to be held in the country on this subject, and he pointed out that it was likely that literature of all kinds would be published. I wonder what form that literature is going to take when issued from Conservative organisations. Is it proposed either to issue no literature at all, or else to issue alternately leaflets describing the theories of Mr. Cobden and other leaflets containing the doctrines of the Fair Trade League? Is it proposed to send round reversible placards containing on one side the words, "Vote for Ritchie and Cheap Bread" and on the other side "Vote for Chamberlain and Reciprocity," because unless something of that kind is going to be done I do not see how the impartiality for which the noble Viscount asks is to be maintained. I suppose that in East Manchester and other places where people have no settled convictions, copies of both sets of literature and both kinds of placards will be distributed and displayed. The Prime Minister has stated that he has not been able so far

  859
  to form any conviction on this subject; but we have always been used to look to the noble Duke for a very candid judgment on any broad political issue, and I can hardly think he will consent to leave this House and the country in general in doubt as to his views on this subject. I should like to ask the noble Duke if he really believes from his experience—for, after all, the noble Duke has been in the very forefront of politics for more than thirty years—that it is possible to carry on the government of this country under such principles of Cabinet responsibility or irresponsibility as those to which we are now treated, and I would venture further to ask him if he considers that the position as a whole is in any way fair, either to the country or to our Colonial Empire.
  I only desire to say one or two words on the policy itself, on which the noble Viscount dwelt with such unequalled force and fulness. I have not the least idea of discussing the whole question of the merits of free trade, or what the average duties on food supplies would be likely to be, or the possibility of retaliation and the foreign complications which might follow. I merely desire to submit two instances of what might possibly occur if this policy were carried through. As regards old-age pensions, it has always been the belief of the Colonial Secretary that such pensions could only be given to those whom he has described as "thrifty and well conducted persons"—that is to say, those who could not be considered thrifty and well conducted would not obtain pensions. I hope I am not doing the right hon. Gentleman an injustice when I say that I believe that his opinion is that the test of thrift and good conduct would have to be the fact of subscribing to some friendly society. I yield to nobody in my admiration of the work of friendly societies, but I should be sorry to think that among the very poor there are not a great many highly deserving persons who are not subscribers to friendly societies. There are some who have never earned enough, to subscribe to friendly societies, and there are others who have met with misfortunes, whose health has broken down and who may be in the highest degree deserving but are not subscribers to friendly
  860
  societies. Well, all that class of persons could only lose by this proposal. The only prospect which is held out to the very poor is that of having to pay more for their food, without having, as far as I can see, any extra provision for their old age. But there is a much more serious consideration, and one which affects us and also our colonies. When a tax is placed upon foreign corn and foreign articles of food, one is bound to assume that the price either of corn, of meat, or whatever it may be, will rise at home. If it does not rise it is perfectly obvious that Mr. Chamberlain's great object would be defeated, because if foreign corn can still be sent at its present price at a profit, that is no reason why it should be displaced in favour of colonial produce.
  Assume that Mr. Chamberlain is right in believing that a gradual transfer will take place of production of food-stuffs from foreign countries to our colonies, that process must be a gradual one. All those great areas of possible supply of which we hear so much cannot spring into productiveness in a moment, and in the meantime you have an enhanced price of food at home. That, of course, encourages production at home. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have ever walked on the deserted quays of Galway and looked up at the empty warehouses there. Galway was said to have been ruined by free trade. I do not know that any tax on corn would revive Galway, but it would revive wheat growing in such counties as Lincolnshire and Essex. It would no doubt stimulate for a time the production of corn in those and other counties, but as years go on and our colonies begin to grow more and more corn and send it in much cheaper they will gradually begin to ruin the farmers of Essex and Lincolnshire, as those farmers have been now ruined by the United States. I live in a county where the cheese-making industry is an important one. Our principal rival is not a foreign country but a colony. I cannot say that I have ever noticed, in discussing the subject, that the eye of a farmer has particularly kindled with enthusiasm at the idea that his chief trade was being seriously competed with by colonial imports, and it seems to me that it is a great deal to ask of a class of

  861
  people, who are altogether untravelled and to a very considerable degree unread, that they should so enter into the meaning of Empire as to be prepared to view with absolute cheerfulness and content severe competition with their trade from distant parts of the Empire. It is my firm belief that when this scheme is carried through in its entirety and succeeds, which I am assuming for the purposes of this argument, having accustomed the people of this country to protection you will find them asking to be protected against the colonies. They will be inclined to ask: Why not? They will say: "Here are producers of manufactured articles in the colonies who have for years maintained duties against similar manufactured articles at home." A farmer may well ask: If a maker of manufactured articles in Australia who taxes British goods of the same kind may be regarded as a highsouled Imperialist, why am I, who ask for a small duty on colonial corn, to be regarded as a Little Englander?"
  The noble Duke the Leader of the House was present the other day at a meeting of the Iron and Steel Institute. In the course of his speech the noble Duke said, in a humorous vein, that he would be very glad to see the iron and steel industry here receive the same measure of protection which that industry had received in the United States. But he added that he knew it was hopeless, because if he asked for protection all other interests would ask for protection as well. I would ask the noble Duke whether the converse is not true, that when he has protected the British farmer in all his different branches, and those who are competed with by importations of foodstuffs, will not his shareholders then turn round and demand some measure of protection for the iron and steel industry? If that is so, what will you have done? You will have altered the entire fiscal system of this country from a free trade system to a protective system. That evidently would be a matter of regret even to those who follow the Colonial Secretary. The Colonial Secretary affirms that he is no protectionist, and that he does not say for a moment whether a protective system is right or wrong for this country. But one thing you will have done. You will have removed yourselves further from the possibility of a
  862
  real Zollverein, such as exists in America, than you are at the present moment. After all, the nominal object of all this is, as I understand, to draw us into closer union with the colonies, and if I am right in supposing that, in course of time, assuming this scheme to ran on the smoothest of wheels, the effects will be such as I have described, it surely is an exceedingly strong argument against embarking on the scheme at all. I have tried to show that certain risks attach to the mere act of what is called inquiring into this subject, and I have indicated at least one danger which seems to me by no means an incredible one if the policy is carried through. But, as a matter of fact, what we are in for is really not an inquiry so much as a campaign, thanks to the Colonial Secretary, and to the Colonial Secretary alone. The noble Viscount, in his very eloquent peroration, expressed a hope that this matter might be discussed with as little fervour as possible, and, at any rate, with complete absence of anything like acrimony. Well, I cannot honestly say that I think the part the Colonial Secretary has taken will tend to make that easier for anybody, and if in the course of the controversy severe things are said—and I quite agree with the noble Viscount that it would be very much better if this matter could be coolly discussed—it will be very largely due to the fact that this scheme has been introduced in a manner which I can only describe as involving a more wanton and reckless venture than any that has been plunged into by any statesman within the memory of noble Lords present.
  LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, like the noble Viscount who introduced this debate, I have been much surprised to see in the Press, and to hear in conversation, doubts so often expressed as to the wisdom of our free trade policy, and lugubrious apprehensions as to the present position and future prospects of our commerce and manufactures. No doubt competition is very severe, and if we are to hold our own, we must exert ourselves and throw away no opportunity. We must, for instance, do more in the study of modern languages and technical education. While, however, there is every reason for industry and exertion, there seems to me no ground for despondency, nor any

  863
  economic reason for changing the fiscal policy of the country. Our manufacturers are sometimes criticised for a want of energy and adaptiveness, but at any rate foreign manufacturers do not venture, if they can help it, to compete with ours without claiming protection. Now what is the present position? How does our commerce stand? The total of our exports and imports last year was the largest volume of commerce ever transacted by either our own or any other country in the history of the world. The policy of free trade must, indeed, it seems to me, stand or fall by general considerations. The problem is extremely complex; allowances must be made for increase of population, for new processes, for improvements in the steam engine, economies in manufacture and transport, and the figures are liable to many considerations from other points of view. Still, the statistics are remarkable, and they seem to me conclusive.
  Let us, then, see how the facts really stand. There has been an enormous increase in our trade, and the expansion coincided remarkably with the adoption of our free trade policy. For the first fifty years of the last century our trade showed but slow progress. After free trade it went up by leaps and bounds. In 1805 the value of our exports was, in round numbers, £40,000,000; in 1850 it was a little more than £60,000,000—anincrease of about £20,000,000 in fifty years. In 1900 they were £280,000,000, an increase in the next fifty years of no less than £200,000,000. Moreover, if we take the figures every five or ten years, the result comes out even more clearly. At the beginning of the century, as already mentioned, our exports were £40,000,000. The Corn Laws were abolished in 1846, at which time they were about £55,000,000. In 1850 they were about £60,000,000; in 1855, £89,000,000; in 1860, £130,000,000; in 1,865, £144,000,000; in 1870, £188,000,000; in 1880, £223,000,000; in 1,890, £263,000,000; and in 1900, £283,000,000.
  The great rise followed, therefore, very closely the free trade policy. But it is often said that other countries are making greater progress. Let us then compare our own figures with those of other countries.
  864
  I might well omit the United States, because the enormous tracts of virgin soil and the great immigration render any comparison quite misleading. Still, the increase in our total trade in the five years ending in 1900, the last for which we have complete figures, has rather exceeded that of the United States. In the case of the other great protective countries, the balance in our favour has been greater. In the five years the total trade of Russia rose about £12,000,000; that of France, £80,000,000; that of Germany, £150,000,000; that of the United Kingdom, £170,000,000! Moreover, the figures are the more remarkable if we bear in mind the great falling off in prices. For some purposes the weight would be a better criterion of trade than the value. It is not indeed possible to obtain such figures with any accuracy. Mr. Williamson has, however, calculated out for the Chamber of Shipping the total weight represented by the exports and imports, and his results may, I think, be taken as being approximately correct. He estimates the total weight of our exports and imports as having been for 1880, 53,000,000 tons; 1890, 75,000,000 tons; 1900, 102,500,000 tons. So that they have practically doubled in twenty years. Take another test—the total tonnage, steam and sailing, entered and cleared with cargoes or ballast, at ports in the United Kingdom. In 1860 the tonnage was 59,000,000; in 1880, 133,000,000; and in 1900, 209,000,000.
  Another test is to take the figures per head. The special exports for the last five years were: United Kingdom, £5 19s. 5d.; France, £3 15s.; Germany, £3 7s. 2d; United States, £2 18s. 4d. But then the question arises: Has the trade been profitable? Here also the figures seem conclusive. Six years ago, the assessment for Income Tax under Schedule D, that which comprises profits of trade, was £254,000,000, but last year it was £347,000,000, showing an increase of over £90,000,000 in six years. Or take the death duties, which Mr. Gladstone used to regard as perhaps the best criterion of prosperity. The value on which estate duty was paid was £219,000,000; in 1902 it was £276,000,000, showing an increase of over £57,000,000. Surely, then, we ought to see our way very clearly before

  865
  we tamper with a policy which has been so splendidly successful.
  It has been said that a rise in the price of food might be met by a rise in wages. That may be, but if so a rise in wages would necessitate a rise in prices, and a rise in prices would, of course, seriously cripple our manufactures in the competition of the world. A difference has, I see, been drawn between raw materials and food. It is understood that the Government would not, under any circumstances, consent to tax raw materials. But, in the long run, a tax on food would hamper our manufactures in the same way as a tax on raw materials. The word Protection is misleading. The fact is that a country can only protect one trade at the expense of the others. Germany, for instance, is held out to us as an example because she subsidises her shipping, gives bounties to sugar-growers, protection to farmers, to metals, to textile, and various other industries. But who pays? The unfortunate German manufacturer finds the food of his family and workpeople raised by the protection of agriculture; his children have to pay more for their sugar in consequence of the sugar bounties; his clothing, and that of those dependent on him, is dearer on account of the exclusion of foreign tissues; he has to pay more than he used for any manufactures or machinery he has to buy; and he is taxed to promote canals and to subsidise steamship companies. Last, but not least, he has to fight in the Reichstag, or there is no knowing what additional burdens might be imposed upon him. And, over and above all the other uncertainties of commerce, he never knows whether his own Government may not ruin him, either by subsidising some rival industry, or by depriving him of some special privilege.
  Our colonies have unfortunately adopted the policy of taxing the farmer and the grazier to bolster up manufactories which can only be made to pay at the expense of the agricultural interest. They sacrifice a guinea to make £1. We often hear complaints that we have only one-sided free trade, but free trade is good for a country whether other countries are wise enough to adopt it or not. Protectionist nations, in endeavouring to exclude foreign goods, tend
  866
  to exclude themselves from other markets. The favoured-nation clause is the real sheet anchor of our commerce. On that we must, and may fairly, insist both for ourselves and for our colonies. So far, however, is there any evidence that we are losing ground in other parts of the Empire? in India and the colonies? Not at all. In four years our imports into India have increased 10,000,000 tens of rupees; those of the whole of the rest of the world 5,600,000. Into New Zealand and Australia our imports have increased £8,000,000, against £6,000,000. If we compare our increase in Australia and New Zealand with that of a single country, even Germany, we find £8,000,000 against a German increase of £1,000,000. In fifteen years, with our colonies as a whole, the increase has been for the United Kingdom, £15,000,000; for Germany, £6,000,000; for France, £1,000,000. In fact, our competition in colonial markets is not so much with foreign manufacturers as with colonial producers. As Sir A. Bateman says in his admirable Memorandum that the figures—
  "Do not show any displacement of the export trade of the United Kingdom in the period in question (fifteen years to 1900) by any one of our three principal competitors."
  From a political point of view, however, the desire for closer relations between different parts of the Empire is important and satisfactory. Canada has shown her friendly feeling to the mother country by granting our trade a preference, and we greatly appreciate this evidence of goodwill. Moreover, I am very pleased to see that Canada has herself benefited by the reduction. Our trade has increased £3,000,000 with Canada, and the result to Canada has been that her people have got an increased supply of cheap goods, her agriculture has benefited, farmers are flocking in from the United States and settling up the far west. If she would pursue the same policy further she would, I feel sure, inaugurate a period of immense progress and prosperity. Her farmers would save in the price of clothing, implements, machinery, and, in fact, in all the manufactured articles they use, while they would get the same or even a better price for the produce of their land. A similar policy on the part of other colonies would be equally beneficial to them. But, unfortunately, the duties are

  867
  in many cases still so high that even with the reduction of 25 per cent. they are almost prohibitive. Now, if those on our goods are prohibitive, it does not help our trade to make those on foreign countries still higher. Before we can judge we must know, not only the difference between the duties on our goods and those of foreign producers, but also that between the duties on our goods and those of colonial producers.
  I regretted a statement attributed, I hope, and cannot but think, erroneously to Mr. Seddon that if we spurned the offer from New Zealand, she would make overtures to other countries. We have, I need not say, spurned no offer from New Zealand. We are not yet aware that any offer has been made, or, if so, what it is. But what have we done with reference to New Zealand? We have admitted her produce free, while she has taxed ours—not merely for revenue purposes, but in order to keep out our goods. We have, in fact, done all we could to encourage trade; until now her object has been to discourage it. If New Zealand will do as we have done, if she will take off protective duties imposed against our manufacturers, they will not, I feel sure, ask for any preference as against foreign producers. Australia also has a tariff specially designed—not only for revenue, but to discourage trade. We should certainly welcome a disposition on the part of the colonies to lower the barriers they have raised against trade, and to encourage instead of discouraging commerce with the mother country. It has been suggested that a tax should be put on foreign produce in all parts of the Empire whether with or without a corresponding Excise duty has not been stated, and that the proceeds should form an Imperial fund for the defence of the Empire. Some such fund is desirable, and, indeed, necessary, if the Empire is worth maintaining, for it is evident that one part of the Empire cannot permanently bear the whole burden of the Army and Navy. It seems to me, however, impossible that we can be expected to commit ourselves to any vague resolutions. For my own part, I am prepared to examine any proposals which would tend to develop
  868
  our commerce with the colonies, and to strengthen the bonds which unite the various parts of the Empire But till we know what the proposals are, we shall, I submit, be wise to suspend our judgment. The difficulties are great—they may be insuperable; but while the colonies may feel sure that we shall consider their suggestions in a friendly and sympathetic spirit, still as men of business they cannot expect us to do anything which will cripple or endanger that magnificent commerce, on which the comfort and prosperity of our people so greatly depends.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, whether your Lordships agree or disagree with the speech in which the noble Viscount behind me introduced this subject, I do not think I shall be contradicted when I say that we, one and all, listened to it with feelings of sincere admiration. I doubt whether any speech which has been recently delivered in this House has more moved the audience which listened to it. And, my Lords, as far as what I conceive to be the operative part of that speech is concerned, I certainly do not desire to express disagreement from him; because I understood him to suggest to your Lordships that it was necessary that before we committed ourselves to any extensive departure from those free trade principles which have so long prevailed in this country, we should, with the utmost caution and with great fulness and impartiality, examine the subject with which we were about to deal. The noble Viscount asked that that examination should be thorough, fearless and impartial. He stipulated, above all things, that, so far as the Government Departments were concerned the inquiry should be conducted without anything which could be regarded as a lead from any of His Majesty's Ministers. I am gladly able to give him that assurance, and I am able to say with confidence that if we collect statistics or arguments it will be with the desire which possesses him of arriving at the truth and not with the desire of making good any particular thesis or theory.

  869
  My Lords, the noble Lord who followed the noble Viscount objected, as I understood him, altogether to any inquiry as likely to lead to inconvenient results; and he claimed, as an advocate of a similar view, the Colonial Secretary himself, who, he said, had propounded the plan without waiting for that investigation which some of us consider so necessary. He is mistaken in that view, because I find that throughout the speeches which Mr. Chamberlain has delivered he has constantly suggested that this was a question for discussion and examination; in one of the latest of them he used these words—
  "Everybody knows that a plan is absolutely impossible until we know a great deal of matters into which we have still to inquire."
  That is a position which I for one am entirely willing to accept.
  The noble Lord found fault with us because some of us have made no secret of the fact that we approach this investigation with widely divergent opinions as to the results which it is likely to produce. I do not suppose the noble Lord will complain of us for having in our minds different opinions on a subject so intricate. I gather that his complaint is rather that we have made it public to the country that those differences exist. Now, my Lords, I submit to your Lordships that we are not censurable for having allowed these divergencies of opinion to become apparent. We have not proposed any measure to the country. The noble Viscount spoke constantly of the plan and the scheme; but, my Lords, that plan is not one to which any Member of His Majesty's Government is irrevocally committed. It is a plan which has been put forward as a basis for discussion.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The Colonial Secretary spoke continually of "his policy."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: His policy which he puts forward as a basis for free and open discussion—"the discussion to which we invite the House and the country"—those are the Colonial Secretary's words—"the suggestions which I put forward." Well, my Lords, I shall not waste time in describing the magnitude of the questions which
  870
  we are invited to discuss. They are questions of a most momentous character. They affect not only the finances of this country, not only our financial relations with the colonies, but our financial relations with the whole civilised world; and if they affect our fiscal relations they affect our political relations also. And, my Lords, surely it is not necessary for me to say that we should never have launched this question upon the area of public discussion if there had not been circumstances which seemed to us to make inevitable that such a discussion should take place. Let me say one word with regard to one or two of those circumstances. In the first place, your Lordships will recollect that in 1897, and at the beginning of last year, there took place in this country those important conferences at which the representatives of the great colonies were present. Now, both in 1897 and last year this question of colonial preference was put in the very forefront of the schemes which were before the conferences for discussion. Let me read to your Lordships the resolutions of the conference of last year:—
  "That this conference recognises that the principle of preferential trade between the United Kingdom and His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas would stimulate and facilitate mutual commercial intercourse, and would, by promoting the development of the resources and industries of the several parts, strengthen the Empire."
  "That with a view, however, of promoting the increase of trade within the Empire it is desirable that those colonies which have not already adopted such a policy should, as far as their circumstances permit, give substantial preferential treatment to the products and manufactures of the United Kingdom."
  Then there proceeded from each colony a statement of the extent of the preference which might be expected. Do not suppose, my Lords, that these discussions at the Colonial Conference can be treated as discussions at some unimportant debating society. These distinguished colonial statesmen came here for the purpose of doing business; and it is impossible for us, having those Resolutions before us, lightly to brush them on one side, and to refuse to examine the conclusions to which they point.
  In the case of one colony in particular—Canada—the question has assumed a particularly urgent character. Your Lordships may remember that in 1897

  871
  the Canadian Government offered a preferential tariff to any country which would admit colonial imports on certain terms fulfilling certain conditions of reciprocity. That offer was particularly designed to give advantage to the commerce of this country; but there was an obstacle in the way of our accepting the Canadian offer, for this reason, that the commercial treaty of 1865, which was then in force, bound the colonies to admit imports from other countries upon terms not less advantageous than those offered to the imports of the mother country. The Canadian Government desired to be relieved from that obligation, and accordingly the then Government, of which the noble Viscount was a member, denounced the commercial treaty of 1865, and it expired in July, 1898. That obstacle having been got out of the way, the Canadian Government proceeded to offer to this country alone a preferential tariff, giving to British imports an advantage of 33⅓ per cent., and that offer was, I need not say, accepted. I should I say that to the imports of other countries the Canadian Government continued the former tariff arrangements, all foreign imports being admitted on a single and impartial tariff.
  Now observe what happened. The commercial treaty of 1865 having been got rid of, negotiations commenced between this country and Germany for a new commercial treaty, and an arrangement was eventually authorised by the German Federal Council giving to this country and to the British colonies the most-favoured-nation treatment, Canada alone being excepted from such terms. As was to be expected, the Canadian Government protested against this, and we supported that protest by the best arguments we could produce. We pointed out that no privileges were taken away from Germany, and that her imports into Canada remained on the same footing as the imports of all other foreign Powers; but our protests did not prevail; and the result was that after waiting five years—that is to say, in the spring of the present year—the Canadian Government placed a surtax on imports from Germany. That surtax has led to a considerable amount of discussion and to correspondence which is still in progress; the course of which we have been given
  872
  to understand, first, that Canada is liable to find herself subject to further differential treatment by the German Government, and not only that, but that if, as probably would be the case, other British colonies should follow the example of Canada and give a preference to British imports, then this country, the mother country, in spite of the fact that we open our ports widely to German imports—this country will probably not be allowed to continue in the receipt of the most-favoured-nation terms. This intimation seems to us to create a very serious situation.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Will my noble friend be able to lay despatches on the Table with reference to this matter?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Papers were laid at the time when the treaty was denounced, and I shall probably be able to lay further Papers, but I cannot give an undertaking as to Papers relating to matters still under discussion between the two Governments. Well, my Lords, that is the situation with which we are face to face. A British colony has been made to suffer for the preference given to the mother country, and the mother country has had it intimated to her, and not obscurely, that she will be denied the most-favoured-nation treatment if other British colonies do the same thing. I am anxious for the House to understand that we do not for a moment dispute the right of Germany to resort to measures of this kind; but what are we to do? Are we to tell the Canadian Government frankly that we are unable to help them? Are we to tell the Canadian Government that they have got into trouble owing to their desire to deal liberally with our commerce, and therefore we invite them to take back the preference they gave us in 1898? Neither of these courses would be a course which any Colonial Minister would find it very agreeable to take; and surely we are not unreasonable when, in view of the situation I have endeavoured to describe, we propose that the whole of this question of the possibility of making special arrangements for national trade as between the mother country and the

  873
  colonies—that the whole of that important question should be thoroughly considered de novo. If we had refused to give that amount of consideration to the requirements of the colonies, I think we should have displayed to the world an amount of indifference to Canadian interests and to Canadian sentiment which I do not believe is felt by any Member of this House.
  So much as to the colonial case. But there is another matter which greatly affects the issue before us. The form which protection takes has sensibly altered during recent years. Foreign countries no longer restrict their activity to the protection of their own market. They give a kind of protection which assumes an offensive shape, and which leads to the invasion of the markets of other countries by the highly protected produce of the countries to which I have referred. Sheltered by constantly increasing tariffs, there have grown up in several parts of Europe huge trade combinations or trusts, which not only monopolise the home market of their own country, but which the production of vast quantities of goods which the home market is unable to absorb, and which are sold at very low rates, in some cases below the cost price, in the markets of other countries. These transactions are only rendered possible by large bounties, given sometimes by the Government itself, sometimes by trading associations; but whether by associations or by the Government it does not matter, so far as the result is concerned. No industry can stand up against competition carried on in these conditions. Let me read a short extract from a work lately published by a well known Continental writer on trusts, Dr. Raffalovich—
  "Such action in regard to exportation is becoming more and more frequent. In Germany, for example, it is practised in every branch of the export trade. The following details show to what extent has been developed in that country the system of lowering the price of goods for export in order to keep up the price on the home market. The syndicate of rail manufacturers sells rails in Germany at 115 marks the ton and at 85 marks abroad; sheet iron is sold at 125 marks a ton in the home market, and at 100 marks a ton on the foreign market; the union of nail manufacturers sells its products at 250 marks a ton in Germany and at 140 marks a ton abroad.
  874
  The absurdity of the system in respect of the home market was very well shown last year during the period of the so-called 'coal famine,' when the price of pit coal in Germany rose to 18·50 marks the ton, while it was being at the same moment exported to Austria at 8·80 marks a ton. This system of throwing on the market goods at a price below the market price is evidently extremely troublesome and ruinous to the countries into which the goods are imported, for it seriously disturbs the national industry. From this point of view the activity displayed by the syndicates can be justly considered and branded as unfair competition. The danger of such proceedings, which it is impossible to hinder, has increased since syndicates in various countries have begun to make agreements among themselves; there are now in existence several score of such syndicates.… It seems to us that it would be particularly fitting that the question of this fatal activity should be examined from the international point of view, precisely at this moment when the period for the expiration of commercial treaties is approaching, and when we are face to face with the very serious question of their renewal."
  I know, my Lords, we are sometimes told that these huge importations of cheap commodities are blessings in disguise, and that we ought to be grateful for them. I do not profess to be an authority on fiscal matters, but I am bound to express, as a layman, my belief that a moderate trade carried on on a sound basis is in the end a much more profitable trade than one at one moment artificially inflated and the next contracted by this artificial interference.
  This question has often been discussed. I happened the other day to come upon a very eloquent description of the objections which may be raised to these imports of cheap bounty-fed goods by one who was a high authority upon political economy, and who was one of the most staunch free traders whom I ever came across—I mean the late Sir Louis Mallet. The argument was used that if we made difficulties in accepting these cheap bounty fed goods we might just as well refuse to accept them in the imaginary case where somebody might offer them to us as a present for nothing at all. This is how Sir Louis Mallet dealt with the argument. He said—
  "I will make another equally legitimate hypothesis—namely, that every country with which we trade made a present of the whole of their exports to us for a series of years. Juicy beefsteaks twice a day, doubtless, as your correspondent suggests, wheat, sugar, and other excellent things gratis, and a very pleasant

  875
  time generally for the consumer while it lasted. But how long would it last? And what then? And what should we find at the end? The industries of all countries dislocated, an immense destruction of fixed capital, our customers ruined, and, by the great stimulus to consumption with no corresponding production, the British consumer demoralised and pauperised—a state of things from which we should only recover by awaking gradually and painfully to a recognition of the truth that the only foundation of a healthy and permanent trade is mutually profitable exchange, and not the giving and receiving of alms."
  Those seem to me to be wise words. One result of the continued admission of the products of these syndicates and trade combinations, which are becoming more numerous and audacious with every year that passes, may be that the foreigner will begin by getting possession of the market, will crush out our industries, and when he has succeeded in crushing them out will then raise the price to his own profit.
  Now, in the case of one commodity, we have already taken a very important step, and, I think, a step in advance—I mean in the case of sugar. Your Lord ships will recollect the West Indian Commission, and the Report which that Commission gave of the effect that bounties have had upon the West Indian sugar trade, and next upon the sugar industry in this country. As the result of the inquiry of that Commission we took part in the Brussels Conference of last year; and although we had taken part in more than one similar conference or convention, we took part in this conference for the first time upon the understanding that our delegates were to be free to consent to the adoption of penal measures against sugar imported into this country under unfair conditions of production. Well, that was a long step in advance. Your Lordships will be asked before the end of the session to deal with a Bill as the result of our participation in the Brussels Conference. But sugar is not a solitary case of this kind of illegitimate competition; these combinations have extended to coal, to the manufacture of all sorts of iron goods, to spirits, chemicals, paper, and to a number of other industries besides. These combinations are the outcome of entirely modern developments, developments which I do not think were dreamt of
  876
  by those at whose feet we sat many years ago when we first studied these subjects. I do not think with those developments confronting us that we can afford to remain intrenched in the old positions, and to refuse to consider measures which might be necessary, which might be effectual, for the purpose of enabling us to meet the tremendous strain to which the commerce of our country is thus exposed.
  Having said that, I desire to admit fully that the burden of proof is with those who desire to alter our fiscal system in order to deal with these evils. I admit, for example, the immense difficulty of framing a fiscal system which might be applicable to the varying requirements of the whole of our colonies; I admit, as the noble Lord on the back bench contended just now, that this country has greatly prospered under free trade; and I admit that, by adhering to free trade, we have been able to avoid, as a Government, dealing with a number of extremely difficult problems concerning the interests of competing industries in this country, and concerning the possibly conflicting interests of the different colonies, problems which any Government is fortunate if it can leave to be dealt with locally instead of dealing with them themselves. All that I frankly admit. But I do think that the time has come when we must consider what kind of free trade it is that this country enjoys at the present moment. It is true that we are enjoying free trade in the sense of Unrestricted imports. But free trade, in my humble judgment, means a good deal more than that; and, although I do not for a moment dispute the account given by noble Lords to-night of the prosperous condition of the country, I do hear, occasionally, murmurs which indicate some misgiving as to the future, a feeling of uneasiness that other countries are making more rapid progress than we are, and that, in some markets at any rate, we are no longer competing with the foreigner as successfully as we were wont formerly. But, be that as it may, I do not think we should discuss these questions upon the asumption that commercial prosperity is the all in all of the

  877
  matter, I hear it said that the Empire is founded upon trade; so it is, I daresay. But, supposing that we do find ourselves face to face with a position in which, unless we are able to discover some means of drawing the colonies closer to ourselves, we should find them gradually drifting further and further away from us, is not that a contingency which it is worth making some sacrifice to avoid?
  I for one should not be deterred from examining these questions with an open mind, because I am told that the result of any changes which may be made may affect by a few thousand pounds the volume of our national trade. What we have to consider, it seems to me, is what is the sacrifice that we are asked to make; is it a sacrifice we can bear, and what are we going to get in return for the sacrifice? All those are matters which we cannot ascertain without full and careful investigation. It seems to me at any rate that these two problems emerge and require our attention. Can we or can we not do something to bring about a closer fiscal unity between ourselves and the colonies, and can we or can we not do something to protect the commerce of this country against the kind of illegitimate competition which I have described? It may be that we shall find it possible to work upon only one of these lines, and not upon both; it may be that we shall not be able to do much; but I do protest altogether against being invited to say without further examination that we are able to do nothing at all. If I spoke my own mind to the House, I should be inclined to say that we might, at all events in so far as the colonies are concerned, look forward to the careful scrutiny of our commercial treaties with the object if possible of finding some means of adapting them to the requirements of those colonies. And with regard to the question of retaliation, I cannot help hoping that just as we have hardened our hearts in the case of sugar, and have committed ourselves to steps for the purpose of preventing the invasion of this country by bounty-fed sugar, so we may find it possible to deal in a similar spirit with similar aggressions in respect of other kinds of industries and manufactures. I am strengthened in that belief because I have certainly during the last year or two detected signs that
  878
  other countries are by no means unprepared to discuss questions of this kind with us in a reasonable spirit.
  To my mind the present position, in which we are absolutely helpless, absolutely unable to defend ourselves, is almost intolerable. To me we seem to be in the position of a man who in some lawless country enters unarmed a room in which every one else carries a revolver in his pocket; the man without a revolver is not likely to be very considerately treated. If we take the opportunity of supplying ourselves with a revolver, and let it be seen by everybody that we have got one, and that it is a rather larger revolver than everybody else's, my own impression is that we shall find ourselves carefully let alone. I say, if I may pursue the analogy, that our revolver will be a much larger one than everybody else's, because our market is a much larger market than anybody else's, and the threat of closing any part of that market to foreign commodities is a threat which no foreign Power can afford to treat lightly. In that case it is perfectly conceivable that it would not be necessary for us to resort to actual measures of retaliation, and we should be able to comfort ourselves with the reflection that we had won a victory for free trade by the use of weapons stolen from the arsenal of our antagonists.
  I, at any rate, think it is our duty to regard in a tolerant spirit and with an open mind the proposals for dealing with these important questions. I, at any rate, can see nothing ignominious in the admission that such questions are capable of being dealt with in a great variety of detail; and I fail to see that there is anything unconstitutional or irregular or disrespectful to Parliament or to the public in asking that these questions should be thrown down for free and open discussion. We are, I am happy to say, to this extent, I think, agreed—that investigation is necessary. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked for it. Lord Rosebery, who is no longer in the House, and who delivered an eloquent speech on the subject last week, asked for investigation. The Colonial Secretary asks for investigation. The Prime Minister has expressed his desire for it. Well, my Lords, is it not our duty to enter into that investigation with an open mind and in the

  879
  calmest and most even spirit possible? Lord Rosebery told his audience that the inquiry which he desired ought, in his opinion, to be a secret inquiry, and that it should be conducted with calmness. A secret inquiry, in a case of this kind, seems to me to be absolutely out of the question. I do not think that you can consult your own great Departments or chambers of commerce, still less can I bring myself to believe that you can consult your colonies, without the fact being known. And I do think that, if you could conduct your inquiry in secret, and that you were able suddenly to produce the result before the public had had time to consider the matter, your proposals would probably stand a very poor chance of favourable consideration. As to the calmness of the inquiry, I can see no reason whatever why it should not be conducted in the calmest and most judicial spirit, and it is in such a calm and judicial spirit that it will I am sure be considered in your Lordships' House.
  *THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, I had hoped, when my noble friend rose to address the House, that we might have found that he was ranged upon the side of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sorry to find that this is not the case, and that he is deeply imbued with all the heresies, as I think them, of fair trade. The noble Marquess chiefly dwelt, as was no doubt natural on the part of the Foreign Secretary, upon the question of retaliation. He had but little to say in regard to the question of colonial preferences, although that appears to me to be in many respects the most important portion of the question. I will for a few moments deal with the latter part of the noble Marquess's speech in regard to his proposals with reference to retaliation. Those proposals are not new. The noble Marquess spoke as if the state of things which exists at the present time had arisen just now. I believe that that is an entirely erroneous view of the case, and that at all events it is not the view that has been taken by those who for the last twenty or thirty years have advocated the principles of fair trade. My noble friend the noble Duke opposite knows something about the principles of fair trade. If I am not mistaken, he, upon a memorable occasion,
  880
  annihilated and destroyed the principles of fair trade during one of his elections, and I hope we shall find he still adheres to the principles which then led him to an oratorical triumph. What is the point of the speech of the noble Marquess in regard to this part of the question? It is this, that there has grown up in foreign countries of late years a system of bounties which are found to be injurious to the trade and interests of this country. Well, my Lords, one of the first results of those bounties is that they send the goods of foreign countries, and to a great extent raw material, more cheaply to this country than would otherwise be the case. That we know is so in regard to sugar. When the Sugar Bill reaches this House, if it does reach it, we shall then have an opportunity of discussing that question very fully; but the sugar bounties are bounties mainly given by foreign Governments themselves. The bounties to which the noble Marquess has alluded are bounties given by great trade combinations. The two things rest upon a different basis. I confess that I believe those bounties do not produce mischief to our trade, but render the articles to which they are applied cheaper to us. They produce evil only to their own country.
  The noble Marquess says that those bounties may be very well now, but that when they have led to the result that we have been driven out of all the markets of the world, they will be withdrawn and the prices of foreign goods will be raised against us. I should like to know whether the noble Marquess will give us any information as to the present volume of our trade. Has it decreased? Does it show signs of decay? I do not myself believe that it does. One of the first objects of your inquiry, when you have instituted it, must be to find out what is the actual position of our trade at the present time, and how it stands in comparison with our trade in the past. That it is of enormous volume, that it is the greatest trade in the world, no one will dispute. It has been growing for the last fifty years under the fostering influence of free trade, and you now tell us at the end of those fifty years that it is in such a condition that it is threatened with decay. But what we have a right to ask is that you should prove your allegation, and that you should not make it merely

  881
  upon unsupported evidence. It seems to me, I confess, that this investigation which the noble Marquess says he would like undertaken, I suppose by His Majesty's Government, ought to have been undertaken before the announcement was made by the Colonial Secretary. The noble Marquess has not told us how he is going to conduct his investigation. Is it to be by Royal Commission? I think he did not like the idea of an inquiry by Parliament. Is it, then, to be an inquiry by the Government conducted through the channels of Government Departments? If so, it is an inquiry of a kind that has often been made before, in order that the Government of the day might decide their policy; and such an investigation I venture to submit, in accordance with common sense and with precedent, ought to have been conducted thoroughly and completely by His Majesty's Government before any member of the Government gave expression to opinions of the nature of those with which the Colonial Secretary has recently startled the world.
  The noble Marquess, to my infinite astonishment, says that Mr. Chamberlain has no plan. Why, we have had the plan in the fullest details. It is a plan to make food dear; it is a plan to return to protection by a process of retaliation; it is a plan of which everybody understands the meaning, and of which I venture to believe the majority in this country dreads the result. How can the noble Marquess argue that Mr. Chamberlain has no plan? I am sure Mr. Chamberlain would not say so himself. He spoke of "his policy." What is his policy but his plan, and his plan is of a nature so remarkable, so utterly inconsistent with the fiscal principles which have been followed in this country for the last fifty years and which has given us half a century of great industrial and commercial prosperity, that it does naturally startle all those who have heard it, and they have a right to say that it ought not to have been promulgated by a Minister of the Crown without a general concurrence of his colleagues. We know that the Chancellor of the Exchequer absolutely dissents from this plan, that he will have nothing to do with it, and that he adheres to the established fiscal
  882
  policy of the country. There have, I know, been cases in which Ministers have differed in the same Cabinet upon minor questions, and in some cases they have differed upon questions of great magnitude; but this is, of all questions, the one upon which Ministers of the Crown ought to make up their minds and to speak with united voice, because it goes to the very root of our commercial and industrial prosperity. This question is one which touches every man who is engaged in trade or in commerce, and it is impossible to conceive how a Government can be constitutionally carried on with such deep differences dividing its members. Of course, the Cabinet may differ and keep their differences to themselves for a time, but here you have declared views upon a question which to a commercial country like ours is one of the most vital importance.
  The public journals tell us that the Secretary of State for the Colonies is not going to speak any more on this subject in Parliament. They also tell us that he is not to go about the country making speeches until the prorogation. But is he then to go about the country making speeches? Is this investigation, of which we hear so much and upon which so much depends, to be conducted by speeches from a master of the art of speaking on the one hand defending his policy, and by speeches by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the next day condemning and criticising it? That is a state of things which cannot go on, which cannot be allowed to continue. The danger of prolonging this state of uncertainty is very great indeed. This question affects industry and commerce, and affects them in every respect, and the more these disputes are carried on in the face of the country, the more they will unsettle your trade and hamper your industries. Are you going to tie up this question for two or three years after you have discussed it in this way, and then hand it over to a General Election. What will your colonies say? The discussion of this question under the terms in which that discussion will take place will be sure to lead to great dissatisfaction in the colonies. This is a question on which men are divided. There are the strongest opinions on the one side, and there seem to be the strongest opinions on the other side. Is this question to be thrown before

  883
  the public for discussion for two or three years in the face of your colonies, who ask you to take a particular course? I can conceive no mode of proceeding more calculated to injure British trade itself, and to injure our relations with the colonies than that which it appears His Majesty's Government contemplate pursuing.
  What is it that the Colonial Secretary does propose in regard to the colonial part of the question? It is this. He proposes to place a tax, and it must be a considerable tax, or it will not have the effect he desires, upon the food of the people. He does not at present contemplate a tax on raw material. But if you are to deal with your colonies in this matter upon a footing of equality, if you are to benefit the corn of Canada by a tax on foreign corn, you must benefit the wool of Australia by a tax on foreign wool; and that to me, living as I do in a woollen country, is a matter of serious importance indeed. Upon all the bases upon which it is desirable to rest the unity of this Empire, the worst is a tax on the food of the people. There is no basis so dangerous, nothing so likely to produce serious difficulty with the colonies—aye, and possibly to threaten disruption—as the placing of the interests of the great mass of the people in contradiction to the supposed interests of the colonies. If the proposals of the Colonial Secretary were to be accepted—as I earnestly trust they will not be accepted—by the people, and by the Parliament of this country, in a short time they would begin to tell. Dear bread and dear meat would tell their own story, and the great mass of the people of this country, suffering in their food, would undoubtedly turn round and raise a great cry against the policy which had inflicted evils of that kind upon them. The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, pointed to that, and said—
  "But you will not be able to alter it. You will be bound by agreements or treaties with your colonies, and, however evil the system may turn out to be, you will not be able to change it."
  If that is absolutely so, then the result is that the people of the United Kingdom will have lost the control of their own taxation—they will not be able to deal with the taxation of their own country in the mode in which they think best. But there is a greater danger even than that, and it is that in a matter so vital to the
  884
  interests of the very poorest, the time may come when they will not be restrained by those considerations to which the noble Viscount alluded, and when they will desire to tear your treaties to pieces, and, if the colonies will not agree to it, will proceed without listening to their views. That is the most threatening position in which we could possibly be placed so far as the unity of our Empire is concerned. And yet that is a position to which we may easily be brought if we take a wrong step in this matter. The noble Viscount said that if you take a wrong step you cannot withdraw it, but it must further be considered that you may be forced, in these democratic times, to withdraw it, and that if you do withdraw it you run the greatest risk of the disruption of the Empire. I have always felt, in the course of these discussions, that it was very unfortunate that the term "Zollverein" was applied to Mr. Chamberlain's proposals for preferential arrangements with the colonies. Preferential arrangements have nothing whatever to do with the real idea of a Zollverein. A Zollverein such as existed in Germany, whence comes the name, was an agreement of States among themselves by which there were no internal taxes, and by which equal and common taxes were placed upon the frontiers of all the States, the results being divided equitably. That may be the dream of the future. There is nothing inconsistent with sound principles in the adoption, if it be possible, of a Zollverein of that kind within the British Empire. But that is not the proposal we have before us.
  What we have before us now has really nothing to do with a Zollverein. It is a proposal to make special preferential arrangements with our colonies, and the arrangements cannot be made except in regard to food and raw materials. There is nothing else that they send us largely, and it is upon those two matters, the very last matters which ought to be made questions of taxation, that your preferential arrangements must necessarily and inevitably be made. There is really nothing new in these proposals. They are the old proposals of the Fair Trade League. They have been before the public now for a great many years, and it was not supposed that they were likely to receive any support from a responsible Minister in this country. However, it seems that

  885
  they are to be furbished up again, and, with the help of Sir Howard Vincent and others, the Colonial Secretary is to go through the country advocating the adoption of the arrangement. They have been shown to be threatening in the highest degree to our trade and commerce, because they will not only affect the industries connected with food and raw material, but will ultimately affect every single industry in the country, for, if you cut off your imports from abroad you diminish your exports, and hamper and disorganise your trade. Therefore I sincerely hope that this House and the country will not commit themselves in any way to these proposals. We are told that they are to be matter for inquiry, and that that inquiry is to be fair, but we are not told when and how it is to be made. We are left in a position of having one of the most powerful members of the Cabinet committed to proposals of a most definite and clear kind. It is impossible to deny that the proposals laid down in Mr. Chamberlain's speeches have been definite and clear. It is difficult for Mr. Chamberlain to speak without speaking clearly. He has spoken out without any doubt with regard to the proposals that he wishes to submit to the country, and anybody who has watched the course of that astute statesman will know very well that he will not give up that which he has once proposed, and will pursue his object to the end, in the hope, I suppose that he may catch some vote which will enable him to make this desperate experiment. I hope that day may not come; for I am confident, and I repeat it, that no scheme could have been devised more essentially dangerous to the maintenance of our union with the colonies than a scheme which by taxing the food of our people, and, as I believe, the raw material of our manufacturers, will inevitably raise questions between the mother country and the colonies fraught with the greatest danger.
  *THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I hope I may be permitted to address a few words to your Lordships on this subject. I suppose no country in the world is so interested as Ireland when the question of protection is mentioned,
  886
  because it is needless to say that Ireland, which is entirely a food producing country, would benefit greatly from protection. The political effect of this matter interests us very much in Ireland. Irishmen, as you are aware, are very fond of politics, and it seems to me, looking at the question from the political aspect, that the Radical Party have been provided with a new platform and with a policy. That policy is to try and make out as far as possible that there is division in the Party to which I have the honour to belong. The noble Viscount, who was himself a great Chancellor of the Exchequer, and whose speech we listened to to-night with the greatest admiration, stated that he hoped the Government would deal with this matter with frankness and distinctness. I must say that after listening to the noble Marquess, who spoke from the Government Benches, I did not gather that there was quite that distinctness which I should like to have heard on this matter. The noble Marquess stated that he was willing to collect statistics and go into arguments. I would much rather have heard the noble Marquess say what the Secretary of State for the Colonies said—that this was a matter for conference with the colonies. I had the honour of listening to the Colonial Secretary's speech, and I must say that, far from having it impressed on my mind that any new policy was being promulgated with regard to these duties, I left our gallery in the House of Commons with this feeling in my mind, that the whole matter was one for conference, for argument, and for research. As I have said, any question of protection must have great interest for Ireland, which has suffered more than any part of the country from the policy of free trade. That nobody will deny. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he was interrupted by one of the Nationalist Members, drew attention to the fact that Irish Members were always complaining that free trade had ruined their country. From that you might infer that I should at once announce myself a violent protectionist, but I must remember this, that protection, if adopted in a very drastic measure, would affect us in Ireland as well as the working men of this country. To show how a little straw indicates in

  887
  which way the wind blows, you will remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year, when imposing the tax on corn, was urged by the Members from the country to which I belong to exempt Indian meal, which is largely eaten and used by the poor in the poorest districts of Ireland when the potato crop fails. Therefore we have the curious anomaly that protection would no doubt send up the price of beef and of other food that we produce in Ireland, and yet you have the Irish Members, when there is a little tax put on corn, urging that the tax on Indian meal should be taken off. For that reason I agree that the matter is one that should be duly inquired into, and not only inquired into by means of statistics and arguments, but by a conference with the colonies.
  I should like to draw attention to one or two remarks that fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Ripon. He said that the Secretary of State for the Colonies had a plan. I heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech and would remind the noble Marquess that Mr. Chamberlain denied having any plan whatever. He said it was a matter for argument, and he added that he proposed to place the whole matter before the country. The noble Marquess also said at the end of his speech that the Government would take a very wrong step if their policy resulted in dear food and dear bread. I do not imagine that anybody is going to take any step at all without those inquiries that are absolutely necessary, and therefore I hope that the Government will go even further than giving us statistics and adducing arguments, because we might go on arguing for ever. What we want is some definite conference on the subject with the colonies, as foreshadowed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and then we shall know where we are in the matter. My Lords, I have just come out of a conference which has not been without result, and I should like to see this great subject taken in hand by an Imperial conference. We in Ireland feel very interested in this question of protection, and therefore I hope that the subject will be properly gone into by a conference, not only with the colonies, but with men who are well versed in all these affairs.
  *LORD BRASSEY: My Lords, before going to the root of the matter under discussion, I desire to say that it is with sincere regret that I find myself not in accord with the able Minister under whom for five years I had the honour to serve. Mr. Chamberlain, in his recent speeches, has not attempted to formulate a plan. In general terms he has suggested a scheme for closer Imperial consolidation by more active and advantageous interchange of trade. We are to put duties on food and raw materials for the benefit of the colonies, and to look to the colonies for compensation by some material reduction in their duties on British manufactures. We have to consider whether such a scheme is practicable, and whether, in the interests of Imperial unity, it is necessary. Mr. Chamberlain, in his recent speeches, has suggested that the working people of this country may be compensated for increased cost of living by more constant employment and higher wages. This brings me to my personal experience as an Australian Governor. I deemed it my duty, while in Victoria, to discuss the question with leading Australian statesmen whenever opportunity offered, and more particularly with Sir George Turner, then Premier of the Colony and now Treasurer to the Government of the Commonwealth. The views of Sir George Turner were identical with those more recently expressed by his colleague, Mr. Kingston, if the mother country offered advantages Australia would endeavour to reciprocate. They could not take off duties on imports from the United Kingdom. They might increase the tariff on imports from foreign countries. We can appreciate the conditions with which Colonial Ministers have to deal. They depend to a large degree on Customs for the means of carrying on the Government. In Canada, with a revenue of nearly £10,000,000, no less than 57 per cent. is derived from this source. In the Australian colonies the revenue drawn from Customs is the principal item.
  Turning from the official view, in the colony of Victoria, as in Canada, the majority of the industrial population was strongly protectionist. I had many

  889
  opportunities of learning their views in conversation with Mr. Trenwith, then the leader of the Labour Party in the Legislature, and subsequently a member of the Victorian Ministry. The Labour Party has aimed at setting up manufacturing establishments in every branch for which the local conditions were favourable. Australia being a wool-growing country, the tariff on woollen goods was highly protectionist. The Victorian rate was 45 per cent. Under the Commonwealth it has been reduced to 25 per cent. Cotton goods which were imported free into Victoria, are charged 25 per cent. under the Commonwealth. Such articles as tea and coffee, on which a duty was formerly paid, are now admitted duty free. The fiscal policy of the Australian colonies has not changed in the interests of the mother country since the Government was established on a more democratic basis under the constitution of the Commonwealth. The indications thus far are not hopeful for the acceptance of proposals for extensive remission in Australia of the duties very lately imposed. While their tariff is protectionist, our Australian fellow-subjects are good customers to the mother country. It may almost be said that we have a monopoly—certainly a dominant share in the supply of every article in demand, which we are able to produce. In this regard our position could hardly be improved by any change in our fiscal policy. The change most to be wished is one which lies beyond the control of man—a steadier rainfall and a greater ability to carry population.
  At a time when proposals are being made for a Customs union of the whole Empire, it is appropriate to recall the recent experiences of the Australian Commonwealth. The conference of representatives of the several States, by whose labours a constitution for the Australian federation was framed, shrank from the yet more arduous task of adjusting a common tariff. They left the thorny problem to the Federal Parliament. That Parliament included many of the best men from all the federated States. It was animated by a strong desire that the first effort under a united Government should be successful. It found the difficulties almost insurmountable. It was hard to reconcile
  890
  the conflicting interests of Queensland, a sugar-growing and cattle raising province; of New South Wales, chiefly interested in the production of wool; of Victoria, with her manufacturing establishments, extensive vineyards, and important dairy industry; of South Australia, a wheat-growing province; and of Western Australia, now the chief producer of gold. Nearly a year was consumed in lengthy debates. The tariff difficulties in Australia are not encouraging for more comprehensive efforts. A round-table conference between the representatives of countries far more widely separated by distance and other conditions might tend rather to political disruption than to closer unity. In the enjoyment of unrestricted self-government in matters of trade, every part of the Empire has flourished. Nor has there been the possibility of acrimonious disputation. Is it the part of the statesman to abandon the policy of mutual freedom and independence to which we have hitherto adhered?
  The fiscal policy of Canada does not differ from that of Australia. It was fully explained in the memorandum submitted by the Canadian delegates to the Colonial Conference last year. Reductions have been made, but in a prohibitory tariff. It remains, and is intended to remain, protectionist. The average rate on manufactures from the United Kingdom is still 24 per cent. The rates are lower on raw materials and machinery. In the supply of such articles we cannot compete with the United States. The changes introduced in favour of Great Britain increased our exports to Canada, The advance was inconsiderable, as compared with the increase in Canada's imports in the same period from the United States. There is room in Canada for a large increase of population. It is vain to hope for a proportionate increase in our exportation of manufactured goods from the United Kingdom. The policy of Canada is to give protection to local industries.
  The fiscal policy now proposed is attractive to some who think that we fail to keep pace with protectionist countries. A flying survey, in the light of the latest information, will not justify

  891
  despondency. Take our nearest neighbour. The growth in the value of British trade in the twenty-five years ending 1894, included in Mulhall's work on the industries and wealth of nations, was relatively three times as great as that of France. While the later statistics are more favourable to France, the condition to-day is unprogressive. Capital is leaving that country and seeking investment abroad, and chiefly in the United Kingdom. The progress of Germany has been greater than our own, but until a recent period Germany had been backward. As the Commission on the Depression of Trade pointed out, the Franco-German war had a great effect on commercial activity. The war indemnity gave large supplies of new capital to Germany, and it stimulated consumption and production. Its force seems spent, and now Germany is suffering from that over-production on which the Commission on Trade Depression specially insisted as the cause of the state of things in the United Kingdom, into which they had been directed to inquire. The latest Consular report gives a gloomy picture of many leading trades in Germany, and large numbers are without employment. We cannot make comparisons with the United States. We admire the energy and the skill which the American people have displayed. Large profits have been realised; a vast expansion has taken place. How far have the benefits been shared by the mass of the people? The report of Mr. Bell, British Commercial Agent in the United States, describes the anxieties of the situation. He says—
  "Within the last five years living expenses have increased more than in the previous twenty years.… When the reaction comes more will be heard of the questions of trusts and tariffs.… Financial authorities are advising caution."
  And now let us look at home. Lord Rosebery has recently quoted the statistics of our exports and imports for five years. If we look back some ten years an equal rate of progress has been maintained. We have advanced from an aggregate of £682,000,000 for 1893 to nearly £880,000,000 for 1902. Nor has our trade, as it is shown in the Income Tax returns, been conducted
  892
  unprofitably. In the opinion of the Commission to which I have already referred, profits are more widely distributed. All the indications point to an improving condition of the people. We have the vast increases in the deposits in the savings banks, the greater consumption of commodities, the remarkable statistics of the friendly societies, the spread of education, and some diminution of pauperism. When we take into view the many channels, not always nor everywhere as open as we could wish, through which our trade passes, that Government would be rash indeed which should venture in any part of the world to put obstacles in the way. The new fiscal policy has been recommended on the ground that the ties of material advantage are necessary to hold the British Empire. Is this the teaching of the latest history? Witness the improved relations between the United Kingdom and the United States, and their common action, lately taken in China and elsewhere. The McKinley tariff, intentionally prohibitory, has been no bar. The same bonds which link the two nations together bind us to our colonies in a yet closer union.
  When proposals are made by a powerful Minister in the responsible position of Secretary of State for the Colonies, and having for their aim an object which we all approve, they necessarily claim our most attentive consideration. In words used by Lord Salisbury, the matter is not one for vague sentiment. It is one for hard thinking, and the utmost effort that the strongest intellects of our time can give. It is not necessary to rush to conclusions. The condition of the country, as we know, is not unprosperous. It is easy to appreciate that higher prices in our markets should be desired by colonial producers, but it is difficult to see how they can give us compensation. Their policy is protectionist. Their powers of consumption, under any fiscal policy, of the articles we are able to supply are limited. Meanwhile, is there nothing to be done? We may be more liberal in giving Imperial aid to improve steamship services and the laying of cables; we may seize all opportunities of doing honour to the colonies; we may hold Colonial Conferences. No bond can be greater than

  893
  the services of a strong and a sympathetic Minister at the Colonial Office.
  *THE EARL OF JERSEY: My Lords, at this late hour when your Lordships naturally wish to hear the Leaders of the House my remarks will be very few. Like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I am unable to believe that a system of preferential tariffs could be beneficial to this country, or, in the long run, to Australia. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs referred to the threatening action of Germany, and stated that that country would put us upon the least-favoured-nation clause if we gave preference to our colonies. There is no doubt whatever that if the German authorities were to decide to act in that manner it would be so hostile to this country that we should be called upon to consider our position in regard to Germany altogether. The noble Marquess left out of consideration the question of the increase in the price of food in this country, and yet it is upon that that the Colonial Secretary based his policy. I allow that that is not his main object. It is only fair to say that his desire is to use that pivot in order to bring together the different parts of the Empire. Certainly to solidify the Empire is an object worthy of any statesman, but at the same time it is most essential that in endeavouring to draw outlying parts of the Empire together we should do nothing to weaken in any way the heart of the Empire itself. It is upon this question of the increase in the price of food that this matter will be mainly settled. The value of foreign imports into Australia and New Zealand is about £14,000,000 a year, and into Canada about £29,000,000. A part of that £29,000,000 must naturally be for goods which under all circumstances would come from the United States of America, and one cannot believe that it would be either wise or natural for Australasia to entirely cut off connection with other parts of the world. Therefore, we have only offered to us a portion of what I may call this extra trade, and in order to obtain this portion we are to be offered a lower tariff than foreign countries, but nothing like free imports. Surely we ought to pause well before we decide to adopt such a course. We do not blame the colonies. Their policy
  894
  is entirely one of protection; and what does a protected country desire? It does not desire the import of foreign goods; it will accept those goods for a time, until such time as their own manufactures can supersede them. When their own manufactures have been built up, then the door will be shut against foreign goods. Therefore, we are asked in this country to change our world-wide system of commerce, to impose a great tax upon our people, in order to get, perhaps, for a time a share of those millions to which I have referred. Though I am as anxious as any man to see the trade of the colonies develop, it does not seem to me that Great Britain would be justified in running such a risk. After all, in every country where you have a protective tariff the amount of protection will be a constant source of discussion. Therefore, what is given to-day may be reduced or taken away to-morrow; and where should we be if, after having altered our system with regard to other countries, we found that the doors of our colonies were shut against us, and where, also, should we be supposing parties in the colonies were to be divided on the question of whether or not they would give us a good rebate.
  There are other questions which affect free trade besides those of hostile tariffs. You may depend upon it that there is much in the complaints of our Consuls as regards the neglect of our manufacturers to meet the wishes of foreign customers, in the erluctance of workmen at home to make use of the labour-saving appliances which are in vogue in the United States and elsewhere, and in the action of trades unions which will not allow, even within the limit of reasonable hours, either the men or the machines they work, to be used to the full advantage. These are amongst the causes which have hindered the development of our trade, and unless they are altered we may be quite sure that British trade will run the risk of going back. I do not think that we shall get sufficient advantage by so altering the present fiscal arrangements as to add to the burdens of the people, and also to the cost of our manufactures; it would be a strange thing if in this country, whose foreign trade depends upon cheap production, we were to take a step which must inevitably add to the initial cost of manufacture. It would have been far better if we had

  895
  had the inquiry before the policy was foreshadowed. If this inquiry is to be one which is to be carried out upon public platforms and in heated speeches, we may feel quite sure that the great principle which lies, as I believe, at the root of the Colonial Secretary's policy will be dropped out, and we shall simply fall back into the discussion of whether we support free trade or protection. I am reminded of an anecdote of a curate who was having breakfast with his bishop. The bishop noticed that the curate was only toying with his egg. He said to him, "I think you have not a very good egg there," and the curate answered, "My Lord, parts of it are excellent." So the Imperial flavour is excellent, but the taste of protection disagreeable.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH): My Lords, I shall endeavour not to detain the House for many minutes. But it would, perhaps, be inappropriate if some one else from this bench besides the noble Marquess who has spoken, and the noble Duke the Leader of the House were not to express his views upon the important subjects which have been under discussion to-night. We have listened to many interesting speeches, and I, for one, am not disposed to complain of the tone or the spirit in which, at any rate, the great majority of them have been composed. Least of all will I complain of the tone and temper of the very able speech with which Lord Goschen introduced the discussion to-night. If he felt difficulty, how much more must I feel it, that it is not possible, in the course of a single speech, to take up and deal with all the wide range of subjects which might be held not to be inappropriate to the notice which appears on the Paper of your Lordships' House, covering, as it must do, many important points, not only of fiscal policy, but points of foreign policy and of colonial policy as well. I myself have no hesitation in saying that I adhere to the general principles which are understood to be comprised in the free trade policy of this country. But when I have said so much I am inclined to ask, What is free trade? I sometimes think that a definition is necessary in these days. I do not know whether the definition which I shall
  896
  attempt to give—it is not a new one—will satisfy noble Lords opposite, but it is good enough for me. It is that free trade is a free interchange of commodities at their natural price. When this policy became the adopted policy of the country, its universal adoption was prophesied. I venture to say that the circumstances in which we find ourselves to-day are not the same as the circumstances in which the country was placed half a century ago. At any rate, after half a century of the adoption of the policy of free trade by this country, we find ourselves in almost isolated adherence to its principles. But there can be no doubt of this, that our adherence to its principles has brought us great advantages. Not only through it do we get food as cheaply as possible, but we have the free entry of every sort of raw material for manufacture. If that fact stood alone, I certainly am not surprised that a very grave consideration should be demanded before anyone would be warranted in asking the country to give up those great advantages which I have indicated.
  But, my Lords, I am bound also in fairness to say that those who are dissatisfied with the present position of affairs can point to considerations which it seems to me are well worthy of examination and consideration, even by the most ardent advocates of the policy of free trade in the abstract. We have had built round us a wall of hostile tariffs, erected everywhere against our trade. On the other hand, we are able now, as one of the points of consideration, to refer to declarations of important colonial statesmen, and I myself desire to retain absolute freedom for this country to resist any attempt on the part of foreign countries to differentiate between us and our colonies in any matters of the free interchange of commodities between us. Under all these circumstances the Secretary of State for the Colonies has put forward certain suggestions. He has more or less definitely indicated the views which he holds. But, my Lords, I altogether demur to the confident assertions of some noble Lords opposite that he has put forward a definite plan to which he is going to adhere, under all considerations, or under all circumstances. He has avowedly put forward these suggestions for discussion, and he has himself

  897
  stated that his object is to have them discussed as calmly as possible. He has not committed himself, as I understand it, to a scheme any more than this, that he has made suggestions which he thinks will stand the test of examination and inquiry. It was said on high authority not many years ago that "Nowadays we are all Socialists." I think I may say that in these days we are all Colonial Federationists. Some began soon, some began later, but I do not think there are many in public life now in this country who are not avowedly desirous of doing all they can to unite by every possible bond, and to show every possible consideration to the great self-governing communities with which we are proud to be connected by ties of blood in every part of the world.
  I for one, at any rate, cannot forget the record of that colleague who puts forward these suggestions. I certainly do not undervalue the weight of his authority, or the obligations under which he has placed his colleagues and, in my opinion at any rate, the country at large. Nor shall I undervalue the unique experience which he possesses alike of the feeling of our colonies or of their relations to us, and their desire to draw those relationships closer. But I think I am entitled to say that some noble Lords who have spoken, and others who have taken part in discussion elsewhere, are inclined to press, to a most undue extent, the doctrine of what is called the collective responsibility of those who happen to be associated in the Government. I will admit our collective responsibility as frankly as anyone for our executive conduct, for the legislative measures which we propose to Parliament and for any policy which is formally announced upon Government authority, but I altogether demur to the doctrine apparently held by some that this collective responsibility is to include responsibility for every word and every line in every speech which is delivered by any of our colleagues. I venture to say that is extending it to such a degree as would add a new terror to public life, and one which we are not likely calmly to submit to. Nor do I admit, so far as I am myself concerned, that absolute uniformity of opinion is necessary, nor that we are all to think alike on every matter, whether those matters are for the
  898
  moment matters of practical issue and practical politics.
  I stand here and say that, so far as I know, there is no division amongst us as to anything which at this moment we are resolved to do, and I think I may fairly say to those who agree with me upon the general points I have laid down, and even those who disagree with me, that surely there is a case for examination and inquiry. I think those who object to this examination may well be asked, "Have you confidence in your case? If not, if you have no confidence in the principles to which you express adherence, then I for one can understand the reluctance to bring them to the test of careful examination and inquiry. But if you believe in your case, surely a fair and honest examination of the basis on which it stands, of the facts on which it must depend, must be a welcome course and one which in the end must strengthen the case in which you believe." It is upon that ground in the main that I am willing that the examination and inquiry to which we are committed should take place. But I feel bound to say that as matters now stand, and having regard to all the circumstances in which we find ourselves, I am not prepared to oppose inquiry into the principle upon which our fiscal system is founded. On the contrary, as I have said, I welcome the fullest inquiry, but I do lay down these conditions—that it is to be an examination of facts and circumstances by us as a Government, for our own information, and that we retain to the full our responsibility for any policy which we may hereafter propose to Parliament or to the country as the result of such information as we shall obtain. I will only add that, speaking for myself, as I am entitled to do, I feel bound to say that I have little or no expectation that the inquiry I indicate will show it to be either practical or desirable, in the interest of the nation, to reverse the principles upon which our fiscal policy has been based.
  *EARL SPENCER: My Lords, this interesting debate is now drawing to a close, and I feel it is my duty to address some remarks to your Lordships upon the great question that has been brought before us, and also upon the speeches which have been made. First of all I

  899
  would add my tribute to the eloquent and able speech of the noble Viscount who introduced this subject. There was nobody more competent than Lord Goschen to speak with authority on this great question, for there are few people who have held with greater distinction the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country. He has spoken with great force and ability; and I may add that it is remarkable that, of the three Chancellors of the Exchequer who have held office under the present Government, all take the view which the noble Viscount has taken to-night. I notice a remarkable thing in this debate. Your Lordships' House is not usually reckoned to be a very Liberal Assembly in politics. It is not considered to be full of noble Lords who advocate free trade. It is supposed that, as we are a House of landlords there are more Members of it who are in favour of protection than of free trade. And yet to-night we find that, of those who have spoken from both sides of the House, I think I can only name two who have spoken in the sense of protection. I deeply regret to think that my old political friend the Foreign Secretary may be classed among those; and I think another friend of mine who comes from a country which I know full well, Lord Mayo, may also be classed as belonging to the same doctrine. But except those two noble Lords there has not been a single Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken to-night, who has not professed himself a free trader.
  When we are discussing this question we cannot help referring to the repeal of the corn duty. What is the meaning of that? If we are to have preferential duties it is necessary to impose duties on importations from foreign countries, which do not now exist. Canada has made the first claim in this respect, and in order to deal with Canada you must have import duties on corn. How is it, then, that it has now been repealed? I cannot help, as a free trader, congratulating myself on the fact; for if those who advocate this new fiscal policy, so prominently put forward by the Colonial Secretary, had been in the majority in the Cabinet, they would not have thrown away this stepping-stone to preferential
  900
  tariffs, this method of giving to Canada the very thing she wanted. Depend upon it, a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush, and if those who advocated this policy had been in a majority in the Cabinet, I cannot help thinking that the tax on corn would have been continued and not repealed. I cannot for a moment believe, what some people say, that the duty has been repealed in order that at a date not yet named it may be put on in greater severity. There is another thing with regard to the corn duty which I think is worth considering in regard to other duties. This duty was put on as a fiscal and not as a protective duty. And yet now we are told on the highest authority, that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who put it on, that in some respects, especially on flour, it had been a protective duty. There is another matter which is also significant. It was not intended, and it was never expected, that the corn duty would increase the price of the poor man's bread. And yet now we hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself that that has been the case. People are apt to forget another matter, too, that, even if the price of bread has not been raised—there is evidence that it has been raised—if the duty had not been there they would have got their bread at a much cheaper rate. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No."] I say so deliberately; and I cannot for a moment believe that if you put a tax on an article the price of that article is not raised. I will not dwell more upon this point except to say that I think I may congratulate free traders that there are in another place apparently only twenty-eight members who absolutely and openly profess protection.
  We are told that we are to have an inquiry. What has taken place in regard to this matter? Within the last few years there have been no fewer than four conferences on this subject. There was the conference over which Lord Knutsford presided in 1887; two conferences presided over by the present Colonial Secretary, to whose ability I wish to give testimony, though I differ entirely from him on this point; and there was the conference at Ottawa, where my noble

  901
  friend who spoke but very lately, Lord Jersey, presided. And I cannot help congratulating this House that the grandson of one of the statesmen to whom we owe all the blessings of free trade should have spoken in this House to-night, and have advocated the principles which his great ancestor introduced first into Parliament. What did we learn from those conferences? First of all we learned, what we rejoiced in, that there is a great desire on the part of the colonies to come into closer connection and greater amity with the mother country. We all desire that. We next found that any arrangement with the colonies on a basis of free trade would be impossible. And the next point we found was that whatever arrangement we made the complications would be so enormous that it would be almost impossible to have a satisfactory basis for an agreement with the mother country for preferential treatment. These points are, I think, clearly established by the conferences that have taken place. I venture to think the difficulties between the colonies are so great, and the interests of the various colonies and the mother country are so great, that if we try to introduce a common Zollverein between them, instead of drawing the colonies into greater amity and concord we are much more likely to excite dissension and differences. If we consider for a moment how our colonies are placed, how different are the conditions — climatic, commercial and material—between the various colonies, and the enormous distance they are from the mother country and from each other, we shall not be surprised that there should be different desires and different policies with regard to fiscal matters in the various colonies.
  This country has very wisely allowed the colonies to have a perfectly free hand with regard to their fiscal relations. We certainly followed a wise policy in regard to that. But these difficulties seem to me to be so great that the effect on the colonies will be almost, I should say, disastrous. Even if at first we could come to some agreement, before this arrangement had been in existence many years I fear it would lead to discord and confusion rather than to an increase of amity with this country. I see my noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs is now in his place. When I referred to him just now I did not observe he was not there. I think
  902
  the speech of the noble Marquess opens up a very great consideration. The proposals that have been made by the Colonial Secretary point directly to preferential duties in favour of the colonies, coupled with old-age pensions; and he directly says that, in order to do this, he does not wish to impose taxation on anything but food. Now, if you are to have an increase of taxation, I cannot help thinking that the very worst tax that you can possibly introduce is that which taxes the food of the people. But that is the long and the short of the proposals of the Colonial Secretary. The noble Viscount very properly showed that, besides this, there was the point of retaliation on foreign countries on manufactured articles, and there were various other points which were sure to follow if this one step in the direction of the Colonial Secretary's proposal were followed.
  But the noble Marquess entered into an entirely new subject. We heard some time ago—I think it was last year—a good deal with regard to the bounties on sugar. Many of us doubted extremely, and many of us still doubt extremely, the wisdom of that policy. We said: "Is the Government going into a war against bounties generally? This is the beginning of it; the thin end of the wedge." We were at once scouted for having said it. But the fiscal policy of the noble Marquess is to deal with the whole of this great subject. It is quite distinct, as far as I can see—I may be wrong, but I think I am right—from the policy which has been propounded by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The noble Marquess pointed out what has been done by means of trusts on the Continent, one country going beyond its own boundaries in order to establish a great trust by means of which the countries which have joined it may be able to export certain articles of manufacture or commerce at lower rates than those at which the articles are sold in their own country. I think that is what the noble Marquess said. What has been the result of that? The noble Marquess says it has affected immensely several industries in this country. I rather think he mentioned the spirit industry. He certainly named rails and also iron plates. He says the effect of these trusts dealing with these matters

  903
  has been to introduce into this country an enormous quantity of goods at a rate which would be destructive to those who deal in those goods in our country. He does not prove that. Are those industries at such a very low ebb? Are they running down hill to destruction? And what is the policy which he professes? Why, it is nothing more nor less than pure protection; it is protection of these industries. And the noble Lord must remember that we never should adopt such a policy ourselves. In my opinion, it is very doubtful whether we ought to interfere with other countries in such matters, particularly when they provide for large manufactures in this country an enormous quantity of goods at a very cheap rate. I imagine that the noble Marquess would deal with this question by protective duties on many articles of manufacture. That is retaliation, and retaliation is one of the very worst features of protection. I lament, indeed, to find the noble Marquess advocating that.
  In these discussions we often hear allusion made to preferential duties and retaliation as if preferential duties had never been given to our colonies in former days, and as if retaliation had never been exercised in this country. Preferential duties were in vogue for a great number of years. They were not repealed or altered quite as soon, if I remember correctly, as the reform of the tariff, but very soon after Sir Robert Peel had reformed the tariff—I think it was Mr. Gladstone himself who did away with preferential duties. They were a signal failure. Then, in regard to retaliation, we have often and often in the past tried it. Sir R. Peel, speaking in the House of Commons on January 27, 1846, in explanation of his scheme for taking off an enormous quantity of duties from the tariff, said—
  "Now let me conclude with two observations; one connected with our foreign policy and the interests of our commercial intercourse with foreign countries, and the other having reference to our own domestic circumstances. I fairly avow to you that in making this great reduction upon the import of articles, the produce and manufacture of foreign countries, I have no guarantee to give you that other countries will immediately follow our example. I give you that advantage in the argument. Wearied with our long and unavailing efforts to enter into satisfactory commercial treaties with other nations we have resolved at length to consult our own interests, and not to punish
  904
  those other countries for the wrong they do us in continuing their high duties upon the importation of our products and manufactures, by continuing high duties ourselves, encouraging unlawful trade.… It is a fact that other countries have not followed our example, and have levied higher duties in some cases upon our goods. But what has been the result upon the amount of your exports? You have defied the regulations of these countries, your export trade is greatly increased.… But your exports, whatever be the tariffs of other countries, or however apparent the ingratitude with which they have treated you—your export trade has been constantly increasing."
  The same thing may be said now. I say those are significant words from the great man who introduced this policy of free trade. The policy of retaliation was known and had been tried in his time, and was found absolutely wanting. In another passage Sir R. Peel says:
  "The best way to compete with hostile tariffs is by free imports."
  I regret to think that we are now about, not only to fight this question of preferential tariffs in regard to the colonies but also to fight protection, because that seems to be the policy of the noble Marquess, though I do not know whether it is the policy of the Government. I for one, and certainly I believe all those with whom I am connected, will do our utmost to oppose that which we believe will be a most pernicious policy. It may not blow up the rock on which the great commercial edifice of the country is built, but I believe it will undermine that edifice, and in that way will be a terrible blow to the prosperity of our people and the success of our commerce. What is the position of the Government? Here is the second greatest Minister in the Cabinet propounding a policy, and saying this is what he is determined or desirous to lay before the constituencies.
  After reading the telegram already published from Sir H. Rawson, Governor of New South Wales, to Mr. Chamberlain, in which the expression occurs, "the declaration of the British Government," ask, Did that telegram, referring to the policy of His Majesty's Government, emanate in the first instance from Sir H. Rawson without any communication from the Government? If the noble Duke says so I shall withdraw any imputation; but it seems to me that the telegram clearly shows that Mr. Chamberlain, in his communications with the Governors, has stated that his

  905
  Majesty's Government are intending to put forward this policy as that of the Government. How about the other members of the Cabinet? The noble Lord who spoke last said, referring to the collective responsibility of Ministers, that it was impossible that all the members of the Government could be unanimous. I entirely agree. But a great deal depends upon the subject. If the subject is the foundation of our fiscal policy, surely it is impossible for a Minister of the Crown of the importance of the Colonial Secretary to go to the country and say this was his policy, without the country thinking that it was also the policy of the Government. The collective responsibility of the Government is imperative in all matters of importance. The people expect that of every Government. They do not agree that a Government might have four or five voices on a great question—and what question could be greater than this?—but they expect that the Government should speak with firmness and unanimity. I appeal to the noble Duke the Leader of the House to explain his position with respect to this policy. I remember that my noble friend, as a candidate for the House of Commons, fought a severe contest with a fair trader. I have here an extract from a speech he delivered in November, 1885, and I hope he will now repeat the sentiments to which he gave expression on that occasion. He said—
  "A Liberal majority would also mean the accession to power of a Government which is determined to adhere without flinching to the principles of that free trade which has already done so much for the prosperity of the country, and to which Lancashire and the North of England owe all their pre-eminence, industrial and commercial."
  Does the noble Duke now belong to a Government which adheres without flinching to free trade principles? Certainly it was evident that many distinguished members of the Government have a strong leaning—if nothing more — towards the principles of protection which in the past did so much harm to the country. There is to be an inquiry. What is the inquiry to be into? Have not the principles of free trade and protection been discussed up hill and down dale all over the country for years past? And what is to be the nature of the inquiry? Is it
  906
  to be a Royal Commission, or a Committee of one House, or a united Committee of both Houses? We, of course, know that a great question of this sort cannot be settled without full inquiry; but we believe the Cabinet, which is responsible for the raising of this question, should inquire into it themselves, and come to a decision on it. We have a right to ask for information on the subject of this inquiry; and we have the further right to ask that there should be no unnecessary delay in submitting this great question to the only tribunal which can give a final judgment upon it—namely, the constituencies. I feel that this matter is of such gigantic importance to the political interests, to the commercial interests — nay, to every interest of the country and the colonies—that any uncertainty about it will paralyse trade and commerce. Therefore, we have a right to demand information about this inquiry, and that the inquiry should not be delayed.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The Duke of DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I do not think that I need at any length follow the arguments of the noble Earl. I think that in the greater part of his speech he has travelled somewhat beyond the scope of the question which is raised in the Motion of my noble friend behind me. I think the noble Earl during the greater part of his speech entered somewhat into that extremely large and wide field of inquiry and discussion to which we are invited by the Colonial Secretary, and which has been approved and sanctioned by the Cabinet as a whole. I do not understand that it was the intention of my noble friend behind me to ask the House to-night to discuss all the subjects which are involved in the proposed inquiry. I understood him rather to ask what were the conditions and main points which ought to be held in view in any inquiry of that sort; but I did not understand from his speech that he desired us to enter into the merits of the question. There was one point in the speech of the noble Earl to which I ought to give an immediate answer. The noble Earl referred to a telegram which was sent the other day by the Governor

  907
  of New South Wales, and which has been published. The noble Earl does not seem to be aware that that telegram has already been the subject of a question and answer in the other House of Parliament.†
  *EARL SPENCER: I was quite aware of that.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Well, the noble Earl has asked whether that telegram was prompted by the Government. The answer given by the Prime Minister, when a question was put to him on the subject, was—
  "I do not know what declaration the Governor of New South Wales refers to in this statement."
  The Minister for the Colonies was sitting by his side, and I think that answer could hardly have been a consistent, although it might have been verbally accurate, or an ingenuous answer if the Secretary of State for the Colonies had been any party to the sending of such a telegram.
  *EARL SPENCER: Then it was a misapprehension of Sir H. Rawson that this was the policy of the Government?
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Question which the noble Earl, as I understood him, asked, was whether that telegram was prompted by the Government. I should have gathered from the answers given in the other House of Parliament that it was quite obvious that the telegram was not prompted by the Government; but since the noble Earl referred to the subject a few minutes ago, I have received from a representative of the Colonial Office, who happens to be present here to-night, an assurance that the telegram from Sir H. Rawson was entirely spontaneous on the part of the Governor of New South Wales. Coming to the speech of my noble friend Viscount Goschen—we are too old friends to make it in the least necessary for us to bandy any compliments; but I hope he will allow me to say that I heard him with the greatest satisfaction, and that I think he has done a very great service in placing before us so clearly some of the main issues that have to be considered on the
  † See page 650.
  908
  great and momentous question that has been so recently raised. This House is grateful to him for having given it an opportunity of listening to the treatment dispassionately, of a question of momentous interest at a period when our discussion may have some effect upon the opinions of the country. Too often questions are discussed at almost unnecessary length in the other House of Parliament, and only come to us when they have been practically decided and when any discussion in this House can no longer have very much bearing on the result. The Motion of my noble friend to-night has given the House an opportunity of even anticipating discussion in the other House of Parliament. Although the subject has been incidentally raised in the other House, the rules of its proceedings have prevented it being so fully and adequately discussed as it has been possible to discuss it in the House of Lords. I need not add to the tribute that has been paid to the speech of my noble friend for the admirable tone and calmness of temper with which he introduced the subject, thus setting an example which will be invaluable when a subject of such vast importance and exciting so much controversy is discussed. I can assure the House that that is the tone in which the Government desire that it should be discussed.
  The Colonial Secretary, in the first speech in which he raised the discussion, said that the time had not come when it could be settled, and what he desired was that discussion should be opened. Exactly the same language has been held by those who take a different view of the question from the Colonial Secretary, and who have also expressed their willingness that there should be a fair and full discussion and examination of the question. I cannot see how any man, any convinced and rational free-trader, can take exception to either inquiry or discussion on this subject. In the first place, there is no free-trader who can feel, or profess to feel, satisfied with the present position of the question. What the free trader advocates is free interchange of all commodities between all nations. What we have got—whatever he may think of the advantages to be obtained from what we have got—is something very different from that. What we have got is free imports on one side and exports burdened by every barrier fiscal ingenuity can

  909
  devise. And I cannot see how any convinced free-trader can object to an inquiry after the lapse of a period of fifty years into the reasons which have prevented the realisation of the hopes which were entertained by the founders of this policy, and an inquiry whether it may not be possible that anything should be done in order to secure the more ample and full realisation of that policy which was undoubtedly in the minds of the founders of free trade policy—Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Cobden, and Mr. Bright.
  The name of free-traders cannot with strict accuracy be applied to the supporters of our present fiscal system. We are not free-traders, because we have not got free trade. What we are—it is not a very elegant appellation, but it is more accurate to say that we are free importers. I acknowledge that I have been a free importer during the whole of my political life, and I am now. I was in favour of that policy for the first twenty-five years of my career in the House of Commons, for the simple reason that, so far as I knew, no one was anything else. Then came a period of commercial depression, and the agitation, which has been more than once referred to to-night, in those days went by the name of fair trade. The noble Lord opposite was perfectly accurate when he said I was somewhat closely connected with that controversy. It happened that my opponent in a division of Lancashire was the President of the Fair Trade League. I think it is also perfectly accurate to state that, with the help of my friends—including, I think, the valuable assistance of the present Colonial Secretary—I absolutely annihilated and demolished my opponent and his doctrines. I opposed that movement to the best of my ability, partly because I considered that it was not supported by any strong or sound economical opinion, and partly because, after giving the best consideration that I could to the facts and arguments and figures which were brought forward by the advocates of fair trade in support of their contentions, I came to the conclusion that they had failed to establish their case. I am not ashamed to acknowledge that up to the present time, after a lapse of eighteen years, I have yet seen or heard nothing which has induced me, as at present advised, to suppose that at that time I came to
  910
  a wrong conclusion. But, my Lords, I admit—I am forced to admit—that a great deal has happened, not only during the fifty years our system of free imports has been in force, but even during the last eighteen years, the period since the subject was seriously discussed—a great deal has happened which, I think, is deserving of our most careful and deliberate consideration. Let me refer to one or two of the important changes and events which have taken place in that period. What has happened is that, except to a very partial extent in our own colonies, no progress whatever has been made in any part of the world in the direction of real free trade. What has happened has been that foreign countries have not lowered or relaxed the barriers they have set up against our imports. They have raised and strengthened them.
  *EARL SPENCERdissented.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Certainly they have raised them.
  *EARL SPENCER: They are very much lower than in the days of Sir Robert Peel.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Has the McKinley tariff lowered the duties against us in the United States? Is the German tariff lower than it was during the fair trade agitation? It is the fact that, so far from lowering or relaxing the barriers they have raised against our trade, they have, generally speaking, I will not say in every case, strengthened and raised them. It is alleged, I do not say whether truly or not, that some of our staple industries have suffered, are suffering, and are still more in the future seriously threatened by the tariffs which have been raised against them. Another thing which has happened in this period to which I am referring has been that, whereas for a very long period we were easily supreme in manufacturing industries of all descriptions, supreme in textile manufactures, in the iron and steel, the machinery, and other branches of industry, our supremacy has been challenged, and in some cases I believe successfully challenged. I am not saying that this challenge to our manufacturing supremacy is a result of our

  911
  fiscal system; indeed, I believe it is in great part owing to other circumstances. Reference has been made to-night to a subject to which I have frequently endeavoured, not very successfully, to call attention—namely, the comparative neglect with which we have treated the question of industrial education in this country. Undoubtedly it was the opinion and contention of the founders of our present fiscal system that our industrial supremacy would be secured to us by the adoption of those principles in the face of the refusal to adopt them of other nations. Certainly any anticipations of that description which they may have held have fallen very far short of the reality. Again, since this subject was last seriously discussed we have seen the growth of those enormous trusts that certainly never could have been foreseen by the founders of out present fiscal system. We have seen that the formation and growth of those trusts have been capable of disorganising and dislocating the course of trade and industry as effectually as, if not more effectually than, the most retrograde and hostile tariff that ever could be raised against us. Lastly, in this period we have seen the growth of some of our colonies to a position and importance which they were far from enjoying at the time when these controversies were last before the country.
  With that growth in importance, prosperity, and strength these colonies have manifested a desire to enter into closer political relations with the mother country. One manifestation of that desire has been in the direction of increased fiscal unity with the United Kingdom. Well, I say, that these changes in the world, these events that have taken place, many of which were wholly unexpected, which could not have been foreseen by those who were responsible for our present fiscal system—these are subjects, at all events, worthy of inquiry. I say these things cannot be put aside as if they were not; there is no sense or reason in ignoring these facts and events and in refusing to enter into some inquiry as to their effect. And all those who profess principles of real free trade, the men who believe that those principles are founded, not only on
  912
  the dictates of abstract reason, but are proved by the teaching of experience, those are the very last who ought to refuse to enter into the fullest and most searching inquiry and discussion as to the effect not only of those principles, but of the effectual results which have been achieved under our present system. As to the nature of the inquiry or discussion which has been invited, I do not think that until the speech of my noble friend to-night the conditions and character which that inquiry or discussion ought to assume have been indicated with sufficient perspicuity and clearness. In my opinion, the first and fundamental element of such inquiry, that which transcends in importance, and that which ought to precede any other branch of the inquiry, is the investigation of the economical effect likely to be produced by any changes in our system especially involving the taxation of our food imports—the economical effects, not upon any special industry, not upon the political relations between ourselves and the colonies, or between ourselves and other countries, but on the condition of our people, and on the whole and not only a part of our trade and industry, internal as well as external.
  Up to the present time, in my opinion, this discussion has proceeded too much upon the effects which the new policy, the new proposed policy, may have upon some special industry of great importance. The prosperity of our staple industries, our textile industries, our iron and steel industries, our chemical and machinery industries, is of vast importance to the country at large; but they are not all. What I want to know, and what I think ought to be the basis of this inquiry, is what will be the effect of the policy which has been proposed on the volume of our minor trades and the industries which support them, and which, taken together, I conceive, greatly exceed in amount, in volume, and in importance any one of the staple industries themselves. In my opinion, attention has hitherto been too much devoted to our external trade, as if the prosperity of the country depended merely on our external trade. I conceive it that our internal trade is at least as important as, if not more important, than our external trade. I do not suppose there are any statistics

  913
  available, as there are in the case of our external trade, to show what the amount of that trade is; but the internal trade of 40,000,000 of people cannot be an insignificant one. At first sight it appeared to me that any proposal which would raise the food bill of 40,000,000 of people would to a like degree diminish their purchasing power on every other article. Though I am open, on sufficient evidence, to revise my opinion, I should say, at first sight, that any such proposal must exercise an injurious effect on the vast internal trade of the country. I do not think that up to the present time, in the subjects indicated for discussion or inquiry, sufficient attention has been given to the probable economical effects of the proposed policy on the condition of the mass of our people who are not engaged in any of the staple industries, the condition of which we have heard so much. There are a vast mass of our people who can scarcely be said to have any fixed or regular employment, and who are able, and only just able, to earn sufficient to gain a livelihood.
  I do not think it has been sufficiently remembered that, whether our fiscal system was a right one or not, we are living in conditions that have been brought about by a system of free imports, and we must take those conditions as we find them. Those conditions are not in every respect as satisfactory as we could desire. No doubt the wealth of the country has increased, no doubt the business of the country has increased. At the same time, the population of the country has increased, perhaps almost to an equal extent; and, in spite of our national wealth, in spite of the prosperity of the people employed in some of our great industries, there are to-day millions of people for whom the margin between themselves and famine is very slender. My Lords, it is free trade, or rather, free imports—it is cheap food which is responsible for having brought those millions into existence. I can conceive that under a different system, though we might not have been so rich or so prosperous, a condition of things might have existed in which the problems with which we are now confronted might have been less great, less momentous than they are
  914
  now. We have to deal, not, perhaps, with the best possible organisation of society in our country; we have to deal with it under conditions which have been brought about by our present fiscal system, and we must be very careful indeed before we alter those conditions in a manner which may possibly reduce the margin which now exists between those people and absolute want. My Lords, I say under these circumstances I should hesitate very long before I could bring myself to assent to changes the effect of which, as far as I know or have the means of knowing, might be to improve the condition of certain of the higher ranks of labour, which might also have the effect, so far as I know or can have the means at present of knowing, of breaking down that barrier which still exists between those millions and absolute starvation. These are questions, I think, which anyone who professes to be a statesman will admit cannot be solved simply by counting votes at a general election.
  And for myself I say that, if I knew that every working man who possesses a Parliamentary franchise was prepared to give his vote in favour of trying this experiment, and if I knew that our colonies were ready to meet us in that experiment as fully as we could desire, I would not be a party to a trial of that experiment unless I were convinced in my heart and conscience that that experiment was justified on sound economical grounds and that there was reason to believe that it would tend to the benefit of the great masses of the people as well as to that of some of the more favoured sections of the working classes. There are other subjects on which no doubt inquiry is needed. There is the question of the information which might be supplied to us by chambers of commerce as to the extent to which a change in the fiscal policy of our colonies might promote the exports and the interests of certain branches of our manufactures. There is the question of how far our colonies would be prepared to meet us. There is the further question whether it is possible for the wit of man to devise a scheme of preferential treatment which shall be fair as between ourselves and our colonies and as between each of our

  915
  colonies. But all these, in my judgment, are inferior in importance, and ought to be undertaken subsequently to, and are dependent on, the fundamental question to which I have referred—that of the economical effect on our own people and our own trade. In my judgment there is not much need for inquiry into political advantages. It is not mainly or primarily as a political arrangement that these changes are proposed to us. They are proposed to us as being expedient in themselves, independently of any political advantages by which they may be accompanied. If they are expedient in themselves—that is to say, if we have all been, up to the present time, wrong in our political economy, if we have made a mistake—which I admit further inquiry as to the results of our policy may prove to be the case—if these proposed changes are economically sound, then there is no question that they will be politically expedient. On the other hand, if these political advantages—I admit they are great—can only be purchased at the expense of privation, hardship, and discontent on the part of our own people, then I say I can conceive no policy which would more certainly or more swiftly tend to the dissolution and disintegration of our Empire.
  My Lords, in what I have said I have not attempted so far, to discriminate between two branches of the policy which has been suggested to us—I mean preferential trade with the colonies and retaliation—I do not like the word—as regards other nations. Now, my Lords, the considerations to which I have referred apply to both of these, though not with equal force. I do not think that either of these policies ought to be adopted unless it can be shown in the first instance that they are, or are likely to be, economically sound. But I do not for a moment compare in importance the results which might follow in each case. The policy of preferential treatment of our colonies founded on the taxation of food would be a policy which would be either irrevocable or, if reversed, the reversal must be attended with the most serious and grave consequences. On the other hand, I can conceive that an experiment in the
  916
  direction of retaliation might be tried, and, if found not to succeed, that it might be reversed without any serious injury to any great national interests.
  Now I come to the question how it is proposed this inquiry should be conducted. As far as the Government is concerned any inquiry they undertake must be undertaken by themselves. It is an inquiry they will have to undertake by themselves with the expert assistance of the various Departments of the Government. I believe that most of the materials—indeed all the materials—for such an inquiry and discussion already exist, and a careful examination and exposition of those materials, aided by experts, would place every one of us in a position to grasp the main features of the question. I entirely agree with what was said the other day by Lord Rosebery, and reiterated to-night, that the burden of proof rests upon those who proposed this change in our fiscal policy; and I have not the smallest doubt that that view is also shared by the statesman who proposed that change—Mr. Chamberlain himself. Indeed, that is the course which the inquiry and discussion has already taken. Mr. Chamberlain has opened his case. It remains for him to support it by the arguments and facts which led him to form his conclusions. Ultimately it will be for Parliament and the people to determine whether the facts and the arguments which he may bring forward do substantiate the case which is already opened. I believe every one is agreed—the supporters as well as the opponents of free imports—that no possible harm can result from an inquiry; and the only charge which has been made against us is as to the manner in which the question has been raised for the consideration of the country.
  I wish those who think we are open to blame for the manner in which we have raised this discussion to consider what alternatives were open to us. The question has been raised for the consideration of his colleagues and the country by the Minister who is responsible for our colonial relations. Were his colleagues to refuse to entertain his proposals, either by way of action or by way of discussion or inquiry? We were not prepared to entertain those proposals by way of any immediate action. We

  917
  were all agreed that there was a case for inquiry. The only question that remains is what the nature of that inquiry should be, whether it should be one conducted in secrecy within the four walls of the Cabinet room, or whether it should be an inquiry or discussion openly carried on before the public. We might have undertaken a secret inquiry. Its result must have been positive or negative. If the result of the inquiry was positive, definite proposals would have been made by the Government, or by a reconstructed Government, or if the result were negative, the question would have been raised for the consideration of the country by a statesman in opposition. In either case this question, the magnitude and importance of which is admitted and cannot be ignored, would have to be submitted to an unprepared Party and the unprepared constituencies. It has been pointed out by the Prime Minister that the course which is supposed to be the preferable one, the secret Cabinet inquiry, has been twice already tried on momentous occasions by two great statesmen—in the first case by Sir Robert Peel in 1845, who carried his policy, but destroyed his Party; and in the second case by Mr. Gladstone in 1886, who destroyed his Party, but did not carry his policy. Judging by the result of the experience which is within the recollection of every one of us, I doubt whether any of Mr. Gladstone's colleagues who are sitting opposite me would disagree with me in saying that Mr. Gladstone might have been better advised if, instead of taking the course he did take, he had before the general election of 1885 taken both his colleagues and the country into his confidence and submitted to them the nature of his proposals with regard to the government of Ireland. I do not say for a moment that his policy would have succeeded; but he would have avoided that complete destruction and disruption of his Party from which it has been suffering ever since.
  It is said that open questions of this magnitude within the Cabinet are inconsistent with any idea of true Cabinet responsibility; that it is inconsistent with Ministerial responsibility that Ministers should differ on subjects of
  918
  great and vital importance. In recent times the number of open questions upon which an immediate or early decision is required is more restricted than at some former periods; but I do not think that ever until the present occasion has it been held that there is anything inconsistent with due Ministerial responsibility on an open question regarding policy upon which there is no question of taking any immediate action. The constitutional doctrine of Ministerial responsibility in the matter of open questions was laid down—some time ago, I admit, but I do not know that anybody has questioned his authority—in a speech by the late Lord Macaulay in the Mouse of Commons. He set down his views in favour of allowing complete freedom of action and opinion of members of the Cabinet, and he supported his position by precedent drawn from the Administration of Mr. Pitt. Lord Macaulay said—
  "Let gentlemen run their minds over the history of Mr. Pitt's Administration.… Excepting on such Motions brought forward as attacks on Government, perfect liberty was allowed to his colleagues, and that not merely on trifles, but on constitutional questions of vital importance. The question of Parliamentary reform was left open; Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas were in favour of it, Lord Mulgrave and Lord Grenville against it. On the impeachment of Warren Hastings, likewise, the different members of Government were left to pursue their own course.… The important question respecting the powers of juries in cases of libel was left open; Mr. Pitt took a view favourable to granting them extensive powers, Lord Grenville and Lord Thurlow opposed him. The abolition of the slave trade was also an open question. Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville were favourable to it; Mr. Dundas and Lord Thurlow were among the most conspicuous defenders of the slave trade. All these instances had occurred in the space of about five years. Were they not sufficient to prove how absurdly and ignorantly those persons spoke who told us that the practice of open questions was a mere innovation of our own time? There were men now living—great men, held in honour and reverence—Lord Grey, Lord Wellesley, Lord Holland, and others, who well remembered that at an early period of their public life the law of libel, the slave trade, Parliamentary reform, were all open questions, supported by one section of the Cabinet and opposed by another. Was this the effect of any extraordinary weakness or timidity on the part of the statesman then Prime Minister? No; Mr. Pitt was a man who even his enemies and detractors always acknowledged possessed a manly, brave, and commanding spirit. And was the effect of his policy to enfeeble his Administration, to daunt its adherents, to

  919
  render them unable to withstand the attacks of the Opposition? On the contrary, never did a Ministry present a firmer or more serried front to opposition, nor had he the slightest doubt but that their strength was increased in consequence of giving each member more individual liberty."
  I do not think that the defence of leaving open questions of great constitutional importance, always provided they are not ripe for immediate and instant action, is altogether inapplicable to the question now before us. I fully admit the position is in many respects a difficult one. The noble Earl has challenged me to say whether I think the position of the Government is a possible one. I admit it is difficult; but I say it is not an impossible one. When we are told that the position of the Government at the present time is an impossible one, what does it mean? It means that after a declaration has been made by a Minister somebody ought to have resigned.
  My Lords, I want to know who ought to have resigned. Ought the Prime Minister to have resigned because Mr. Chamberlain had invited discussion on a policy he had set forth, as to which the Prime Minister had not formed final conclusions—a policy as to which it was quite possible that on further examination he might find himself either wholly or in part in agreement? The position of the Prime Minister, if he had resigned as soon as that speech was made, and on further reflection found he agreed with it, would have been a most absurd one. Then, should Mr. Chamberlain resign? Why should Mr. Chamberlain resign when he found that his colleagues, though they frankly avowed their present frame of mind, were willing to give an opportunity for opening a discussion on the question he raised? Why should those Members of the Cabinet who entertain grave doubts as to this policy, proposed for their future consideration and possibly for their future action, resign? They were asked to take no immediate action except to vote for a Budget which was entirely consonant with the most pronounced free trade principles. It is very easy to talk about the Government being in an impossible position. Were those members of the Government who entertained doubts as to this policy to take the step of resigning and remove from the Cabinet the advantage of their presence in any discussion which might
  920
  hereafter arise upon this question? It is very easy to talk of the Cabinet being in an impossible position. I conceive that if it is considered what is actually meant by the suggestion, it would have been a far more illogical and untenable position if any of the Members of the Government had felt themselves called upon to resign, at this period, at all events, of the discussion.
  We, the Government, are not the only ones who may find themselves in a somewhat difficult position. Candidates for seats in the House of Commons may no doubt find themselves in a somewhat difficult position, and may find themselves deprived of that clear and decided leading which they generally look for and do not usually look for in vain. I am very sorry for some friends of mine who are placed in this position. The only advice I can offer to them is to say that the more they act on their own convictions and judgment, and the less they allow their conduct to be guided by what they may suppose to be the wishes of their constituents, the better for them. I conceive that it is the duty of any man who aspires to the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament, on a question of such national magnitude and importance as this, to endeavour to the best of his ability to form his own judgment, and to be influenced as little as need be by what he may suppose to be the wishes and the opinions of those whom he seeks to represent. The only persons, as far as I can see, who are placed in no difficulty are noble Lords opposite; they think that both the principles and results of our present system, which I have said is not free trade, are so clear and have been so conspicuously approved, that no inquiry is required or even is permissible. I believe they will find themselves to be mistaken. I believe they will be compelled, whether they like it or not, to take their share in this great inquest which is to be opened. I believe they will find that the people of this country are not at the present time so deeply impressed with the absolute perfection of our present fiscal and commercial policy that they will view with much favour the action of those who refuse even to inquire whether it has been, as they believe, a success, or whether, as is held in other quarters, it has been but an incomplete success and is tending towards

  921
  failure. I believe the best friends of free trade will be found to be those who are willing usefully to enter into a full and fair inquiry, not as to its principles, which, perhaps, we may take for granted, but as to its consequences and results. And I believe for myself that the result of any such inquiry will be to establish more firmly the essential principles which underlie our policy, although it may be found, possibly, that some modification and alteration of our arrangements may tend to strengthen and consolidate and make more unassailable and permanent a system founded essentially upon the principle of free trade
  The subject was then dropped.

NEW BILL.
  BISHOPRICS OF SOUTHWARK AND BIRMINGHAM BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for the constitution of Bishoprics of Southwark and Birmingham, and for matters incidental thereto—Was presented by the Lord Belper; read 1a, to be printed; and to be read 2a on Friday next. (No. 104.)
  EDUCATION (BORROWING) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons. Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday, the 23rd instant.—(The Lord Kenyon.) (No. 105.)

  UNION OF BENEFICES ACT, 1860, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Twelve o'clock a.m. till half-past Ten o'clock.