Sitting of 8 February 1904

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER 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, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz:—Blyth and Cowpen Gas Bill; Gomersal Gas Bill; Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Bill; South Shields Gas Bill; South-Western and

  561
  Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Sutton Gas Bill; Whitby Gas Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 63 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER 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, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 63 has been complied with, viz:—Bishop's Stortford and District Gas Bill. Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 NOT COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER 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, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has not been complied with, viz:—Ryde Gas Bill. Ordered, That the Report be referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.
PETITIONS.
  CONFESSIONAL AT ST. PAUL'S, BEDFORD.
  Petition from Bedford, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.

  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: from Camden Town; Barrow-in-Furness; Moss Side; Fowey; Maerdy; Cargreen; Bradford; Blackwood; Woodside; Sutcombe; Eastnor; Gov an (three); Bedford; Stewarton; Ardrossan; Blackpool; West Bridgford; Southampton (two); Northumberland; Bedlington Colliery; Martock; Pembroke; Kilwinning; Mottram; Glossop (two); Clifton; Bishopsgate; Beuhar; Thorniewood; Motherwell; Holytown; Shotts; Skelton; Bellshill; New Stevenston; Craigneuk; Greenock; Torry; Rochester; Newcastle; Bates Cottages; Ashbourne; ClaphamRoad; Blackburn (two); Wool-ston; Ormskirk; Prescot; Crainford;
  562
  Crawford; Waterloo; Hatton; Preston-on-the-Hill; Stockton Heath; Wilmslow; Lostock Gralam; Boxmoor Hall; Strickland; Great Ayton; Higher Broughton and Hoghton; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  EAST INDIA (TARIFFS).
  Copy presented, of Views of the Government of India on the question of Preferential Tariffs [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PILOTAGE.
  Copy presented, of Abstract of Returns relating to Pilots and Pilotage in the United Kingdom (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 312, of Session 1902) as furnished by the various Pilotage Authorities [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 33.]
  LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANIES.
  Copy presented, of Statements of Accounts, and of Life Assurance and Annuity Business and Abstracts of Actuarial Reports, deposited with the Board of Trade during the year ended 31st December, 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 34.]
  ARMY (IMPERIAL YEOMANRY).
  Copy presented, of Training Return o Imperial Yeomanry for 1903 [by Command]; to he upon the Table.
  COMMONS ACT, 1876 (OXSHOTT HEATH SURREY).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries upon an application for a Provisional Order for the regulation of Oxshott Heath, in the parish of Cobham, in the county of Surrey [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 35.]

  COMMONS ACT, 1876 (MERROW DOWNS, SURREY).
  Copy presented, of Report by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries upon an application for a Provisional Order for the regulation of Merrow Downs, in

  563
  the parish of Merrow, in the county of Surrey [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 36.]

  DESTRUCTIVE INSECTS ACT, 1877.
  Copy presented, of an Order dated the 13th October, 1903, revoking the Orders of the Board of Agriculture under the Act dated respectively the 22nd August. 1901, the 31st May, 1902, and the 5th June. 1902 [by Act]; to he upon the Table.
  BREWERS' LICENCES.
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 5th February; Mr. Victor Cavendish]; to he upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 37.]
  CONSOLIDATED FUND.
  Abstract Account presented, showing the issues made from the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom in the financial year ended 31st March, 1903, for the Interest and Management of the Debt, for the Civil List, and for all other Issues in the financial year for services charged directly on the said Fund; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 38.]
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 12th August. 1903, granting to Theophilus Evans, Inspector of Postmen and Telegraph Messengers, Worcester post Office, a retiring allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT. 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 19th October, 1903, granting to Charles Hasdell, 3rd Class Clerk in the Engineer in Chief's Department, Post Office, a retiring allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented, of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, Nos. 3118 to 3120 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 19th October, 1903, granting to James Ruttley, late verseer and Senior Telegraphist, Central Telegraph Office, London, a retiring allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1887.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 2nd October, 1903, granting to Commander Francis Alford, Navigating Commander H.M.T.S. "Monarch," Post Office, a retiring allowance under the Act [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TRANSVAAL GOVERNMENT THREE PERCENT. GUARANTEED STOCK.
  Copy presented, of Treasury Minute, dated 1st November, 1903, guaranteeing the payment of interest and repayment of principal of the Transvaal Government Three per Cent. Guaranteed Stock [by Act]: to lie upon the Table.
  COMMITTALS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Returns from the Clerks of the Crown and Peace of the number of persons committed for trial in 1903 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Lunacy.—Copy of Return to the Lord Chancellor of the number of Visits made and the number of Patients seen by the several Commissioners in Lunacy during the six months ending on the 31st December, 1903 [by Act].
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Deputations of Dockyard Trades
    MR. REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Board to receive deputations representing the various trades in His Majesty's dockyards this year in continuance of those granted last year.

    565
    (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The Board visited the dockyards at Portsmouth, Plymouth, and Chatham during last financial year for the purpose of receiving deputations; and Pembroke and Sheerness will be similarly visited this year. It is not proposed to visit every yard every year.

    Registrar General's Returns—Grouping of Counties.
    MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH: To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the Registrar General's Returns the statistical figures are given for each English county separately, whereas in the ease of Wales six: counties are grouped together; and whether he will take steps to have these figures published for each Welsh county separately.
    (Answered by, Mr. Walter Lord.) I have communicated with the Registrar General and find that it will not be practicable to give the statistical figures referred to for each Welsh county separately in his next Annual Report which is now in the printer's hands; but the form of the tables in his future Reports and quarterly Returns will be altered so as to include the information desired by the hon. Member.

    Indebtedness of Borough Councils.
    Ms. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the President of the Local Government Board when he expects to lay upon the Table the Return of indebtedness of borough councils ordered by the House on the 24th June, 1903.
    (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) There has been some difficulty in procuring the information required, and some of the returns are still outstanding, although repeated applications have been made for them. Further, after the returns have been received, additional particulars have had to be applied for in a large number of cases. The information obtained is being sent to the printers as rapidly as possible, and every effort will be made to complete and present the Return at the earliest date practicable.

    Return of Electric Lighting Acts.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he-will lay upon the Table a Return showing the names of companies or persons who have obtained Acts conveying powers for the supply of electric power to districts, with the names and areas of such districts, and the year in which the powers were obtained, and whether such powers have been exercised or not; and, in the former case, what is the state of the works constructed under such powers.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I have given instructions for the preparation of this Return, but as the information asked for in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question is not at present in the possession of the Board of Trade, it will be necessary to communicate with the companies, etc., on the subject before the Return can be completed.

    Customs Duty—Tobacco for Personal Consumption
    MR. MOON: To ask the President of the Board of Trade by what authority Customs officers refuse to accept from the master of a British ship the duty spontaneously tendered by him in respect of tobacco brought by such master to this country for his own use, unless he pays an additional sum or fine of Is.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) Under Section 12 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, as amended by The Finance Act, 1898, tobacco contained in packages of less than 80 lbs. gross weight is, for the safety of the revenue, prohibited to be imported into the United Kingdom, and if so imported is liable to forfeiture; but by ancient custom small parcels may be cleared on payment of duty and a regulated fine varying from 3d. to 1s. 3d. the pound according to the description of the tobacco, and whether or not it is entered on the importing ship's report. Masters and members of ships' crews are not and never have been entitled to any exemption from these regulations in respect of small quantities of tobacco brought by them into this country.

    Congestion of Business at the Law Courts.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the congestion of business in the London Law Courts, and will he consider the practicability of rearranging the circuits with a view to the retention of the services of one or two additional Judges in London.
    (Answered by Sir Robert Finlay.) I have ascertained that there is no exceptional congestion of business in the Royal Courts of Justice. The general condition of business is much better than it has been for some time past, though there are a larger number of common juries waiting for hearing than usual, which has been occasioned by the illness and temporary absence of some of the Judges. No rearrangement of the circuits would enable two or even one additional Judge to be available for sittings in London for any substantial time unless arrangements were made either to diminish the number of circuits or to group the counties on alternate circuits. Many serious objections have been raised to both these proposals, which have been under constant consideration during the last ten years. It is right to point out that the present number of Judges in the King's Bench Division leaves no margin or reserve whatever for illness or temporary absence.

    Consols Bought and Sold under Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1898.
    MR. COHEN (Islington, E.): To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any of the Consols stated in the Fourth Report of the Public Accounts Committee last year to have been bought under The Public Buildings Expenses Act, 1898, have been sold since the 31st March, 1903; and, if so, what was the amount of those sales, the average price at which the sales were effected, and the loss thereby incurred.
    (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The Consols sold from the Public Buildings Expenses Fund since the 31st March, 1903, amount to £464,104 14s. 1d. The
    568
    average price obtained was 9028 per cent., and the loss on these transactions £89,061 13s. 10d.

    Indian and Australian Mail Delays.
    SIR SEYMOUR KING: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the repeated and serious delays which occur in the delivery of newspapers and other book matter by the Indian and Australian mails via Brindisi, particularly when the mail arrives on Saturdays; whether he will state at what hour the Indian mail arrived in London on Saturday, 30th January, and at what hour the first delivery of newspapers by that mail was made by express delivery, and by ordinary course of post; whether he is aware that some of the newspapers by that mail had not been delivered in London by 11 o'clock on Monday morning, about thirty-eight hours after arrival; and whether arrangements can be made to accord to the Indian and Australian mail services the same promptitude of treatment which is given to mails from the United States.
    (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The Indian and Australian mail viâ Brindisi, which had been somewhat delayed by bad weather in the English Channel, reached London at about 4.10 p.m., almost at the same time as a heavy mail received from the United States via Plymouth. Ordinary and express deliveries of letters were made on the evening of the 30th January, but it was not found possible to deal with the newspapers before the morning of Monday the 1st February. It appears that certain newspapers, apparently those to which the hon. Member refers, were treated in the ordinary manner, whereas they should have been sent out for express delivery, and of this irregularity proper notice has been taken. I do not find that any were delayed in delivery by the fault of the Post Office until 11 a.m., but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of any papers so delayed, I will have further inquiry made and will communicate with him. The Indian mail is dealt with in London with the same attention to promptitude as is bestowed on the American mails.

    Ireland—Reduction on Second-term Rents.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what the percentage of reduction on second-term rents has been in the several counties in Ireland

    Province and County.

    Number of Cases.

    First Statutory Term Rent.

    Second Statutory Term Rent.

    Percentage of Reduction.

    £

    s.

    d

    £

    s.

    d.

    Ulster:—

    Antrim

    …

    56

    1,350

    13

    8

    1,055

    11

    0

    21·8

    Armagh

    …

    64

    697

    11

    3

    573

    9

    6

    17·7

    Cavan

    …

    130

    1,947

    8

    0

    1,572

    16

    4

    19·2

    Donegal

    …

    2

    14

    5

    0

    10

    10

    0

    26·3

    Down

    …

    232

    4,300

    9

    2

    3,346

    6

    0

    22·1

    Fermanagh

    …

    31

    624

    12

    8

    511

    14

    6

    18·0

    Londonderry

    …

    4

    93

    12

    0

    79

    2

    3

    15·4

    Monaghan

    …

    140

    1,342

    10

    6

    1,181

    12

    0

    11·9

    Tyrone

    …

    32

    249

    4

    6

    218

    0

    0

    12·5

    Total

    …

    691

    10,620

    6

    9

    8,549

    1

    7

    19·5

    for the months of October, November, and December last.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) A Return of judicial rents fixed by the Chief Commission, Sub-Commissions, and Valuers, during the three months ended 31st December, 1903, is appended.

    Province and County.

    Number of Cases.

    First Statutory Term Rent.

    Second Statutory Term Rent.

    Percentage of Reduction,

    £

    s.

    d.

    £

    s.

    d.

    Munster:—

    Clare

    …

    31

    1,343

    3

    6

    1,116

    13

    0

    16·8

    Cork

    …

    142

    6,427

    17

    9

    5,506

    6

    6

    14·3

    Kerry

    …

    31

    476

    19

    0

    373

    6

    0

    21·7

    Limerick

    …

    63

    2,733

    14

    6

    2,290

    15

    0

    16·2

    Tipperary

    …

    25

    1,331

    19

    0

    1,123

    0

    6

    15·6

    Waterford

    …

    3

    156

    19

    6

    137

    3

    0

    12·6

    Total

    …

    295

    12,470

    13

    3

    10,547

    4

    0

    15·4

    Ireland

    …

    1,293

    31,619

    19

    11

    26,484

    17

    0

    16·2

    Irish National Education—Reduction of the Average.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in accordance with the promise made last session relative to the reduction of the average to fifty for an assistant, he will direct the Commissioners of National Education to put the new rule in force.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) No promise was given by me last session that the average require for assistant teachers would be reduced to fifty. What I stated was that a proposal to this effect, involving an additional charge of £24,000 per annum on the Estimates for public education, had been made; but that, in the opinion of the Irish Government, an addition of so large a character should be considered in relation to all other educational demands.

    Salaries of Irish National School Teachers.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the amount voted for increase of salaries to national teachers, and the amount actually expended.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The amount provided for this purpose in the Estimates for Public Education, Ireland, for the current financial year was £35,000, which amount has been expended.

    Gun Licences in Ireland—Case of Patrick Needham.
    DR. AMBROSE: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieu-
    572
    tenant of Ireland if he can state the reason why Patrick Needham, of Saula, Achill Sound, County Mayo, was refused a gun licence.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The question of the issue of an arms licence is one for the consideration of the resident magistrate, who is the licensing officer of the district. It would be contrary to the invariable practice to state the reasons that actuate the licensing officer in declining, in the exercise of his discretion, to grant a licence in any individual case. But having been informed of these reasons in the present instance, I am satisfied he exercised his discretion in a reasonable manner.

    Duke of York's School—Disposal of Site.
    MR. WHITMORE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether any decision has been arrived at as to the disposal of the site of the Duke of York's Military School at Chelsea.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The matter is still under the consideration of His Majesty's Government.

    New Field Guns—Proportion to be made by Private Firms.
    MR. J. F. HOPE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is in a position to state what proportion of the new field guns will be manufactured at the Royal Arsenal and what proportion will be put out to tender by private firms.

    573
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am not yet in a position to give any information on this matter.

    Lady Clerks in Crown Agents Offices.
    MR. HEYWOOD JOHNSTONE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the hours of work for lady clerks in the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies; if they are compelled to work overtime; and at what rate of pay or remuneration.
    (Answered by Mr. Seeretary Lyttelton.) The internal administration of the office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies is entirely in their hands. They inform me, however, that the hours of work for lady clerks in their office are 10 A.M. to 5 P.M., but, like all other members of the staff, they are required to remain until any pressing work is completed before they are at liberty to leave. The Crown Agents do not give extra pay for overtime work, but the fact that overtime is often necessary is taken into account in the amount of the salaries which they give to their staff. I may add that the lady clerks in the Crown Agents' office receive salaries commencing at £70 and rising to £150 a year. They have four weeks holiday in the year, in addition to Bank and other special holidays, a half holiday on every Saturday, and a whole holiday on every third Saturday whenever the state of business permits. I understand that these conditions of employment compare favourably with those which are in force in Government offices, even when the fullest allowance is made for overtime payments in the latter, and I am informed that no complaints on the subject have reached the Crown Agents.

    Immigrants into Canada.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the number of immigrants into Canada for settlement during the year ending 30th June, 1903, distinguishing between the various nationalities.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) I have not yet received the statistics of immigration into Canada for the year ended 30th June last, but I have asked
    574
    for them and will communicate them to the hon. Member when received.

  QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

    Cubicles for Soldiers.
    LIEUT-COLONEL TUFNELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the barracks now in course of erection on Salisbury Plain will be on the cubicle system; and whether it is proposed to adopt this system in the future.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER,): The barracks now in course of erection at Tidworth for eight infantry battalions are being so built that at any time if desired the cubicle system can be introduced. Experiments are now being made, but no decision can be arrived at until the present experiments with cubicle fittings are concluded.
    LIEUT.-COLONEL TUFNELL: Will it apply to cavalry as well as infantry?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I can only say that until the result of the experiments is ascertained we cannot say whether the system will be adopted.

    Destruction of Military Stores at Durban.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that stores of ham and bacon packed by well-known Britis and Irish firms sent out to South Africa as war stores, and to all appearances sound and good, were burnt at Durban by order of the military authorities; and, if so, will he state what was the estimated cost of these stores, and what was their aggregate amount; and what explanation, if any, is there of the waste of this public property, having regard to the severe distress and scarcity of food in many parts of South Africa.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The hon. and learned Member has been somewhat misinformed. The stores of ham and bacon destroyed at Durban suffered through the deficiency of proper storage

    575
    consequent on war conditions, and were condemned as unfit for human consumption, having become so corrupt that they were a danger to the health of the inhabitants. The general officer commanding reported on the 12th October last that the total then condemned amounted to 48,413 lbs. bacon and 161,273 lbs. ham, and that a further 190,000 lbs. bacon known to be bad awaited formal condemnation. The estimated value of all these supplies is £19,000.

    Cost of Somaliland Expedition.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the cost of the Somaliland Expedition during the present financial year; what was the original estimate of its cost; and what is the total amount of money expended down to the present time.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Full information on these points will be given on the introduction of the Army Supplementary Estimates, and I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to postpone his Question until that occasion.
    MR. BUCHANAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much money has been spent up to the present time.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I do not think I can.
    MR. BUCHANAN: May we assume there will be a Supplementary Estimate for this expedition?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: Yes, Sir.

    South African War Correspondence.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to a statement of General Sir William Butler, K.C.B., in his evidence before the War Commission (vol. ii., p. 74), that he was unable to produce in its entirety the correspondence which passed between the War Office and himself during the period of his command, from November, 1898, till August, 1899, because he was recently informed at the War office that much of the confidential correspondence at that time had been
    576
    destroyed by order of the authorities at Cape Town; did the destruction of this confidential correspondence take place at the War Office or Cape Town; if it took place at the War Office was the destruction carried out with the sanction of the Secretary of State for War at the time, and what was the date of the destruction; if it took place at Cape Town who were the authorities by whose order these documents were destroyed, and had these authorities the sanction of the War Office for that destruction; and whether, having regard to the gravity of the destruction' of public documents, he has any, and, if so, what explanation to offer.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: A considerable quantity of correspondence stored at Cape Town was destroyed by order of the military authorities there in consequence of a suspicion that the papers in question were contaminated by plague infection. The papers in question are believed to have been among those thus destroyed. Copies of all official correspondence that passed between the War Office and General Sir William Butler during his tenure of command at the Cape have been preserved.
    MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Were these confidential documents destroyed by the Government in order to save their own bacon?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

    Thibet.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAG-GREE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will give the Return relating to British and Indian Commerce with Thibet, asked for in the Order Paper this day.
    THE SECRETARY of STATE FOE INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK,): I have no objection to giving a Return showing the imports and exports between India and Thibet from 1890–1 to 1902–3 with such details as are possible.
    The Return referred to is as follows:—
    Thibet (Trade Statistics),—Address for Return of Statistics relating to trade with Thibet since the date of the signing

    577
    of the Convention of 1890, giving particulars regarding the quantity, classification, and value of the annual exports from British India to Thibet of (a) non-Indian merchandise; (b) of Indian merchandise; and (c) of exports from Thibet to British India.

    Government Purchase of South African Railway.
    MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the purchase by the Government of the railways in the Transvaal and Orange River Colony has been completed; and what is the total amount paid for that purpose under the South African Loan Act of last year.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): The purchase has not yet been completed. The amount paid so far is about £11,000,000.

    Chinese Labour in the Transvaal.
    SIR BRAMPTON GURDON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether it is proposed that the Chinese labourers imported into the Transvaal should be accompanied by their wives. May I also ask why the provisions with regard to the wives and families which appeared in the first draft have been omitted from the last?
    MR. LYTTELTON: The Ordinance provides that the families of labourers shall be subject to the same conditions as govern the introduction of the labourers themselves and also for their prompt repatriation in case of the labourer's death. Power is also given to the Lieutenant-Governor to make regulations for the introduction, repatriation, and control of the families of labourers, and these regulations will be subject to the sanction of the Secretary of State. My intention is to take precautions that all reasonable facilities shall be given for the reception and accommodation of the families of labourers. It is only a surmise, but I imagine the provisions introduced in the first draft of the Ordinance, and which I think affected Clauses 13 and 14, have been omitted because provisions which had been placed in the regulations rendered them surplusage.
    MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Are we to understand that all Chinese labourers that go from China to the Transvaal are to have the option of bringing their families with them if they wish?
    [No answer was returned.]

    Malta.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that four general elections have taken place in Malta since June, 1903; and whether, in view of the state of affairs in the island, he will consider the advisability of proposing a change in the constitution to give more effective popular representation.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Owing to the action of the elected members in resigning as soon as elected and then offering themselves for re-election, four so-called general elections have taken place in Malta since June 1903. The reasons for introducing the present constitution have been fully set forth in the Papers which have already been laid before Parliament, and nothing which has since occurred has led me to think that any change of the kind suggested is advisable.
    MR. BOLAND: How many more elections will be required in order to satisfy the Government as to the attitude of the people of Malta?
    [No answer was returned.]

    The West Indian Relief Grants.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the whole of the £250,000 voted on 31st July. 1902, to assist the sugar' producers of the West Indies has been distributed; on what principle the money was allotted; and whether he will furnish a Return setting out the names of the persons or firms who may have received any portion and the amounts allotted to them respectively.
    MR. LYTTELTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this Question, The whole fund except a few hundreds has been distributed among the beneficiary colonies. The money was applied to

    579
    cash payments, to loans, to remission of taxation, to improvement of machinery according to the particular conditions of each colony; and peasants' interests have been safeguarded as well as planters.' Such a Return as is asked for would not be possible and would be misleading if it were possible, but if the hon. Member desires information in regard to any particular colony it will be given as far as possible.

    Germany and Canada.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Germany has offered to restore Canada to most-favoured-nation treatment upon terms which do not include recall on the part of Canada of her preference to the Mother Country; if he will state what is the position of the negotiations between Germany and Canada; through what medium they are being conducted; and when will Papers be laid.
    THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EARL PERCY,): As to the first Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Parliamentary Paper, "Commercial, No. 5, 1903," giving correspondence between the British and German Governments and particularly to the last two Papers. The position has not altered since then. The Secretary of State for the Colonies is in communication with the Government of Canada in regard to the matter. There are no further Papers which can be published at present.

    The Purchase of Chilian Battleships.
    MR. McCRAE: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to provide for payment of the two warships purchased by Government out of the revenue of the financial year now current; and whether Supplementary Estimates will be laid.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,): The payments for the Chilian ships falling due within the current financial year will be inserted in the Supplementary Estimates of this year, viz., £707,904, and the remainder,
    580
    which is due to be paid in August, will be provided for in next year's Estimates, viz., £1,167,096, making a total of £1,875,000.

    Tobacco Growing in Ireland.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I bog to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state what arrangements have been made by the Treasury for the encouragement of tobacco growing in Ireland.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: It has been decided to allow the experimental cultivation of tobacco in Ireland upon a considerable scale for a period of five years under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland and by persons approved by that Department. A re-bats of one-third of the existing duty will be granted on any tobacco produced as the result of the experiment. The Department of Agriculture is in communication with the Board of Inland Revenue regarding the regulations under which the tobacco is to be grown.

    Status and Duties of Government Departments.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state what progress has been made by the Committee appointed to consider the position and duties of the Board of Trade and Local Government Board, and to report on the desirability of alterations in the constitution and status of these offices and of a rearrangement of duties between these Departments and other Government Departments; and when such Report is likely to be in the hands of Members.
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I note that the hon. Member for Hoxton has a Question on the Paper for to-morrow on the same subject and will ask him to be good enough to consider this as an answer to him as well. The Committee, which originally consisted of Lord Jersey, (Chairman), Sir James Mackay, Sir Charles Ryan, Sir J. Gorst, and Mr. Alfred Emmott, M.P., was appointed on the 18th July last. They met at once, and adjourned pending the receipt of memoranda from the Board of Trade and

    581
    Local Government Board setting forth the history and duties of those Departments and their views on the subject of the Committee's reference. The Committee resumed their sittings last week, Sir G. Ryder having been added in place of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University who had resigned. I am unable to name a date for the completion of their inquiry, but I am aware that the chairman is anxious to proceed with it as rapidly as possible.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: Do I understand that no meeting of the Committee was held for six months?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The Committee met immediately on its appointment and then adjourned in order to obtain certain information from the two Departments concerned. That information has only been supplied by one of the Departments within the last three or four weeks and the Committee met again as soon as it got it.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: In which Department was it that the delay in replying occurred?
    MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Local Government Board. I have no personal knowledge or information as to the reasonableness of the time taken.

    Welsh Smokeless Coal.
    SIR LEES KNOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total area in South Wales of the smokeless semi-bituminous coalfield; what is the estimated quantity in that area of un-worked smokeless coal, such as is suitable for naval as distinguished from ordinary steam purposes; and what was the total amount of such coal exported to foreign countries from Newport, Swansea and Cardiff in 1903.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS,): I am afraid the information in my possession does not enable me to answer the Question adequately. As
    582
    regards the first two paragraphs, I can only say that the whole matter of coal supplies in South Wales will come under the consideration of the Royal Commission which is now sitting. As regards the last paragraph, I am informed by the Board of Customs that the total amount of steam coal exported from Newport, Swansea, and Cardiff in 1903 was 18,427,574 tons, but they are unable to distinguish in this amount between the different classes of coal indicated by the hon. Baronet.
    SIR LEES KNOWLES: Is it the fact that the agents of the Admiralty at the present time are unable to obtain at Cardiff what are known as "spot" cargoes?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No. Sir.
    MR. COGHILL: Will the Government take steps to acquire these stocks of coal for this country?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I must ask for notice of that.
    SIR LEES KNOWLES: May I ask whether, in view of the urgency of the question, the right hon. Gentleman will ask the Commission to make an interim Report?
    MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: I do not think I can do that.
    SIR LEES KNOWLES: I beg to give notice that on an early date I will move that it is desirable that the Government should make early provision to ensure an adequate supply of smokeless steam coal for naval purposes in future years.

    Servants' Registry Offices.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to introduce any legislation with a view to regulating rates charged to applicants for employment through servants' registry offices.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: No, Sir. I have no information before me on which I feel called upon to contemplate such legislation.

    Board of Trade and Railway Management.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the steps which have been taken by his Department since March, 1903, to carry out the Railway Employment (Prevention of Accidents) Act, 1900, particularly as to the making of rules under Section 1, the inspection of railways under Section 13, and the making of inquiries and experiments under Section 15.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): As the hon. Member is aware, the Board of Trade put forward an amended rule under Section 1 of the Act respecting the provision of either-side brake levers on goods wagons, such rule being drawn on lines indicated by the Court of the Railway and Canal Commission when this subject was previously before the court. Certain objections were made to this amended rule by railway companies and were referred to the court. These objections were heard by the court in July last, but the hearing was adjourned in order that experiments might be conducted on certain forms of brake with regard to which evidence had been given. The Board are also proposing a rule to meet an application by the Taff Vale Railway Company for an exemption of certain trains from the operation of No. 8 of the rules made in 1902. The application was not in the first instance entertained by the Board of Trade, but the Commissioners to whom the matter was referred in pursuance of the Act decided that in the particular circumstances some exemption was reasonable. Since I replied to a Question by the hon. Member on the 25th March last year, sixty-eight additional inspections have been ordered of stations and sidings in connection with either the lighting thereof or the operations of propping and tow-roping. The reports of the inspecting officers on thirty-five of these cases have been received, and I am glad to be able to say that so far the railway companies seem generally willing to carry out any improvements the Board's officers have thought necessary. Arrangements are
    See (4) Debates, cxx., 170.
    584
    being made for the experiments to which I have already referred on particular forms of either-side brakes and I hope they will shortly be carried out.
    MR. JOHN ELLIS: Are any experiments contemplated in regard to automatic couplings?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: None have been undertaken, and none are in immediate contemplation.

    The Fiscal Inquiry.
    MR. BLACK: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the inquiry undertaken by the Government as to our fiscal policy is now concluded; and whether all the documents and statistics laid before the Government have been published.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: As I stated in reply to my right hon. friend the Member for East Somerset on Thursday last, inquiries are continually in progress by the Commercial, Labour, and Statistical Departments of the Board of Trade with a view to supplement and complete the information contained in the Blue-book (Cd. 1761). Some of the information procured is of a confidential character and could not be published, but the question of publishing other parts of the material—which is being got together—will be considered at a later stage.
    MR. BLACK: May I ask when the Prime Minister's pamphlet, advocating the taxation of food, will be circulated.
    [No answer was returned.]
    MR. REA: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause to be reproduced and published the charts prepared by his Department for the St. Louis Exhibition.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot give a definite answer at the present moment, but, if it is found to be possible, it will be done.

    Coal Export Duty
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what
    See page 347.

    585
    steps are taken by the Customs authorities to check the accuracy of the declared values of coal furnished by exporters at Cardiff and other South Wales ports; if he has any official information tending to throw doubts on the substantial correctness of the values of coal given in the monthly Trade Returns; and whether it has recently been found necessary in any case to enforce the penalties provided for in Clauses 110 and 168 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The Board of Customs inform me that as regards all coal on which rebate of duty is claimed, on the ground that the value did not exceed six shillings the ton, they require statutory declarations and invoices, in proof of value, and if necessary the exporter is called upon for an explanation, and required to amend the entry. As regards other coal, inquiries are made and invoices called for if there appears to be any reason to doubt the accuracy of the declared values. The answer to the second part of Question is in the negative. The Board of Customs have not, so far, had occasion to enforce the full penalty provided for by Section 168 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, in connection with erroneous declarations as to the value of coal exported, but fines have in some cases been inflicted on offenders. Section 110 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, has been repealed, and Section 11 of the Act, 44 Viet., Cap. 12, which replaced it, is not applicable to coal.

    Brussels Sugar Convention.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, having regard to the undertaking of the Government given on the 5th August, 1903, that if the Commission set up under the Brussels Sugar Convention should decide that sugared goods were not to be treated on the same basis as sugar by the contracting parties, steps would immediately be taken by the Government on behalf of the manufacturers in this country; and, seeing that this eventuality has now arisen, whether he will state what steps the Government propose to take.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The undertaking given on the date referred
    586
    to is not correctly described in the Question. The statements made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and by myself were to the effect that if and when the necessity should arise the Government would take precautions to prevent our manufacturers from being injured by the unfair competition of imported sugared products enjoying a bounty, or made with bountied sugar. To that pledge we adhere, but up to the present we are not aware that any appreciable quantity of sugared goods enjoying advantages of this nature are being imported into this country to the detriment of our manufacturers.
    MR. LOUGH: But has not the Sugar Commission given an exactly opposite decision to that stated by the right hon. Gentleman? Has he received any complaints from sugar manufacturers?
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think the discrepancy to which the hon. Member refers is in relation to the surtax. It was certainly understood that there should not be a larger surtax on sugared goods than on sugar, but the Commission has decided in an opposite sense.

    Amendment of the Companies Act.
    MAJOR EVANS-GORDON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the evasions of the Companies Act of 1900, disclosed in the last Report of the Inspector-General, in companies liquidation; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the further issue in this country of companies without prospectus, by which expedient the revenue and the public are defrauded.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: A Bill amending the Companies Act, 1900, in this and some other respects is in course of preparation.

    London Tube Railways.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Tube Railways have been subjected to inspection by the Board of Trade within the last few months; and is he in a position

    587
    to state that all reasonable precautions have been taken calculated to reduce to a minimum all risk of disasters similar to those which occurred in the Paris tubes.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: The precautions which are or might be taken against the risk of fire were discussed last autumn between the officers of the Board of Trade and those of the several Tube Railways open for traffic or in course of construction. The Board's Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways and their Electrical Adviser subsequently drew up a list of recommendations on which the observations of the companies were invited. The replies are not yet complete, but although there may be differences of opinion on some matters of detail, I have every reason to believe that the views of the Department, so far as not already met, will in the main be given effect to. When finally settled, these recommendations will be imposed as requirements so far as the powers of the Board extend.

    London Telephone System.
    SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General if he will state what progress has been made with the London telephone system, and how much of the money provided for the service has been expended.
    THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY,): Nine post office telephone exchanges have been opened in the London area, and three others are in course of construction. On the 4th inst., 15,020 telephones were working in connection with these exchanges. The expenditure for the working lines, and for a large amount of general construction available for the further development of the system and the establishment of additional exchanges, amounted, on the 30th November, to £1,441,775. Parliament, when providing money for telephone capital expenditure, did not allot a defined portion of that money to expenditure in London; but I may mention that the sums provided for such expenditure in general will be exhausted by the end of the present financial year, and that I propose at the earliest opportunity to ask leave to introduce a Bill to provide
    588
    further moneys for the extension of the telephone system.

    American Mail Routes.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the American mails delivered viâ Portsmouth take a longer time for delivery, especially in the commercial centres in the North of England and Scotland, than the mails carried riâ Queenstown and Dublin, he will arrange in future to continue the route most suitable to public convenience.
    LORD STANLEY: The United States Post Office makes its own arrangements for the conveyance of the mails which it sends to this country, and I have, I am afraid, no control over its action.

    M.P.'s and the Telephone.
    MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he will state Oil what grounds a charge of twopence is made to Members of this House for the use of a telephone which the Post Office has erected in one of the rooms of this House, while no charge is made to Members for the use of the Telephone Company's instruments; and whether he can see his way to remove this charge.
    LORD STANLEY: Twopence is the ordinary charge for the use of the telephone at a public call office in London, but circumstances in the case of telephones supplied in the precincts of this House are special, and I have decided that in future no charge shall be made to Members for their use.

    The Christ's Hospital Site.
    SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, whether in the contemplated acquisition by the Government of the site of Christ's Hospital, the purchase will be subject to the arrangement agreed to between the Corporation of London and the Governors of Christ's Hospital for making a street fifty feet wide between Giltspur Street and King Edward Street and for the widening of the latter thoroughfare.
    LORD STANLEY: The acquisition of the site of Christ's Hospital will not be subject to any arrangement for the formation of a new street, since any such scheme would render the property entirely unsuitable for the purpose for which it is required by the Post Office; but a strip of land is left at the disposal of the Governors of Christ's Hospital with a view to the widening of King Edward Street.
    SIR JOSEPH DIMSDALEasked if the noble Lord was aware that months before the Government entered into communication with the Governors of Christ's Hospital a site had been proposed to the Corporation of London for a new street and the widening of another street.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, Order! The hon. Gentleman is now arguing the Question.

    Tay Fisheries.
    SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether a report has been made to the Fishery Board for Scotland on the dispute between the drift and bag-net fishers on the Tay; and whether publicity will be given to it for the information of the disputants.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON,): No report has yet been received by the Fishery Board for Scotland regarding the dispute between the drift and bag-net fishers in the Tay.

    Geological Surveys of Ireland.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in view of the fact that the rock survey of England is completed and the soil or drift survey is now being carried on to completion on six-inch maps kept in the Geological Survey Office, he will state whether in Ireland the rock survey is finished and whether the drift or soil survey is being carried on; and whether he will consider the advisability of transfer-ling the work of the Geological Survey of Ireland to the Department of Agriculture in Ireland, and of publishing maps in the annual reports showing the progress made.
    THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD oF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON,): The survey of the solid geology of England has not been completed, but together with the drift survey is being carried on on the basis of six inches to the mile on maps published since the primary geolo-gica I survey was undertaken. The survey of the solid geology of Ireland was completed in 1837, and has been revised as materials became available. The drift survey, which must not be confused with a soil survey, continues to be carried on. The Board are considering the future relations of the work of the Geological Survey in Ireland to the allied economic inquiries conducted by the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, and hope shortly to be in a position to communicate with that Department on the subject. Maps showing the progress made are published with the Report of 1902; details of the progress are there given in the text. Fuller details are being prepared for the maps in the forthcoming Report.

    Railway Rates In Ireland.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction prevails amongst farmers and others in South Kerry who undertook experiments in the growing of early potatoes last year because of the failure of the Congested Districts Board to secure from the railway company a reduction of freight; and whether steps will be taken to secure a reduction in the coming season, and to advertise it for the benefit of those who are engaged in this industry.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM,): The agricultural work of the Congested Districts Board has lately been transferred to the Department of Agriculture. The Department has taken steps to secure reduced rates for the carriage of early potatoes grown in connection with its experiments, and steps will be taken to give publicity to the reduced rates that may be secured.

    Subsidised Coach and Steamer Services, Ireland.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the Government intend to withdraw the subsidy granted in connection with the tourist routes via Kilrush and Tarbert and via Kilrush and Foynes; and, if so, whether this intention may be reconsidered in the interest of the districts named.
    MR. JOYCE: At the same time may I ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government will continue the subsidy granted to coach and steamer services in the West of Ireland so that tourists will be able to avail themselves of those routes.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The two coach services between Listowel and Tarbert, and Ennistymon and Ballyvaughan, and the steamer service between Tarbert and Kilrush were experimentally established and subsidised under the Railways Act, 1896. These services have now been worked for nearly seven years, and I regret to say that the result of the experiment, financially, has been unsatisfactory. A considerable loss has been experienced on each service, and from the three services the total receipts have been less than twenty percent. of the expenditure. Under the circumstances, and having regard to the small unexpended balance of money available under the Act of 1896, notice has been given to terminate the existing contracts on the 31st May next.

    Lettir (Kerry) National School.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National Board of Education has finally decided on the plans for new schools; and whether the necessary steps will be taken to facilitate the immediate erection of a school at Lettir, Glenbeigh, County Kerry.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The applicant for a grant to build the school at Lettir has elected to wait until the new plans have been sanctioned. In respect to the general question, the Irish Government is
    592
    in communication with the Treasury, and I hope shortly to be in a position to make an announcement on the subject.

    Land Purchase Act—Public Trustee.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland the name of the public trustee appointed under the Land Purchase Act of last session, and the salary attached to the office; what his previous employment was; and whether he has any official address in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Arthur McClintock, whose appointment was published in the Press on the 9th October last. His salary is at the rate of £1,200 a year. For twelve years he occupied the position of land agent, and previously to that he was employed under the Arrears of Rent Act, 1882. His official address in Dublin is 25, Upper Merrion Street.

    Glannagh Land Dispute
    MR. J.P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of John Kenny, tenant to a middle landlord, living at Glannagh, county Longford, who is willing to sell his holding to him, but cannot do so in consequence of the attitude of the head landlord; and, if so, will he direct the Estate Commissioners in this case to purchase the holding with a view to resale to the tenant.
    Mr. WYNDHAM: A letter has been sent to the hon. Member saying there is a difficulty in identifying the case to which he refers, owing to the fact that the name of the middle landlord is not given. I have also told him that if he will communicate the name to me, I will be happy to make further inquiry.

    Longford Crimes Act Prosecution.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the £5 odd claimed by the Inspector-General of Police for an extra police force in County Longford, in connection with a Crimes Act prosecution there in the month of October, 1902, has been abandoned; and, if not, will he now direct that it be struck out.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The county council objected to make this payment under a misapprehension of the requirements of the law, which were explained to the council on the 4th inst. The claim will not be abandoned.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Then is it intended to exact the £5 from the county council?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, Sir.

    Longford Police Barracks Lock-up.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the insanitary condition of the lock-up for untried prisoners under temporary arrest in the Royal Irish Constabulary Barracks, Longford; and, whether, seeing that in consequence of cold and dampness several deaths have occurred in consequence of detention in this lock-up, he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to putting these cells into sanitary order and comfort, so that prisoners can be detained without danger to their health or life.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed that no deaths have occurred attributable to the condition of this lock-up. The building is detached from the police barrack and in this respect is inconveniently placed. I am making inquiry into its general condition and will communicate the result of my inquiries to the hon. Member.

    Irish Land Purchase—Future Tenants.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are on estates in Ireland numbers of tenants who under pressure of eviction and from other causes have been forced into the position of future tenants on the landlords' terms; and, if so, whether the cases of such will be considered in any amending Bill to the Irish Land Act of 1903 which may be introduced.
    MR. WYNDHAM: There is nothing in the Act of last year to debar future
    594
    tenants from purchasing. They can purchase under Clause 1 (2).

    Owenmore River Floods.
    MR. O'DOWD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, owing to the periodical flooding of the Owen-more River, in the county of Sligo, quantities of hay and other feeding stuffs are annually destroyed; whether he has received any report as to the effect of last year's flood, by which poor people have been ruined; and whether, in response to resolutions of the county council and other public bodies in Sligo, steps will be taken by the Irish Government or the Department of Agriculture to have this river drained.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Department of Agriculture will cause an inspection of this district to be carried out at an early date, with a view to determine what action it is practicable to take.

    Labourers' Cottages in Ireland's
    MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will grant the Return standing on today's Notice Paper relating to Labourers' Cottages in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Yes, the Return will be granted.
    The Return referred to is as follows:—
    Return showing the number of cottages applied for in every Poor Law Union in Ireland under the latest completed scheme in connection with the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, together with the number of applications for extra half acres to Cottages already built under the Acts under said scheme; how many of these applications for Cottages and extra half acres were sanctioned; the amount of expenses connected with such scheme; and in what way applied.

    Cusack Estate.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that application is being made to Mr. Justice

    595
    Ross to admit as tenants on the Cusack Estate for the purpose of sale a number of large farmers and planters to the exclusion of the evicted tenants or their representatives residing in the neighbourhood of this estate; and whether he is prepared to offer any suggestion to the Estate Commissioners to purchase this estate, with a view to re-sale to the former tenants or their descendants.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The application referred to comes on before Judge Ross to-day. The procedure in respect of estates for the sale of which an absolute order has been made is, so far as the Estate Commissioners are concerned, laid down in Section 7.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any action such as he took last year?
    MR. WYNDHAM: I must refer the hon. Member to the section of the Act which shows that the Estates Commissioners can only take action on information being laid.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: But cannot the right hon. Gentleman intervene. It would be much more effective.
    MR. WYNDHAM: I cannot undertake to do the work of the Judges or of the Estate Commissioners.

    Bee-keeping in Ireland.
    MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether any steps will be taken in the present session to frame a legislative measure with a view to stamping out the disease of foul brood amongst bees in Ireland.
    THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): A scheme has recently been issued by the Department of Agriculture enabling local authorities to arrange for the treatment of bees infected with this disease. The scheme also provides for their destruction, with the consent of the owner, and for the payment of compensation to the latter. The question as to the necessity for legislative action can best be decided when the scheme has been in operation for a sufficient time.

    Irish Magistracy.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland whether persons recommended for the commission of the peace by the Lord Lieutenant of the county are entitled thereby to be appointed to the magistracy, or whether, in case of conviction involving fine or imprisonment for any offence the Lord Chancellor is entitled to refuse the appointment though so recommended.
    MR. ATKINSON: The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. It is always competent to the Lord Chancellor to refuse to appoint a person to the commission of the peace under any circumstances. I cannot reply to the second part of the Question specifically, without being informed of the nature of the offence referred to.
    MR. J. P. FARRELL: If I bring concrete cases before the right hon. Gentleman will he take action.
    MR. ATKINSON: I shall be happy to answer any Question I can.

    Belfast Post Office—Counter Losses.
    MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has received official reports showing that the sums lost at the money order counter, Belfast, were actually passed over the counter to the public, and what steps have been taken to show that this was the case; and whether, in view of the fact that for the two years from 1st January, 1902, to 31st December, 1903. the sum of £70 18s. 9d. was lost at the money order counter, Belfast, he will state what steps he proposes taking to safeguard the interests of counter clerks in future.
    LORD STANLEY: I have not receive any reports of the kind indicated by the hon. Member and I am informed that no such reports have been made. The actual amount of the deficiencies noted in the cash at the money order counter during the two years ended the 31st of December last was £63 12s. 9d. and this was among twenty-seven officers who performed duty at the money order counter during that period. In some

    597
    cases it was afterwards found that the apparent deficiency was due to errors made by the officers in their accounts, and in consequence a considerable proportion of the above-mentioned sum was returned to the officers concerned. The conditions under which the officers work at the public counter at Belfast are considered satisfactory and the Postmaster of Belfast informs me that no complaints on the subject have been made by the staff.

    Kilrush and the Canadian Mail Service.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government, in connection with the new Canadian mail service, will carefully consider the claims of Kilrush, county Clare, as a port of call.
    LORD STANLEY: The question is one which concerns the Post Office. The hon. Member may rest assured that in any negotiation respecting the Canadian mail service, any advantages which Kilrush may possess as a port of call will not be lost sight of.

    Port of London Bill.
    MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended to proceed with the Port of London Bill.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I understand that my right hon. friend hopes to proceed with the Bill as soon as public business permits.
    SIR F. DIXON-HARTLAND: Is it intended to proceed with it before Easter?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: That depends on the state of public business.
    SIR F. DIXON HARTLAND: Will full notice be given?
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: Yes, Sir.

    Town Holdings Committee.
    MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of reappointing a Town Holdings Committee to consider
    598
    and report upon the existing terminable leasehold system and the taxation of land values.
    MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I can only repeat the reply which the Prime Minister gave in July†last to this Question—viz., that, while he does not underrate the importance of the question, he is not prepared to recommend the appointment of a Committee. I am aware of nothing that has since occurred to alter that view.

RUSSIA AND JAPAN.
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary whether the Government can communicate any information to the House as to the relations between Russia and Japan?
MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: We have been officially informed that diplomatic relations between the Governments of Russia and Japan have been broken off. As to the details I can add nothing to the information which appears in this connection in the public Press this morning.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Home Secretary if His Majesty's Government have issued instructions to the authorities of British ports and coaling stations abroad prescribing to them their conduct in the event of war towards belligerent ships of war. Will such ships of war only be permitted in such ports to be supplied with so much coal as will suffice to take them to the nearest port of their own country and no more; will they be prohibited from receiving any further supply of coal in any other British port until the expiration of three months from the date of the first supply, will their stay in such ports be restricted to twenty-four hours, except in the cas3 of stress of weather or distress for necessary repairs; and will such vessels be prohibited from bringing prizes into British ports. Will the same rules be enforced in the ports of the British self-governing colonies.
See (4) Debates, cxxv, 1320.
MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: The Government have not overlooked the questions of belligerency implied in my hon. friend's Question, but his Question itself is of a very highly technical character, and it would be more satisfactory if he would put it on the Paper.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I will put it down for to-morrow.

STANDING ORDERS.
Ordered, That the Select Committee on Standing Orders do consist of thirteen Members. Sir John Brunner, Mr. Buchanan, Mr. John Edward Ellis, Sir Thomas Esmonde, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Humphreys-Owen, Mr. James Lowther, Sir James Rankin, Mr. William Redmond, Colonel Stopford-Sackville, Sir Mark M'Taggart Stewart, Mr. Whitmore, and Mr. Wodehouse were accordingly nominated members of the Committee.—(Mr. Halsey.)
SELECTION.
Mr. Blake, Mr. Sydney Buxton, Sir John Dorington, Sir William Hart Dyke, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Fenwick, Mr. McKenna, Sir Mark McTaggart Stewart, Mr. Wharton, and Mr. Wodehouse were nominated members of the Committee of Selection with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.—(Mr. Halsey.)
NEW BILL.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to Coal Mines," presented by Sir Charles Dilke; supported by Mr. William Abraham (Rhondda), Mr. Thomas Bayley, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Jacoby, Mr. Keir Hardie, Mr. Theodore Taylor, Mr. McKenna, and Mr. Herbert Lewis; to be read a second time upon Friday, 25th March, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  [FIFTH DAY.]
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [2nd February],
  600
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  Most Gracious Sovereign,—
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Hardy.)
  Main Question again proposed,—
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name—"And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that it ! is essential for the safeguarding and promotion of the commercial and political interests of the British Empire that adequate steps should be taken to maintain and extend our commercial treaty rights, and that the Consular Service should be reorganised and strengthened on lines calculated to make it more effective for the promotion of the trade of the British Empire." As a Member of the House who has always been actively engaged in endeavouring to promote the prosperity of British trade, I welcome the attention that is now being given on the part of this country to the condition of our trade and commerce, and I desire to bring under the consideration of the House some practical methods which might be employed by the Government in developing that trade, altogether apart from the imposition of protective or preferential tariffs, which would, in my opinion, being an interference with the freedom of our trade and commerce, tend to lessen rather than to increase its prosperity. I will briefly refer to the urgent need which exists for the reorganisation and strengthening of the British Consular J Service, so as to make it more effective for the promotion of British trade. As at present constituted, the British Consular Service is deficient and inefficient for this purpose. The Committee which sat last yearunder the chairmanship of Sir William Walrond to inquire into the constitution of the Consular Service, reported most emphatically in favour of radical and important changes, and it was with the

  601
  deepest regret that I saw no reference was made in the King's Speech to any intention on the part of the Government to introduce legislation carrying out those recommendations.
  The Committee reported that the Consular Service at the present moment is not attractive to capable young men in that it offers no definite prospects of promotion, because men, new to the service, may be appointed over the heads of those who have been years in it. The Report goes on to say that the Committee, while they recognise that power must be reserved to the Secretary of State to appoint any person, regardless of the age limit, to one of the higher positions by reason of his special qualifications, recommend, nevertheless, that such appointments should be rare, so as to avoid lessening the attractions of the service by blocking the promotion of deserving officers. Then, in regard to commercial training, they strongly recommend that an effort should be made to draw into the Consular Service young men who have been trained in commercial houses for four or five years, and that there should be introduced—in order to increase the efficiency of the service—some system of inspection of the Consulates and Vice-Consulates. That reminds me that within my own knowledge several most distinguished members of the Consular Service have been attracted from it by the offer of more lucrative appointments elsewhere, and I venture to say that if there had been some system of appointing Inspectors-General of Consulates, the services of these distinguished and experienced men might have been retained. How, for instance, can the British Minister at Pekin properly supervise and visit all the Consulates and Vice-Consulates throughout the great Chinese Empire? It is absolutely necessary, then, for the efficiency of the service to have Inspectors-General appointed. Another important recommendation is that in large cities the system of having unpaid Consuls should be continued. On that point I am at variance with the Committee, because I venture to hold that the appointment of unpaid British Consuls and especially of foreigners to represent British trade is adverse to the interests of our trade. Probably they are members of business
  602
  houses working in competition with other firms, and obviously it cannot be expected, while human nature remains what it is, that they should afford equal facilities to the whole British commercial community in conflict with their own personal interests. There has, it is noteworthy, been practically no increase in the expenditure on our Consular Service in the last thirty years. Thirty years ago it cost £200,000 annually. Now the cost is only £230,000, and, seeing that our trade has practically doubled and our shipping trebled in that time, it is clear the service must be deficient so far as regards the employment of a sufficient army of able agents to promote our trade and commercial interests all over the world.
  One suggestion I have to make is that our Consuls should have more leave given them to enable them to put themselves in direct communication with the commercial communities in this country doing business where they are located, another is that there should be a better system of control and supervision as between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. The delay which formerly prevailed in the publication of Consular Reports has largely been got rid of, but the fact remains that there is no proper provision for a careful examination of the Reports before they are printed, and there is no one at the Foreign Office whose duty it is to read them and to bring their merits or demerits under the notice of the Department or of the Secretary of State. I could quote the opinions of Mr. Bryce, Sir Charles Dilke, Sir Edward Grey, and Lord Derby in regard to the disorganisation of the service and the necessity for ensuring promotion by merit, if the services of the best men are to be secured, and if the service is to be made as efficient as it-should be in the interests of British trade.
  I have this to say, that in my somewhat extended travels I have had many opportunities of meeting the Consuls of the United States of America, Germany, and Japan in various parts of the world, and I am bound to confess that, though we have many good men in our Consular Service doing excellent work, I believe that the Consular Services of those countries are more highly equipped, better organised, and better paid than ours; and that

  603
  hey are at the present moment giving I more attention to the promotion of the commerce of their countries than to the discharge of judicial and diplomatic functions. They are, in fact, superior to our Consular Service in promoting the trade and commerce of their respective nations. It has been admitted by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that our Consular Service is defective in connection with Persia. Last year the noble Lord said—
  "I am bound to say that my impression is that the Consular Service has for some years past been undermanned in point of numbers, and also insufficiently equipped in point of that special knowledge which members of the Consular Service in remote countries like Persia should possess."
  And he added—
  "I hope that before long I shall be able to announce that we have chosen means for giving our Consular representatives in Persia that special knowledge which, under the present system, they have, perhaps, not sufficient opportunities of acquiring."
  I shall be glad if the noble Lord can state to us what arrangements have been made to secure that object. We were told only last year in regard to the French Congo, where important British commercial interests were threatened, that this country had only one single Consul in that country, which is larger than France; and I want to know whether that has been remedied. Turning to the Colonies, we find that whilst foreign nations have got Consuls in all the British Colonies promoting the trade interests of their respective countries, we alone have no Consular representatives in the shape of trade agents in any single British Colony to further the commercial interests of the mother country. I learned only the other day from a Canadian friend that, through the active efforts of Belgian Consuls, two or three large bridge contracts had recently been given to Belgium, whereas we had no one on the ground to make similar efforts in behalf of British bridge builders. Again, I would give the House an example that I saw myself last year in Canada. I went to the town of Chicoutimi, where I found huge pulp mills recently erected which had been supplied with pulping machinery, turbines, electrical plant, and huge penstocks constructed of iron and steel for securing water pressure for driving the
  604
  works. I found, also, that the whole produce of that great pulp mill had been sold for five years ahead in London. Knowing that we had a rebate of one-third from the Canadian import duty, and that our ships were going out light to bring back cargoes of pulp, I naturally expected we should have had a share in that trade; I said to my Canadian friend—
  "I hope the mother country got a share of the orders for the new plant."
  But he replied that—
  "British manufacturers did not supply an ounce; they, in Canada, did not even know that we made such things in England. The fact is, he said, we had at least twenty commercial travellers from the United States of America seeking this business, and not one from England."
  I quote this as a striking example of the fact that our trade is placed at a disadvantage in having no trade agents at work in our interest the same as other countries have agents working in their interest, and also by the inactivity of our commercial travellers. I recognise that the Agent-General of Canada does what he can to bring about trade relations between Canadian and British business houses, but that is no excuse whatever for the continuance of the present system. We have a Government in power which professes to be concerned about our trade and commerce. Let them take steps to improve by reorganisation on proper lines, and by proper equipment, our Consular Service. I would like to ask the noble Lord whether His Majesty's Government have appointed three Consuls to go to the newly opened treaty ports in Manchuria? We learn that the United States of America have already appointed Consuls there, who are to be at their posts within six weeks. Is the British Government going to be behindhand, are we to have no British agents to look after British commerce as soon as these ports are open? I much regret that there is no reference whatever in the King's Speech as to whether or not the Government intend to give effect to the recommendations in the Report of the Committee on the Consular Service. I raise this as no Party matter. I should be abundantly gratified if the noble Lord is able to give us the fullest assurance that they will be given effect to at the earliest possible date. But at this

  605
  juncture, when the whole attention of the nation is being devoted to our trade and commerce, I think a reference to it might well have been introduced into the King's Speech.
  I turn to the second subject I ask the House to consider—viz., whether our commercial interests have not suffered through the neglect of the Government to vigorously promote and extend British treaty rights. Take an example, in the first place, from our Colonies. We were rejoiced to know that our great Dominion of Canada had made a reduction of one-third on their duties in favour of British goods; but is the country aware—is the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield aware, that while Canada gives with one hand, she takes away with the other in the case of the iron and steel trade of this country, a trade with which the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield is identified?
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: Not a bit of it.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Evidently the hon. and gallant Member is not aware of the great extension of the bounty system in Canada which has taken place since last autumn, even since 8th May, a notable political date. What are the facts in regard to that bounty system, not only on the iron and steel manufactures of Canada, but upon the hen and steel manufactures from this country, which pay a high import duty in addition to the costs of freight and insurance from our ports to the ports over there? The Canadian Parliament has in the last session passed two new Bounty Bills under which they have taken power to give a bounty not exceeding seven dollars per ton on steel rails produced in Canada, and from three to four dollars per ton on structural iron and steel—joists, girders, channels, bars, and plates.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask is this pertinent to the Consular Service? The Motion refers to the inadequacy of the Consular Service, and I am not aware that this has anything to do with that subject.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: The second part of ray Motion is that "it is essential for the safeguarding and promotion of the commercial and political interests of the British Empire that adequate steps should be taken to maintain and extend our commercial treaty rights," and I take it that our commercial treaty rights are invaded by the bounty system. I specially notice with astonishment that no protest has been made by the Government or by their supporters, and especially in the numerous speeches delivered by the ox-Colonial Secretary, in condemnation of this extended system of bounties by which Canada is strangling our iron and steel industry. The right hon. Gentleman told us how he had condemned the strangling of the sugar trade of the West Indies by the Continental sugar bounties. Why do not he and his followers equally condemn the system of bounties so widely extended in Canada, and which is absolutely strangling our iron and steel trade? Is the hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield not aware that in the year ending the 30th June last, in addition to their protective duties, the Canadian Government gave in the shape of bounties $1,400,000 to Canadian iron and steel makers; and is he not aware that in the current year they are going to give them $2,000,000? I was told in Ottawa in October last that the new Canadian Railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the making of which was about to begin, would require 3,000,000 tons of steel rails, and that under the new system of bounties they did not expect to get a single rail from England; the whole would, they hoped, be made in Canada. Where is the prospect of the increase of trade in Canada from this country? While the Government have been hypocritically professing to be filled with concern about the trade of this country they have never uttered a word, nor has the ex-Colonial Secretary, who is misleading the nation, as to the true trade relations between this country and Canada.
  Turning to another great question on which the Government have, in my opinion, failed to maintain and extend our just commercial treaty

  607
  rights, let me instance the case of China, with its 400,000,000 of population. If that great country were to increase its trade to the same extent as the trade of Japan has been increased, it would be doing to-day seven times more oversea trade than it is now doing. For the five years ended 1901, the United States trebled their trade with China, whereas the trade of the United Kingdom fell 15½ per cent. In 1902 the trade of China increased £7,000,000 sterling. The noble Lord smiles; but how much of that £7,000,000 did we secure? We secured only £1,000,000 or 14 per cent., whereas our average previously of the entire trade of China had been 46 per cent. That shows how we are losing ground with regard to our trade with China. There is another point also. Take the shipping trade, upon which we so much depend for the continuance of our prosperity. The shipping trade during the ten years ended 1902, so far as China is concerned, went down 15½ per cent., whereas the trade of Germany during that period increased 8 per cent and the trade of Japan 12 per cent. To what causes may this falling off in British trade be attributed? I think I shall be able to show that it is largely due to the British Government failing to give the same vigorous support to British commercial interests in China as has been given by the Governments of competing nations.
  Take the case of railways. China, the richest Empire on earth, is for the first time being supplied with a system of railways. The Government told us in this House with a great flourish of trumpets that British concessionnaires had got concessions for 2,800 miles of these railways. But not one single concession has yet been ratified, whereas Russia, France, Germany, Belgium and the United States are busily engaged in laying down railways in China. We opened China to trade; we fought at least two wars at great cost to keep it open, and yet when this unequalled and unparalleled opportunity of large and profitable trade with China has arisen, we have no share or part or lot in the matter. Yet the British Government says that they are concerned as to the position of our trade and commerce. What did the noble
  608
  Lord the Secretary of State admit himself last year, as regarded the construction of railways. He said that he freely admitted that we had much ground for complaint regarding the manner in which the Chinese Government had dealt with applications for concessions, that the Government had found it necessary to make strong remonstrances to the Chinese Government on the subject, and that Sir Ernest Satow would return to China fully aware of the views of the Government and with instructions to support them energetically. That is an absolute confession on the part of the Government of the failure of their efforts in respect of British investors and British manufacturers having a fair share in the work of supplying China with a system of railways. But that is not the worst of the case, because in connection with a great majority of the railway concessions granted by China to foreign nations there is to be found inserted a clause under which it is stipulated that the whole of the railway material and rolling stock required is to be drawn exclusively from the countries of the respective concessionnaires to the absolute exclusion of British manufacturers. That, in my opinion, is a violation on the part of the Chinese Government of the most-favoured-nation clause contained in the Treaty of Tientsin. These railways have been constructed by foreign nations for the Chinese Government. They purport to be Chinese railways; the Chinese Government have a right under certain conditions to take them over; and I submit it is a violation of the most-favoured-nation clause that we should be deprived of all chance of having any part in the supply of railway material and rolling stock for these railways. I am bound to say that all the blame does not attach to His Majesty's. Government. Very great blame rests on the British syndicates who sought railway concessions and who, when they got them, failed to give effect to them. It is a disgrace to this country that whereas Belgian, French, American, and Russian investors found no difficulty whatever in raising the funds required to carry out their agreements with the Chinese Government, British subjects

  609
  rest under the disgrace of having failed to fulfil their obligations. I think the British Government ought to try and encourage the entrance into the field of competition of other British investors, and that we should not hope too much from the existing syndicates.
  Another important question, so far as British trade is concerned, is that some arrangement should be arrived at under which we shall enjoy equal rights in regard to railway rates over the Chinese railways with those enjoyed by the country constructing them. Lord Salisbury recognised the importance of this question, and gave instructions some years ago that this point should be very strongly pressed, and that some arrangement should be arrived at. The Russian Government in reply said, "Oh well, the railways are not yet built, and it will be soon enough to discuss the question of railway rates when they are." I should like to know from the noble Lord whether this important question is engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): Preferential rates are prohibited by the Treaty of Tientsin.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I should like the noble Lord to quote the clause which confirms that view. But we ought not to rest too much on the Treaty of Tientsin. It has been superseded by the recent treaty between His Majesty's Government and China, and by other treaties with other Powers. It would have been infinitely better if this particular clause had been brought forward and introduced definitely into the new treaty.
  EARL PERCY: There is no doubt whatever that preferential rates would be contrary to our most-favoured-nation rights under the Treaty of Tientsin, which has not been superseded by the recent commercial agreement.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I should have imagined that a statesman of the experience of Lord Salisbury would not have thought it necessary to press this
  610
  as a most important question if it had been already fully and satisfactorily secured by the Treaty of Tientsin. I have great doubt in my mind as to whether the explanation of the noble Lord will bear examination. I complain of the Government for having failed to arrange an equally satisfactory commercial treaty with China as has been concluded between the United States and China and Japan and China. Under our treaty with China one advantage is supposed to be the abolition of the Likin duties, but the Native Customs are continued not only on the coast but on the inland waterways and land trade routes in the interior of China. In the American treaty, however, these duties are limited to the ports and the land frontiers of China. It is perfectly true that in our treaty five new ports are to be opened, but four of these ports are conditional upon the treaty being accepted by all the other treaty Powers, and only one is conditional on the signing of the treaty. As regards our treaty commercial rights in Manchuria, all I will say is that while His Majesty's Government did not get a new treaty port in Manchuria, the United States succeeded in securing three, showing thereby that they regarded Manchuria as an integral part of the Chinese Empire. I should like to ask the noble Lord if he will tell us what Powers have assented to the British treaty; also whether the treaty came into force on the 1st January last, which was the date fixed. There are several provisions in that treaty which if brought into force would promote British trade and commerce. I should like to know whether the new rules relating to the inland waterways have come into force, and whether the five new treaty ports have been opened to trade, and, if not, when they will? Have the ports on the Yangtse River and West River been opened?
  There is also another important question, and that is the grave and serious danger which now threatens British commercial interests in Manchuria. That great Province, with an area of 400,000 square miles and a population of 15,000,000, has great possibilities of expansion of trade. Last year its trade, although it has only one treaty port, was £6,000,000 sterling, of which the

  611
  British Empire secured 42 per cent. Russia, on the other hand, did nil. British shipping was 175,000 tons, Russian shipping 1,200 only, and yet the Government now in power allowed Russia, with no trade interest whatever, through the treaty port of Niu-chwang, to assume absolute military and civil control of the port. At the present moment Russian officials are in control of the Customs House, and collect customs duties to the tune of 1,500,000 taels a year, which they do not hand over to the Chinese Government although those duties are the security for British bondholders. They simply pay them to the Russo-Chinese Bank and what becomes of them no one knows. They are now in actual military and civil occupation of the port of Niu-chwang. It is quite true that they undertook to evacuate it on 8th October last, but they are there still, and I want to know from the noble Lord what steps have been, or are going to be taken, in the interest of British commercial and trading rights, by the Government to restore to the British traders the rights they are entitled to. We have had given to the Chinese Government given in this House; given in the House of Lords; published in the Press; a multitude of assurances as to Russia's intentions in regard to the evacuation of Manchuria and Niu-chwang, but these assurances remain unfulfilled. Before going into that, I say that in our new treaty there is no proper provision for securing to us the most-favoured-nation clause. There is only a very shadowy provision that we shall participate in the most-favoured-nation tariffs, but when I turn to the Japanese treaty I find it is expressly stipulated—
  "That the commerce rights and privileges of Japan shall not be placed at any disadvantage as compared with the commerce rights and privileges of any other Power."
  The Japanese Government safeguard to themselves in that explicit fashion every right that may hereafter be granted to the subjects of other countries. Our Government do nothing of the sort. I have the treaty here, and I ask the noble Lord to point to any one clause of it and show where British trade is protected in the same manner. This treaty is only another example of the slipshod manner
  612
  in which our treaties are framed and worded.
  Now I turn to the Manchurian question. In 1895 the Russian Government addressed a communication to the Japanese Government—and I would especially ask the attention of the noble Lord to this quotation—in the following terms—
  "The Imperial Russian Government having examined the terms of peace demanded of China by Japan consider that the contemplated possession of the Liau-tung peninsula by Japan will not only constitute a constant menace to the capital of China, but will also render the independence of Korea illusory and thus jeopardise the permanent peace of the Far East. Accordingly the Imperial Government, in a spirit of cordial friendship for Japan, hereby counsel the Government of the Emperor of Japan to renounce the definitive possession of the Liautung peninsula."
  Then in 1898, in the Manchurian railway agreement between Japan and Russia, Russia says—
  "This railway concession is never to be used as a pretext for encroachment on Chinese territory, nor to be allowed to interfere with Chinese authority or interests."
  Nothing could be more explicit than that. Then we come to 1902, and what is known as the Manchurian Convention, and then we have it stated that—
  "Russia consents to the re-establishment of Chinese authority in Manchuria, which remains an integral portion of the Chinese Empire, and restores to China the right to exercise sovereign and administrative powers as before the occupation by Russian troops."
  I especially draw the noble Lord's attention to that. Russia, Sir!
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I would point out to the hon. Member that though, as he is now speaking of the main question, he is entitled to refer to these matters, but his present observations are not pertinent to his Amendment, and the noble Lord will not be permitted to answer them when the Amendment has been put from the Chair.
  ME. JOSEPH WALTON: The point I was attempting to make, Sir, was that our trade interests were not being protected.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appeared to have gone beyond that, and gone into the territorial question.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: I had no desire to transgress, and the question on this occasion is really this: Russia undertakes to restore to China the sovereign and administrative power in Manchuria, as before the occupation by Russian troops, my point being that unless the sovereignty of Manchuria is restored to China, our treaty rights will not be protected. But we had some assurances also I in regard to the evacuation by Russia of Manchuria. On 30th April Lord Cranborne announced in this House of Commons—
  "That the Russian Government disclaim all intention of seeking for exclusive privileges in Manchuria or departing from the assurances given in respect of that province."
  And then again, on the 11th of May, in reply to a Question I put to the noble Lord in this House he told us—
  "In reply to independent friendly communications which during the last few days have been addressed to the Russian Government by the Government of the United States and of His Majesty, the Russian Government have intimated that they adhere to the engagements into which they have entered to evacuate Manchuria; though the evacuation has been temporarily delayed,"
  I do not desire to enter into any territorial question in China, because we have no territorial questions there. All we desire, in common with the United States of America and other nations, is to maintain the integrity of China and equal opportunity for all nations to trade there. What I would ask the noble Lord to do is to give the House some proof that the Government have not been unmindful of our great commercial interests in that great Empire. It seems to me in the present deplorable condition of affairs in the Far East there should be some mediation by Powers like ourselves and America to press upon Russia the necessity of observing her pledges with regard to Manchuria, and thus avert war. On the Government at the present moment rests the most supreme responsibility, and the eyes of the whole of the civilised world are upon them as to the action they take.
  But it is not only with regard to China that we have to complain. Take the treaty with Persia last year; was a more slipshod treaty ever signed? It was presented to us with only the signature
  614
  of Mr. Naus, the Belgian head of Customs, on behalf of the Shah of Persia. What I complain of is that this Government, which claims to have such a deep interest in upholding and promoting the prosperity of the trade and commerce of this country, actually sanctioned a treaty with Persia which gave Russia great preferences over this country. Under the Treaty of Turkomanchai of 1828, we had equal rights and privileges, 5 per cent. ad valorem. Under the treaty of last year that 5 per cent. was raised to 100 per cent. in the case of tea and 8 per cent. in the case of cotton, while the duty on Russian petroleum has been reduced from 5 per cent. to 3 per cent. In ten years ending 1901, Russian trade with Persia increased 125 per cent. while for the same period British trade declined 33 per cent.
  Now, let me turn to the question of British treaty rights with Madagascar. No one rejoices more than I do at the establishment of the entente cordiale between the great French speaking nation and ourselves. What are the facts in regard to British trade with Madagascar? Formerly we had 95 per cent. of the trade; now we have 5 per cent., and the falling off is due to the absolute surrender by the Government of British commercial treaty rights with Madagascar. Moreover, our trade has been curtailed in Tunis, and I say that in view of the present friendly relations between the two countries, His Majesty's Government will be failing in their duty towards the trade and commerce of the kingdom if they do not make vigorous efforts to secure better treatment for us. Turning to the West Coast of Africa, I submit that the Government have failed to uphold the rights and interests of British traders in the Congo—especially the French Congo. At a time when it is said that our trade is going to the dogs, I suggest that the measures I have indicated—the reorganisation of the Consular Service, the making of it more effective for the promotion of British trade, and the maintenance and extension of our just commercial treaty rights all the world over—are practical means for increasing the prosperity of British trade, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us satisfactory assurances on these matters.

  615
  If he would assure us that, instead of asking for a loaded revolver with which to enter upon a fiscal war with the whole universe, the Foreign Secretary will devote his earnest attention to remedying the defects I have pointed out, he would secure much more practical benefit to British trade than by any illusory schemes of fiscal retaliation. The question of British trade and commerce is not a Party question, for surely Members on both sides and their constituents are equally interested in upholding and extending the prosperity of the trade and commerce of the country. I beg to move.
  MR. RIGGformally seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed at the end of the Question to add the words—
  "'And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that it is essential for the safeguarding and promotion of the commercial and political interests of the British Empire that adequate steps should be taken to maintain and extend our commercial treaty rights, and that the Consular Service should be reorganised and strengthened on lines calculated to make it more effective for the promotion of the trade of the British Empire.'"—(Mr. Joseph Walton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  EARL PERCY: The hon. Member has dwelt with great insistence—and with a pessimism which is not frequently reflected in the speeches of his Party when dealing with our fiscal policy—on the importance of British trade, especially in China. We all recognise the great importance of our trade interests in China. It is almost a common-place. The loss of the Chinese market would be a severe blow to our present trade; the loss of the prospective markets of China would be a still more serious blow to our trade of the future. We all admit the premises of the hon. Gentleman, but when upon those premises he proceeds to build an argument implying that it is the duty of the British Government to maintain, and increase British trade, I must demur from his proposition. So long as we adhere to cur present fiscal policy, that is not only not the duty of the British Government, but it is beyond our power. Hitherto we have de-
  616
  liberately adhered to our old system of drawing a clear line of demarcation between the province of the State and the province of the individual trader. We have deliberately adopted an attitude of laissez faire, or at least, of benevolent neutrality towards the efforts of British commercial enterprise. We altogether decline to use State credit for the purpose of financing or aiding industrial or commercial undertakings abroad; and we do not use our tariff for the purpose of imparting an artificial stimulus to our export trade. Foreign countries adopt the very opposite policy. They not only act as the fester-mothers of their own trade, but they might almost be said to be traders on their own account. By a great variety of expedients—the protection of the home market, bounties on exports, drawbacks, preferential railway rates, subsidies to shipping, and guaranteed loans for railway enterprise abroad—they do everything in their power to maintain their hold on existing markets, and to capture new ones; and they test the success of that policy, not by the burden of taxation which it throws upon their own subjects, but by the resultant increase of their export trade. It is well that we should understand one another. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham recently impressed upon an audience the necessity of learning to think Imperially. I think it is equally important that we should learn to think clearly. I should very much like to know what is the policy of the hon. Gentleman opposite. Does he desire that we should change our policy, and adopt that of foreign countries in these matters? If the Party opposite desire that, let them say so, and we shall be prepared to discuss it.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Change your policy of "drift."
  EARL PERCY: If, however, they are perfectly satisfied with improved technical education, with more Charlottenburg schools, with a remodelled and extended Consular Service, then all I say is—thai, measures of this kind, however desirable, form but an insignificant part of the

  617
  machinery on which our foreign competitors rely to take away our trade, and as complete remedies they would not be effective. Unless we are prepared to go very much further, what is the use of indulging in all this hollow rhetoric about the British Government not affording the same amount of support to their nationals that is afforded by foreign Governments to theirs? I entirely deny that the decline of British trade, such as it is, is to be traced to the causes to which the hon. Member refers. As I have said, so long as our present fiscal policy is adhered to, it is not the duty of the British Government to maintain and increase our commerce; that is the duty of British traders. The duty of the Government is to keep clear the avenues and to increase, if possible, the opportunities for commerce, and to see that the open door is really open, and not merely ajar.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: But you do not do it.
  EARL PERCY: It is by that test, and that test alone, that our policy must be judged. The hon. Member will forgive me if I do not follow him into such ancient history as that of our commercial treaty with Madagascar. That has been often discussed in this House, and I think everybody is perfectly aware of the circumstances of the case. When the French first went to Madagascar and established a Protectorate, we did obtain a definite assurance that they would continue to respect the treaty rights which we had obtained from the native Government. Subsequently, when they converted the protectorate into annexation, they held that by the act of annexation they had dispensed themselves from the necessity of acting any longer upon assurance. We did not hold that view at the time, and we not hold it now; we protested at the time, and we have continued to protest. I do not know that there is anything more to be said about it except that it is an experience by which we should do well to profit when we are engaged in negotiations of the same kind, so that, knowing the view the French Government take of the effect of annexation, we may avoid similar misunderstanding in the future.
  618
  Then the hon. Member passed from Madagascar to Persia, and criticised our commercial treaty. To begin with I should like to make two corrections. The hon. Member seemed to think that the mode in which the signatures were appended to the treaty constituted a departure from precedent. It did nothing of the kind. The document was signed in the French text by the English plenipotentiaries, and in the Persian text by the Persian plenipotentiaries. Then he said we had gratuitously prevented our Colonies from giving to the mother country preferential treatment. We did nothing of the kind. On the contrary, we took care to obtain a special assurance from the Persian Government that nothing in the treaty would prevent the Colonies from giving preferential treatment to the mother country.
  Ms. JOSEPH WALTON: That assurance is not in the treaty.
  EARL PERCY: No, and there is nothing in the treaty which binds the Persian Government regarding the preferences given by the colonies to the mother country.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTON: Oh yes, there is.
  EARL PERCY: At all events, the Persian Government takes a different view from the hon. Gentleman. Then he says that in that treaty we are worse off than we were under the old treaty. Yes, and I am very glad he has drawn attention to the fact; it is an admirable illustration of the value to us of the most-favoured-nation clause, which hon. Members opposite seem to regard as the sheet-anchor of our commercial prosperity. For something like half a century, up to last year, British trade in Persia depended exclusively on most-favoured-nation treatment under the Russian treaty. The time came when the Persian Government was in need of money, and wished to substitute a now commercial treaty for the old one, and the Russians in negotiating the new commercial treaty took very great care of their own interests and were not specially

  619
  careful to safeguard the interests of Great Britain. No one can say that that was satisfactory to us, but the blame attaches to both Governments—Liberal as well as Conservative. I think the hon. Member might have given the present Government the credit of having been the first Government who have taken the trouble to put our commercial rights in Persia beyond doubt and secure for us not only the same rights as the Russian Government obtained, but also a definite security that the rate of duties cannot be again raised on British commerce without our consent. I am happy to inform the hon. Member that although, on the face of it, that that treaty did seem likely to have an injurious effect on British trade, it has not had that effect so far as we have been able to ascertain. I have got out the figures of the imports during the first quarters of 1902–3 and 1903–4. I give them in quantities and not in value. The Customs returns show that in the period March to June, 1903–4, the import of Russian tea increased by 398 maunds, while the import of tea from the British Empire increased by 92,855 maunds. The increase in cotton tissues from Russia was 140,288 maunds whilst the increase for the British Empire was 268, 738 maunds. So far as we are able to ascertain the facts the Treaty has not had any really serious effect in diminishing British exports to Persia. The hon. Member went on to discuss the position in China. He referred to our trade there, and he seemed to think that it had steadily and even rapidly diminished. I do not want to weary the House by quoting any more statistics, but I assure the House that that is not so, but British trade, on the contrary, is now steadily rising. There was a period just after the Boxer trouble when there was a certain diminution, but since then it has more than recovered its former level. The hon. Member dealt with the question of railway concessions. If we consider merely the mileage obtained by British as compared with foreign concessionaires, our record compares very favourably with theirs. It is quite true that there has been a regrettable delay in materialising those concessions, and so far as that is due to the action of the Chinese Government, we have lost no opportunity of urging them to accelerate the proceedings, and I am
  620
  happy to say that, at the present moment the prospects of British railway enterprise in China are better than they have been for a long time past. In August last year an understanding was arrived at with Prince Ching under which the Pekin Syndicate's line north of the Yellow River is to have a Chinese Government guarantee, and the promise obtained by the British and China Corporation to construct a railway from Pukon opposite Nanking to join the Luhan line at Sinyang has been confirmed. We have also obtained a promise from the Chinese Government that whenever the time arrives when they wish to have a railway built from the Yangtze to Szechuan and they are not able to find the funds themselves they will apply to British capital. The hon. Member has alluded to the question of railway material and he seems to think that there are certain clauses in the contracts made by foreign companies with the Chinese Government compelling them to order all their railway material from a particular source, which would constitute a violation of the most-favoured-nation treatment. As far as we are aware, there is no clause of such a character in those contracts and we shall be glad if the hon. Member will give us any definite information on that point. He has also alluded to the commercial treaty signed by ourselves and China last year, and he is much aggrieved that we did not insert in that treaty a clause asserting our right to most-favoured-nation treatment. As I said before, there is no need for such a clause, because it does not supersede the Treaty of Tientsin, and under that treaty our right to the most-favoured-nation treatment is safeguarded. The new British commercial treaty came into operation in July last year, and not January of this year as the hon. Member said. Article VIII. will come into force when it has been accepted by the other Powers. With regard to treaty ports Kongmoon has been already opened by Imperial decree and has been a port of call ever since the West River was opened to steamers. Nanning Fu has also been opened by Imperial decree. It was discovered that steamers cannot easily reach Nanning Fu, and that as regards trade it is not the important place it was at

  621
  onetime supposed to be. Therefore no steps have been taken either by the Chinese Government or our own Government to establish a Customs House or Consuls there. As regards ports of call on the West River eight ports have been opened for passenger traffic. Rules for inland navigation have been issued by Sir Robert Hart, and provisional regulations for carrying out the stipulations of the Treaty have been approved by the Chinese Foreign Office. There was no prevision in the Treaty for the creation of a conservancy at Canton, but a survey of the harbour has been carried out by a Chinese revenue steamer with a view to the removal of obstructions. At Whangpo a Board was to be formed. It has not, however, been constituted yet owing to the delay of the Chinese Government in appointing their representative. We have made frequent representations on the subject; and it will become necessary if the Chinese Government do not appoint their representative to proceed with the constitution of the Board without him. I do not know whether the hon. Member expects me this afternoon to go into a comparison of the advantages between the British treaty and the treaties made with the United States and Japan. I dispute entirely that the United States treaty is superior to ours. On the contrary, the United States treaty omits provisions of the utmost importance to British trade. As regards their two treaty ports, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to appoint and send out Consuls to both Mukden and Antung.
  The hon. Member asked me a general question with reference to the situation in Manchuria as bearing on the treaty rights of this country. I do not want to discuss that subject in detail for very obvious reasons, but I may say that no effective steps have been taken to carry out the evacuation of Manchuria since the House rose. After the notification by Admiral Alexieff in May that the province of Shingking was to be evacuated, as the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, Mukden was again reoccupied by Russian troops. As regards Niu-chwang the hon. Gentleman has correctly stated the position. The maritime Customs are still paid into the Russo-Chinese bank to the credit
  622
  of the Russian Government. As regards the native Customs which also form part of the security for the Indemnity and were to be administered by the staff of the Inspector-General, we are informed that they have lately been placed under a Russian nominee and the representative of the Imperial maritime Customs has been removed. A Blue-book will shortly be published, which will deal with Manchuria alone, and which will contain a very full account of all the historical events and of our action in regard to them from the date of the Boxer rising. The hon. Member has referred to the assurances given by Russia. On the 8th January the latest of these assuraness was made to Lord Lansdowne in the following declaration by the Russian Government—
  "In order to prevent all misunderstanding and misconstruction Russia considers it indispensable, independently of the conditions which will in the future definitely determine the character of her relations with Manchuria, to declare from this day forth that she has no intention whatever of placing any obstacle in the way of the continued enjoyment by foreign Powers of the rights acquired by them in virtue of treaties now in force."
  Count Benckendorff subsequently explained on 19th January, in answer to an inquiry by Lord Lansdowne, that this assurance meant that whatever changes might hereafter be introduced in the relations of Russia and Manchuria the Powers would preserve the rights which they enjoyed under existing treaties. I will only say one word in conclusion in answer to the hon. Gentleman's enquiries with regard to the Consular Service. The, recommendations of the Committee that sat last session to consider the new regulations to be drawn up for the Consular Service have been under the consideration of the Secretary of State, and the general principles of these recommendations have received ids approval. We hope very shortly to be able to make a more distinct statement on the subject. If these recommendations are carried out we hope that the Consular Service in the future will contain a larger element drawn from the commercial class. A certain number of vacancies will probably be set aside for candidates who have had a commercial training, and they will spend

  623
  some time subsequent to their examination in the Intelligence Department of the Board of Trade. In regard to the Consular Trade Reports which the hon. Gentleman finds so unsatisfactory, a circular was issued to Consuls in the course of 1902 drawing attention to the point the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, that these Reports are too often overloaded with matter which is not properly commercial to the exclusion of matter which is of special interest to the mercantile community, and also defining the points on which information is required.
  MR. JOSEPH WALTONasked leave I to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question again proposed.

  FISCAL POLICY.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY MR. JOHN MORLEY (Montrose Burghs) moved the Amendment of which he had given notice in regard to the fiscal policy of the country. He said: I am sorry to know, though this Amendment has been postponed for some days, that even now we shall not be able to have the advantage of the presence of the Prime Minister. I do not know whether he will be able to attend before the debate is concluded, but in any case, however that may be, I am sure I need not tell the House, how much, both personally and on public grounds, I regret his absence. There is one other right hon. Gentleman, only less important, if indeed less important, than the Prime Minister, whose presence I understand we are not to look for during the course of this debate. I refer, of course, to my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. I hope I shall not be trespassing beyond the proprieties of the occasion if I mention that I have known the right hon. Gentleman for half a life-time. During all those years I was in close and intimate relations with him, and I do not think I will allow any differences of opinion upon public questions—and between him and me they are, and have been, profound, and never more profound than they are to-day—to prevent me from saving, if the House will permit me, that he possesses in a most marked and peculiar degree the
  624
  genius of friendship—sincere, kind, and staunch friendship. Mr. Powell Williams, who, a few hours ago passed away from our great world-theatre, found friends amongst us ail. But to the Member for West Birmingham he was more than an ordinary friend. He was one who, in sunshine and in storm, was his close, faithul, and trusted adherent; and I for one, and I believe in all parts of the House hon. Gentlemen will agree with me, fully comprehend and entirely respect the feeling which has mastered the Member for West Birmingham.
  It has been suggested to me that, as these two great protagonists of—I do not know whether I should call them rival policies or of identical policies—are unable to take part in this debar?, we should postpone it. I cannot myself, for one moment, think that a well-founded view. I think we are bound in this House to take the very first opportunity of bringing to the test of a discussion at close quarters the question that has agitated the mind of the country for the last four or five months, and we ought to know—it is our duly to know—where the House stands, where Ministers stand, and where the question stands. I think quite long enough, and too long, has it been the case that this House, of all places in the island, is the only place where this question has not been, and apparently is not to be, discussed. We think the House of Commons would be wanting in one of its first duties, perhaps its most fundamental duty, if it were not to take this opportunity of raising the question which arises on my Amendment. After all, its highest constitutional function is to examine the national charges, to survey national ways and means, to adjust the national burden. We are going this session to do so in remarkable—I think in unprecedented—circumstances. We have not only the well-known announcement of the Prime Minister, which I will not trouble at this stage to introduce, that he is for a deep and genuine change in our fiscal policy—that we are to annul and delete the traditions of two generations. We have also from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Minister who is specially responsible for the financial administration of the country, a strong declaration that "the time has come when we should make a breach with the

  625
  traditions of the past"—I think he must have forgotten that he is on the Conservative side of the House—"and that we should allow ourselves to think for ourselves." That is very impressive, but does that Bench think for themselves? Then he says:—"We are making progress. "Who are" we, "and where is the progress to? The right hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, answer us those questions; but. be that as it may, it is indispensable that, if we, are to discuss our financial situation, the supreme business of the House, with real efficacy, we must know whether we have got a protectionist or an anti-protectionist Government to guide us. It is not very easy to be quite sure of that. We are apt, in this House, to regard with suspicion, and perhaps with a trace of mockery, anybody who introduces a Motion, and begins by saying that it is not a Party Motion. I venture respectfully to submit to the House that I can make that claim to day, because my Amendment will, unless I am greatly mistaken, be most powerfully reinforced, perhaps even more powerfully than we could argue it on this side, by Gentlemen who are sitting among yourselves, by Gentlemen who a few months ago were amongst your most trusted and responsible and experienced leaders and Members, That is one thing which, I think divests my Amendment of a Party aspect purely. And I would venture another, however insignificant, observation of a personal kind, that in economics and finance, so gravely do I, for my part, always regard these questions—much more gravely than purely political questions—that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol was Chancellor of the Exchequer he will remember that I voted freely away from my friends who sit near me and that I supported the Government on the coal tax and on the sugar tax. But the last straw—the corn duty—broke my back, and I could support him and the Government no more. I do not often regale myself by reading old speeches of my own, but when I went over again the observations which I had to address to the House in moving the rejection of the Report stage of the Corn Duty Clause of the Finance Bill, I really was astonished not at my own moderation, but at my
  626
  own foresight. Every observation that I made almost has been verified by the scenes of the last few months. I warned the then Chancellor of the Exchequer that he was entering upon a course which would inevitably lead him or his Party to colonial preference and to a tax noon food—to proposals for a tax upon food.
  Well now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Tuesday last referred to some language I had used implying that the state of the industries of the country was not all that we could desire. I have always held for the last eight years the Same language. I agree with the light hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham on this point. I have said it again and again both inside this House and outside this House. There is a great deal in the state of the commerce and industry, and of the employment of our population which must give every serious and observant man plenty of food for reflection. I have always in the country wound up with the declaration of the late Lord Salisbury, which was that there is ground for anxiety, that no statesman can look around and see these new conditions without anxiety; but then. Lord Salisbury went on to say—
  "That is no reason why we should grasp at the first remedy that any man chooses to propose to us."
  Sir, if the House will, for an instant, pardonan historical reference: during the last sixty years, which we are going to refer to so often in the course of this debate, the first step was Sir Robert Peel's liberation from the tariff of a certain number of articles in 1842. There then followed in 1860, eighteen years afterwards what Mr. Gladstone always used to call the cardinal and organic emancipatory free trade period. During that time, first by Hit Robert Peel and then Mr. Gladstone an enormous number of articles were removed from the tariff which restricted trade, which interfered with the application of capital, and which presented the free exercise of skill and industry. I am not sure that it was 1860; anyhow by 1860 or 1866 that great emancipatory period was concluded. And these were all occasions of the most remarkable kind. And there was what the right hon. Member for Bristol will admit, a further

  627
  important step taken, not in this House, nor by a statesman, but by the constituencies in the year 1874, when they by their rejection of the proposals then made to them for the abolition of the income-tax, settled finally that the income-tax was to be a permanent instrument of the national revenue. There are three or four stages of which I venture to remind the House. It may be; we do not know yet whether the new movement that began on 15th May last year was a conflagration or whether it is to prove merely the flash of a meteor; I hope that this debate will perhaps clear the air a little on that issue; out anyhow there is this peculiarity in the situation in which we have now entered. In 1843 the state of the finances of the country, the state of the industry of the country, the dilapidation of the revenue, were so marked that it was the urgent duty of the Ministry of that day at once to set to work to remedy so deplorable a stare of things. That was what Sir Robert Peel did in 1846. I here was scarcity and famine which cried aloud for legislation; and in 1860 there were particular relations between this country and France. At that moment there was also an accidental sate of things in the Exchequer which precipated the occasion of which Mr. Gladstone took advantage. Upon all those occasions there was urgency; and even, if I may refer to 1886, when a very great and important step was taken by the Prime Minister of that day which divided Parties, as Parties are divided now, there was urgency. If the Prime sinister had been here now I am sure he would have agreed with me that the solution which we then propounded to this House and to the country and which this House first and the country afterwards rejected—whether that solution of Home Rule was right or wrong—there was in the state of Ireland a condition of social order, and there was in this House a state of Parties which made it a question of urgency. But where is the urgency for the change that the Ministry now propose? What is the crisis, what is the emergency? I know that all controversies are liable to expand and to row; and after the very effective treatment which my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition gave to the
  628
  history of this crisis last Tuesday night, lam not going to repeat it to the House. But the change, everybody knows is expressed in a sentence. This new fiscal policy was sprung upon the country. I do not use the word "sprung" in an invidious sense; but it was launched from the colonial point of view. The colonial point of view pretty rapidly disappeared. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no."] The hon. Member who says "No," if he takes part in the debate later, will perhaps tell us how he regards the position of the colonial policy. It disappeared, and a new case was presented. It was then that the industry and commerce of the country were languishing and declining, and demanded a prompt and immediate treatment (that was the new case), and that a remedy should be provided with the utmost despatch. It was rather odd, because it was not long before the Member for West Birmingham, who first launched the policy, had in tones of perfectly natural jubilation congratulated the country that it had been able to bear the enormous financial burden of the Boer war without turning a hair. But I see opposite to me the President of the Board of Trade. Very likely he will do me the honour to follow me in this debate. The President of the Board of Trade this time last year did not think-that there was any crisis or any emergency. This is the language of the President of the Board of Trade to his constituents on 23rd January, 1903—
  "He confessed that he did not see any signs of the decline and ruin of British industry which was the prominent topic with the British newspapers, and though the critics might have done good by drawing attention to the shortcoming, they could have too much even of a good thing, and he was bound to say that he thought the part of Cassandra had been somewhat overdone. He thought that in this matter they could do well with a little of the optimism which distinguished Mr. Chamberlain."
  I respectfully ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us when he rises whether in his view there was an emergency then. Surely not! Then what happened within three or four months? The President of the Board of Trade seems to have been led by the Member for West Birmingham into a completely new and reverse position, and we should be glad to know whether now he thinks he having used the language which I

  629
  have just read to the House, that agriculture is destroyed—[Sir HOWARD VINCENT: Hear, hear!]—and all the rest of it. I should listen to him with the most respectful attention. Will he tell us why he has changed his mind, if he has changed his mind? Is there any indication or the smallest evidence of there being a crisis or an emergency except an artificial and invented crisis? The Prime Minister himself, I think at Bristol, said that he would have been very glad if circumstances—I do not know quite what the circumstances were—allowed him to leave this question, which was an urgent question, as an open question in his Cabinet. If it had been a critical or an urgent question, it would not have been an open question. There is no doubt about that. There is another point about that which I address to the President of the Board of Trade. The Government instituted what they called an inquiry—a proceeding which the Duke of Devonshire, although a party to it, describes publicly as having proved a deception. But the Member for West Birmingham speaks in the most contemptuous language of the inquiry instituted by the Board of Trade. He says that this Blue-book is the library of the free importers, meaning by that the whole contents of that, Blue-book are a library of arguments for free importers. [Cries of "No."]
  I will not detain the House long in arguing the second clause of my Amendment, namely, "that the removal of protective-duties has for more than half a century actively conduced to the vast extension of the trade and commerce of the nation." You may dispute, if you please; I fully admit how many other elements there are that have entered into that most prosperous and satisfactory state of things which, until the other day, we were all agreed in recognising. Of course there were oilier elements which may have entered, but any hon. Member who endeavours to make an adjustment of the degree to which this prosperity is due to free trade, or to other elements, I warn him that he will enter upon a task of the most intricate and complex character. This I do venture to say, without fear of contradiction from hon. Gentlemen opposite or
  630
  anywhere else, that the condition precedent to this country's being able to avail itself of the various other elements, such as railways and other things which have been good for the country, was free trade. If I may be allowed to indulge for a moment in a philosophical reflection, you may say, if you please, that the decision, by the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, to make the ideal of those islands a manufacturing community, instead of an agricultural community—you may say, if you like that that was a wrong decision. But I am no great idolater of the factory system. I think it has produced, and I refer to them in my Amendment, a state of things which needs manifest and urgent remedies. I remember Mr. Mill, formerly a Member of this House and much more than a Member of this House He used to tell us that if the alternative was between Socialism and the, evil social condition then, as now, prevailing in many parts of these islands, though against Socialism, he would rather face Socialism with all its risks than acquiesce in the subsisting state of things. But it is not worth arguing now. If England is to be characteristically a manufacturing community, the man who denies that free imports actively conduce and not only conduce: but are indispensable, to our commerce and the welfare of our population—I say such a man whoever he may be, shows himself so grossly ignorant of the social conditions of the country between the end of the great war and the; time of Sir Robert Peel that I will not waste the time of the House in arguing against him. Then there is another position taken by same of the disputants in this controversy—I will not argue with them if they say it is matter of history and fact that protective duties were removed oil the faith of anticipations and prophecies of imitation by other countries do make that assertion is to be guilty of a ludicrous falsification of all you will read in speeches by Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Cobden, or anybody else; it is not worth argument. The effect of protective duties had been so examined by the country, had been so repudiated by the country, that the free trade policy, which was not only passed in this House in 1846, but was ratified by the general election in 1847, was hell fast to a

  631
  through the years from 1847 to 1852, when there was another general election, and the country still repudiated, having had bitter experience, anything like a return to protective duties. Mr. Disraeli himself, the Leader of your Party, said the country had decided, and therefore it would be a culpable waste of time to argue whether the country had good or bad reasons for its dislike of protective duties.
  I am not going to take the House—and I am sure they will thank me for if—into all the controversy, or points of controversy even, in the discussions that have taken place during the last few months in the country; but I should like to call the attention of the House to what I call general fallacies—not fallacies of statistics, though they were fallacious enough—but general fallacies that seem to me to have pervaded these discussions. It is a very short list, though I do not believe there is a single fallacy that has not found illustration in speeches from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench. This is the method. You take every case that is hypothetically possible, theoretically imaginable or conceivable, and immediately treat that as if it were an actual case and an urgent case. Then you begin with the economical argument, and when you find that the ground will not bear you you then change ground suddenly, and, dropping the economical argument, take refuge in sentimental, idealist, or political arguments. The third method, which has struck me very much, is that you show that circumstances might arise which might justify a tariff as the proper expedient, and then you proceed to infer that the argument is exactly as valid for existing circumstances, though these are entirely different from your hypothetical case. Then you state a fact, and if that fact is completely demolished in two or three days, you then say that it was an. illustration, not an argument. I have read a number of speeches in which hon. Gentlemen opposite have been literally guilty of supposing that a protective duty is the same thing as a revenue duty, though, of course, a protective duty is the exact opposite of a revenue duty and thoroughly ill-adapted for all the purposes of a revenue duty. And then about the
  632
  consumer and imports strange language has been used. The consumer has been spoken of as if he were a sort of habitual inebriate, and every import as if it we o an affront to the British Empire. There is one argument I wish to deal with, the argument that times have changed and that conditions of industry have altered in our day. That is not at all an unnatural position to take, but I submit boldly to the House that not one of the changes that have taken place since 1846—I think there is not one which does not make against protection and in favour of free trade. I maintain further that protection will aggravate every one of the mischiefs of which you complain. The first argument is. "Oh, since then—[Sir HOWARD VINCENT, Hear, hear!]—there have spiting up great rivals." The hon. and gallant Member for Sheffield ironically cheers that. Does he suppose that any statesman dreamed in 1813 that Great Britain was going to be the manufacturer to all eternity for the whole universe? [Sir HOWARD VINCENT: Mr. Cobden said so.] I probably know a great deal more about Cobden than the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I say that so far was he from saying that that he said exactly the opposite. I am promoted by the interruption of the hon. and gallant Member to read an extract of a few sentences from Mr. Cobden. When I regard the contemptuous language used about Mr. Cobden by men who are unworthy to loosen his shoe latchet, I venture to recall to the House language—very beautiful language, well worthy of his genius—used by Mr. Disraeli. Standing, I suppose, at this box, when Mr. Cobden died, Mr. Disraeli said—
  "Thus our great men, when taken from us, are not altogether lost. Though not present, they are still Members of this House independent of the caprice of constituencies independent of dissolutions of Parliament, independent of the course of time. Their example wall long be referred to and appealed to, and their words will often be quoted."
  This was the language used by a. Leader of your Party, a Leader who really led. Now, in reference to the hon. and gallant Member's statement that Mr. Cobden held out the expectation that this country would remain without

  633
  manufacturing rivals, I will ask the House to listen to this extract—
  "Looking at the natural endowments of the North American continents at the boundless expanse of the most fertile soil in the world, at ! he inexhaustible mines of coal, iron, lead."
  Looking at these, the writer reiterates the moral of his former work, declaring his conviction that it is from
  "the silent, peaceful rivalry of American commerce, and the growth of American manufactures,"
  and so on, that the
  "grandeur of our commericial and national prosperity is most endangered."
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: What is the date of this statement of Mr. Cobden's?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I cannot say offhand, but I will satisfy the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It was the base of the whole policy, and it is, I hope, the base of the policy of us who sit on this side of the House, that it is exactly because you have this formidable competition to face that you should pursue a policy of peace, of reduced expenditure, and a policy of national education. That was the base of the whole of Mr. Cobden's national policy. But I must hurry on. The more formidable the competition is, the more reason is there why you should leave as much freedom as possible for the application of capital, for the exercise of skill and industry, and the general operations of trade. The second change is that you have all over the land enormous aggregates of population in manufacturing towns. Is that an argument for protection? Is it not an argument, the strongest you can use, for leaving all the channels by which food and raw materials find their way to our shores not narrow, not blocked? There is no argument for protection in that change. Then there have been, no doubt, enormous developments in steam locomotion and in telegraphic communication, having the effect of producing enormous mobility of capital and rapidity of transit of products from place to place. Granting all this, how can these great changes, these great material changes, be utilised to the uttermost unless you have open ports? Every change of this kind, if it means one thing
  634
  more clearly than any other, means that protection in any form would be the most ruinous step you could possibly take.
  There is another change. The Colonies have accomplished great permanent power and prosperity. Yes, but I invite attention to this. Suppose that the policy of protection should tend to diminish the protective and accumulative power of this country, and should impoverish this country, what worse thing could happen to the Colonies than such an event as that? The Colonies have almost more to lose than we have by our impoverishment. Diminish our plentiful supply of capital, or our cheap and rapid means of locomotion, and all these boons which we are able to place at their disposal would be either stopped or limited; and I say that the demands of the Colonies are one of the strongest arguments for an anti-protection policy. There is another great change—the transfer of politic d power, since 1846, from the old £10 householders to the artisans of the towns and the labourers of the fields. I am not going to argue the effect of free trade upon political peace, but I would submit to the House that it, cannot be quite an accident—it cannot be a fortuitous coincidence—that the great free trade country of Europe is the one great country of Western Europe which since 1846 has never known even a shadow of a civil convulsion. There is no great country in the West of Europe which equals us in the absence from class division, class envy, hatred and strife which unfortunately prevails in some other countries. It cannot be that that circumstance is entirely unconnected with our fiscal policy. There is one other change of great importance, no doubt—the Suez Canal. That has made an enormous difference in many ways and the effect upon the international trade of the world and the effect on our position as a great distributing centre has been of course enormous. But will the President of the Board of Trade tell me accurately, with chapter and verse, how a scientific tariff which is to affect the wool market or the tea market is to prevent that from having changed the position in London as I understand it has. This is the thing. You hear of the Suez Canal doing this or that in the

  635
  redistribution of commodities, and then you say, "the thing is wrong, we will put it right," but a scientific tariff would not put it right. How could it? Many Members of the House who are well versed in these things will perhaps tell us. I will listen with absolute interest and candour to any demonstration they can offer that a tariff can affect this matter. A scientific tariff means really a tariff arrived at from a judicious computation of conflicting interests. I do not think that would do any good in this case.
  Perhaps the House would now like me to turn to the question of the policy of the Government. We are opening a discussion which is no abstract economic discussion. In some ways it is only secondarily an economic discussion at all. We are face to face with a political situation, and it is of great importance that we should have that clearly examined. The Prime Minister, speaking at Bristol, said—
  "Did any body ever hear of a. Cabinet which was not merely agreed upon a policy but was also agreed upon every principle upon which that policy was supposed to depend and upon every conclusion to which those principles might be pressed?"
  I cannot find the Cabinet are agreed upon any policy which deserves to be so called in any better sense than tactics of Party managers and Party wire-pullers. They are the tactics of make-believe—make-believe that a Party which is divided is not divided. You cannot call these tactics a policy. You take great care that even as a make-believe you do your best to prevent anybody being taken in by it. The Prime Minister said it was—
  "Most unreasonable to come forward and taunt us because my colleagues who are agreed upon a policy do not pretend that they are agreed upon every conceivable development of that policy which that policy might under given circumstances take."
  What is curious is that all the eloquence and all the energy is given to the "conceivable development." I would now ask the House to consider this agreement upon policy in the light of two or three utterances of important Gentlemen opposite, and I will begin, as indeed I ought, with the President of the Board of Trade. Speaking in October
  636
  last, the President of the Board of Trade-used this language—
  "For the present, at all events, he did no! consider it would be in the interest of the Party or of the policy they were recommending to include in the official programme (there were it appears, two programmes) of the Government. a preference carrying as it did with it taxation of food."
  That is the President of the Board of Trade. But then there is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. He uses somewhat different language. He says he really believes that a trade preference to the Colonies is an essential part and would be an inevitable result of any change in our fiscal policy. He sympathised with Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. The President of the Board of Trade said one thing and his Parliamentary Secretary said quite the opposite. Then we come to the Postmaster-General who said that with Mr. Chamberlain's scheme of preferential tariffs he could not agree. Then the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs made some very remarkable declarations indeed as a member of a Government which has quite agreed on its policy. He individually believed P. Mr. Chamberlain's corn taxation proposals, and he said unhesitatingly that he believed it would be to the advantage of the country to adopt them. He frankly confessed that he did not think they would really benefit the agricultural industry at home. "For all his objects"—let the House notice this—let hon. Gentlemen opposite who are thinking how they will vote on this Amendment mark this—"for all his objects Mr. Chamberlain carries with him the hearty approval of his colleagues in the Government he has left."
  EARL PERCY: Objects, not methods.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I invite the noble Lord in the course of this debate to draw a distinction between his sympathy with the objects of the Member for Birmingham and his disapproval of his methods. Then there is the President of the Local Government Board. I scanned his utterance very closely because he had taken the very striking step of going down to a constituency represented by a Conservative colleague and doing his

  637
  best to turn that Conservative colleague out. He said it was not an inconsistent declaration for him also to say that while with his present information he was against the taxation of food—what is his present information? I wonder what information he does want?—while his present information is against the taxation of food, he could conceive the arrival of a time when Mr. Chamberlain's policy would be satisfactorily developed and the proper system discovered by which it could be applied.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,): Is that not an extract from the speech of a Gentleman who had spoken before me and which I used as a quotation.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I gave the right hon. Member my most studious attention, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman I think not. Is a satisfactory development a development that ends in the taxation of the people? Then there is the Colonial Secretary, who went down to Leamington and recalled graceful reminiscences of Carlyle and Ruskin, and how they had overcome what he called the gloomy doctrinaires from Manchester. The gloomy doctrinaires of Manchester made short work of the sentimental idealist from Leamington. Does the right hon. Gentleman forget that if the Corn Laws and the whole policy of protection had two men more thoroughly opposed to them than Carlyle and Ruskin. I should he very much surprised? Carlyle's most saturnine, caustic, and picturesque descriptions are directed against the Corn Laws and against the Party of the kind of gentlemen who are now wanting to bring the Corn Laws back. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head as if he did not want to bring the Corn Laws back. The right hon. Gentleman said he thought the ends of the right hon. Member for Birmingham were right and good ends and he accepted as the expositor of those ends Mr. Charles Booth. Mr. Charles Booth is a protectionist. [No.] Is he not for a 5 per cent. duty? The right hon. Gentleman ought not to deny it.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON): Deny what?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: That you are a protectionist. To finish the extracts, I think they are most pithily summed up by the Secretary for the Local Government Board as follows—
  "Some people said that Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain were in opposition. Others said that their policy was the same. He submitted that the true ease was this—that Mr. Chamberlain was weaving a second string of the Government bow lest the negotiation string should snap before its work was done."
  When these are the responsible governors of the country can you wonder (hat Consols are down to eighty-seven? I leave this part of the business with a quotation which expresses my view better than I can express it from the right hon. Member for Birmingham in a speech made in 1885—
  "I will say that Lord Salisbury does intend"
  —and here I think he was unjust to Lord Salisbury—
  "to pat a duty upon corn, though he does not think it convenient at the present moment to say so, and although he allows some members of his Government to argue in favour of it in one place, he enjoins upon other members of his Government to repudiate it in another. Remember, this is not a question upon which the Government can be allowed to have two voices. If you are going to tax the bread of the people you will affect every household in the land; you will throw back the working classes of the country to the starvation wages and the destitution from which Mr. Gladstone and Sir Robert Peel have relieved them."
  What is meant by retaliation? The word "retaliation" is used, I observe, by many gentlemen as a sort of formula by which they can escape the labour of a close examination of what the issue really is. Last summer, in this House the Prime Minister said—
  "If other methods fail I do not shrink from retaliation, but I am not certain that there are not other methods."
  I suppose he meant by "other methods" diplomatic negotiations of the ordinary sort. A case was brought my notice the other day arising out of the reciprocity treaty between the United States and Cuba. Liverpool, Manchester, and, I think, the London

  639
  Chambers of Commerce carried on a correspondence and had an interview with Lord Lansdowne, representing to him that the arrangements under that treaty would be extremely prejudicial and would in fact practically close the door to British manufacturers in Cuba. I wonder what "other methods" the Prime Minister would apply to a case of that kind? But now let us suppose a real case of outrageous unfairness perpetrated against us by a foreign Government. I am myself unable to find evidence of there having been any outrageous case of unfairness. [Cries of "Oh!"] I know some hon. Gentlemen regard a high tariff as an act of outrageous unfairness, but that is not what the Prime Minister means. If there be a case of outrageous unfairness the Minister of the day has only to satisfy this House of three conditions, and I am perfectly sure this House, whichever Party be in the majority, would support the Minister. What are the three conditions? The first is that the Minister would have to satisfy the House and make good the case on the facts, that outrageous unfairness had been or was being perpetrated; secondly, he would have to show that he had got a plan for reprisal that would effectually stop it; and, thirdly, he would have to persuade this House that his plan of reprisal not only was likely to effect the special object he had in view, hut was not likely to do a great deal more harm in another way. If those conditions were satisfied, I do not think there would be any difficulty in carrying through this House whatever retaliatory powers were necessary. But do you mean power to impose a retaliatory duty independent of, outside of, and beyond Parliament? The Emperor of the French, in 1860, was able to carry the Cobden treaty with this country, though his two Chambers were both of them strongly and stoutly opposed to anything like free trade, because, happily for him and for us, there was a clause in the Imperial Constitution which allowed the Emperor to make a tariff binding if it was part of a treaty Is that what you want? Ho you want to be put in the position of the French Emperor? It s extravagant and absurd, the notion of any Minister having the power with his two Chambers both opposed to him, by decree
  640
  to set up a tariff. I was much interested in another plan set out in a candid and well-argued book called "The Tariff Problem," by Professor Ashley of Birmingham University. What is his idea? He says——
  "What seems dictated by the requirements of the ease is a statutory authorisation of the Executive to impose the duties that may be required from time to time as circumstances arise. It will not be safe to wait until the need arises before appealing to Parliament, for the mischief is of a kind that can be accomplished in a very brief period."
  Does the House really apprehend what is proposed by this excellent writer, who lives very near the centre of authority, very near to Mecca? To carry out the policy, in order to secure an economic revolution, it is proposed to make the most astounding political revolution in our history since the time of the Civil War. The writer supposes cases so urgent that you cannot wait from August or September, when Parliament rises, till January, when if reassembles. I cannot for my part realise any of those cases. What sort of powers of negotiation do you want? Let us suppose that the Steel Trust of the United States announced, projected, and carried out the landing of an enormous stock of their goods at a low-price upon our shores. What are you going to do? I suppose Lord Lansdowne would invite the very distinguished man who represents the United States in this country to an interview with him at the Foreign Office. Lord Lansdowne would say to Mr. Choate, "Unless your Government put a stop to a certain set of traders sending us billets and blooms so cheaply we will impose a duty, or even prohibition as well, so as to close our markets to you."
  Mr. Choate, however, has a very easy reply to Lord Lansdowne. He would say "How can the American Government prevent a commercial company from selling so cheaply to British markets?"
  Then supposing statutory authorisation were obtained, and suppose Mr. Secretary Hay said of Mr. Choate, "Are we to instruct him to come to you who are so famous for selling cheap all over the world, and to say, 'if you do not give up selling cheap we will exclude you from the United States market.'" [MINSTERIAL cries of "They would do it."] You have only to come to close quarters with the subject to see how absurd it is.

  641
  There is tremendous suffering at this moment in Lancashire it is not due to the Americans selling goods too cheap, but to the making of cotton too dear. What are hon. Gentlemen who suppose that by some formula you are going to remedy all the evils of the commercial system going to do about cotton? Are you to request the President of the United States to get Congress to pass an Act to prevent gambling in cotton? The idea is absurd. Then it is said that you want something to bargain with. This is the process I think that the Prime Minister has in his mind. But how do you start? Are you to set up a general or all-round tariff, to build up a general Customs wall with the view of frightening the foreigner into lowering the general level of his adverse tariff? The Prime Minister said in his Sheffield speech that he did not intend to set up a general tariff. What the Government is going to do is to set up a combative tariff, to start with a heavy duty on all manufactured imports. The Prime Minister is against that because he thinks it would be a disturbance; of the existing practice, and would lead to the disorganisation of trade; therefore ho abandons the general tariff. What does he say next? For a man so clear of speech, when he likes, this is the most nebulous declaration I remember to have seen from a man in a great station. He sees the objection to the combative tariff, but says——
  "I see no such objection to our proceeding, so to speak, from the other end; and if we thought we could do so without disadvantage to ourselves, we might inform any foreign country that we thought they were treating us with such outrageous unfairness that, unless they modified their policy to our advantage, we should feel ourselves compelled to take this or that step in regard to their exports."
  I call that nebulous. I want to know what steps? When the Prime Minister announces a revolution in policy surely we have a tight to expect that he should ell us what he intends to do, what "this or that step" is going to be. We have a right to ask also what is his "method." of settlement with a foreign negotiator. [Cries of "Speak up."] I suppose it would mean a threat to say to Russia to this effect, "Unless you reduce your general tariff we will impose an adverse discriminating duty on your wheat
  642
  and hemp and other products," having; free trade with the rest of the world. I do not know how that will work or what the effect would be on the corn market; but what is to prevent Russia from sending her grain through Holland and reaching us in that way? In the Napoleonic wars English goods got into the Continent despite all hindrances and therefore we, wish to know accurately what "step" it is that the right hon. Gentleman means.
  There is another vital question I wish to put. Is this change to be a permanent or a temporary tariff? After all, that is the great issue. Do you want to put on duties to bargain with and after making your bargain and frightening the foreigner into lowering his tariff are you going to take them off again? Are you going to dismantle your fiscal batteries and to shut up your Custom's house? I will not argue the point or dwell upon its prospect of success, but I think it will create a frightful dislocation of trade as well as embarrassing your Budget from year to year unless you know what all these extraordinary operations are to be. This is an urgently important point with regard to the political situation, because this policy of a temporary dealing with the tariff is absolutely inconsistent with the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. You do not believe in a permanent tariff; but he does. He wants a scientific protective tariff; but you dc not tell us what it is you mean. The right hon. Gentleman appeals to the protective policy of the United States of Prance, and of Germany, and he recites how they passed tariff after tariff. It was not a haphazard policy; it was a deliberate policy to use tariffs to increase home trade and, if you like, to exclude foreign trade. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham says these foreigners are not fools, and he winds up by asking about this foreign policy. "Has it succeeded? It has succeeded." Those who consider that they are not voting for a protective policy when supporting with cheers and enthusiasm the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham cannot have read his utterances. Now what is your attitude towards these proposals? What, however, was the Government attitude? The Prime

  643
  Minister's language is obscure and ambiguous; still he leaves room for some expectation that he is not committed to protection. But his language is one thing and his action is another. When a candidate stands for Norwich the Prime Minister sends down his blessing with the watchword "Union and fiscal reform." This gentleman at Norwich was a complete fiscal reformer in its extreme length; and that has been the attitude of the Prime Minister ever since the controversy arose. The great difficulty is to know whether you are men in masks or whether you are straightforwardly telling the country and the House what it is you want.
  Now is the moment for hon. Gentlemen to make up their minds and for every individual Member to ask himself whether he is for protection or whether he is against it. It is in the highest degree distasteful to me to place any difficulties by the form in which I venture to put this question to the House in the way of hon. Gentlemen who, to their great honour and to the credit of English public life, have made the greatest sacrifices that any public men can possibly make. I think the case was worth the sacrifice. I do not believe there has ever been a more irresistible demand upon all of us for manliness, frankness, and moral courage; and I hope these hon. Gentlemen will not flinch from the views they have advocated with all the strength of their experience and responsibility. Pet them ask themselves this question, "Am I going to vote for confidence in a protectionist Government or for confidence in an anti-protectionist Government." They will shirk the prime duty of political life at this moment if they are not satisfied on this point, and guided by the answer they give, to themselves when they go into the Lobby. I, for my part, am not at all careful as to the numbers in the division when the division is taken. After all, what is important is this—What will be the result of that far greater division in the country when it takes place? I will not venture to predict, but I shall be very much surprised if the constituencies, when the time comes, express confidence in the Government at a time like this, when we have just barely emerged from the
  644
  financial confusion and embarrassment caused by the late war, and when we are face to face with events threatening, or, I am afraid, I must say, events now happening, which, beyond almost any set of circumstances which have arisen in our recent history, impose the necessity on Great Britain, at all events, of keeping her powder dry, and of keeping her resources in steadfast charge. I say that if the country gives its confidence to any Government at a moment so grave as this, it will not be, to a Government which, upon the plea of an emergency which does not really exist, and on behalf of a thing called fiscal reform which they cannot—I know they cannot—explain or define, are ready to plunge the country into confusion, and to pave the way to ultimate disaster.
  Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words—
  "But it is our duty, however, humbly to represent to Your Majesty that our effective deliberation on the financial service of the year is impaired by conflicting declarations from Your Majesty's Ministers. We respectfully submit to Your Majesty the judgment of this House, that the removal of protective duties has for more, than half a century actively conduced to the vast extension of the trade and commerce of the realm and to the welfare of its population; and this House believes that, while the needs of social improvement are still manifold and urgent, any return to protective duties, more particularly when imposed on the food of the people, would be deeply injurious to our national strength, contentmet, and well being."—(Mr. John Morley.)
  Question proposed. "That those words be there added."
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,): It is a matter much to be regretted that the Leader of the Opposition did not see his way to accept the offer of the Home Secretary of facilities for carrying on this debate at a time when the Prime Minister would have been able to be in his place—all the more so as unfortunately we, are also deprived of the presence of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham in connection with circumstances to which the right hon. Gentleman has made allusion in feeling and appropriate language. I cannot help thinking that the

  645
  right hon. Gentleman himself shares this regret, notwithstanding the somewhat hollow, if he will allow me to use the word, explanation which he gave both the other day and again to-day in defence of the course which has been adopted. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that discussion in the House of Commons on this subject has been so long delayed that the impatience of the public would brook no further postponement. I do not at all agree with him. I believe that the public would receive with perfect equanimity the postponement of this debate for two or three weeks in order that the Prime Minister might be present in his place. I must say I think it is permissible, at all events, to suspect that there was some other motive besides that which the right hon. Gentleman has stated to account for the course now taken. We all know that this Amendment is carefully designed with a view to capturing what I may call the extreme right-wing of the Unionist Party—a perfectly natural object. Hon. gentlemen opposite think that they have got the Party which goes by the name of the Free Food Unionists in a difficulty [Cries of "No" and "The Government"]. In this carefully framed Amendment they have devised a net for these Gentlemen, and they are unwilling to abandon such a monument of ingenuity. Whether they will be successful in capturing my hon. friends or not I am, of course, unable, to say, but I shall be surprised if they do not find, before this debate has come to a conclusion, that they have somewhat overreached themselves, and that the course they have taken, the some what paltry manœuvre which they have adopted will have defeated its own object.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman describe a little more fully what the paltry manoeuvre is?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I did not wish to convey any offence in using that phrase, but by paltry manœuvre I meant a manœuvre intended to make it difficult for the extreme right wing of the Party to avoid voting for the Amendment and against the Government.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that it is a paltry
  646
  manœuvre to introduce such an Amendment as this on the Address? (Cries of "Withdraw.")
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am quits prepared to withdraw the words if they give offence, but what I was referring to was not the bringing forward of an Amendment of this character on the Address, which, of course, is a perfectly natural and proper thing to do, but the insisting on taking the discussion at a time when my right hon. friend the Prime Minister is necessarily absent although they might have taken it at another time.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Could it have been amended if it had come in another form?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: It might have been amended. With regard to the Amendment itself, I hardly know whether it is directed against the policy of the Government or against, the policy of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. With the exception of the first sentence, there is nothing in the Amendment to which those Gentlemen who accept the policy announced at Sheffield but decline to go further could not subscribe to. I will go so far as to say that, with one exception, there is very little in the body of the Amendment to which I myself should object. But there is a strange preamble attached to this Amendment——
  "But it is our duty, however, humbly to represent to Your Majesty that our effective deliberation on the financial service of the year is impaired by conflicting declarations from Your Majesty's Ministers."
  I listened with some attention to discover what it was the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey by those words. How can our discussions on the financial service, of the year be impaired by differences of opinion between His Majesty's Ministers in respect of a question which is not now before the House as a practical policy? What bearing can these conflicting opinions possibly have upon the financial service of the year? The right hon. Gentleman says we must know whether we have a protectionist or an anti-protectionist Government to deal with. Well, I say

  647
  in the most unhesitating manner that the policy of the Government is not protectionist. At a later period of his speech the light hon. Gentleman again returned to this question of the conflicting statements of Ministers, and he read out a series of extracts from speeches by myself and by hon. and right hon. friends of mice to show what? To show that outside the official policy of the Government—I am not ashamed of the phrase—there are great differences of opinion among Gentlemen who sit on this Bench. What is there reprehensible in that? Surely outside the policy which the Government has deliberately adopted and included in its programme any amount of difference of opinion may be allowed. Throughout the course of British history you have had Differences of opinion outside the immediate policy of the Government. I really cannot understand what it is that the right hon. Gentleman objects to when he says that, in consequence of these differences of opinion, it is impossible for us to adequately discuss the financial service of the year. It is possible that the right hon. Gentleman may have had something rather different in his mind from the mere conflict of opinion between Ministers in a matter which is quite outside the policy of the Government. He has on other occasions been very eloquent in denouncing the Prime Minister for his opportunism in the question of fiscal reform for having one policy for the Government, and at the same time holding an opinion which went beyond that policy. No doubt it is perfectly true that many of the colleagues of the Prime Minister also sympathise with a fiscal policy which goes beyond the policy officially accepted. I quite admit it. But is that an uncommon circumstance in our political life? Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite-must be aware that there are many subjects on which they themselves are not wholly agreed. What of disestablishment? We know perfectly well that many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite strongly hold that the Church should be disestablished. Are they therefore bound, is there any obligation on them, to include that in their programme? What of Home Rule itself?
  648
  Is Home Rule at the present moment a part of the programme of the Liberal Party? Is it not true that in the minds of at least some hon. Gentlemen opposite Home Rule has been rapidly degenerating into something like a pious opinion, and if they are entitled to hold pious opinions are not we also? There is an even stronger case than Home Rule. The noble Lord who was the latest Prime' Minister of the Liberal Party has taken upon himself to sweep the whole of the Newcastle programme off the board. Is the Newcastle programme part of the programme of the Liberal Party or is it not? Surely these are all cases in which matters of very great moment and importance are held to be, by important members of the Opposition, outside the policy of the Party. It is exactly the same with us. The policy of preference which has been advocated by my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham has the sympathy of a great many members of the Government, but it is not included in the policy of the Government, and I cannot see what there is reprehensible in having an official policy and holding an opinion which goes somewhat beyond it.
  The right hon. Gentleman asks, Where is the urgency? So far as the colonial policy is concerned, the urgency arose when the Colonies offered us a preference. [OPPOSITION cries of "When?"] That occurred two years ago at the Conference of the Colonial Premiers. The urgency arose when the Colonies offered us a preference, and when it was made perfectly clear that they at least hoped that they would enjoy some preference in return. Bur it is not merely the question of preference that was urgent. The question of retaliation also became urgent the moment an important country on the Continent intimated to us that if this police-of preference, were persisted in, not only our Colonies, but even the Mother Country might be deprived of the most favoured-nation treatment. There was the further urgency arising from this, that many Continental countries were already constructing new tarifs de combat, and if we were not in a position to bear our part in the discussions preliminary to the framing of new commercial treaties, our interests undoubtedly would have to go to the wall. Those were the causes which

  649
  made this matter urgent; but I quite grant this to the right hon. Gentleman—that unless matters had been ripe in the country for a policy of this sort, the incidents to which I have referred might not have been sufficient to raise the question in all the fulness which has been given to it. For a long time past I believe this question has been ripening in the minds of the people—not perhaps the policy of preference, that is of course of comparatively late date, and has it-origin in the action of the Colonies: but as far as a free hand for negotiation, as far as what is called a policy of retaliation is concerned, that has been silently growing in favour for a long time past. The Prime Minister has stated that: twenty years ago he expressed his opinion strongly in favour of what is now called the policy of retaliation. My own belief is that it will be found on looking at the speeches delivered by many of my hon. friends about the same time that they also expressed similar views. I did so myself, and I have never changed my opinion, that in itself the power of retaliation was a desirable power for this country to possess. Therefore, when the suggestion of fiscal reform was started by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham and by the Prime Minister, the response of the country itself forced the question forward and made it a practical question. We could not then have set it aside even if we had desired, but we did not desire because, as I said, many of us had long been converts to the view which regards retaliation as a policy in it self desirable, if the country was prepared to accept it.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to a speech I made at Leeds. I am quite willing to agree that it was a very apt quotation from his point of view. He asks me whether I have changed my opinion sine then. Well, if I had modified my opinion in the light of a further study of this question I certainly should not be ashamed to acknowledge it. It is true that I have modified my opinions to this extent, that I do now attach greater importance to, I regard as of graver effect, certain tendencies which analysis reveals in British industry and commerce. I do think that to some of the signs
  650
  to which I now attach importance I did not attach quite sufficient importance when I made that statement. In other respects I do not, withdraw a word of the quotation which the right hon. Gentleman has read to the House. I do not think the ruin of the trade and industry of this country is impending. I do not see how it is possible to affirm that we are on the brink of ruin if you examine the facts and figures. But that is not in itself a reason against fiscal reform. We must look at tendencies, and if we see that those tendencies are drifting us in a dangerous direction it is our duty to take precautions against such a result. I agree that there has been probably a certain exaggeration of statement with respect to the present condition of our trade. [OPPOSITION cries of "By whom?"] But has the exaggeration been all on one side? From the way many hon. Gentlemen talk you would think that the whole prosperity of this country rested upon free imports. [OPPOSITION cries of "Hear, hear!"] Some hon. Gentlemen say that is so. Any body who has given study to this subject knows perfectly well that though free imports may have been an important element in the amazing growth of prosperity in this country during the last fifty years, they are only one element. I should say myself that the progress of invention, the cheapening of freights, and the large extension of the area under wheat in the United States are all three of them causes which have contributed more to tie general prosperity and well-being of the country than the particular fiscal policy which we have followed. THIS prosperity, undeniable and great as it is, is snared by other countries also which have not adopted our fiscal policy, and I think that ought to be borne in mind by those hon. Gentlemen WHO a minute ago cheered the suggestion that our whole prosperity must be due to the free trade policy of the country.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the inquiry undertaken by the Government. It is curious how very many different estimates have been formed of tee value of that inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the Duke of Devonshire to the effect that this inquiry was a deception, and if I

  651
  remember rightly the Duke of Devonshire also described the Blue-book which embodied the results of the inquiry as an ill-digested collection of statistics. On the other hand, Lord Rosebery spoke of it as "the exhaustive investigation of the Board of Trade," and hon. Gentlemen opposite have certainly in their speeches in the country not spoken of the Blue-book as if it represented a mere illusory investigation. I should just like to say a word as to the way in which the Blue-book was framed. The basis of the inquiry was laid by questions set by Ministers to the Board of Trade. We answered these questions to the best of our ability, and, so far as the inquiries remained obviously incomplete, the Board of Trade officials, in connection with myself, did their best to fill up the gaps. It is quite true that the Blue-book is a quarry from which both sides can extract material, and from which both sides have extracted material; but it can hardly be brought against it as a reproach that it is sufficiently impartial to supply materials to both sides. This is a most complicated question. There is a great deal to be said on both sides, and if the Blue-book which embodied the result of the inquiry had not been a quarry in which both sides could mine with effect, it would certainly not have fulfilled the object for which it was designed. The right hon. Gentleman opposite pressed us to give a more definite statement as to the procedure and the machinery by which we propose to carry out our views. I am bound to say that the request is not altogether a reasonable one. On one point, however, I can satisfy the curiosity of the right hon. Gentleman. He asked us whether we proposed that the Executive should have the power of imposing retaliatory duties without the consent of Parliament. No, Sir. That has never been contemplated by us. We have never suggested or proposed that Parliament should be invited to divest itself of its power of control over taxation, or that it should transfer to the Executive or the Privy Council the power to impose taxes.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNESMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the authority of
  652
  Parliament will he required in each particular case, or that a general statute may be passed giving general powers to be applied at the discretion of the Executive Government in any particular case?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: In our view no tax could be imposed unless the consent of Parliament had been obtained. [An HON. MEMBER: In each case?] That is asking rather too much. I do not think it is fair to claim beforehand that we should go so far into detail as to pledge ourselves that the consent of Parliament shall be required item by item. I do not think we should be asked to go into farther detail. Hon. Gentlemen opposite complain of that, but it would be impossible to go further into this matter without going into every detail of the plan by which retaliation would be carried out; and that I decline to do, and, I think, reasonably decline. All precedent in this matter is on our side, but I will refer to only one which is really a classical precedent, and it has determined, in my judgment, for all time, what is and what is not obligatory on a Government in the way of disclosing details of a policy beforehand. I refer to Mr. Gladstone's action in connection with the Home Rule Bill. Let us consider what the circumstances were. In 1886 Mr. Gladstone's Bill was thrown out on the question of the position of the Irish Members in relation to this House. Everybody knew that that was the crucial question in connection with Home Rule. Mr. Gladstone had no second opportunity of bringing in a Home Rule Bill until seven years had passed. Everybody knew that there were only three possible courses open. One was known as the "all out" policy adopted in the Bill of 1886, another was the "all in" policy, and the third was the "in and out" policy. Again and again Mr. Gladstone was pressed by the Unionist Party to disclose his intention in regard to this crucial point, and he always refused. Now, Sir, I say you could not imagine a ease in which there would be a stronger claim for the disclosure of the details of a policy before an appeal was made to the country, yet Mr. Gladstone never consented to reveal the details of his policy.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is that a precedent the Government are going to follow?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My hon. friend asks whether that is a precedent which the Government are going to follow. I say that precedent determined for all time what can legitimately be refused so far as such a point can be determined by precedents.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, and I really think that after all he has said of Mr. Gladstone's action when in opposition I am entitled to press him—the right hon. Gentleman tells us the Government are going to take a certain general line of action. We ask him very innocently, and that is what I want to know, whether Parliament is to be informed before or after this action has been taken? Surely that is a vital question.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: My reply to that is that we ought not to be pressed before an appeal to the electors is made to lay before the country all the details of our plan, and I appeal to the example of Mr. Gladstone, and I say it is conclusive on that point. Mr. Gladstone was placing a great policy before the country, and we are placing our policy before the country.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has volunteered to tell us the manner and method by which this policy is to be applied. [HON. MEMBERS: No.] Yes, he is engaged in doing it, and we ask him one or two questions across the Table which ar3 absolutely essential. He is speaking for the Government. He is not in opposition. He is not announcing a programme to the country. He talks about the electors. We know nothing about the electors.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I cannot see that that has anything to do with the matter. Mr. Gladstone had a policy to put before the country. We have a policy to put before the country. He refused to go into details, and we are entitled to follow his example. But if hon. Members are really anxious to press
  654
  this matter any further, all I can say is that it is a pity they should not have waited until such time as the Prime Minister could be here. At all events, I and my colleagues on this Bench must decline, and, in my judgment, properly decline, to go either behind or beyond the policy as laid down by the Prime Minister.
  I should think a greater compliment has hardly ever been paid to a statesman in this country than the concentration of attention which has been bestowed on the policy of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. It is not the policy of the Government. Everyone knew that if an appeal were made to the electors and a majority were returned in favour of the Government policy, that would not entitle us to go further and carry out the policy of preference. Notwithstanding all that, here you have nineteen-twentieths of the flood of oratory poured forth in the recess directed to the policy of my right hon. friend.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: You have Conservative Members opposed by Cabinet Ministers.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I say that is an extraordinary testimony to the force of character and energy awl ability of my right hon. friend. But I think there may have been other causes at work. In the first place it is a policy much more easy to attack than that of the Government. The proposal to tax food is not prima facie likely to be a popular policy. Whereas the police of retaliation is one, you may almost say which is natural to any Englishman. Then again, my right hon. friend has done what we have declined to do. He has given a somewhat detailed account of his proposal, and a detailed account of a proposal is to an eager Opposition like a pot of honey to flies in summer. You have only to look at the treatment which my right hon. friend's scheme has received in order to judge of the wisdom of a premature disclosure of details. Then I think it is also possible that my right hon. friend's policy, rather than that of the Government, has been accentuated in Opposition speeches,

  655
  because hon. Members opposite think that by so doing they may succeed in detaching from the main body of the Unionists those who doubt whether to carry this fiscal reform so far as my right hon. friend proposes to carry it is wise in the best interests of the country. Whether the line taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite has really been prudent, in the interest of the cause which they champion, I am somewhat inclined to doubt. The effect of the course they have pursued has been to give, the utmost possible advertisement to the policy of my right hon. friend. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife says that was the last thing that was needed. I quite agree that any policy taken up and propounded by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham is certain to attract the attention of the country without any adventitious aid, but I think that in his exertions he has been greatly assisted by the activity and energy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Besides, it has had another effect, for in their hot haste to blacken the policy of my hon. friend the policy of the Government has been made to shine quite bright by comparison. Hon. Members opposite laugh at that, but let me quote a passage of the speech delivered by the Duke of Devonshire last mouth—
  "All that I have to add to what I said on another occasion is that while I do not believe so firmly as the Prime Minister does in the probable efficacy of such a policy, I am more disposed than I was to approve of the object of that policy. I do so because it was a policy not only differing from, but absolutely opposed to, the more dangerous and more mischievous policy of Mr. Chamberlain."
  [Cries of "Do you agree?"] Then the heart of the hon. Member for Oldham warmed so much to the Government policy in his frenzied opposition to the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that he actually went the length of saying that the policy of the Government was interesting but not very important.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I think-there is a certain humour in the phrase of my hon. friend applied to what the Prime Minister described as a reversal of
  656
  the fiscal traditions of this country. How far has my hon. friend travelled, even since last session when he opposed, tooth and nail, the Sugar Convention, which proposed in a modest way and in an isolated case the principle for which we now ask general approval.
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL: I said the policy of the Prime Minister was not very important because it was not the issue before the country.
  Ms. GERALD BALFOUR: I beg leave to differ from the hon. Gentleman. It is the policy before the country. I think the real explanation of the language of my hon. friend is, that he, like others, can see nothing in fiscal reform except protection. Protection occupies the entire field of his vision, and my hon. friend is not alone in this because there seems to be something like an organised conspiracy to represent the issue before the country as an issue between free trade and protection. I absolutely deny that. I quite admit there is a natural temptation so to represent it. The old proverb, "Give a dog a bad name and hang him," has no doubt a good deal in it. If you can not only give your adversary a bad name, but retain a good one for yourself, double advantage is secured. But this way of presenting the issue is absolutely superficial and misleading. Let us look more closely at the various classes of opinion respecting this fiscal question existing in the country and this House at the present time. There are, at least, four such classes. First you have the, free importers; next, those who approve the Government policy, who ask for a free hand to negotiate, and, if necessary, to retaliate; thirdly, there are those who follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and who favour preferential arrangements with the Colonies; and, lastly, there are the protectionists. Anyone who is a protectionist will probably also be in favour of preference and of a free hand in negotiation: but the reverse by no means follows. There are many who are in favour of free hand in negotiation who do not advocate preference, and others who advocate

  657
  preference, but are by no means protectionists. The various distinctions have been so loosely appreciated in discussions on the platform that it is advisable to endeavour to define a little more precisely the essential characteristic of each class of opinion.
  The free importers are free traders in intention, but not in reality. Free trade in its essence is bilateral. The characteristic mark of the free importer is not free trade. It is the refusal to adopt any other method than that of moral suasion in order to bring about free trade. They are the Quakers of finance. Their policy is a purely negative policy; they are the peace-at-any-price party in relation to industrial affairs. When Sir Robert Peel stated that in his view the best way of fighting tariffs was by free imports, he uttered a maxim which was no doubt a maxim of expediency at the time at which he spoke; but that maxim was subsequently converted into a fundamental principle of English finance, that no taxation should be put on except for revenue purposes; and the principle itself became in turn something like a dogma, under no circumstances to be set aside or modified. You cannot hold that dogma and at the same time be in favour of freedom of negotiation; you cannot hold it to be final and unconditional and yet advocate preferential policy. A fortiori it is not possible to hold it and be a protectionist.
  Let me pass to the fiscal reformers, and first of all to the protectionists. When I speak of protection I refer to the system existing at the present time in the United States of America, France, Germany, and other continental countries. What is protection? Protection is a system of artificial assistance deliberately accorded to particular industries by the State, generally by means of import duties, in order to give these industries advantages over and above what they would enjoy under conditions of natural competition. That is my definition of protection, and in order to illustrate it I should like to refer to what are called countervailing duties. Countervailing dudes are duties imposed as a counterpoise to a bounty. They have to be most carefully discriminated from protective duties. They are really duties imposed in self defence. There is an
  658
  ambiguity in the word "protection," and it would be greatly in the interests of clear discussion if, when we are speaking of protection to industry by a duty which is in the nature of a countervailing duty, we were to call it not protection but defence. There is a distinction between defensive duties and protection. Defensive duties are in my opinion perfectly legitimate even as part of the theory of free trade. Protective duties stand in a different category.
  We have been challenged to-night to say whether the policy of the Government is protectionist or anti-protectionist. I have already stated, I hope in clear language, that the policy of the Government is not protectionist. If I am asked, not as a member of the Government but as an individual—the distinction is perfectly legitimate—what my own view of protection is, I am perfectly willing to state it. I do not think that protection is a wise policy for this country to adopt. I do not wish to make any absolute statement of faith with regard to protection in other countries. The effect of protection is, practically, to impose a tax on the consumer for the benefit of the producer. If the extra profits resulting from protection, or part of such profits, are employed, as may easily happen, to further the development of industrial enterprise, it is possible—I believe in some instances it is actually the case—that a policy of protection may really stimulate industrial development. I think protection has probably stimulated industrial development in Germany and also in the United States. Therefore I should be extremely reluctant to say that either Germany or the United States had adopted a policy which was wrong for theS3 countries. On the contrary. I think-very likely it was right for Germany and the United States. But for our country—which had such an immense start over all others, which was a highly developed manufacturing country at a time when such a description could not, be applied to any other country—protection for such a country is, I believe, a bad policy, and I should be sorry to see a return to is now. I will even go so far as this—that if it was a choice between protection as we know it in Germany and Amend, and other countries and the existing system, I should be on the side of free

  659
  imports. But, as a matter of fact, nothing of the kind is the case. It is possible to hold the views which I have just expressed and yet be a warm advocate of preferential arrangements with the Colonies. The object of preference is twofold. First, to draw closer the commercial relations between the mother country and the Colonies, and to make the exchange of commodities between them free. That is the economic object. There is also a political object namely, to draw closer the political tie between the mother country and the other parts of the Empire. What is there in these aims which has anything to do with the establishment of a protective system in this country? There is absolutely no necessary connection between the two things, unless indeed it be the circumstance that preference involves a small duty or, certain foodstuffs, a duty which hon. Gentlemen opposite have repeatedly said in their speeches in the country would practically have no protective effect whatever. [OPPOSITION cries of "Who said it?"] I have seen it stated over and over again. Lord Rosebery is among those who have stated it in very clear and very emphatic language. But then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Mommouthshire says, "What about the average 10 per cent. tax upon manufactured goods?" If I am to answer that question as a member of the Government and on behalf of the Government, I say that as preference is not in our programme, a fortiori any particular method of carrying out preference is not in our programme.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is quite independent of preference.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am glad o hear that admission, because it is exactly the point which I am trying to drive home. If in my individual capacity I am asked to say what my view on the subject is, why, then, I say at once I should be very glad to see a state of public opinion in this country which would admit of the adoption of the policy of preferential arrangements with our Colonies. But in saying that I absolutely decline to pin myself to any
  660
  particular method of carrying that policy out. I do not think my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham would say that this particular part of his plan is in his view absolutely essential to the policy preference. Why was this 10 per cent. adopted in the first instance by my right hon. friend as part of his scheme? It was because, in order to avoid the imposition of an additional burden on the working classes it was necessary to remit part of the duties on sugar and tea, and, therefore, to make good the deficiency resulting therefore to the Exchequer. But that is purely a revenue question [Laughter.] Perhaps I have not made myself clear. It is admitted that the policy of preference cannot be carried out without a tax upon certain food imports from foreign countries. The suggestion of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham was that duties should be placed on corn and meat and dairy produce, and that they should be taken off tea, sugar, and coffee. As the result of that change in taxation would be to produce a deficit in the revenue, of course it would be necessary to make good this deficit it in some way or another; but the particular scheme by which my right hon. friend proposed to make good the deficit is not one which is essential to the policy of preference. For my part, speaking in my individual capacity, while I am in favour of the policy of preference, if the Colonies are able and willing satisfactorily to meet us, I am not equally bound to approve of the method of carrying it cut which has been put forward and defended with such eloquence and ability by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. If protection is not necessarily implied in preference still less is it implied in the policy of the Government. [Dissent.] Surely hon. Members have arrived at a more accurate conception of the policy of the Government than to suppose that it involves the taxation of food products.
  MR. BRYCE: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that his policy of retaliation will not take advantage of any duty on food I in order to carry out retaliation?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I believe it has already been stated by the Prime Minister that his policy does not contemplate the taxation of food. [A UNIONIST MEMBER: Of raw material?] Of course not; for the objections to taxing raw material are more serious than the objections to taxing food. I said a moment ago that the policy of the Government was not inconsistent with free trade principles. I think I may go even further than that, and say that those who advocate the policy of the free hand for negotiation may fairly declare that they are truer friends of free trade than hon. Gentlemen opposite, who, while they praise free trade, are not prepared to make any sacrifices on behalf of it. They have a platonic love for free trade. They will not do anything for it. They will not fight for it. But we are prepared to fight for free trade, and to that extent I think we may claim to be truer friends of free 1rade than hon. Members opposite. The line we have taken is this, that the policy of peace at any price with respect to commercial and industrial matters ought to come to an end. We are met by two arguments. We are told that we have the power to retaliate already. We are also told that if we did possess this power it would be of no use to us. As to the first argument, we are told that we have only got to come to Parliament and ask in each case for certain powers, and to act upon the powers so given. I do not think that that is an accurate statement of the position. No doubt Parliament is omnipotent. Parliament could to-morrow reintroduce the system of protection. Parliament could, so far as theory goes, restore absolute monarchy in this country. But would anybody suggest that any Ministry would venture, in any single case, to impose for purposes of retaliation a duty which was incidentally of a protective character without having first got the general assent of the country to the change of policy which that involved? Hitherto we have observed the principle that taxation should not be put on except for revenue purposes, but if we are to have a free hand for negotiation we must abandon that principle, or regard it, at least, as a principle modifiable according to circumstances. Just imagine
  662
  my noble friend the Secretary of Stat for Foreign Affairs, approaching a foreign Government under existing conditions with a threat to impose this or that duty unless adequate concessions were made in favour of British interests. It would be out of question for any Minister of Foreign Affairs to do that unless he had the mandate of the country behind him, otherwise he would be making a threat which he would know perfectly well he would not have the power to carry out; and the negotiator, on the other side, would know it also, and would naturally say." Your revolver is not loaded; you talk of putting on penal taxes, but we know that that is inconsistent with your general fiscal policy. "Unless we have a mandate from the country behind us we never shall have the power to negotiate with real effect. Every Government in turn is constantly addressing appeals and warnings to foreign nations against some proposed action hostile to our interests. Thos3 appeals are hardly ever effectual, and they never will be effectual unless the foreign country with whom we are remonstrating is aware that we have got the power of inflicting a penalty if our requests are not listened to. Then it is said," It is all very well to talk about retaliation, but how are you going to retaliate against countries like Russia and the United States which send you raw material in a very much larger proportion than any other commodity? Well, of course it would be more difficult for us to apply pressure to Russia and the United States than to some other countries which could be named. But really, the passion for uniformity of hon. Gentlemen opposite seems to me to amount almost to a mania. Because a preferential tariff might affect different colonies differently, therefore we are to have no preferential arrangements at all. And, similarly, because we are not in a position to apply as severe a pressure to the United States or Russia as we should be say, to Germany and France, therefore we are not to attempt to apply pressure at all. Surely such an argument as that answers itself.
  There is one other argument to which I would refer in this connection. It is perfectly true that we

  663
  should find great difficulty—I fully appreciate it—in applying pressure to the United States; I believe that continental countries, which, as we all know, are equipped for retaliation, have not been successful in bringing pressure to bear on the United States. But they have successfully brought pressure to bear on other countries, though not on the United States. We have not merely to consider freedom of negotiation for the purpose of securing favourable commercial treaties, we have also got to defend our industries against illegitimate and unfair competition. One advantage secured by the Sugar Convention was that you had the representatives of all the principal commercial countries in Europe laying down the principle that high protective duties could under certain circumstances constitute a bounty. I believe that is absolutely true, and the whole system of modern dumping undoubtedly rests on the two factors—first, combination among the producers, and, secondly, the protection of a high tariff. Now, if we cannot induce the United States to lower their tariff, at least, it will be possible for us to provide against the kind of bounty which arises from the combination of producers operating from behind the shelter of a protection system. [An. HON. MEMBER: How?] It is possible to put on duties if necessary.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: On all goods of that class?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am not saying what we should do, but how it is possible—namely, by the imposition of a tax which would act as a countervailing duty, or even by the, in some way, more extreme measure of prohibition that we have taken in connection with the Sugar Convention.
  LORD HUGH CECIL: Do you mean on all goods of one class as was done in the case of sugar.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I am very sensible that it is impossible to cover so vast and complicated a subject as this is in a single speech. I have not-entered elaborately into statistics on this occasion, for it is really only the policy of the Government with which I
  664
  have to deal. That that policy is directed against a real and serious evil no one attempts to deny, and if I were to go through all the figures in the Blue-book bearing on this part of the subject I should only be proving in detail what is already admitted on all sides. ["No"] The hon. Gentleman must really be a very strange free trader if he does not admit that the closing of the markets of foreign nations to the exports of this country is a serious evil. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are of opinion that our remedy would be ineffectual, if not mischievous. Well, we do not agree, and we mean to ask the country to let us try the experiment. ["When?"] Of course it would be far easier to sit down and do nothing. For my own Department in particular Fiscal Reform means a vast addition of toil, trouble and anxiety. But we advocate the policy because we are convinced that it is required in the best interests of the commerce and industry of the country. I myself think that it would have an even wider influence and effect. I believe that the knowledge that the British market is always open to the exports of foreign countries, no matter what fiscal policy foreign countries may adopt towards us, has contributed very materially to encourage foreign nations in erecting those really ridiculous tariff barriers against each other and against us; and I regard it as not only possible, but probable, that if this fiscal reform, which hon. Gentlemen opposite deplore as retrograde, is adopted, it will contribute to the establishment, not, indeed of universal or complete free trade, but at least of a freer exchange of commodities than now between the nations of the entire civilised world.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid the House had just listened to a very remarkable speech. It was extraordinary in the fact that the President of the Board of Trade had declared himself a free trader although he was sitting by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Local Government Board, both of whom had so loudly proclaimed their sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Before proceeding to comment upon that speech he wished to express his regret that the Prime Minister and the late

  665
  Colonial Secretary were not present during this debate and more particularly in regard to the cause which had led to their absence. The President of the Board of Trade commenced his speech by complaining that the Opposition had raised this debate on the Address. What were the facts of the case? Last year they were prevented from having a debate upon this question on a fair issue, because the Government were still in a state of uncertainty and had not declared their policy in any shape or form and they would only allow a debate on a vote of no confidence. Now when the policy of the Government had been declared they were challenging the protectionist views which had been promulgated by various members of the Government. The right hon. Gentlemen had imputed some paltry manœuvre to them and he said this Amendment had been designed to capture a wing of the Conservative Party. It appeared to him that if they had put down a Motion on another day they would not have been allowed to vote on this issue at all, because it would have been altered by some Amendment connived at by the Government, which would have obscured the issue. He felt some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman in the somewhat weak defence he offered for the Government. The right hon. Gentleman said it was in accordance with precedent for some difference of opinion to be allowed to members of the Government. He himself did not think it was, when the real question they were considering was protection applied to the food of the people. No Government had any right to speak with two voices on a question of such vital importance to the people of the country. In regard to retaliation, the right hon. Gentleman had condescended to tell them that Parliament was to keep the power in its own hands of agreeing to or disagreeing from any proposals that were to be made. Surely Parliament had that power now, and he did not see what other power was wanted. When questioned further, the right hon. Gentleman said he could not say that Parliament was to have the power to deal with the matter item by item. He must say that at this moment he had not the faintest idea how the Government proposed to carry out the
  666
  policy they announced. They were told that they ought to have waited for the Prime Minister. Were hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite such a set of weak, poor, miserable people that they could not do anything without the head of the Government? Did they not know what their policy was? If they did know, why did they not tell the House? Take the case of Russia and America, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. The policy of the Government was that in cases of outrageous unfairness we were to be allowed to retaliate. What was generally understood by outrageous unfairness was when very high tariffs were put on the imported goods of countries like Russia and the United States. If it was difficult to deal with Russia and America, how were they going to deal with France and Germany and other countries with a less tariff? If they set up protectionist duties against France and Germany unless they agreed to our demand, and no tariff was set up against Russia and America, the position would be ridiculous. If that kind of thing was done it was perfectly certain that we were going to be landed in tariff wars, and he thought right hon. Gentlemen opposite had no idea what that meant to the trade and industry of this country. Where had retaliation been successful? What reason was there to suppose, from the history of recent tariff controversies, that retaliation would be successful?
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Retaliation is only a pis-aller. There is no negotiation possible unless you have the power of retaliation behind it.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid he wanted to put this question: Sixty years ago, when this country had the power of retaliation, why was it given up? Why did Peel and Gladstone say they were going to fight protective duties by free imports? They slid they adopted that course because they had found that, despite all the great tariff that they had, it was no use for purposes of negotiation.
  MR. GERALD BALFOURpointed out that twenty years later Mr. Gladstone

  667
  reversed that position by making the Cobden Treaty.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid the Cobden Treaty was not in any sense directed against the principle of free trade. It made for free trade.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Our object is to make for free trade also.
  MR. EMMOTTadmitted that, and went further than that. As a matter of principle, if retaliation had been successful in the past, if it was likely to be successful in the future, he fully admitted there was nothing against the principle of free trade in retaliation.
  SIR GILBERT PARKERasked if there had not been a recent successful case of retaliation between Canada and Germany? Had not Germany recently made concessions in favour of Canada because of Canada's retaliatory action? He would also like to ask the hon. Member—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! This kind of question would be more properly put into a speech.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid the question of Canada and Germany raised a very largo point which he had not time to go into now. If Germany had carried out the implied threat of imposing extra duties against us because Canada had given our goods the preference, that was one of those cases which he would have thought was outrageous unfairness, and if there had been any means he would have gone to all lengths to stop it—any means without injuring ourselves. His constituents were vitally interested in these important matters. They were interested in two trades—the cotton trade and the textile machinery trade. In his constituency there were three men employed in the export trade for one employed in the home trade. They were told that "cotton would go, that sugar had gone, that silk had gone"—although he saw by a recent Government Return that in fifty years our exports had increased 33 per cent., whilst the exports of France had only increased by 16 per cent. It was far from his mind to say that everything
  668
  was for the best in this country, and in the iron, wool, and cotton trades he admitted there were circumstances which required careful attention. But if there was reason for care and attention to these matters surely it was all the more necessary that no quack remedy should be applied. And when he was told by modern prophets that cotton would go he replied at once that cotton would go if they applied the quack remedy of protection. He saw some figures the other day which showed that to build a cotton mill of 100,000 spindles in this country cost £125,000, to build the same mill in Germany cost £185,000, in France £200,000, and in the United States £250,000. The principal reason for the difference between those figures was because here we had free trade and in all the other countries they had protection. The costs varied according to the degree of protection in those various countries. Take the case of Germany, where the cost was £60,000 more than here. The German must allow 5 per cent. for interest and 5 per cent. for depreciation. That was, he had got to make £6,000 a year more than the Englishman to get the same return, so the Englishman could afford to pay than shillings a week more to his work-people and still make as large a profit. The practical result of free trade, had been that in any open market we had practically the predominance. In India, for example, for every 100 yards of cotton cloth ninety-eight was sent from this country. Therefore we had little to gain by protection. We had £70,000,000 or more of exports that we might lose if the cost of making these goods WAS made materially dearer.
  It being half-past Seven of the Clock the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [8th February] to Main Question [2nd February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty as followeth—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,—
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Hardy.)
  Which Amendment was—
  "At the end of the Question to add the words, 'But it is our duty, however, humbly to represent to Your Majesty that our effective deliberation on the financial service of the year is impaired by conflicting declarations from Your Majesty's Ministers. We respectfully submit to Your Majesty the judgment of this House that the removal of protective duties has for more than half a century actively conduced to the vast extension of the trade and commerce of the realm and to the welfare of its population; and this House believes that, while the needs of social improvement are still manifold and urgent, any return to protective duties, more particularly when imposed on the food of the people, would be deeply injurious to our national strength, contentment and well being.'"—(Mr. John Morley.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  MR. EMMOTT,continuing his speech, said in addition to the fact that everything would be made dearer by these proposals there were other terrors so far as the cotton trade was concerned in connection with it. There was the danger that reprisals might be made against cotton on account of our imposing import duties on other articles. If we resorted to a protectionist régime in this matter, it would be manifestly unfair not to allow India to resort to protection also, which would react considerably on the cotton trade of this country. Another danger was that we should be menaced with an increase in the price of raw cotton. The Colonial Secretary had approved of Mr. Charles Booth's recommendations. Mr. Charles Booth recommended a 5 per cent. import duty on all articles introduced into this country from abroad, whether food or raw materials, and a 10 per cent. duty on manufactures. A 5 per cent. duty on all cotton coming to this country would bring in something like £2,000,000 to the Exchequer, but he knew perfectly well
  670
  that the matter could not stop there and therefore proposed also a system of drawbacks upon manufactured goods exported from this country. Such drawbacks on manufactured cotton would amount to at least £1,500,000, so that the ultimate benefit which the Exchequer would receive would be only some £500,000. Could anybody conceive a more stupid proposal than to tax a trade with a turnover of £90,000,000 or £100,000.000 a year in order to bring in £500,000 to the Exchequer? The inevitable result would be that no spinner would use cotton coming from India or the Colonies. He would get all his cotton from foreign countries in order to get back the whole benefit therefore of the drawback. That had been the effect, so he had been informed, of the corn duties which were recently imposed, and which were taken off last year. He had been told that the effect among the millers of Liverpool had been to increase the use of foreign corn, and to decrease the use of home corn, and the effect would certainly be the same with regard to cotton. He did not suggest for a moment that every trade would be affected so strongly as the cotton trade, but every trade would be affected, and it was only a matter of degree. The exported manufactured goods of this country as a whole were much greater than the imported goods, and the principle applicable to the cotton trade applied to trade as a whole. It was a mistake and a delusion to suppose that even if trade as a whole benefited by this new policy, every trade would. It was assumed that some trades might benefit without hurting others; he did not agree with that assumption. He believed that some would benefit and some would not. Injury must result to the cotton trade if tariffs wore imposed for is depended not on the home but foreign markets in which it could not raise its price in consequence of the increased cost of manufacture. There fore, if the cost of the food and the wages of the operatives were raised, a disaster would overtake the cotton trade which was so vast an industry that any disaster happening to it would be a national calamity.
  Turning to the general question, he was lost in astonishment at the fact

  671
  that these new proposals had been so suddenly sprung upon the country. He did not allude to what the protagonists of this policy said in 1885, but in 1885 every symptom now complained of was apparent and he would say that those who were in favour of protection then and were in favour of protection now were greater statesmen by far than those who had become protectionist so recently. In June, 1900, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham said—
  "The prosperity of the country during the last live years has been beyond record. Never before has labour been so well employed or so well remunerated."
  On the 24th of October the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Is it too much to say that in these last twelve months the Empire has been born anew."
  And again on 10th May, 1901, the right hon. Gentleman had said—
  "Do not let us exaggerate. When every penny of the new taxation has been paid, the United Kingdom will still be, in proportion, the most lightly taxed nation in Europe."
  First of all they had those statements on the authority of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Three years afterwards, they were told the Empire was in danger by the same gentleman, who, in a speech at Leeds, said as regards the progress of the country—
  "Speaking generally, I say that it is true that in the comparative wealth of the country, in the rate of wages, and in the condition of pauperism, they (the protected nations) have made more progress than we have. Taking these protected nations as a whole—they comprise every nation in Europe and the United States, the Colonies, and many other countries—you will find that statement absolutely correct."
  In regard to that statement, Mr. Bowley, the well-known statistician, challenged the Tariff Reform League to produce satisfactory evidence for that statement, and said that as a preliminary he would ask for—
  "The evidence for any two countries, as I greatly doubt the existence of sufficient statistics of wages and pauperism for the last twenty years in any countries, except perhaps the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, Germany, and New South Wales."
  The Tariff Reform League had taken the challenge of Mr. Bowley lying down;
  672
  they did not reply to it for the simple reason, he supposed, that they could not. He did not know whether the statement which had just been made by the President of the Board of Trade would affect the situation materially. The right hon. Gentleman had made it perfectly clear that, so far as he himself was concerned, he did not advocate retaliation from a protectionist point of view, and it must be remembered that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken on behalf of the Government. The question he (Mr. Emmott) desired to ask, and it was one which was germane to the consideration of the subject, was this. Nothing more had been heard than the fact that a second pamphlet had been handed to the Cabinet by the Prime Minister, which directly recommended the taxation of food, and what he desired to know was, how the taxation of food now stood in the Government programme. It had been denied by one right hon. Gentleman, and it had been accepted by another, and everyone was in the dark. Testing this question from the standpoint of protection versus free trade, the allegation was made that protectionist countries had made more progress than we in the last few years. My first point is one of dynamics not statics. It was said that 13,000,000 people of their country were on the verge of starvation. In order to arrive at that figure, by Mr. Rowntree's method, it would be necessary to include in that proportion the three classes of wage earners, A, B, and C. Class A were those who brought home under 18s. a week; Class B were those who brought home from 18s. to 21s. a week; and Class C were those who had from 21s. to 30s. a week coming into their house. Let them compare those statistics with those of Germany. They had no accurate figures for any part of Germany except Prussia, which, however, is not the least prosperous portion of the German Empire. The Prussian figures showed that the proportion of households where £15 or less a year (or about 18s. per week) was brought in, was about 60 per cent. of the whole, against which Mr. Rowntree's figures showed 30 per cent. up to 30s. per week. Turning to the dynamics of the question the Blue-book showed

  673
  beyond all doubt or cavil that the increase in the wages in this country had been greater than either in France or America. He would leave them out. Comparing England with Germany he showed them whereas in England, the wages of the skilled artisan had riser-from 29s. 2d. in 1886 to 36s. in 1900, or an advance of 6s. 10d., in Germany the wages had risen from 18s. 10d. in 1886 to 22s. 6d. in 1900, or an advance of 3s. 8d. Would not the working men prefer an advance of 6s. 10d. on a wage of 29s. to an advance of 3s. 8d. on a wage of 18s. 10d.? Then figures with regard to the prices of bread and meat showed them there had 'been an enormous decrease in the prices of those commodities in this country as compared with Germany, so that not only in money wages had there been a great advance, but real wages had increased even out of proportion to the advance in money wages. Ho also applied the test of pauperism, of the income-tax, and the want of employment; and showed that conditions in protected countries wore less favourable than in Great Britain. In Germany the falling off in trade had been so great that the employment of male adults had decreased between June, 1900, to March, 1901, by 10 per cent. No such decrease had taken place in this country, although trade was much worse than it was throe or four years ago. In all this there was evidence of a greater advance in this country than in Germany. In regard to the increase of exports a general statement had been made that protectionist countries were increasing their exports more quickly than free-trade countries. He challenged that statement, and taking the cases of New South Wales and Victoria, and Sweden and Denmark, he showed that the free-trade countries, or countries which imposed a moderate tariff, had made greater progress than those which were more protectionist. He applied another test. He divided the nations of Europe into three categories—those which were free-trade countries, as England and Holland; those which were moderately protectionist, as Germany. Norway, Belgium, and Switzerland; and those which were highly protectionist, as France, Spain, Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia. Taking figures for these three groups, he showed
  674
  that whereas the increase of exports in the first group, between 1892 and 1900. had been £128,000,000, in the second group the increase had been £114,000,000, and in the highly protectionist countries it had been only £60,000,000. These figures showed that the high protectionist group had advanced the least of the three, although they had a vastly greater population. Taking the imports, he said there had been a decided advance on imports, both of the free-trade group and the moderately protected group, but a very small increase in the highly protected group.
  The figures showed beyond all question that if they wanted to increase exports, they must at the same time increase imports. That stood theoretically and to commonsense, while at the same time the figures proved it practically. Per head of the population in the free-trade group the figures were in 1882, £7 12s. 6d.;. and for 1900, £9 4s. 6d. For the moderate protection group in 1882, £4 10s.; and in 1900, £5 1s. For the high protection group in 1882, £1 15s.; in 1900, £1 14s. So that there was a large increase in the free-trade group, a moderate increase in the moderate protection group, and an actual decrease in the high protection group. Those figures disproved the benefits of protection, at any rate of high protection to the export trade. He must say in regard to this matter if they took an intermediate period, from 1880 to 1900, it would put a somewhat different aspect on the question. In that period the exports from the moderate protection group advanced more than from the free-trade group. In that moderate protection group Germany was the greatest factor, and in the free-trade group the United Kingdom was the greatest factor; and it was perfectly true that the German exports had gone ahead to a larger extent than ours had done. Why was that? During the last ten years Germany had had a lower tariff on food products than in the preceding ten years. The exports from Germany in 1830–4 amounted to £3 2s. 9d. per head of the population; in 1895–9 they were£3 10s. 7d.; and in 1900–2 they were £4. In the United Kingdom the exports per head were 1890–4. £6 2s. 11d.; 1895–9, £60s. 4d.; 1900–2. £6 13s 6d., He had excluded ships from these figures,

  675
  and there was nothing alarming about them. We had advanced less in the earlier period, but more in the comparison between 1895–9 and 1900–2. The point was this: that both countries had progressed, but Germany a little more than the United Kingdom; but to anyone who said that this was caused by the moderate protection of Germany, he would point out that in the same period Holland, which was practically a free-trade country, advanced more than Germany, and that Denmark advanced more than Sweden. Under these circumstances it was perfectly impossible to put the Gorman advance down to protection. There were many other reasons which might account for that advance. There was the policy of cartels, and of dumping; there was the fact that Germany had a better education than we had, and although that argument had been sneered at, it was of the utmost importance, for an analysis of the exports of Germany showed that the increase was in those trades generally where education told. Then there was the cost of transport, about which Germany had done so much, and we so little. There was further the commercial energy and adaptability of the Germans as compared with Englishmen. These were sufficient reasons to account for the difference without going to the question of protection; and we could imitate Germany in these three latter directions. It should be remembered that Germany was now going to raise her tariff, and that would increase the cost of her food. Under her new tariff he therefore did not dread the competition of Germany as much as before. In his opinion the whole protectionist argument would fall if it were not for Germany. It was absolutely contradicted by the experience of other countries, and in the face of the waste and friction which would follow any change would it not be folly to alter our fiscal plans? Especially was this the case, because if we were to imitate Germany we should have to tinker with the tariff every few years, and he asked any Member of Parliament what time there-would then be for this House to deal with other affairs.
  He had tried to meet the case for protection fairly and squarely, not by wise saws or musty shibboleths, but by modern
  676
  instances and concrete facts. He should leave this question uncompleted if he did not refer to the dynamics of protection which had an important bearing on the question. The Prime Minister had told them in his pamphlet that Germany, America, and France had shown "no sign of any wish to relax their system." For the moment he admitted that that was correct; but how about the future? Did we not often mistake tendencies as continuing tendencies when they had reached their climax? He ventured to give the simile suggested to him by the recent extraordinary speculations in cotton. A week ago the price of cotton had reached its highest, and the tendency to increase looked like continuing, but to-day the markets were lower. So, he maintained, that when the protectionist tendency was looking the strongest he was inclined to think that a change was coming. He would give his reason for thinking so. The real question which every nation had to solve was: what is their ideal? Was it to be a self-sustained kingdom or empire, or was it to increase the foreign export trade? In the extraordinary jumble of reasons given to the country for protection last autumn and winter, these two ideas had been both put forward and inextricably confused. But they were antagonistic and distinct from each other. There were some nations which showed considerable muddle-headedness in mixing the idea of being self-contained and the glory of an increase of foreign exports. If they wanted self-sustenance they muse regret foreign exports; if they wanted to sell to another nation, they must buy from it. Any other theory would land them in the hopeless quagmire of the old mercantile theory. If they went in for self-sustenance they must impose high duties, and if for foreign exports they must impose low duties. When Germany raised her tariff it was done at the behest of the agrarians. He asked would it last? At any rate there was very grave doubt about it. Count Caprivi was congratulated by the German Emperor as the saviour of his country in 1891 when he reduced the price of food. Ho believed that Germany was more likely to retrace its steps than to go on with the present system. The German ideal was a foreign export trade, but she could

  677
  not increase that by unduly increasing her Tariff. The ideal of France was to be a self-containing empire, and she had the means for that while her population was not progressive. The ideal of the United States seemed to be rather an increase of foreign exports than a self-sustaining empire. Mr. Schwab's ludicrous boast about never blowing out a single blast furnace for pig-iron in the United States had been falsified, and the production of pig-iron in that country was little more than 50 per cent. of what it was twelve months ago. If the tendency in the three protectionist commercial nations was not to increase, but to lower tariffs, would it not be well for us to wait and see what was to happen. Were we sure that we were not better off with our elastic system, with many small trades, rather than dependent upon two or three great trades? The magnificent edifice of British commerce founded on the rock of free competition had withstood the storms of fifty years, and still towered above that of all other countries, and was the envy and admiration of the world. It was better fitted to meet the winds of hostile tariffs, because its master-builders had so fashioned it that in addition to the stately halls of greater trades, there were endless smaller rooms devoted to minor industries. He wished to say that while we ought to watch and be careful of our woollen, cotton, and iron trades, he was not inclined to sneer at the fact that we were successful in the manufacture of jams and pickles. What was our ideal? A self-sustaining empire or an increase in our foreign exports? Sometimes they were told one thing, and sometimes the other Our ideal had been free trade in every portion of the Empire which we ourselves controlled; free imports to our self-governing colonies, and to foreign nations also, not for their benefit, but because that by this policy we did better for ourselves. He thought it would be a sorry day if we threw our weight on the side of protection. As it was the scales were comparatively evenly balanced, and our example might alter enormously the dynamics; it might inevitably tend to the further closing of foreign markets. On the other hand patience and well-doing in the policy under which we had become the most prosperous nation of Europe would mean,
  678
  he believed, that before long the lessening of protective tariffs now raised against us would leave us the ultimate command of tire neutral markets of the world. Therefore, in the interests of the country to which he belonged, and of the Empire which he loved, he should vote with heart and soul for the Amendment of his right hon. friend.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The subject before the House is so large, and its scope so wide, that I think we must all feel that it is absolutely impossible to deal with it fully in the course of a single debate, and, therefore, I cannot but express a feeling of regret that, while it was yet new in the minds of our countrymen, this House could not have been afforded an opportunity of discussing it. I think in those days we might have been able to deal with it without an absolutely Party bias, which perhaps now has become absolutely impossible and I feel that all the more because, although the right hon. Member for Montrose took, I think, much the same view that I do, that it ought to be possible to dissociate it from Patty feeling, vet in the very form of his Amendment he has compelled us to consider it in connection with the Party to nich we belong. This subject has nothing to do necessarily with the Address in Answer to the Gracious Speech from the Throne. There is no mention of it in the Gracious Speech, and surely those who most desire that our present fiscal policy should continue will not complain of that omission, There is nothing, so far as I am aware, in the Question which will impair "our effective deliberation on the financial service of the year." Nobody supposes that, assuming this Parliament continues in existence the finance of the year will have anything to do with the new fiscal policy. I notice that, although I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is the author of the phrase I have quoted, he did not attempt to justify the inclusion of it in his Amendment. No, Sir, I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the invitation of the Home Secretary and delay the discussion of the question until the Prime Minister-whose absence every man in the House regrets, was able to speak on it in behalf of the Government, and until the right

  679
  hon. Gentleman and those who agree with him could obtain the unbiased opinion of the House upon the Motion itself without any reference to the Party to which we may belong. The right hon. Gentleman has chosen another course. Last year the Opposition, though invited, wisely, as I think, refrained from bringing forward this question in connection with a vote of censure on the Government. Why have they adopted a different course now? I do not think that an Amendment to the Address is quite the same thing as a vote of censure, but practically it is, if carried, an expression of no confidence in the Government of the day, and would, according to our ancient custom, practically involve a change of Government. There may be this reason. Since we met last session His Majesty's Government have declared their policy upon the fiscal question. The Opposition may disapprove of that policy, or they may disapprove also of the position which, in their opinion, His Majesty's Government may have seemed to take up with regard to—what shall I say?—the mission which has been undertaken in the country by my right hon. friend the Member of West Birmingham. Now, I differ widely in this matter, and, so far as I know, in this matter only, from my right hon. friend. We regret the necessity of his absence from this debate, but in his absence I may safely say that there is no one in this country, who through his ability, his eloquence, his energy, and his service to the State, has more won the confidence of his countrymen than my right hon. friend.
  I think I shall not be wrong in assuming that the determination of the light hon. Gentlemen opposite to insist on bringing forward this matter in the manner to which I have ventured to take exception is due to the cause to which I have alluded. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION BENCH: What cause?] First it is their objection to his policy; and, secondly, the manner in which, in their minds, His Majesty's Government have associated themselves with the mission of my right hon. friend. On the opening day of the session, the Leader of the Opposition said that in his opinion the action of the Government in this matter had been the greatest imposture
  680
  that had ever been foisted upon the country and upon Parliament. I wish he had reserved those words until the Prime Minister, to whom, of course, they mainly referred, had been in his place. But I will try as an independent Member, perhaps, sitting where I do, more biased in favour of the Government of the day than the right hon. Gentleman, to place before the House what I think is a fairer interpretation of the conduct of my right hon. friend. Sir, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has not concealed the fact that personally he is in some sympathy with the policy of colonial preference. I regret that view, but we are all entitled to our individual opinion. But my right hon. friend has recognised his responsible position, as Prime Minister of the Crown, for the welfare of the Empire, and, as Leader of one of the two great Parties in the State, for the unity of the Party which he leads. My right hon. friend has recognised the limits and established the limits within which he considers the policy of his Government ought wisely and properly to be confined. He has stated, I think plainly, to the country what that policy is very possibly at some sacrifice of his own opinion. He has been rewarded by calumny and by innuendoes to the effect that he has abdicated in favour of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, and that he is a mere tool of my right hon. friend. That has been said all over the country. And that is his reward. Now, in my humble opinion, my right hon. friend has taken a course in this matter worthy of his high position and if he has sacrified his own opinions in any degree for the sake of Party unity, why, Sir, I can remember any time within the last ten years that influential writers and speakers on the Opposition side have begged right hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords on their side to do the same in the interests of the Party to which they belong. That has been the position taken up by my right hon. friend.
  But there are words in this Amendment as to "conflicting declarations from His Majesty's Ministers," and I feel there is some justification for those words. I have seen with regret during the last few months that members of the Government, finding it necessary to

  681
  speak, and in some cases to speak often on this subject, have not taken the course which their chief has taken, of explaining their policy and justifying it from both sides, but have gone on to declare themselves admirers, if not followers, of the policy of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. I think that was unfortunate; I think it was hardly fair to the chief under whom they serve. I think it would have been better perhaps if those who deemed it necessary to express such opinions had taken the manly and straightforward course of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham and gone out into the wilderness to preach the new fiscal gospel. But I do not apply any language of that sort to the speech which we have listened to tonight. We could all have preferred that in answer to the right hon. Member for Montrose the Prime Minister himself should have stated and explained the policy of the Government. That could not be. It is no fault of the Prime Minister, but, in his absence, that duty-was undertaken, no doubt at the request of his colleagues, by the Minister who is in very close relation with the Prime Minister, and probably knows everything in his mind, and who himself represents that Department of the State which is charged with these particular affairs. I heard with the greatest satisfaction the speech of my right hon. friend. What does my right hon. friend say? First of all, he put aside that peculiar notion which, as far as I know, has really not been spread abroad by anyone in authority, that this country is on the brink of ruin. Secondly, he reiterated the declaration already plainly made by the Prime Minister at Sheffield, that taxes on food are not included in the policy of His Majesty's Government. Thirdly, he stated that the duty averaging 10 per cent. on manufactured and partly manufactured goods is also excluded from that policy, that the policy of His Majesty's Government is only the policy of retaliation, and that the issue at the next general election, whenever it may come, will only be that policy, and that the result of that general election, if it should be favourable to His Majesty's Government, would not entitle it to carry out the policy of colonial preference. My right hon. friend clinched the matter by de-
  682
  claring himself opposed to protection, no doubt on behalf of the Government. He stated that in his opinion protection was not a wise policy, and he explained that by protection he meant the imposition of a tax on the consumer for the benefit of the producer.
  Now, I would appeal to my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose Burghs what his object is in desiring to censure the Government. To me, at any rate, who am a supporter of the Government, the declaration that we have heard to-night is completely satisfactory. Of course, it is possible that hon. Members opposite may consider that they see the cloven hoof of protection in the policy of retaliation. If that be so, no doubt they will persevere with their Amendment, and it would be perfectly fair of them to do so; but I venture to say that it is not an issue which will meet with the acceptance of the House or of the country. I was glad to hear the President of the Board of Trade express his agreement with the Duke of Devonshire in a view which I have always personally taken from the day on which I read the speech of the Prime Minister at Sheffield—namely, that the policy of retaliation is not a step towards the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, but is absolutely opposed to it. In the course of his speech the rigid, hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs quoted the speech of the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and my noble friend explained what he meant by his words. I think that the House quite understood. I think that the object of His Majesty's Government and the object of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham were at the commencement the same. I believe the object of both of them was to increase our export trade, and a very goods object too.
  But the methods, as my noble friend said, which His Majesty's Government have adopted with that view and the methods of my right hon. friend the ex-Colonial Secretary are different. The method of His Majesty's Government is the method of retaliation. What they want is to get as much as they can of our manufactured goods into foreign countries. They propose to negotiate with foreign countries, and, if negotiation

  683
  cannot be carried to a satisfactory result, to threaten them, and if necessary to impose retaliatory duties against the goods of these foreign countries in order to effect their object; and when that object is effected these duties will come off. But the method of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham is a different one. What my right hon. friend proposes is, first, colonial preference, or, in other words, the imposition of duties in this country upon the foreign goods which we most require; and, secondly, a general tariff upon manufactured or partly-manufactured goods averaging 10 per cent. coming from all countries, whether protective or not and of course to be permanently maintained. That is a totally different method from the method of the Prime Minister. With regard to the policy of retaliation—is that policy necessary or not? What is the grievance? I was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman in moving his Amendment admitted that the state of of our industries was not all we could desire. [Mr. JOHN MOELSY: Hear, hear.] Surly it will be agreed by all of us that foreign protective tariffs have injured, and in some cases seriously injured, our trade, not only in our export trade but in our home markets. Surely it will be agreed by all of us that if we can induce foreign countries to lower those tariffs we shall be acting in the real interest of freer trade, and conferring a benefit on the world. I do not think that it will be denied by anyone that if we could do this, as was done in the Cobden treaty, by lowering our duties here that policy would be one which would be supported by the House and the country. I am not sure that by some process of lowering or readjustment of our present duties, such as those, for example, on wines and spirits, something of this kind might not even now be done. But of course the question really is whether you should raise or impose duties in order to carry out this policy. Well, that is a question of the balance of advantage and disadvantage. I can conceive cases in which it would be absurd to undertake such a policy; I can conceive other cases, and not a few, when the advantages of the policy would be greater than its possible disadvantages. What has the Prime Minister said? He has said
  684
  that he does not contemplate entering into a general tariff war or adopting the foreign system of maximum and minimum tariffs. He has said that we might tell any foreign country which we thought was treating us with outrageous unfairness that unless they modified their tariff to our advantage we should feel ourselves compelled to take some steps with regard to their exports to us which they would not like, provided that we could do it without disadvantage to ourselves. Well, is not that a reasonable policy?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: What steps? The whole point is, what steps?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: What steps? Is it not clear, Sir, that as His Majesty's Government do not contemplate what may be called dealing with this matter by a general tariff, but dealing with it in individual instances, it is impossible for them to state precisely beforehand the particular steps which they would have to take? Would you ask a doctor to write out the same prescription for all his patients? I have no doubt that we shall have, before the country is asked to pronounce on this matter, some clearer statement than we have yet received as to the particular steps that might be taken; but I wish the House to note on this point that to-night my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade distinctly recognised the extreme difficulty of taking such steps with regard to those imports of food and raw material the cheapness and abundance of which are absolutely necessary to the welfare of the country, and that, further, he distinctly stated, on behalf of the Government, that they do not contemplate taking action in this matter by the imposition of retaliatory duties without the authority of Parliament. Those are statements which to my mind are extremely satisfactory, and I do not think that we could fairly ask His Majesty's Government at the present time to go beyond them.
  Well, but I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs himself. I was glad to hear that he said that if a case of outrageous unfairness on the part of any foreign country against us could be adduced,

  685
  and Parliament were satisfied of three things (1) of the fact, (2) that reprisals would stop it, (3) that those reprisals would not do us more harm than good, then he practically pledged that side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: No, no!]—he practically pledged that side of the House to support His Majesty's Government on such an occasion. I am glad to note that as a distinct advance towards the policy of the Government. There was a case not very long ago of outrageous unfairness in the case of the action of foreign countries with regard to bounties on sugar and the mode in which those bounties and protective duties were utilised—outrageous unfairness to the sugar producers in our Colonies and to the sugar refiners in this country. That was the fact. Reprisals were suggested, not by us, but by other countries, as the means by which that unfairness might be stopped—reprisals in the shape of a prohibitory duty upon all bounty-fed sugar imported into any country signing the convention. I think it is perfectly clear that that policy has not done this country more harm than good. [Mr. LOUGH, (Islington, W.): Great harm.] Well, I wait for proof of that statement. I do not believe that proof can be given, at any rate it was not given last year. But practically all the Opposition voted against the Sugar Convention. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his advance. Of course I can understand that the view of the right hon. Gentleman may be that retaliatory duties if imposed must necessarily remain and become protective. Well, I do not think that is a fact, and I will again refer to sugar to show why. What was the case with regard to the confectionery and jam-making trades in England? They were practically bounty-fed, because, through the operation of foreign bounties on sugar, they were accustomed to get, and they were nourished by getting, their sugar cheaper than the cost of production. It is the same thing as protection.
  A couple of years ago the Government of the day, anxious, I think, to promote the true interests of free trade—that is to say, to promote the natural course of trade—agreed to the Sugar Convention. These trades protested. They said they would be ruined.
  686
  They have not been ruined yet. But the sugar bounties were abolished in face of their protest, and, therefore, I do not believe that any single interest, if temporarily protected by a duty imposed for the purpose of retaliation, would prevent its repeal in the interest of freer trade. Some say that the policy of retaliation is impracticable—that it is doomed to fail, because in certain other tariff wars it has not succeeded. I attach the greatest importance to this fact, which came before my notice most plainly in the negotiations with regard to the Sugar Convention—that all European countries attach enormous importance to admission to our markets. I have not the slightest doubt that, if they entertained any real fear of exclusion from our market, their temper towards us in tariff negotiations would be much more agreeable than it has been under the present conditions; and in those negotiations we should be backed up by what I believe to be an increasing feeling and knowledge on the part of consumers abroad of the enormous mischief that these protective tariffs and bounties do. That was perfectly clear in all that happened with regard to the conference which arrived at the Sugar Convention, because the real motive power in that convention was the disgust of the taxpayers and the consumers in France and Germany at what they had to pay to the sugar refiners and others engaged in the sugar trade. I want this policy to be tried. I believe it is in the interests of free trade that it should be tried, and I am glad that His Majesty's Government have announced their intention of trying it. One thing only I would say—I should like them to try it at once. The principle of it was tried in the Sugar Convention, and I venture to say that it has been assented to in that Convention by this House and by the country. I do not quite see why we should wait for the general election to try it in another instance. I fancy there are negotiations now going on with certain foreign countries with regard to commercial treaties, and if the right hon. Gentlemen on that Bench will only put their foot down in this matter and will deal with those negotiations on such a principle

  687
  they will have no warmer supporter in this House than myself.
  There is one thing I should say, however, that you must dissociate this matter from the question of colonial preference. In my belief the two things, under certain circumstances at any rate, would be found incompatible. What is the principle of retaliation? Surely, that you should treat other countries as they treat you. What is the principle of colonial preference? Surely, that you should treat a colony better than any other country, because it is part of the Empire. How are you to work the two things together? Now let us see. Suppose 2s. a quarter were imposed upon all corn coming from the United States, and Canada was exempted from that duty. Suppose the result was what those who would promote colonial preference desire—that a great deal of our corn supply were to come from Canada instead of from the United States, and suppose that the corn growers in the United States induced their Government to propose to this Government that if they would remit the 2s. duty on United States corn they, the United States, would remit certain of their protective duties which pressed most hardly upon our manufactured goods, and the remission of which would do enormous benefit to the trade and commerce of this country. What must the answer be under colonial preference? Surely this, "Our word is pledged to Canada; we cannot remit the duty." Yet the offer from America might be infinitely more valuable to our trade and industries here than anything that Canada had given in return for preference or could possibly give. Would not that be a dangerous limitation to the freedom of bargaining which His Majesty's Government desire to resume with reference to this matter? Would it not excite bitter feelings in this country on the part of those interested, whether as employers or workmen, in the industries which might be enormously benefited by the remission of these United States duties. Would that tend towards the unity of the Empire? I am afraid it would be found in working that difficulties of this sort would constantly and continually arise. I would say this. It is a very inconvenient thing to bind this country by
  688
  treaty not to impose duties; but it is something more than an inconvenient thing to bind this country by treaty not to take off duties in circumstances which no man can possibly foresee.
  What are the duties which, under the scheme of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, would have to be imposed? Their object is avowedly to hinder the importation of foreign goods—the foreign goods which we require—into this country, and so far to undo the effect of the millions which we have spent in our ships, our railways, our docks, and our post office and telegraph system in order to promote the freer and cheaper transit of goods. And, Sir, what is to be the result? In the words of my right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, the result will be the imposition of taxes on the consumer for the benefit of the producer which he describes as protection. It would be grossly unfair to compare the duties which are proposed by my right hon. friend upon corn and flour and meat and dairy produce with the old protective duties. They could not possibly have the same effect as the old protective duties, which were deliberately intended to keep everything foreign out of this country. But that is not quite the case with regard to the average 10 per cent. on manufactured and partly manufactured goods. I am afraid it would be found that there would be a very real protective effect with regard to manufactured goods as a result of those duties, and that effect would be shown in largely raised prices to the great injury of all consumers, especially in the working classes. The smaller duties are proposed to give a preference in point of money to the home producer or the colonial producer. If they are found to be not enough to give that advantage, why the principle has been accepted, and you will never be able, if you are to act in harmony with the Colonies, if you are to satisfy the clients of my right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford, and they are pretty greedy clients, you will never be able to resist the demand for an increase, and the day will come, as it has come in all other countries that have begun this course, when those duties will be as protective as the duties on manufactured goods. There are curiously

  689
  contradictory arguments used in this matter. I have been told by my right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford that these duties on corn, meat, and dairy produce will not increase prices.
  MR. CHAPLIN: The price of bread I said would not be raised.
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: The right hon. Gentleman says so now, but then he goes down and tolls his farmers that they will largely benefit by these duties. I want to know how? Sometimeus we are told that a tax on manufactured goods will keep foreign manufactures out of the country and give more employment to our workmen here. At other times we are told that the same duties on goods coming from foreign countries will produce an enormous revenue. Well, they cannot do both. When my right, hon. friend says that these duties on agricultural produce will not raise prices, then I will ask him to explain why he does not press for duties on maize and bacon? Because they would be very useful in the present growth of public expenditure; and why, if they will not raise prices, is it suggested that the working classes should be compensated for them by a reduction of the duties on tea and sugar, the greater part of which, I am afraid, from my own experience in the reduction of duties, would probably go into the pockets of the producers or dealers in those articles rather than into the pockets of the unfortunate consumer. Everybody who has had to deal with taxation knows that it would be much more easy to reach the consumer by imposing a duty than to relieve him by taking it off; but I am quite unable to understand how, if prices are raised here by these duties, practically meaning that all of us, the richest and the poorest, will get less for our money, the result can possibly be to stimulate the productive power of the country and to increase employment.
  It would be wrong of me, after the kind way in which the House has listened to my observations, to attempt to deal with statistics, or go into detailed argument; but this I will venture to say, that, though I would not for a moment contend that there are not factors that enter into the comparative position and
  690
  welfare of the working class population in the various countries of the world besides protection and free trade, yet this, I think, is clear from the Government statistics—that in this country employment is more certain and more regular, wages are better, and hours are shorter than they are in protected countries. But, Sir, I know that the proposals to which I am objecting were not originally introduced, although they have recently been defended by protectionist arguments—they were not originally introduced by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham on that ground alone. He brought them forward because he believed that only by increasing our trade with our Colonies could we counteract the evil influence of foreign protectionist tariffs on our exported manufactured goods; and, secondly, that by increasing our trade with our Colonies, we should do much to promote the unity of the Empire. If the policy of His Majesty's Government is successful of forcing foreign countries to lower their protectionist tariffs against us, I do not think there will be any reason for artificially stimulating our trade with our Colonies. It is very good, it is rapidly increasing, and I think it will take care of itself. But I admit the strength of the sentiment which underlies the second argument of my right hon. friend. My right hon. friend the other day, asked us to think Imperially. [OPPOSITION laughter.] I should not receive that suggestion with derision. I am quite sure that my right hon. friend did not mean for a moment that he contemplated the idea of a self-sustaining Empire. The thing is an impossibility. It is a Chinese idea. It would be a fatal check to all prosperity, and, politically, and nationally, it would be dangerous. It is of vast national importance to us that foreign countries should be interested in our foreign trade. Why, Sir, cannot we conceive circumstances in which the great interest on the part of that great Power on the other side of the Atlantic to prevent food being declared contraband of war might be of enormous importance in a great national crisis? No, Sir, I am sure my right hon. friend never contemplated the ideal of a self-sustaining Empire. What he did contemplate was a great increase of

  691
  trade with our Colonies which would conduce to the unity of the Empire. I think the enthusiasm for the Colonies of my right hon. friend has sometimes led him to go further than I should be disposed to follow him in this matter. He said the other day that the future of the country and the British race lies in our Colonies and our possessions. Sir, I think it lies here. We, at any rate, are primarily interested in the United Kingdom. The interests of the United Kingdom are the greatest interests in the whole Empire.
  But, Sir, in considering this matter, we are bound to consider, not only the interests of the United Kingdom, but also the interests of the Empire. And what are they? The idea of colonial preference—the principle of it—has been supposed by a sentiment to which I attach enormous value. I do not think anybody can exaggerate the important service which my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham has done to this country and to the Empire both here and in the Colonies. But we cannot deal with these matters by increasing sentiment alone. Suppose the principle accepted. When we come to details we may be quite certain that the Colonies will deal with them in a spirit of hard prosaic business, and expect us to do the same. Very well. Now, I recognise and admire the spirit in which this matter has been dealt with so far by the Colonies. They have said to us plainly, "Don't hurt yourselves in order to benefit us." Their whole tone has been that of a speech, which I read the other day, from one of the Canadian Ministers, who protested against Canada being pictured as a squalling infant clamouring for preference, and saying that if she did not get it she, would break up the family feast and have the Empire. All that the Colonies have ever expressed a desire for in this matter is a fair bargain. Now, what are the proposals before us? My right hon. friend has made these proposals—5 per cent. on corn, a higher duty on flour, a small duty on meat and dairy produce, colonial produce to be admitted free in competition with our own farmers, just as it is now. What has he got on the other side? As yet he has had no definite offer. We hear a good deal about offers
  692
  by the Colonies. I do not at all deny that the Colonies would desire to enter into bargains with regard to colonial preference; but when we want to know, as we must know before we adopt the principle, what they will give in return, we get no answer. My hon. friend the Member for Sheffield has said that Canada has already given 33 per cent. Does my hon. friend really believe that that 33 per cent., although I admit of great value as showing the kindly feeling of Canada towards us, has done any material good to our country? ["Yes."] Then, how does my hon. friend account for this fact—that since this preference has been given, the whole trade of Canada having greatly increased, the trade of Canada with the United States, with France, and with Germany has increased more in proportion than the trade with Great Britain? To make any fair bargain in this matter what would unquestionably be necessary would be a real measure of free trade to us in colonial markets in the only things which we can export to these markets—namely, manufactured goods. Now, has any colony ever offered that? No, Sir. All of them tell us, and my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham has never been able to produce the slightest evidence to the contrary, that they will protect their manufactures against us. Is it a fair bargain that colonial products should come into this country free, while our products cannot go into the colonies except under protectionist tariffs? Let me carry this matter further. There may be something worse. There is a question which has never yet been answered. You propose the imposition of a duty averaging 10 per cent. on manufactured and partly manufactured goods. Is that duty to be applied to colonial imports or not? I do not hear an answer. If it is to be levied on colonial imports the principle of colonial preference is gone. If it is not to be levied on the colonial imports, in the first place you will lose an enormous proportion of the revenue which might be derived from such a tax by frauds of certificates of origin and by exportation of foreign goods to the Colonies in order that they may be sent by the Colonies here, which would be much easier now than it was before owing to the cheapness of freight. And you will do something more. Our manufacturers here complain bitterly

  693
  of the unfair competition in our markets of German and United States iron, for example, under their protectionist system. Very well. There is a bounty upon iron in Canada. We all hope and expect that the industries of our Colonies will increase and expand, and rival at some day or other the industries of the mother country. Will Imperial sentiment reconcile our manufacturers here to be ruined by bounty-fed or duty-fed colonial goods any more than they are now reconciled to being ruined by similar goods from foreign countries? These questions will hive to be answered before any practical action can be taken, I will venture to say, with regard to a discussion with the Colonies upon colonial preference. And there is something more. We are told that colonial preference, assuming it not to be intended on manufactured and partly manufactured goods, is to be confined to food, to corn, meat, and to dairy produce. Is that so? [A Voice: "No."] I look for an answer to my right hon. friend the Member for Sleaford. But assuming that to be so, is that likely to satisfy the Colonies? Do not we all of us know that that really will only apply to certain interests and to certain Colonies? Do not all of us feel that, for example, the timber interest in Canada will have something to say why it ought to have a preference which would be denied to it when given to the corn growing interest? Do not we feel that South Africa, which has granted us a preference, sends no food at all and sends a mere trifling amount of wine, but does send a great deal of raw material? Do not we know that the great export of Australia to this country is not food or meat, but raw material? If you are to adopt this principle of colonial preference, and if you are to do justice to all the Colonies and all the interests in those Colonies, without which your preference will be a mere beginning of jealousy and friction in the Empire, you must extend it to raw material. And when you once extend it to raw material, what will the woollen industries of Bradford, what will the building trade of this country, have to say to colonial preference?
  I feel that this matter is one of such enormous importance that I will not apologise for having trespassed for so long upon the House. I am opposed to
  694
  the proposals of my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham on principle. I believe they are wrong. But let us consider them for a moment from another point of view. Put aside their merits altogether. They involve an enormous change, everybody will admit that, in our fiscal system. It is a change which surely, if adopted at all, ought to be adopted with a reasonable assurance of permanance. I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister dealt with the matter in his speech at Manchester in a spirit of the highest wisdom. I will ask my right hon. friends who desire it to put aside the merits altogether. They will surely agree that unless this change can be permanently made it will be dangerous in the last degree to the interests of the Empire to make it at all. Now, is there anything behind this proposal representing that body of fixed sentiment and conviction which is the only sure basis of any great change? Not yet. Then, Sir, is it not wiser that we should adhere to the policy of the Government, that the attempt which has been made to pledge the whole of the Unionist Party to the policy of my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham should be abandoned, and that the matter should be considered at leisure in the country, not for the next election, nor for by-elections, not for anything of that kind, but should be considered and discussed until one way or the other a definite and fixed conviction is arrived at? Sir, I plead strongly because I believe in the vast importance of this question. I am not a bigoted free trader. If I had been I should not have been responsible for violating the pure theory of free trade by proposing the corn duty two years ago. This country is prosperous; but I know very well that that prosperity is not universal. There are interests which are not prosperous—the agricultural interest first of all. Other countries have prospered under protection as we have prospered under free trade. But, Sir, the position of this country is unique. For two generations and more, after long deliberation, we have adopted and adhered to our present fiscal policy. The result of that has been greatly to increase our wealth, greatly to increase our population, to make us in this hemisphere at any rate, the

  695
  greatest commercial, trading, and industrial community; to turn us, as has already been said, from an agricultural into an industrial country. And all this has brought about this thing in which this country is unique—that we depend mainly for our food supply, for our supply of raw materials which are absolutely necessary to our welfare, which we are bound—more bound now than ever—to get in the best and cheapest market, we depend for them upon an over-sea supply. To reverse the policy under which we have come into this position, to return, in principle at least, to something like our old tariff, embracing hundreds of articles, harassing and interfering at every point with the trade and industry of the country, is an experiment to my mind full of the greatest danger to our social and political future. If any such proposal were made to this House I should not hesitate for a moment as to my vote. But, Sir, no such proposal is before the House. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman does not even ask us, though it might have asked us, for a mere abstract assertion of the benefits and importance of free trade; he has inextricably combined with that the question of confidence in the Government of the day. I should not under any circumstances desire to replace His Majesty's present Government by right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Bench. But I will never desert the Government of my country at such a crisis as that which may, perhaps, at this moment be beginning in our foreign affairs. I agree with the policy which has been explained to the country by the Prime Minister, and reaffirmed by the President of the Board of Trade to-night. I desire to support the Cabinet against many, I dare say, of their own supporters who are anxious for what I consider wrong and extreme measures. And I believe that what the Prime Minister has said he will adhere to, and in that view I shall vote against the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. HALDANEsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was not only a great financier, but one of the most fascinating personalities in the House, his fascination consisting in the fact that while no man
  696
  more clearly knew his mind, no man had in greater degree the art of wrapping that mind in a certain veil of mystery. The speeches of the right hon. Gentleman could never be judged by either their exordium or their peroration; the arguments in between had to be carefully considered. If the right hon. Gentleman dissented from his own side, he had the gift of dealing out his bad arguments to his friends and his good arguments to his foes, and on the present occasion the Opposition had had his good arguments. He began by expressing his dissent from the manner in which this Motion had been brought forward in the absence of the Prime Minister. All deeply regretted that absence and its cause, but it should be remembered that during the whole of last summer Members were very forbearing, and that through the autumn an agitation unparalleled in its intensity had been carried on: was it to be supposed, therefore, that the Opposition could sit silent through the debate on the Address without endeavouring to ascertain the view of the House upon the most important question that had come before it for many a day? The right hon. Gentleman knew the mind of His Majesty's Government, as perhaps no other man, and he had proceeded with the calmness of a surgeon of great experience to go alongside the patient and tender his advice. He had diagnosed the disease, and in most kindly and sympathetic tones had stated wherein the patient was suffering. The right hon. Gentleman had the gift of what theologians called exegesis, and he had explained what the House could not have known before—what the real policy of the Government was—and he had made it clear that the Free Food Party considered that in the struggle for the mind of Ministers, their exertions had not been without avail. The right hon. Gentleman had then proceeded to deal with some of the topics embraced by the debate. He had flirted with retaliation. But it was good to pay attention to a young lady in whom those whom you wished to be your friends were peculiarly interested. Such negotiations with foreign Powers would have no warmer friend than himself. He was, however, judicious as to the way these retaliatory proposals were to be carried out. With regard to

  697
  Russia and the United States, our principal imports from those countries were food and raw materials, and they were the very things which they would suffer most from, if any attempt was made to place retaliatory duties upon them. The right hon. Gentleman did not pursue that topic further. In the course of his speech he expressed a pessimistic view of British trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose admitted that he did not find the trade of this country in a wholly satisfactory condition. He was quite unable to agree with those who found in the prosperity of the country anything which could give them complete assurance for the future. He held strongly that there never was a time at which this nation more required to make an effort if they wished to retain the supremacy which had distinguished them in the past, and which it lay with them as to whether it should remain with this country in the future.
  While he was ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had done the country a service by stirring up the people on this question, yet he could not help feeling that for one service he had rendered two dis-services, for he had turned attention to the wrong remedy and away from the true remedy. It was all very well to complain of Mr. Cobden because the dream of universal free trade had not been realised. He was not so sure that universal free trade would have been such a good thing for the country. Their free-trade policy had, however, been of great assistance to something else which had enabled them to be supreme, and that was that in the old days they were first in industrial methods. He blamed the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, because it had drawn attention from the only policy which gave them a chance in competing with their foreign rivals, and had led them on a line which seemed to him to be altogether false. He was one of those who thought that there were great social questions to be solved in this country, and they could only be solved by a considerable amount of interference on the part of the Government of the day with people's liberties. He had read a very interesting speech
  698
  which the Colonial Secretary delivered to his constituents at Leamington the other day, and which had been alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. The Colonial Secretary, in criticising this extravagant view of free trade, asked how they could maintain a free-trade doctrine in its entirety when they wished to put restrictions upon labour at every turn. That was a doctrine which it was quite right to put forward, but which it was equally necessary to examine very closely before accepting it. That would be a very valuable argument to those who based the case of free trade upon the doctrine of unrestricted liberty. Probably Mr. Cobden had not the same occasion to consider that doctrine as they had today. He had always refused to believe in that doctrine because he should interfere with anything in which it was proved that the welfare of the people required it. Nobody in his senses would propose to repeal the factory legislation which had had such a beneficial result in the last two generations. They should maintain the power which they had to interfere for the protection of that labour which could not take care of itself, and which, by its very circumstances and for want of organisation and the feebleness of those who created it, was unable to protect itself without interference from the State. But, while that was true, it was equally true that they wanted great mobility on the part of capital and great freedom in dealing with trade.
  Experience had shown that whenever they tried to judge things for those who knew better than anybody else, because it was their own business, they always failed. Whilst protecting labour it was well to leave the utmost freedom of judgment to all those who embarked in industry. If they were going to interfere in the conduct of labour and put down, for instance, some forms of sweating, which not only disfigured their great towns, but were bad for the population, at the same time it was equally necessary that they should leave the people free to replace the thing which they could no longer produce with advantage by some other commodity produced under different conditions. He was very much struck the other day by what he saw in Yorkshire in the centre of the woollen spinning

  699
  industry, where a friend of his told him what had been the history of that industry in Yorkshire. Years ago there used to be a considerable weaving as well as spinning industry in that locality. But the weaving industry had now disappeared almost and there was very little of it. He thought it was a good thing it was disappearing, because it employed men at wages which never exceeded £1 a week, and it employed women who would have been better employed attending to their families at home. In that locality they were now spinning with the finest machinery. The material went first to Germany, where there was a very low duty, and a state of things had now grown up under which it was profitable for the workers in this country and in Germany to carry on business in that way. The result in the locality he referred to was that an inferior industry had been replaced by a superior industry, and instead of the old wage of £1 a week the workers were now receiving between 30s. and 40s. per week in wages. At the technical school in that locality he saw a whole generation of people growing up experts in the making of that spinning machinery, beside which there was nothing to compare in the whole world.
  There were two industries which to his mind demonstrated the great peril of endeavouring to interfere with the judgment of people as to how they should employ their own resources. At the present time there was less weaving and flax spinning in Leeds and Bradford, but were they less prosperous now than they used to be? Hon. Members opposite were always lamenting the disappearance of a particular industry, but they had to look at these things in the aggregate. He admitted the hardship caused through the displacement of an industry, but free trade was not the only thing that displaced industry. Had they conceived the real meaning of this free-trade policy which they were asked so lightly to part with? It involved industrial and social questions, and their freedom to grapple with such questions as sweating and housing. There was hardly a social question which free trade did not affect. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, animated by a depth of conviction which he recognised to the fullest, went through the country and pro-
  700
  duced a very great impression, and yet from the very beginning it had dawned on many people that the right hon. Gentleman had not fully presented the country with all the information upon which it would have to judge the case. Unfortunately it was more complicated than the story which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had told them. In the speech of the President of the Board of Trade they had just heard the result of the judicial summing up which it was the duty of a Minister to bestow on this case, a duty which the right hon. Gentleman had discharged very fully. He had carefully balanced the argument, and he had summed up in a manner which was satisfactory from the point of view of those who at any rate wished to see this policy of free trade carefully and impartially considered before it was abandoned. He was not going to summarise that speech, but it had struck him very much, because it seemed to indicate the direction in which the mind of the President of the Board of Trade had been working after reading those remarkable materials which his own officials had collected for him. His summing up of that evidence had relieved them from the fear that they were likely to be plunged in any sudden fashion in a campaign on the part of the Government in support of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. In that state of things they were more concerned with arguments which came from other Members on the opposite side of the House which were more worthy of consideration, although he could not agree with them.
  There were many hon. Members who did not go very minutely into the merits of this economic controversy and they pointed to the growth of other nations and to the extraordinary position which Great Britain held, with a small population as compared with the population of our Empire, and they asked how this country was going to face the growing power of those other nations unless they did something. He agreed with that sentiment, but where he differed was in regard to the means they suggested to attain it. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, and also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, that they could

  701
  not keep the Empire together if they were going to make this country poorer. They could not count the economic loss which would follow the adoption of the policy suggested by the late Colonial Secretary. They could not measure that loss or know where it would leave their trade. Where such a change would land them they could not tell and they could not measure the cost. The speech made at Manchester by the Prime Minister early in January had received a great deal too little attention, but that policy was re-echoed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In that speech' the Prime Minister said that until a few months ago he had believed that a fiscal basis was the only basis upon which they could draw the Empire more closely together. He went on to say that he had seen occasion to change that opinion, and had come to the conclusion that in the development of the policy of councils of the Empire there was an alternative policy to the fiscal basis to attain the end of drawing the Empire more closely together. The right hon. Gentleman illustrated this by the Council of Imperial Defence, which had been in a large measure his own child and of which he was the distinguished parent. He foreshadowed this other policy of developing the councils of the Crown in a fashion which made some of them feel that they had an alternative to the Imperial policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. That was a policy very relevant to the debate, and, having received the seal of responsible Ministers, it answered one of the most cogent arguments which had affected the minds of many men in favour of the policy of the right hon. Member for Birmingham. A good many people thought something ought to be done and they said to themselves "here is a man who has distinguished himself by the successful way he has pushed things through which he has taken in hand. Let us support
  702
  him, although we may not be wholly convinced in his favour." Now they had an alternative policy which had gained importance, because it had received the seal of the responsible Ministers them-selves and because the Prime Minister had embodied it in a concrete case of his own, namely, the Committee of Imperial Defence. That was a very important departure, the effect of which might be felt hereafter when dealing with the Imperial aspect of the subject which formed the topic of this Amendment It could not be said that free trade was amerely negative policy, for it left open the door for a constructive policy affecting the various parts of the Empire, and it left open this policy of legislation in the direction they had followed by the passing of the Factory Acts, and which they would have to follow more in the future in dealing with the social problems which were crowding upon them. They were awakening to a sense of their responsibilities in all these matters and to a recognition of the duty which Government owed—and which was recognised by both Parties in the Stats—to the more helpless class of the community which subsisted on a mere margin of subsistence.
  He was very glad that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs contained a plea for a system of national education. This was not the moment to discuss that question, but it had taken a concrete shape in the course of the debate. Was it not the obvious duty of constructive free traders and those who, on whatever side of the House they sat, believed in the gospel of liberty, coupled with the doctrine of protection, to set themselves to work and try to get off the false track-on which we had got, and to get back to the problem dealing with the industrial methods of this country? That was oot a thing that ought to be left alone by

  703
  the State to individuals. The Amendment had raised in a form which might be inconvenient the great topic which was agitating people's minds. It was perfectly true that they would not be able to get a really judicial vote upon this matter. Of course, an Amendment to the Address involved to some extent, the question of confidence. He thought questions of confidence had been exaggerated in their importance. They enabled the Government to ride off and say to hon. Members behind them "Will you, our supporters, show want of confidence in us." If the Government were really in earnest about the policy of free trade—and the speech of the President of the Board of Trade gave him good hope that a majority of them were in earnest—he, for one, marvelled why they did not attach rather less importance to the technical form of the debate on the Address and let them have the benefit of a discussion in which they should get the free mind of the House in the matter. It was quite certain that they would not get it, but to-night, and in the two or three days which were ahead, they would at least have got an examination of this whole controversy in a fashion which would give the people what they had been waiting for a long time, the mind of the House of Commons upon the subject.
  MR. PIKE PEASEsaid the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down stated that exaggerated importance was attached to the question of confidence, but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman would make the appeal he made if in the future he was sitting on the Government Benches. Before coming into this House he had himself taken part in industrial concerns and he had had the opportunity of mixing with
  704
  and making friends of working men. It was often said that Members of Parliament who were connected with manufactures were selfish in their views. He should like, if the House would allow him, to make a personal explanation with reference to this question. He had a paragraph in his election address when he first came to Parliament in favour of reciprocity, and he sincerely trusted the day might come when the propositions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would be viewed with favour by the British people. He believed there were a vast number of persons in this country who believed that it was absolutely necessary that there should be some radical change in our fiscal system, and ha sincerely trusted hon. Members would show in the remainder of the debate that moderaton which had been shown up to the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs moved the Amendment in a speech no one could possibly object to. He sincerely trusted they might put aside the bitterness which they had seen in the country during the past few months. A great flood of figures had been produced in reference to this matter. Some of these were accurate and some were inaccurate. He would not deal with the figures to-night except to say that most inaccurate statements had been made with reference to the iron and steel trade. It was stated by Lord Lytton last week that the total ad valorem value of the iron and steel trade was £140,000,000. No one who had any knowledge of the trade could believe that that was a correct figure. It had been justified by saying that the iron and steel trade included motor-cars, pots and pans, and other things. But that was no justification.

  705
  It would be just as reasonable to include a violin in the timber trade. What they had to ask themselves was not so much whether our prosperity had been great in the past, or for what reason, but would our difficulties extend and increase in the future? In his opinion they were not likely to decrease. It had been said that many hon. Members were violent protectionists. He thought that was rather a hard term to use. At the present time we in this country taxed tea, and we allowed motor-cars to come in free of tax. We stood alone among the nations of the world in our policy in that respect.
  Were the representatives of the Colonies in earnest when they passed a resolution unanimously in favour of reciprocity with this country? If they were in earnest what answer was this country going to give them? In the speeches to which they had listened they had heard no alternative. He thought that at no distant date the majority of the people of this country would believe it was necessary to bind ourselves to the Colonies by a commercial ties of some kind. He was not at all sure that a majority of the people of this country did not think so at the present moment, although he was not foolish enough to believe that' when an election took place in regard to this question, the Party he belonged to would have an enormous majority. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed at that statement, but everybody knew very well that other questions, such as education, would come to the front, and especially representations with regard to a bread tax. [An HON. MEMBER: Misrepresentations.] He preferred the word representations. He went recently to the Gateshead election and saw two loaves
  706
  in a shop window—one professing to represent the English and the other the German loaf, the comparison being greatly in favour of the former. He did not know whether that should be called representation or misrepresentation, but no one believed that in this country such a tax could be put on bread as to produce the disparity represented by these two loaves.
  MAJOR SEELYNot yet.
  MR. PIKE PEASEsaid his hon. friend would agree with him that there would be no great change in connection with that matter except by the will of the British people. It had been said that the prosperity we had seen during the past half-century was due to a great extent to free trade. He, for one, would not deny that free trade had played an important part in the prosperity of this country, but during that period electricity and steam had revolutionised industries. It must be admitted that times were changed. Those who had gone to Gateshead would have had the opportunity of seeing a great many works standing still in the North of England. No doubt if they travelled in tramways they would have the chance of riding along on German rails. He thought the time had come when they should have some alteration in regard to that. It had been said that we were behindhand with regard to technical education, and he believed that was true. He thought it was necessary that we should put a duty of from 10 to 20 per cent. on manufactured articles. That was very little protection, but it was common sense. In advocating such a duty he thought he could hardly be called a violent protectionist. He wished

  707
  to put this case before the House. Supposing an order had to be placed for steel to the value of £100,000. A bounty-fed manufacturer offered to execute it at £99,000, while an English company, which had furnaces and everything necessary to produce the steel, quoted £100,000 Could it be argued that it would not be in the interests of this country to put a 2 per cent. duty on the bounty-fed stuff? Of course it might be said that the man who bought the steel would lose £1,000, but when they thought that the amount of labour in that large order would be £60,000 it would be seen that greater benefit would result to this country if a 2 per cent. duty were put on, especially if they took into account the fact that rates would be paid by the English order which would not be paid by the foreign order at all. It was said that if people could not find employment in a business which did pay, arrangements should be made for introducing new businesses. Anyone who had been connected with business knew that that argument was absurd, because businesses which had been started in different parts of the country had been started by an immense expenditure of capital, which if it could not be used in the business for which it was intended would be thrown away altogether. Large plants which had cost a great deal of money would have to be sacrificed at scrap price. The owners would be able to get hardly anything at all for it. It was said that the increase in the yield of the income-tax showed how prosperous this country was. It was perfectly true that there had been in Great Britain an increase of about 1 per cent., but in Germany there had been an increase of from 25 to 40 per cent. It should be remembered that a large number
  708
  of men who had made enormous fortunes in the Colonies came to live in this country. He believed that in the last thirty years the amount of money that had come in from the Colonies had been from a £1,000,000 to £1,500,000,000. He thought that must have had an effect on the income-tax. It was said that this country was the envy of the world. That might be, but our fiscal system was not the envy of the world. At present there was no country willing to adopt our system. When addressing a meeting the other night in the North of England he asked the audience whether they knew of any individual enterprise which was being started in this country at the present time. There was a certain amount of municipal enterprise, and there were a certain number of limited liability companies; but as to individual enterprise, such was never seen as in days gone by. It practically did not exist at the present time. He thought he might say to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that a good deal of the business done in the country at the present time was due to Government contracts. The day would come when municipalities would not have the great borrowing powers they had at the present moment, and then it would be found that municipal enterprise would, to a great extent, be curtailed. He admitted that there were many arguments on both sides with reference to the fiscal question.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Appleby Corporation Gas Bill [H.L.]: Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Belfast and North East Ireland Electricity and Power Gas Bill [H.L.]; Belfast Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]; Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]; Bridlington Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Buxton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Chesterfield Corporation Tramways and Improvements Bill [H.L.]; Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Ebbw Vale Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Edwardes Square Protection Bill [H.L.]; Elysée Palace Hotel Company Bill [H.L.]; Filey Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Great Yarmouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Harrogate Waterworks Tramroad Bill [H.L.]; Holy-wood Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1902 (Amendment) Bill [H.L]; Hutcheson's Hospital and Hutcheson's Educational Trust Bill [H.L.]; Ipswich Dock Commission Bill [H.L.]; King's College Hospital Bill [H.L.]; Leeds Corporation (Waterworks) Railway Bill [H.L.]; Liverpool and Wigan Churches Bill [H.L.]; Llanelly Harbour Bill [H.L.]; Maidenhead Bridge Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Decks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Milwr and District Mines Drain-are Bill [H.L.]; Minehead Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Nuneaton and Chilvers Cot n Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Oakengates, Dawley, and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Preston and Blackburn Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Preston, Chorley, and Horwich Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Preston Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; St. Bartholomew's Hospital Bill [H.L.]; St. Mary Woolnoth Bill [H.L.]; Shipley Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Bill [H.L.]; Stretford Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Tynemouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]
558
Ulster Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Weaver Navigation (Additional Finance) Bill [H.L.]; Weaver Navigation (Constitution and Finance) Bill [H.L.]; Withnell Gas Bill [H.L.]. Presented, and read 1a.
Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [H.L.]; Barnard Castle Gas Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway (Extension of Time, etc.) Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]; Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]; Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Gosport Water Bill [H.L.]; Great Western Railway Bill [H.L.]; Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Bill [H.L.]; Isle of Thanet Light Railways Bill [H.L.]; Lancashire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Liverpool and London and Globe Insurance Company Bill [H.L.]; London Chatham, and Dover Railway Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Ship Canal Bill [H.L.]; Manchester Ship Canal (Finance) Bill [H.L.]; Matlock and District Gas Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [H.L.]; Neath, Pontardawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle and Gateshead Water Bill [H.L]; New River Company Bill [H.L.]; New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company Bill [H.L.]; North Wales Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [H.L.]; Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Ticehurst and District Water and Gas Bill [H.L.]; Trafford Park Dock and Railway Bill [H.L.]; Tynemouth Gas Bill [H.L.]; Tyneside Tramways and Tram-roads Bill [H.L.]; Victoria University of Manchester Bill [H.L.]; Victoria University of Yorkshire Bill [H.L.]; West Metropolitan Railway (Abandonment) Bill [H.L.]; West Metropolitan Railway (Extension of Time) Bill [H.L.]; Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [H.L.]; West Riding Tramways Bill [H.L.]; York Town and Blackwater Gas Bill [H.L.]; Presented; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

COULSDON TRAMWAYS BILL.
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the Promoters do not intend to proceed further with the Bill. Ordered that the Bill be not further proceeded with.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  No. 3118. Italy (South Italy); No 3119. Denmark.
  NAVY.
  Returns of the number of courts-martial held and summary punishments inflicted on seamen of the Royal Navy, etc., during the year 1902.
  GREENWICH OBSERVATORY.
  Report of the Astronomer-Royal to the Board of Visitors of the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, read at the annual visitation of the Royal Observatory, 6th June, 1903.
  (Thibet): Papers relating to Thibet; (Tariff): Views of the Government of India on the question of Preferential Tariffs.
  TRANSVAAL.
  Telegraphic correspondence relating to the Transvaal Labour Importation Ordinance, with Appendix; the Ordinance as amended in accordance with telegrams (in continuation of [Cd. 1895], Feb., 1904).

  ARMY (IMPERIAL YEOMANRY).
  Training Return of Imperial Yeomanry in Great Britain and Ireland for 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (IRELAND).
  Accounts of the receipts and expenditure of the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland for the year ended 31st December, 1902; together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon.

  SUPERANNUATION—TREASURY MINUTES.
  Dated 12th August, 1903, granting a retired allowance to Theophilus Evans, inspector of postmen and telegraph messengers, Worcester Post Office.
  Dated 2nd October, 1903, granting a retired allowance to Commander Francis Alford, Navigating Commander H.M.T.S. "Monarch" Post Office.
  Dated 19th October, 1903, granting a retired allowance to Charles Hasdell, third-class clerk in the Engineer-in-Chief's Department, Post Office.
  Dated 19th October, 1903, granting a retired allowance to James Ruttley, late overseer and senior telegraphist, Central Telegraph Office, London.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  RICHMOND BRIDGE.
  Account of the Commissioners of Richmond Bridge for the year ended 25th December, 1902. Delivered (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPHS).
  Account showing the gross amount received, and the gross amount expended, in respect of the Telegraph Service from the date of the transfer of the telegraphs to the State to the 31st day of March, 1902 (in continuation of No. 31, of Session 1903). The Order of Thursday last, that the said account do lie on the Table, discharged.
  House adjourned at Four o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.