Sitting of 22 July 1904

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.
The House went; and, being returned—
Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to—
Hall-Marking of Foreign Plate Act, 1904.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Swansea) Act, 1904.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Act, 1904.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham) Act, 1904.
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Cardiff) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 14) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 15) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (Gas) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1904.
Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1904.
Commons Regulation (Merrow) Provisional Order Act, 1904.
Commons Regulation (Oxshott) Provisional Order Act, 1904.
Land Drainage Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands Supplemental (Ireland) Act, 1904.
Pier and Harbour Order Confirmation (No. 1) Act, 1904.
Electric Lighting Orders Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1904.
Canal Rates and Charges (Regent's Canal) Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Leith Burgh Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Wishaw Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Govan Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation Act, 1904.
Donegal Railway Act, 1904.
Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway Act, 1904.
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time) Act, 1904.
Bexhill Water and Gas Act, 1904.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways Act, 1904.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Act, 1904.
Leicestershire and Warwickshire Elecltric Power Act, 1904.
Manchester Ship Canal (Finance) Act, 1904.
Preston Corporation Water Act, 1904.
Shipley Urban District Council Act, 1904.
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire Electric Power Act, 1904.
Great Northern Railway Act, 1904.
Matlock and District Gas Act, 1904.
Ticehurst and District Water and Gas Act, 1904.
London and North Western Railway Act, 1904.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Act, 1904.
Brymbo Water Act, 1904.
Great Central and Midland Railway Companies Act, 1904.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Act, 1904.
Southend-on-Sea Gas Act, 1904.
St. Mary Woolnoth Church Act, 1904.
Minehead Urban District Council Act, 1904.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power Act,
1904.
Birkdale Improvement Act, 1904.
South Suburban Gas Act, 1904.
Southport and Lytham Tramroad Act, 1904.
City of London (Central Criminal Court-House) Act, 1904.
Filey Improvement Act,1904.
Maidenhead Bridge Act, 1904.
Great Central Railway Act, 1904.
London County Council (Money) Act, 1904.
Plymouth Corporation Act, 1904.
Wolverhampton Corporation Act, 1904.
Liverpool and Wigan Churches Act, 1904.
Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Act, 1904.
Richard Jaeger's Patent Act, 1904.
Doncaster Corporation. Act, 1904.
Skipton Water and Improvement Act, 1904.
Soothill Nether Urban District Tramways Act, 1904.
Llanelly Harbour Act, 1904.
Tynemouth Corporation Act, 1904.
Great Eastern Railway(General Powers) Act, 1904.
North-Western Electricity and Power Gas Act, 1904.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Act. 1904.

UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [LORDS](STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, viz.:—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords]; Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 4) Bill [Lords];—Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill [Lords]; Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill[Lords]; Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords]. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time upon Monday next.
  Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  Scotch Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (Edinburgh) Bill [Lords]. Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  King's College Hospital Bill [Lords]; Manchester Ship canal Bill[Lords]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [Lords]; Leeds Corporation (Water-works) Railway Bill [Lords]; De Trafford Estate Bill [Lords]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads (re-committed) Bill [Lords]. Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [Lords]. As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Alexandra (Newport and South Wales) Docks and Railway Bill [Lords] (by order). As amended, considered; Amendments made; Bill to be read the third time.
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  Newburgh and North Fife Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation. Bill to confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Newburgh and North Fife Railway, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate and Mr. A. Graham Murray.
  Newburgh and North Fife Railway (Extension of Time) Order Confirmation Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order, under The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the Newburgh and North Fife Railway," presented accordingly; and ordered to be considered upon Monday next.

PETITIONS.
  LICENSING BILL.
  Petitions against; from Finsbury; Gateshead; Kilmarnock; Lasswade; Lincolnshire; Lostock Hall; Martin Dales; Salisbury; Spennymoor; Tiverton on Avon; Wallsend; Whitby; Worthing; and Wrexham; to lie upon the Table.
  VALUATION BILL.
  Petition from Fylde, for alteration; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  Petition from Edmonton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877 (OXFORD).
  Copy presented, of Statute made by the Governing Body of Worcester College, Oxford, on 4th March, 1904, amending Statutes II., III., IV., V., VI., and VII., of the Statures of the College [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 247.]
  WINTER ASSIZES ACTS, 1876 AND 1877.
  Copy presented, of Seven Orders in Council of 15th July, 1904, relating to the ensuing Winter Assizes [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Copies presented, of Orders in Council of 15th July, 1904, entitled, respectively, The China and Corea (Shipping Registry) Order in Council, 1904, and The China and Corea (Consular and Marriage Fees) Order in Council, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  EXTRADITION ACT, 1870.
  Copy presented, of Order in Council of 15th July, 1904, entitled, The Straits Settlement Fugitive Offenders Order, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEA FISHERIES.
  Copy presented of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Acts relating to Sea Fisheries for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES.
  Copy presented, of Annual Report of Proceedings under the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Acts, etc., for the year 1903 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NAVAL WORKS.
  Copy presented, of Statement showing the total estimated cost of each Work, the estimated expenditure thereon during 1903–4 and 1904–5, and the expected date of completion [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL [LORDS].
  Return presented, relative thereto [ordered 21st July; Mr. Bonar Law]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 274.]

  TRAMWAYS AND LIGHT RAILWAYS (STREET AND ROAD).
  Return ordered, "of Street and Road Tramways and Light Railways authorised by Act or Order, showing the amount of Capital authorised, paid up, and expended; the length of line authorised, and the length open for the public conveyance of passengers down to the 31st

  943
  day of December, 1903, in respect of Companies, and the 31st March, 1904, in respect of Local Authorities; the gross Receipts, working Expenditure, net Receipts, and application of net Receipts; the number of passengers conveyed, quantity of Electrical Energy used, and the number of miles run by Cars during the year ended on the foregoing dates respectively; together with the number of Horses, Engines, and Cars at those dates (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 324, of Session 1903)."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Alien Immigration.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, with reference to the representations made to him on behalf of several trades unions as to the increasing numbers of working men who are out of employment, his attention has been called to the arrival of 38,557 aliens in the United Kingdom in the last six months not en route to any other country, and that over 27,000 came from German, Russian, and Scandinavian ports, and that upwards of 70 per cent. were Russians and Poles for settlement, in Whitechapel and the Tower Hamlets; and if he proposes to take any action in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) There seems no reason to believe that the number of aliens described as "not en route to any other country" at all represents the number who come to this country for settlement. The number, if experience is to be trusted, who actually settle is decidedly less. I have no evidence as to the percentage who are Russians and Poles. My hon. friend is acquainted with the history of the attempt made in the course of the session by the Government to deal with the problem of alien immigration. It is greatly to be regretted that the course adopted by some Members of the Grand Committee to which the Bill was referred has rendered its passage impossible during the present session of Parliament.

  Dogs Vivisected at University College during 1903.
  DR. SHIPMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs were vivisected in University College during the year 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) As I informed the hon. Member on the 4th of May last,† I have no material from which I can answer this Question.

  Cancer in Dogs.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Report of the Director of the Cancer Research Fund shows that during last year 247 specimens of cancer derived from dogs were examined; will he state whether these dogs had been previously inoculated with cancer; and, if so, were such inoculations included in the annual Returns of Experiments on Living Animals.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) The Report, to which I understand the hon. Member to refer, does not state that 247 specimens of cancer in dogs have been examined. I am informed that the 247 specimens consist chiefly of growths and other pathological conditions occurring naturally. The remainder of the specimens were the result of inoculation experiments, and these are included in the annual Return of Experiments on Living Animals for the year ending 31st December, 1903.

  The Army—Cost of Re-armament Scheme, Etc.
  MR. GODDARD: To ask the Secretary of State for War what will be the estimated increase in Estimates in each of the ensuing two years, under the rearmament scheme; what will be the increased charge for interest for money borrowed under the Military Works Acts for the same period; and what is the increase of charge for stores needed to keep up the standard recommended by the Mowatt Committee as compared with the average annual charge for the same purpose in the years preceding the appointment of that Committee.
  †See(4)Debates,cxxxiv,375.

  945
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I hope that I shall be able to propose the re-armament of the artillery upon the basis which I have already suggested to the House, viz., the completion in three years, which will involve an additional payment in the next two years of £1,250,000 in each case. I trust that the House will support me if I find it necessary to ask them to vote a large addition to Estimates which will be involved by the adoption of this course. I prefer, however, not to make a positive statement until the Estimates of next year are ready for submission. It is estimated that the increased amount required for Military Works Act annuities as compared with 1904–5 will be—

  1905–6

  £182,000

  1906–7

  £371,000

  No increased charge will be required in connection with the Mowatt stores, but as a considerable stock of surplus stores and clothing existed from the war in South Africa, it was unnecessary to make the normal provision for upkeep in the Estimates 1904–5. There will, therefore, probably be an increased provision as compared with 1904–5 of—

  1905–6

  £373,000

  1906–7

  £649,000

  The New Army Scheme and the Indian Drafts.
  MR. McCRAE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended, under the new Army Scheme, to furnish the required drafts for India from the proposed new depots; and if he can state the conditions to be imposed as to age and length of training before the recruits can be sent abroad.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The reply to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the Question, the minimum age for Indian drafts will be twenty and the length of training six months.

  The Militia.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of stopping the contributions of 19,000 men annually from the Militia to
  946
  the Regular Army, by preventing Militia soldiers from joining the Line regiments until they have served three years in the Militia, with the view to bringing the latter force quickly up to its standard strength.
  DR. THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view of making the Militia efficient and maintaining it at its proper strength, he will prolong its training period to six weeks, as recommended by the late Royal Commission.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The whole question of the efficiency of the Militia is under consideration, and under these circumstances I am not prepared to give ally reply to detailed inquiries of the nature indicated in these Questions. As a matter of fact it is not possible to prevent Militia soldiers from joining Line regiments if they so desire, and if it were possible the enforcement of such a rule as that proposed by the hon. Member would, under existing circumstances, prove most detrimental to the recruiting of the Regular Army.

  Recruiting for Irish Militia Regiments.
  Dr. THOMPSON: To ask the Secretary-of State for War is he aware that recruiting for several Irish Militia regiments has been stopped; and, if so, if he will explain why this course has been adopted in the case of the Mid-Ulster, Sligo, Londonderry, and Donegal Artillery regiments.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forstet.) Recruiting was stopped in 1903 in the case of certain Irish Militia regiments in anticipation of a scheme for the reorganisation of those Militia units which are weak in number and difficult to recruit. I see no reason to alter the decision arrived at by my predecessor.

  Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will state when the Government propose to proceed with the Congested Districts (Scotland) Bill.
  (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) I can make no statement at present as to the prospects of this Bill.

  Humane Slaughtering of Animals.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the Committee appointed by the Admiralty to consider the humane slaughtering of animals for human food has yet submitted its Report; and, if so, when will it be in the hands of Members.
  (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) Yes, Sir. This Committee has submitted its Report, which I hope will be in the hands of Members to-day.

  Recall of Lord Dundonald.
  MR. MARKHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he say on what date he communicated with Lord Dundonald, recalling this officer from Canada, and by virtue of what powers, under the Army Regulations, he can enforce this order.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Sessional Papers of the Dominion Parliament containing the correspondence between various members of the Colonial Government and Major-General the Earl of Dundonald were received at the War Office on the 9th instant, and were considered by the Army Council. Various questions as to Lord Dundonald's position as a half-pay officer had to be examined. On the 18th July the Secretary of State decided, in view of all the facts, that it was expedient that Lord Dundonald should be recalled and asked for an explanation), and that his attention should be called to the paragraph of the King's Regulations forbidding officers from speaking publicly or attending public meetings. A telegram was in consequence approved and ordered to be despatched early on the 19th instant. Under Section 175 (1) of the Army Act officers of the Regular Forces on the Active List, within the meaning of any Royal Warrant for regulating the pay and promotion of the Regular Forces, are subject to military law; and under the Royal Warrant for Pay, 1900, the Active List includes officers who are on temporary half-pay. Lord Dundonald is, therefore, subject to military law, and accordingly must obey any lawful order.

  Proposed Reduction of Postal Rates to the Continent.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR (Tower Hamlets,): To ask the Postmaster-General if he will consider the advisability of communicating with the representatives of the Postal Union with a view to secure a reduction in the rate of postage between the United Kingdom and the Continent.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The rates of postage, applicable to correspondence passing between countries of the Postal Union are to be discussed at the next Postal Union Congress, intended to be held in the ensuing spring; and in the meantime I do not think it advisable to make any move in the direction suggested.

  Consular Service Examination—Omission of Modern History.
  MR. VINCENT KENNEDY: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will explain why the subject of modern history has been omitted from the recent programme of regulations for entrance into the Consular Service.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) Modern history has never formed a subject of examination for the Consular Service and, however useful as an element in a liberal education, it is not one of the subjects a knowledge of which is essential to the discharge of the duties which Consular officers are called upon to perform.

  Insanitary Condition of Sandy, Bedfordshire
  MR. SCHWANN: To ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has received the special report which he promised to have made into the insanitary condition of Sandy, Biggleswade, Bedfordshire; what is the result with regard to the frequent cases of dangerous infectious diseases; and what means does he propose to take to have a remedy applied by the local authority.
  (Answered by Mr. Waiter Long.) I have asked for a special report from the medical officer of health as to the occurrence of erysipelas and diphtheria in this district during the present year, but I have not at present received it. I will not lose sight of the matter.

  Government Orders and Sheffield Firms.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: To ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to a resolution of the Sheffield Federated Trades Council on 8th July, 1904, drawing attention to scarcity of employment now existing among all classes of workmen employed in the heavy industries of the city and its consequent distress, and to the expenditure in Sheffield upon special plant and machinery in order to meet the requirements of the Admiralty and War Office, to the neglect largely of private trade, and to the fact that workmen have been trained to execute this work, and requesting His Majesty's Government to place a fair share of orders with Sheffield manufacturers; and, if so, will he say what action he proposes to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) My attention has been drawn to the resolution in question. There is no intention of departing from the policy of allocating a share of the orders to the trade, but in the allocation of such orders the principle of going to open tender cannot be interfered with, and questions of locality cannot be taken into consideration.

  Reservists available on 1st October, 1899.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the number of Reservists available on 1st October, 1899, for Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery, Engineers, Army Service Corps, Army Ordnance Corps, and Medical Staff.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The figures are as follows:—

  Cavalry

  6,567

  Artillery

  11,007

  Engineers

  3,220

  Infantry

  50,581

  Foot Guards

  5,584

  Army Service Corps

  2,690

  Army Ordnance Corps

  231

  Medical Staff Corps

  1,009

  The Crown Agents and Ceylon.
  MASTER or ELIBANK: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to two specific instances in which the Crown Agents are
  950
  alleged not to have sufficiently safeguarded the interests of Ceylon in regard to files and ship plates supplied to that Colony; and whether he has called upon or will call upon the Crown Agents for explanation.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) My attention has been called to the allegations to which the hon. Member specially refers, though no complaint has reached me from the Ceylon Government. It was stated that the Crown Agents supplied files for the Colombo Harbour works at a discount of 55 per cent., whereas they could have got the same files direct from the manufacturers at a discount of 62½ to 65 per cent., and also that they supplied to the Ceylon Government, in November, 1903, ship plates at £9 5s. per ton when the market rate was from £6 2s. 6d. to £6 5s. The statements came under the notice of the Crown Agents, and they informed me at the time to the following effect. No comparison can be made in the discount without knowing the qualities, as files vary in discount according to quality. Files of two different qualities have been purchased through Messrs. Blakemore, of Birmingham, for the Ceylon Government in recent years; in one case they were hand cut of full weight, good shape, and hardness, with a clear ring, and the cutting perfectly true, the discount on which was at the rate of 55 per cent.; in the other case "Patent Sand Blast Files" were supplied as demanded, at a discount of 62½ per cent., but these are machine cut, less durable, and of an inferior quality to hand cut. No ship plates were supplied by the Crown Agents to Ceylon in November, 1903, the last supply having been made in May, 1903, at a price of £5 12s. 6d. per ton, and not £9 5s. as alleged. These supplies were not procured through Messrs. Blakemore.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE

  The Case of the "Malacca."
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: May I ask those members of the Government who are present whether there is any information to be given to the House as to the case of the "Malacca?"
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD): I called at Downing Street on my way down at ten minutes to 12, and there was no further information.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Nothing beyond what appears in the morning papers?
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: Nothing beyond.
  MR. LOUGH: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman confirm the statement in the morning papers?
  SIR A. ACLAND-HOOD: No, Sir; I am not in a position to do that.

FINANCE BILL.
As amended, considered.
MR. CHANNINGsaid he had placed upon the Paper in the Committee stage a clause the effect of which would be to end this tax on December 31st. Section 3 of the Finance Act of 1901 made the coal tax a permanent tax, and the object and effect of the clause he was now moving was to make it a temporary tax running for a year only. Its effect would be that it would have to come up next year again in the form of a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means and would be open to full discussion on that stage as well on the Committee stage. The Commission might by that time have reported on any new circumstances and facts that might have transpired in the preceding twelve months. He had deliberately adopted this more conciliatory course because of what occurred in Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech had spoken of having an open mind on this question, and had practically promised to reconsider his refusal to abolish this tax affecting an enormously important industry in many parts of the country, if any new facts justifying such a course could be cited. He had felt that he was, under the circumstances, well advised in raising this question on the Report stage in this most conciliatory way. He looked
952
on his proposal as a very moderate one indeed, and he hoped the Government would give it the consideration which he claimed that it deserved. It might be invidious to allude to the war taxes of 1902, to the corn duty, which was not only reconsidered but was actually repealed. He would not, therefore, attempt to trace any analogy or draw any inference from that action. He was, he knew, precluded from going into the merits of the coal duty, but he did most earnestly urge upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer the advisability of meeting public opinion in this matter. His position would certainly be vastly stronger and Letter in every way if ha accepted this Amendment. His speech the other night was a practical admission that the basis upon which this tax was originally imposed in 1901 was not permanent but was open to revision. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol in his Budgets of 1901–2–3 talked a great deal about widening the basis of taxation and about the difficulty and impracticability of imposing taxes of this kind, which involved very complicated commercial considerations in connection with trades in which there were contracts spreading over long periods without placing them on a permanent footing. The right hon. Gentleman also justified his action by claiming that in such cases it was unreasonable to impose the duty for one year only. He did not wish, however, to raise any recriminatory points, or to cast reflections upon anyone. He would simply submit that it was undesirable in the interest of constitutional government and of sound finance that taxes such as these should be excluded from the Resolution stage of the House, and that they ought to come up for reconsideration every year. This coal duty specially called for treatment of that kind. It ought not to Le treated as a permanent corner stone of our system of taxation, to go on generation after generation; it should be considered year by year in the light of all the interests concerned.
A clause. [Amendment of Section 3 of Finance Act, 1901].
"Section three of the Finance Act, 1901, shall read as if the words 'until the first day

953
of August, nineteen hundred and five,' were inserted after the words nineteen hundred and one' in line two of the Section."—(Mr. Channing).
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,)said there were other Amendments on the Paper which raised the whole question, and this particular one was hut a small point, and he had therefore decided to reply at once, in the hope that they might come to an early decision on it. The hon. Member in a perfectly conciliatory speech had based his arguments on a speech he delivered in the early hours of Wednesday morning He could not accept the inference which the hon. Gentlemen drew from the speech referred to. All he had said was that he should keep an open mind to consider new facts which might be disclosed by the Report of the Royal Commission on the Coal Supplies, and it was not fair to press that to the extent of suggesting that he differed from the statement of his predecessor when he proposed the tax. He did not pretend that the coal trade was as prosperous now as when the duty was imposed, for at that time it was admittedly in enjoyment of exceptional prosperity; it was characterised by high prices and high rates of wages. As they all knew, the coal trade was subject to very great fluctuations, and the fat years had to bear their share of the burden of the lean. In order to arrive at a fair opinion as to the condition of the trade they must take a number of years and strike an average. The hon. Member because he undertook to preserve an open mind, now asked him to make the duty annual instead of permanent. He thought that that was hardly a reasonable request. What was necessary from the constitutional point of view was that a sufficient portion of the revenue should come annually of necessity under review in order that Parliament should grant the Ways and Means necessary for the service of the year. This review was amply provided for in present circumstances by the number of annual taxes that were brought under review. There was thus
954
no danger to constitutional rights owing to the fact that certain taxes were enacted in a permanent form. Under the circumstances, therefore, he was unable to accede to the request of the hon. Member.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer at all events gave the impression during the recent debate that he had an open mind on the matter of the coal tax, and that he would wait until the issue of the Report of the Royal Commission before definitely deciding whether or not the tax should be a permanent tax. But the point really before the House on the present occasion was whether this tax, admittedly put on as a war tax and intended as a temporary tax, ought not to be brought annually under review.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the hon Member could not find any authority in the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol for the statement that the tax was intended to be temporary.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid the tax was at any rate put on for the purposes of the war, but the expenditure of the Government had been so great that the war taxes were now practically permanent. In former days the expenses of the State used to be voted by separate Bills, and a far larger proportion of the taxes were voted annually than was now the case, but in consequence of disputes with the House of Lords all the taxes were put together in one Finance Bill. With the exception of the tea duty, practically all the taxes now came within the category of permanent taxes. He did not think that that was a right system. It was only fair that these matters should be reviewed year by year, particularly in the case of a tax so complicated in its nature as the coal tax, which had led to such disputes as to upon whom the burden fell and how far it was damaging the interests of the trade. He therefore heartily supported the Motion.
MR. WHITLEYsaid the Amendment, although it did not bring into discussion the merits of the coal tax itself, raised a point of considerable financial importance. The tax was imposed as a a war tax, and one of its chief claims to support was that it fell on a

955
trade which had especially benefited by the war. The result of the withdrawal of such taxes from the consideration of the House, except by such out-of-the-way methods as that adopted on the present occasion, was the diminution of the —control of Parliament over the taxation of the country. It was a part of the policy of the present Government to minimise the power of the House of Commons. It was the fact that such taxes as this were permanent instead of annual that enabled the Government to postpone the consideration of the Finance Bill to the present period of the session, and for that reason he should support the Amendment.
MR. BRYNMOR JONESthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had hardly met the point raised by the mover of the Amendment. If the words were inserted the coal tax would come to an end on 1st August next year unless the Government took certain steps before that date, and the desire of his hon. friend was that when the Budget Resolutions were put down next year there should be one dealing with the coal duty, which would give the House a favourable opportunity for discussing the whole matter. The right hon. Gentleman had exhibited an excellent spirit in dealing with this question, and he appealed to him to recognise the reasonableness of the Amendment.
MR. TREVELYANsaid that if the right hon Gentleman could have accepted this Amendment it would have expedited the Report of the Bill, because it would have been a real concession to the very strong objection to the tax on that side of the House. It would have been an admission that the arguments put forward in the recent debate had had some effect, and that there was some prospect of the tax being reconsidered next year. Whether or riot certain taxes were imposed as war taxes was not of much importance, inasmuch as they had all been retained, and some of them
even increased. But the coal tax was clearly one that ought to be annually reconsidered. Nobody maintained that it did any good. It protected nobody but the foreigner; it seriously injured the coal and shipping industries. If the new Army scheme realised its author's expectations there would be a possibility of considerable reductions of taxation next year, and it would be only a reasonable concession to say that this tax should be one of the first to be reconsidered.
MR. SAMUAL EVANSsaid that apart from the consideration that the House ought to have an opportunity of considering year by year taxes of this kind, he thought the character of the coal tax was such that it ought not to be a permanent tax. The predecessor of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly did not hold the view that it was a permanent tax in the ordinary sense of the term, because in dealing with the subject he stated that if the tax was to be permanent it might be well to consider whether some changes should not be made in order to bring the duty more into relation to the value of the coal. Many districts had been very hardly hit by the tax, and certainly there had never been a tax which created so much dissatisfaction in the minds of everybody connected with the trade concerned. The effect upon the trade from year to year required to be considered, Consular Reports ought to be watched, and it was necessary that there should be the fullest possible investigation into the matter. In fact, the nature of the tax was such that it of all taxes deserved to be put into the category of annual taxes, and he hoped the House would press for that to be done.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 87; Noes, 147. (Division List No. 269.)

AYES.

Allen, Charles P.

Burt, Thomas

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

Ashton, Thomas Gair

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Delany, William

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Caldwell, James

Dobbie, Joseph

Boland, John

Cameron, Robert

Donelan, Captain A.

Bowles,T.Gibson(King's Lynn)

Causton, Richard Knight

Doogan, P. C.

Brigg, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Elibank, Master of

Broadhurst, Henry

Crombie, John William

Ellice, Capt E. C(S. Andrw's Bghs

Burke, E. Haviland

Cullinan, J.

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Farrell, James Patrick

Lloyd-George, David

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Fenwick, Charles

London, W.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C.R.(Northants

Fitztmaurice, Lord Edmond

Mooney, John J.

Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Murphy, John

Strachey, Sir Edward

Flynn, James Christopher

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Sullivan, Donal

Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

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

Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Tomkinson, James

Guest, Hon Ivor Churchill

O'Dowd, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Hammond, John

O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N

Tully, Jasper

Hardie, J. Keir(Merthyr Tydvil)

O'Malley, William

Wallace, Robert

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Parrott, William

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Higham, John Sharpe

Partington, Oswald

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol,E.)

Paulton, James Mellor

Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

Holland, Sir William Henry

Pirie, Duncan V.

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Horniman, Frederick John

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Jacoby, James Alfred

Priestley, Arthur

Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

Jones,David Brynmor(Swansea

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Joyce, Michael

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Channing and Mr. Thomas Bayley.

Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)

Russell, T. W.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington)

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Sheehy, David

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

Flower, Sir Ernest

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Arrol, Sir William

Forster, Henry William

Moore, William

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Morrell, George Herbert

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Gardner, Ernest

Morrison, James Archibald

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

Mount, William Arthur

Baird, Jon George Alexander

Gretton, John

Murray, Rt Hn. A. Graham(Bute

Balcarres, Lord

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Baldwin, Alfred

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

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

Heath, Arthur Howard Hanley

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds

Heath, James (Staffords., N.W.

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Helder, Augustus

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Percy, Earl

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield, Brightside

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bigwood, James

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bill, Charles

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Pym, C. Guy

Bond, Edward

Hunt, Rowland

Reid, James (Greenock)

Brassey, Albert

Jameson, Major J. Eustace

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

Kimber, Sir Henry

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbyshire

Laurie, Lieut -General

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Worc.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Samuel, Sir Harry S.(Limehouse

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Sharpe, William Edward T.

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

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

Sinclair. Louis (Romford)

Coddington, Sir William

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

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Coghill, Douglas Harry

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

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

Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C R.

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Llewellyn, Evan Henry

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesham)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

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

Thompson, Dr EC (Monagh'n, N.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Thornton, Percy M.

Davenport, William Bromley

Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tuff, Charles

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Macdona, John Cumming

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

Valentia, Viscount

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(Edinburgh, W

Vincent, Col. Sir C.E.H(sheffield)

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Walker, Col. William Hall

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Maxwell, Rt Hn. Sir.E.(Wigt'n

Wanklyn, James Leslie

Fisher, William Hayes

Maxwell, W.J.H(Dumfriesshire

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Fison, Frederick William

Melville, Beresford Valentine

958

959

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

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Welby, Sir Charles G. E.(Notts.

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

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Wortley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

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

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid it was most unfortunate that the last discussion on the coal tax upon this clause should have been taken after the House had been sitting continuously for seventeen-and-a-half hours. During that sitting he ventured to point out to the Prime Minister that it was a physical impossibility for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give constant attendance during the continuance of that debate, or to deal adequately under the circumstances with this most important question affecting 5,000,000 of the population of the United Kingdom, because there was no industry in the United Kingdom comparable in importance to the coal industry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was absent —and he did not blame him—when he ventured to address the House the day before yesterday. He then stated that under all the circumstances, representing as he did one of the largest mining constituences of the United Kingdom with over 11,000 coal miners in it, he would take this opportunity of raising this question. He understood that there was an impression abroad that he was personally financially interested in this question. He desired, therefore, to say that the collieries in which he was interested personally entirely confined their trade to inland consumption, and consequently in regard to this tax he had practically no direct financial interest. He had, however, an interest in the 11,000 coal miners in the Barnsley Division of Yorkshire, and it was on their behalf that he rose to move this clause. He was glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other day that he was keeping an open ear for any new evidence in regard to this important matter, and the right hon. Gentleman said he had not closed the door to the review of any new facts as to the operation of the coal tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had since put a somewhat different construction upon those words from that which many hon. Members understood them to bear, but he did not disguise the fact that he had an open mind and that lie was prepared to keep an open ear for new evidence. It was difficult in the course of
960
the long sitting they had the other day for the Chancellor of the Exchequer either to keep an open eye or an open ear, and it was equally difficult for the majority of the Members present during that sitting to do so, for he noticed that during the discussion of the coal tax on that occasion one-half the Members were asleep.
The figures on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer based his statement the other day included 16,000,000 tons of bunker coal and coal exported abroad to the extent of 5,000,000 tons which was not subject to the coal tax. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman that what he ought to consider was the coal which was subject to the tax. In 1901, there was sent abroad 43,329,000 tons; in 1903, 41,660,000 tons, showing an actual decrease of no less than 1,668,000 tons, and this notwithstanding the fact that there was a special demand from the United States of America owing to a great strike there. From 1890 to 1900, under normal conditions, the annual increase in the export of coal was 1,500,000 tons; from 1900 to 1903 that increase was absolutely checked, and that, in his opinion, was unanswerable proof of the fact that even in regard to quantities this tax was operating injuriously. He would give some figures in support of that contention. The increase in coal production in Germany in 1903 as compared with 1902 was 9½ per cent., in France 17 per cent., and in the United Kingdom only 1½ per cent., showing how much more rapidly the output of coal was increasing in those countries as compared with this. Another proof that the coal tax had limited the quantity of exported coal was this. The exports had increased between 1900 and 1903, but instead of 1,500,000 tons annually as in the previous ten years the increase was only 1·12 per cent. In regard to bunker coal, on which no export tax was levied, the increase was 5,000,000 tons or 43 per cent., showing how trade expanded by leaps and bounds when it was left free, whereas when it was "cribbed, cabined, and confined" by this protective

961
tax of 1s. per ton in favour of every other foreign nation as against our own trade it was hindered.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, by grouping certain countries together, had arrived at some statistical results. He himself preferred his own grouping, and he would take the case of Holland, Belgium, and France and compare the years 1901 and 1903 in relation to British exports of coal. Our exports to Holland, Belgium, and France decreased by 1,500,000 tons, but in the same period the exports of other foreign countries to Holland, Belgium, and France increased by 2,750,000 tons. They not only took the 1,500,000 tons that we lost, but they still further increased their trade by 1,250,000 tons. He did not think that anyone in this country who had any interest whatever in the coal trade, as miner, coal owner, coal exporter, or shipowner could possibly be satisfied to see foreign nations increasing their trade at this most rapid rate, while at the same time British trade was actually declining. A meeting was held at Newcastle in October last at which a statement was made as to the power of foreign competition by a great statesman, the ex-Colonial Secretary. He said—
"You miners are only waiting to be eaten up. If you look you will see the production of coal in Germany, France, and America has been increasing with gigantic speed, and it is as sure as anything that in a comparatively few years they will want no more of your coal, and that they will probably be exporters of coal here. What is your stand-by?"
Well, it was certainly not the present tariff-reforming British Government that was their stand-by, so far as the coal trade was concerned, because instead of doing I all they could to stimulate and assist the coal-mining industry, which employed 850,000 men, who with their wives and families represented a population of no less than 4,000,000 deriving their living out of this industry—so far from doing all they could to promote the prosperity of this great industry they imposed upon it a tax of £2,000,000 a year, which, in fact, was a protective tax in favour of every coal-producing country in the world against their own country. Could anything be more suicidal, or more amazing, on the part of a Government which professed that at the present moment their greatest interest was to promote the
962
prosperity and expansion of British trade. This was a question of the highest importance, because this tax violated the principle of the equal incidence of taxation. No corresponding tax was levied on any other great industry of the country. In the coal trade they paid every other rate and tax that was levied equally with every other industry, and they did more, and he desired to especially draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this point. The right hon. Gentleman had a Commission inquiring into the incidence of income-tax. It was levied so far as the coal trade was concerned on the average of the preceding five years, and at the present time, when a majority of the collieries being worked in this country were losing money, the income-tax was assessed on the average of the last five years, which brought in the high price years of 1900 and 1901. In the majority of cases coal-owners were paying large sums of money in respect of income-tax, when, instead of getting any income, they were actually losing money. Incomes derived from other industries paid income-tax on an average of three years, and there were some industries in respect of which the income-tax assessment was levied on the results of the preceding year only. He thought it was only right that this should be brought under the special notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not object to his placing before him in the way he was doing to-day certain facts and arguments which tended to show that this tax was operating most injuriously on the coal-mining industry of this country.
He objected to the tax also because it was applied only to a small portion of the coal-mining industry. If a tax on coal was justifiable it ought to be placed on the whole coal output of the nation. He would give a concrete case. There was a colliery in the Barnsley division exporting 240,000 tons of coal a year. It was a thin and expensive seam, and at the present moment the owners were losing money, while they were paying £12,000 a year in respect of this coal tax beyond what they ought to be made to pay. That would make all the difference on the question whether the pit would be closed in the near future in all probability, or kept working and con-

963
tinuing employment to a thousand men working that particular seam. At another colliery not two miles away, which did not export any coal, the owners were wholly free from this charge of £12,000 a year, which in the other case was a huge and intolerable burden. If the tax was justifiable at all, he submitted that it ought to be placed on the whole output. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer must continue the tax he would suggest that it should be 2d. per ton on the whole coal output of the country, 1d. to be charged to the royalty owner, and the other 1d. to the mine-owner. In that way the injury would be very much minimised. They were told that the royalty owners were receiving £6,000,000 per annum in royalty rents, taking the average at 6d. per ton. In a great majority of cases the royalty rents under existing leases were worked on a sliding scale, and rose or fell with the price of coal. Consequently in recent times the royalty owners had been receiving more than £6,000,000 a year, without any risk of capital on their part whatever. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to give his attention to this particular point.
It had been contended that there was no proof that the tax was injurious to trade, because forsooth the exports I had not been very materially reduced. But that was not the question. The question was, Is it or is it not a fact that by reason of this coal tax we receive one shilling per ton less at the pit's mouth than we would do if this tax did not exist? Our coal was exported in competition with that of France, Germany, and Belgium, and the price was fixed by what these countries would accept. He knew from personal knowledge that this was an absolutely true and irrefutable statement. He did not wish to use strong words, but it simply meant that by imposing this tax the Government was confiscating £2,000,000 a year of the earnings of the coal miners, owners, exporters, and shippers, who were carrying on the export trade of this country. That was a flagrant injustice. He would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer hat whereas in 1900 the coal trade was prosperous and prices high, there had been an average fall in the value of coal shipped by Scotland and the north-east
964
coast of England of no less than five shillings per ton. Though the tax of one shilling per ton could be borne when it was first imposed because it only meant that amount of reduction in profits, to-day in the case of many collieries it meant a. question as to whether they should be kept working or closed. He knew a case of a colliery in Northumberland employing 2,500 men, and he would give the Chancellor of the Exchequer the exact result of the working of that colliery in the first two months of this year. That colliery exported 103,000 tons in two months, which was at the rate of 600,000 a year. The net result of then working for those two months was a loss of £1,700. They had to pay 1s. per ton coal tax on 70,000 tans, and but for that tax the result would have been a profit of £1,800. He thought that, in view of the enormous importance of this question, the time of the House was well occupied in having all these facts and figures laid before the Chancellor of the Exchequer and before the country.
He was perfectly well aware that the coal tax was unfortunately rather popular in the country. As long as human nature was humane nature, people did not object much to anything that they thought would bring some financial gain to themselves. What he meant was that the general body of coal consumers in this country imagined that if they could only curtail coal exports and put a few million tons of coal extra into the home market prices would fall. That undoubtedly was the case. This coal tax would net have been maintained so long as it had been but for this operation of human nature. He could only appeal to the general mass of the people of this country and to all coal consumers that they should endeavour to consider this question on broad sound principles of justice and fair play all round as between the coal industry and their own industry. He advocated that this tax should be levied all over the country, but if that was refused then it should be made an ad valorem tax. He knew that his hon. friends who represented Welsh constituencies objected to an ad valorem tax, because the coal in Wales was much more valuable than the coal in other parts of the country. But

965
what he submitted was that it was absurd to levy the same export duty on coal which was worth 6s. per ton as on coal which was worth 12s. per ton. The only true principle in regard to this subject was that there should be an ad valorem duty on the pit-month prices and not on those f.o.b. Collieries were situated in various localities, some on the seaboard and others inland. In the former case the cost of transport might amount to 6d. per ton, while in regard to the latter it might be 2s. 7d. per ton placing the coal f.o.b. The effect of that was that it paid the colliery owner better to sell his coal in the former case at 5s. 11d. per ton than at 6s. 10d. per ton, because if he sold at 5s. 11d. per ton he had no coal tax to pay, and if he sold at the normal price of 6s. 10d. per ton, and paid the tax, he would only receive 5s. 10d. A colliery exporter with 6d. per ton carriage, putting coal f.o.b. selling at the price of 5s. 11d., paid no tax, and got 5s. 5d. clear at the pit's mouth for small coal. But another colliery owner producing the same quality of coal, paying carriage at the rate of 2s. 7d. to the port of shipment and selling at the rate of 6s. 1d. per ton f.o.b. would only have a balance of 3s. 6d., out of which he would have to pay 1s. per ton of coal tax, leaving for wages, and every other charge, 2s. 6d. as compared with 5s. 5d. in the other ease. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer must feel that this tax, as at present levied, was unequal in its incidence, and that facts like these should receive from him all the consideration which they deserved.
They had been told that by the imposition of this tax they would conserve the valuable coal resources of the country, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not feel equal to deal with this question definitely and finally pending the receipt of the Report of the Royal Commission on Coal Supplies. But it was an open secret that the Royal Commission had already ascertained that we had, in the matter of coal resources, six times the quantity of coal in these islands than was imagined a hundred years ago. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must have been impressed with this question of coal exhaustion, otherwise he would not attach so much importance to the Report of the Royal Commission. He did not believe that
966
that Report would be of any great value on any other point. The members of the Commission had not such great knowledge of the commercial position of the coal trade as many Members in the House; and therefore to delay the repeal of this iniquitous and unjust tax pending the receipt of the Report of the Royal Commission was not justifiable. They were told that one great reason for imposing this coal tax was the necessity to conserve our most valuable coal resources. But what had been the effect of the tax? So far, the effect of the tax had been exactly the opposite. Before the tax was imposed colliery owners, who were not altogether stupid, had worked the cheaper working seams along with the more expensive seams. They naturally, after spending capital in sinking pits, desired to make the life of their undertaking as long as possible, and therefore they worked the cheapest seams along with the more expensive seams, so as to prolong that life. These were the lines on which the mining industry was being conducted; but when coal fell to 5s. a ton the colliery owners ware driver to cease working the thin seams and to work only the valuable seams. Everyone who believed that, after all, the ownership and working of the black diamond in this country was our mainstay as regarded our prosperity, ought to do something to check the extinction of the most valuable coal seams in the country. He could say from his own personal experience, as being largely interested in the mining industry, that they had been driven to take that course. and cease working the thin and common cheap seams.
Another view had been placed before the Committee the day before yesterday, with very great power and eloquence by the representatives of the coal miners. He was sure the House and the con; try were proud to have men of their ability, eloquence, and capacity as Members of that House. They gave the House information as to the practical effect, so far as it had gone, of the operation of the coal tax on the wages of the miners. Now, 80 per cent. of the cost of coal went in wages. At the time the coal tax was imposed. in Northumberland the wages were 61½ per cent. above the standard of 1879. At the present time that had been

967
reduced to 18¾ per cent. above the 1879 standard. What had been the ease in the non-exporting districts? In Northumberland 69 per cent. of the total advances gained in wages had been lost between 1900 and 1903; but in the non-exporting districts only 25 per cent. had been lost. He thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be bound to admit that this huge difference must be accounted for somehow; and he ventured to say that a very substantial portion of that had been due to the fact of the imposition of a 1s. duty per ton on export coal causing the colliery owners to receive 1s. per ton less for their coal than they would otherwise have got. He did not for a moment say that the largest part of that reduction had been due to the coal tax, but a very substantial part of it had been due to the coal tax. For, of course, when coal h ad fallen to 5s. per ton in value, naturally the sliding scale of wages which had operated so beneficially in Northumberland was affected. He might say that in his own district an arrangement was come to before the rise in the price of coal extending right through the years of the high price of coal, when the miners received much less than they were entitled to. But the miners stuck to their bargain and never ceased to work, but carried out their arrangement in a way that deserved every consideration at the hands of the Government and the country.
It was well known that a big coal strike affected every other industry. At the time when the coal tax was imposed, though some of the hot-headed men were desirous to bring about a general strike, which would have teen a lamentable misfortune and a cause of loss to the whole country, the enormous majority of the miners believed in constitutional agitation for the removal of the tax so manifestly unjust to them. It was in their interest that this debate was proceeding. On all these grounds, he ventured to submit to the House that the miners were entitled to receive justice at the hands of the Government and the country so that a more equitable incidence of taxation should be brought into play. In regard to Scotland, the same argument was perfectly true. The waves in Scotland since 1900 had fallen no less than 60 per cent. Could any-
968
one contend for one moment that coal miners ought not to receive very substantially higher wages than the ordinary workers in the country who performed their duties under much better conditions? He had always considered that the coal miners were, beyond any other workmen in the country, the men who were at the foundation of the commercial prosperity of the nation. The whole trade of the country was dependent on the coal trade, and there was no class of workmen who ought to receive more consideration at the hands of that House and the country than the miners. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1901 said that if he believed that the coal tax would be paid by the miners he would not impose Well, he welcomed the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to his present high position at a not very advanced age, and he hoped that he would adopt the same policy as his distinguished predecessor. If the right hon. Gentleman had been in office he would have agreed that those statements had been substantiated; that this tax had resulted in a great reduction in miners' wages. This tax ought to have been remitted in the previous year, when there was £10,500,000 to remit. It was unjust, when remitting that amount, that four-fifths of it should have gone in remitting direct taxation and only one-fifth in indirect taxation. But because justice was not done in the past it was no reason why it should not be done now. He appealed to the Chancellor to give the information he (Mr. Walton) had given to the House his most careful consideration, because he was perfectly certain that if at the eleventh hour the Chancellor accepted the clause he proposed he would be doing an act of justice which would redound to his credit. He begged to move.
A clause [Reduction of Coal Duty]—
"On and after the first day of August, nineteen hundred and four, one penny shall be substituted for one hilling as the duty on coal under Section 3 of The Finance Act, 1901."— (Mr. Joseph Walton.)
Brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
SIRWILLIAM HOLLANDsaid he represented a constituency who were keenly interested in this tax. Some thousands of miners in that constituency were either out of work or working very short hours. But they need not be in that unfortunate position were it not for the coal tax. Within the last few days one of the largest collieries in his constituency had been shut down for the ostensible purpose of making extensive improvements and alterations to machinery, but these improvements would not have taken place at the present time were it not for the fact that trade was particularly bad and very largely due to this tax. He did not say that the depression in the coal trade was entirely due everywhere to this tax, but in the home markets there was at the present time a diminished demand for coal, and that fact made the collieries much more dependent than when times were good upon the export trade. Any legislation, therefore, which hampered the export trade was a very much greater grievance than would otherwise be the case. It was contended that the average exports had not fallen off, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not deny that these exports would have Greatly increased had it not been for the gratuitous injury done to the coal trade by the continued imposition of this tax. Under present circumstances it was untenable. It was put on at a time when the coal trade was booming, but now those engaged in the trade had a very different tale to tell. As the circumstances of the trade had greatly altered there was a sufficient reason for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the imposition of this tax.
They constantly heard complaints of hostile tariffs abroad. The foreigner was entitled in his fiscal legislation to please himself and impose whatever kind of legislation he thought would be likely to benefit his own industries; but in this case the injury done to the coal trade was not the work of a foreign Government but of our own, and there was, he thought, sufficient reason for the deep and lasting resentment which was felt in the colliery districts at the continuance of this tax. If the coal trade asked for no favour for itself it was entitled at least to object to any favours being
970
distributed by the British Government to its competitors abroad. Contrasting the conduct of the British Government in this matter with the conduct of foreign Governments, it would be, found that Germany had obtained important contracts in the French market by reason of the facilities she gave as regarded transit both by land and water. It would be well if the British Government could take a leaf out of the German book in that respect. They saw the German Government doing all it could to help the trade of their country by improving the waterways and in many other directions, while the British Government were simultaneously taking very effective steps, not to help but to hinder so important a trade as the coal trade. How could they reasonably expect the coal trade to hold its own in competition with the coal trade of other countries when such different treatment was being meted out to it? The imposition of a coal tax on the British coal trade was more injurious than the imposition by a foreign country of an import duty, and the reason was this. If France or Germany or Italy imposed an increased import duty on goods going into their respective countries that hostile action only affected their own country, but this coal tax affected the coil which was exported from this country to all foreign countries, and therefore trade with every one of those countries was injuriously affected by the tax. A short time since he attended a miners' demonstration in the Barnsley Division, which was attended by some 70,000 miners, at which this tax was vigorously and unanimously condemned from every platform. That showed how strong was the feeling among, those immediately concerned, and he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do something to meet their views.
MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSEsaid he did not profess to be a specially accredited representative of the miners' interest in that House, but he did claim to represent a number of miners in his own constituency, and he wished to present the case of the miners of Gloucestershire and Somersetshire. There fields were comparatively small. There were perhaps only seventy-one or seventy-two

971
mines, in which about 13,000 people were employed and, whereas in other parts of England the output and number of men employed in the mines had increased, the output of these mines had actually decreased by 122,000 tons, and the men employed in getting coal had decreased by 400. There was, too, a great difference in the character of the working of the mines, the seams in Gloucestershire and Somersetshire being exceedingly thin and very difficult to work, resulting, of course, in an increased cost. The coal obtained was exceedingly inferior and commanded only a very low price. The consequence was that the area of sale was considerably restricted, and the slightest increase of cost resulting from a tax had a very baneful effect, an effect considerably greater than in the case of prosperous mines. When an industry was prosperous and paid good dividends a redaction of the dividend from 10 per cent. to 8 per cent., while disagreeable, was not necessarily ruinous, but if they reduced the dividend from 2 per cent. to zero the effect was at once disastrous. The same might be said of wages. A 10 per cent. reduction when they were high, while disagreeable, could be borne, but a similar reduction on a low wage came very hard on the unfortunate miner. Well, in those particular fields both profits and wages were low. What was the cause of it? It was not until some time after the actual imposition of the tax that it was found possible to say what the effects of it were likely to be. They did not export coal from that district. They had to sell it in the home market and although the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night told them there had been an increased export from the Channel ports it had not affected them in that way because they had no export trade. But they had felt the effects of the tax in another direction. The effect of the underselling of the export coal by the cheaper German coals in consequence of the tax had been to drive those export coals into other markets which had been found at the expense of the district to which he referred. The result had been an absolute decrease of output and of employment.
There was a sect of people who called themselves Christian Scientists. He
972
believed they enjoyed the name because their religion was neither scientific nor Christian. In the same way this proposal might be called scientific taxation, but so far as his constituents were concerned the effect was neither scientific not beneficial. He did not propose that afternoon to examine in detail the questions which made that tax a vicious one, but there were two facts which he thought deserved consideration. The tax was imposed for two objects — to produce revenue and to check the output. The Prime Minister, speaking in 1901, told them that no responsible statesman would by taxation endeavour to restrict output, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly indicated that the object in his mind was to restrict the output of coal in this country. He said "A check on the increase of coal exports would not be an unmixed evil to the trade of this country," and in answer to an interposition by the hon. Member for South Shields he said that if the export trade of this country to the Continent was 8,000,000 tons of coal a year, "so much the worse for this country." As to revenue, he was bound to say that the money raised by means of this duty might have been much better raised by way of income-tax on realised profits rather than upon coals before the profit was realised. He ventured to say that this was an ill-omened tax. Since its imposition every succeeding Chancellor the Exchequer had found himself embarrassed as to where to get his revenue, and the first Chancellor of the Exchequer left office within six months of proposing it. His successor also disappeared within six months, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider whether he had not better abandon this fatal inheritance in order to save his own political life.
MR. MOUNTwas also unable to claim any close acquaintance with the mining industry. But in his opinion the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have regard to, not the immediate incidence but the ultimate burden of the tax; and if it could be shown that the general tendency of the export trade in coal since the tax was imposed had been in the direction of progress and not of retrogression, then some further arguments than those which

973
had been adduced must be forthcoming before his right hon. friend was induced to abandon the duty. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon was last year able to show that the export trade in coal had shown remarkable vitality. In 1902 it showed an increase of 2,200,000 tons over 1900, and in 1903 there was a farther increase over the preceding year of 3,376,000. He remembered in the course of the debates last year attention was drawn to the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was lucky, inasmuch as he was benefited by the strike in the United States. But that strike came to an end in the early months of last year, and yet the increase of exports had gone on. Again, in the northeastern ports, the exports had gone up by 1,122,000 tons, and those for the Welsh ports by 437,000 tons. This rate of increase was fully maintained in the first six months of the present year. The figures show an increase of 1,541,000 tons.
MR. JOSEPH WALTONsaid the hon. Member included in his figures coal under six shillings a ton, which was not taxable, and bunker coal. If the statistics were confided to taxable coal it would be found that there had been an actual decrease in the exports from the north-eastern parts.
MR. MOUNTthought the question they had to consider was whether the total export had increased or diminished since the tax was imposed. The mine-owner got his profit and the miner his wages in respect of bunker coal just as they did in respect of other classes of coal. One of the contentions of the opponents of the tax was that it was unfair to single out a particular industry, and still more a particular branch of that industry, for taxation. On the face of it there was a good deal to be said for that contention. One would naturally have expected if there had been a certain progress in the export trade in coal to have found a correspondingly greater increase in the rate of production of coal not affected by the tax. As a matter of fact that was what they did not find. The increase in the total output of 1903 over 1902 was 3,239,000 tons, or less than the increase in the
974
amount sent abroad, which was 3,376,000 tons. In the whole period since 1900 the increase in exports was 5,572,000, while the increase in total output was 5,153,000, so that the portion of the coal trade not affected by the tax had slightly decreased. He agreed with what had been said by the hon. Member for Barnsley as to the way figures could be used, but the figures which he had just given to the House showed, in his opinion, the necessity of waiting for a longer period before they could definitely say that a case had been made out for the abolition of this tax upon coal.
MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid the speech which the hon. Member for Newbury had just delivered was a very interesting one, but it appeared to him that the hon. Member had been a little fallacious in his figures dealing with the quantities of coal exported from this country. In order to deal fairly with the effect of this tax upon the export trade they had to look at the figures for taxable coal, excluding all coal below 6s. per ton and bunker coal. It they found an increase in that class of coal which was not taxed and they did not find a corresponding increase in that class of coal which was taxed it was unfair to take the two together as an argument in favour of the tax. He desired to give the House one figure for the whole country. In dealing with the effect of the tax upon the export trade they must look only at the figures relating to taxable coal. In 1901 the tonnage of taxable coal exported was 43,329,703; in 1902 it fell to 41,622,000, and last year it remained at practically the same figure. Those figures, he thought, spoke very strongly against the tax, because they showed that there was not an increase but a diminution in the quantity of taxable coal exported, whereas in regard to non-taxable coal there had been an increase in various directions.
He desired to draw attention to the case of one or two particular districts. One of the vices of the tax was that it did not apply to the country as a whole, but affected only certain districts. If there was a case for the tax at all, the tax ought to have been imposed on all coal, whether for home consumption or for exportation.

975
That had not been done, and the operation of the tax had fallen hard upon the north-east district and upon South Wales. That showed that this tax was a vicious one. The origin of this tax was based upon the great prosperity of the coal trade in 1900 and the year before that date, and had it not been for the abnormal prosperity of the coal trade during those years this tax would not have been imposed. That being the origin of the tax, it would have been much fairer if the tax had been placed upon all the coal raised. He would deal with Cardiff and Swansea particularly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer if he condescended to go into the details would see that the western portion of the South Wales district had been very much affected by this coal tax, Cardiff not so much as other parts perhaps. It had already been pointed out that Cardiff had a monopoly of the best steam coal in the world, and it was not so badly hit as the Swansea district. There was some coal in the Swansea district which was exported to a considerable extent; but the coal expected from Swansea (including Neath, Port Talbot, and other places) was not of the same class as the Cardiff coal. It was very soft coal, comparatively speaking and when worked through and through produced on the average about 35 per cent. of large and about 65 per cent. of small. The market for Swansea coal had been chiefly in France, Belgium, and Holland, and that market had been carried on on the principle of the through and through market, that was that the large coal was not separated from the small. Upon the through and through principle a reasonable price was very often obtained in France and adjacent countries. What had been the result of this tax in the Swansea district? Inasmuch as a tax of 1s. per ton had been put upon this class of coal it had been found impossible to carry on the through and through trade, and now screening was necessary, which gave 30 per cent. of large coal as against 70 per cent. of small. Consequently it did not pay their customers in France to take this large percentage of small coal when they had to pay a tax of 1s. per ton on the whole of the coal. The result was that the market for the large coal had been restricted, and a tremendous amount of
976
small coal was left unprofitably oil the hands of the producer. As a rule that small coal could be sold at prices varying from 6s. 3d. to 6s. 9d. per ton, but if that coal was exported they would have to pay a tax of 1s. per ton. The result was that if 6s. 6d. was the price, the producer here had to pay 1s. on it, and thus was only able to get 5s. 6d. after deducting the duty. Therefore, instead of having the natural commercial price operating on the price of coal they had a fictitious artificial price put upon it, and that coal had to he sold at 6s. The effect of this tax had been largely to upset that trade, and coal which should have been sold at a higher price had to be sold at 6s. and less, in order to escape the tax. The profit of 3d. or 6d. on such coal might make all the difference between maintaining a profitable colliery aid causing it to be shut up.
This tax injured local trade and the miners had had to suffer. They had not enjoyed that increase in trade which they had a right to expect in competition with foreign countries. They were seeing for the first time what used to be their markets abroad occupied by foreign competitors. They had evidence of collieries having been closed up; of exports that had declined owing to the loss of large contracts which South Wales people would have got but for the imposition of this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was not satisfied that local trade had been injuriously affected, but he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that those who gave evidence before the Royal Commission all declared that the tax prejudicially affected the coal trade in their districts. He had received a letter showing the immediate effect of this tax in Swansea, how injuriously it had operated and how it had redounded to the advantage of their foreign competitors. The letter stated that—
"Immediately the tax of 1s. per ton was imposed, the Westphalian Syndicate, aided by an agent thoroughly versed in the Welsh trade, and who had formerly represented for many years a South Wales exporting firm, set about in earnest to displace our coal in the North French and Bay ports, and after the pre-Budget contracts were terminated we were compelled, under most unequal conditions, to compete against this importation of German coal. Saddled as we were by this impost of 1s. we found that we were supplanted in all quarters—the difference in nine cases out of ten in favour of the Germans being

977
exactly represented by the amount of the tax. To cite an isolated case, the Lazare Weiller Copper Works at Havre, which took their supplies exclusively from this district up to September, 1901, turned their attention to German through coal on account of the advantage in price, and since that date they have not taken one pound of our coal. The loss of this works alone represents a tonnage of at least 70,000 tons. I might enumerate ad infinitum, but it can be said, without fear of contradiction, that the hold which the Westphalian Syndicate has obtained in the North French and Bay ports is a serious set-back to the trade of our port."
The writer further stated—
"I have just completed a trip in France extending over two months. I have failed to sell a pound of through oal. It was impossible to oust the Germans from our former preserves, the shilling duty barring the way."
That was chapter and verse. Evidence of that kind had been given before the Royal Commission. Although taking ports generally there had been an increase, the exports of coal from the Swansea district showed a diminution of 100,000 tons. Therefore the argument in favour of Swansea being the victim of this tax was a very strong one. In 1901 the exports of coal from Germany to France were 1,564,000 tons; in 1902, 1,718,000 tons; and in 1903 2,065,000 tons. That represented the trade which Germany had captured from South Wales.
He would now give the figures of the progressive increase in the German exports of coal, coke, and fuel by sea, which were very appropriate, bearing in mind the decreases which had taken place in the exports from our own ports. These figures were, 1901, 5,710 tons; 1902, 242,893; and 1903, 630,499 tons. A comparison of the ports to which our coal used to go would show clearly how Germany had collared our markets. He would quote the shipments of German coal to five typical ports—

1901

1902

1903

Caen

None

8,614

50,000

Bayonne

None

35,670

60,000

Rouen

None

10,090

94,390

Marseilles

None

28,222

115,241

Nantes

None

57,000

133,000

Those were five ports to which our coal used to go in large quantities. He had shown that whilst the exports of coal from the Swansea district had decreased, the German exports to each of the places
978
he had quoted had increased considerably. The Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted the other day a report made by the Consul at Nantes in favour of his view that the coal duty was paid by the customer and not by the seller. He should like to give to the House a few figures showing the export trade to the town of Nantes. Since the imposition of the tax the import of British coal to Nantes had decreased as follows—

Tons

1900

1,521,966

1901

1,459,250

1902

1,130,048

1903

1,098,196

It was clear from these facts that this tax was unfair to those particular districts he had mentioned. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to consider this matter much more seriously in view of the particular districts affected—not merely taking a general view of the whole trade—and the time had come, or would come very soon, they hoped, for the repeal of the duty altogether. If that could not be clone, the next best thing would be to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make some difference in the amount of duty, which ought to be raised upon coal in proportion to its quality and value. He had already, on a previous Amendment, quoted from a speech by the right hon. Member for Croydon when Chancellor of the Exchequer to the effect that if this tax were to be made a permanent tax, regard ought to be had to the question whether it would not be fair to make a difference between the good and the inferior classes of coal. He thought it had now been shown beyond questions that the industry in the Swansea district had been affected very badly by the tax, and would be affected still more in the future.
SIR WALTER FOSTERsaid they had good evidence that the export of coal from this country had been checked. Since the tax was put on the trade, its original elasticity had been broken, and it no longer continued to expand as it had done in previous years. That was what they contended was one of the great evils of the tax. It tended to check and maim the trade of this country, and it had done

979
that in a very significant way in every coal district throughout the land. Among the miners there had been a very strong feeling against the imposition of that tax. When it was first proposed he was surprised to find in a Midland county like Derbyshire that the feeling was as great as in other parts of the country which were exporting centres. But the coal-mining industry in this country was a solid industry, the workmen were solid in all matters connected with their trade. They took an intelligent interest in it, and they saw more than any of the Members who favoured the tax that this impost put on a section of the trade would in the end be a serious injury to the whole trade. It was a vicious tax in the beginning because it selected one particular trade of the country for attack. The exceptional prosperity of that trade at the time was a very bad reason for putting a tax on it. They found now that the effect of the tax bad extended to the whole of the coal districts of England, for in the exporting districts the coal was still being brought to the surface, but, instead of being exported, it came into the home market and so affected the general trade throughout the country. In consequence there had been a fall in the wages of the workers, so that there was a general diminution of prosperity, not only in the exporting districts, but throughout the coal-producing areas of the country. The hon. Member for Mid-Glamorganshire had referred to the export of coal to certain French ports. There were some sixteen ports on the littoral of France which used to take coal from this country. They sent their vessels there continually before this tax was imposed, and they had practically a monopoly of that trade. That state of things enabled those ships to be profitably employed because there were only four out of those sixteen ports in which the Germans competed. What was the state of affairs now? By this tax the whole of the South Wales trade to those ports had been destroyed and the Germans had built up a trade there in consequence. They could not have a more striking instance of the injurious effect of a tax than that.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he observed that it was not his own financial methods to which hon. Members opposite objected. But he thought there
980
was no tax which had been imposed by his hon. friend the Member for Bristol or continued by his right hon. friend the Member for Croydon which had not been objected to by the critics on the other side of the House. How would the revenue of the country be derived if those critics had their way? [An HON. MEMBER: Put a penny on the income-tax.] The hon. Member had answered the question, and that was the explanation. For every tax they took off they would put a penny on the income-tax. He would not say whether that would be just or fair to the income-tax payer. As to the coal tax, he did not know that he could add very much to what he had already said. Some time ago he received an influential deputation representing the trade in all its branches, and he made to them an answer in considerable detail. The other day they spent four hours and a half in discussing this tax, and it was strongly and earnestly opposed by the miners representatives in that House. It was greatly to the credit of those hon. Gentleman and to the House of Commons that after so prolonged a sitting they were able to discuss this question with so much freshness and clearness. The contention of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that if the markets were to be kept the price of coal must be lowered. But it was clear that, if the foreigner was paying the tax and lie must be allowed to have his coal cheaper, there was some contradiction in the argument that the tax fell on the home producer and the home worker. There was not much value in dealing with a particular source of supply. The sound view was to treat the trade as a whole, and in this case the facts were riot so unsatisfactory as hon. Members believed. The export of coal had continued to increase. Our trade had been larger than ever before. But as prices fell it must be clear that a greater proportion of the coal must be below the 6s. limit. It was not fair to compare the coal above 6s. now with the export of coal above 6s. in the year when the tax was imposed and to assume that all the coal within the dutiable limit in the first period was still within the dutiable limit now.
It was said that he had no right to include bunker coal in his statement. Why not? At the time when the tax was imposed it was stated that it

981
would become the interest of shipowners to take a larger amount of bunker coal than they had done in previous years. Formerly a ship which now took coal for a round voyage took coal only for the out-ward voyage and refilled her bunkers her destination. Now the vessel gave the greater part of her space to bunkers and carried coal for the whole run of the voyage. Thus the quantity of coal was transferred automatically from the heading of "exports" to the heading of "bunkers." The returns were vitiated to that extent for the purposes of comparison by this change. The export of bunkers had increased between 1900 and 1903 by over 5,000,000 tons, or 43 per cent. The increase of tonnage clearing outwards had increased by 11·5 per cent., and the increase of bunkers had been 31.5 per cent. greater than the increase of tonnage cleared out. Roughly, therefore, it might be taken that the portion of coal which before the tax was imposed appeared as export now appeared as bunkers. To exclude the bunkers from the effect of the tax on exports would therefore be misleading.
There was no doubt that German competition had developed enormously. It was due in part to the care and skill with which the Germans prepared their coal for the market, and in part to the development of water communication between Germany and certain markets which had taken place in recent years. But had Germany in this question of coal shot so far ahead of us? Our excess of exports Over imports in 1903 was greater than that of 1900 by more than 5,000,000 tons, and than that of 1902 by more than 3,000,000 tons. The German excess of 1903 was greater than that of 1900 by 3,500,000 tons, and than that of 1902 by 1,400,000 tons. In certain kinds of coal we now had to face a severer competition than we had been accustomed to in the past; but in spite of that our exports had actually increased by a greater amount than the exports of our most formidable competitors. [Cries of "What is the ratio?"] He expected that question. He had been a student of the fiscal controversy, though he had not taken a large part in it; and he noticed that whenever a fiscal reformer quoted a percentage increase of our trade he was told that it was a fallacious thing to do; the percentage
982
increase in our enormous trade must be less than that on the smaller trade of our competitors. He would drop percentages, therefore. Our excess of exports over imports in 1903 was 63,500,000 tons, and Halt of Germany was 13,500,000 tons. By the aid of later figures he was now able to make some comparisons between the first five months of this year and the first five months of 1902 and 1903. In the first five months of 1904 we exported 2,288,000 tons of coal to Germany, or 40,000 tons more than in the same period of 1903, and 150,000 tons more than that of 1902. To Holland we exported 357,000 tons in the first five months of 1904, or nearly 100,000 tons more than in the same period of 1903, and 64,000 tons more than that of 1902. To Belgium the export had also increased. To France—our "vanishing market"—our exports had decreased from 2,948,000 tons in the first five months of 1902 to 2,907,000 tons in the same period of 1903, and increased again to 2,915,000 tons in that of the present year. These were rather striking figures. They ought to make hon. Gentlemen pause before asserting that the coal tax alone was responsible for everything that went wrong with the coal trade.
MR. D. A. THOMASsaid that to ascertain the effect of the duty it was necessary to make comparisons with years before the duty came into operation.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the argument put forward was that our markets were vanishing markets, but as a rule vanishing markets did not get bigger as years went by. If he was able to show that they were now selling more coal than they were selling before the tax was imposed he thought he was showing that our markets were not vanishing.
MR. FENWICKasked the right hon. Gentleman if he could te11 the House how the increase since the tax was imposed compared with the average rate of increase for the years before the tax was imposed.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he was sorry that he was not able to furnish the hon. Member with those figures. The percentage of our exports to the total production of coal was greater last year than in any previous year. In 1890 the percentage was 21·29; in 1895, 22·62; in 1900, 25·94; in 1902, 26·6; and in 1903, 27·7. If the tax had been fatal to our industry one would not expect to see that part of the industry which was affected by the tax show a greater ratio of growth than that part of the industry which was not affeted. But he did not close his mind to the new material which the Government would shortly have. That should have most serious consideration, and the Government must, of course, watch the effect of this tax on so great an industry with particular care.
MR. KEIRHARDIEsaid that this tax was wrong in principle and vicious in incidence. The export trade had only been maintained by the wages of the miners being reduced to the extent of the burden of the tax, which should never have been resorted to unless every other method of taxation had been exhausted. He would not labour the general argument it beyond saying that if t was indispensable that £2,000,000 a year should be extracted by this coal tax for the national finances thee it ought to be applied as a general tax of one penny or twopence per ton upon all coal raised and upon royalties and profits, and it should not be imposed, as the present tax was imposed, upon the wages of the working colliers. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had put forward a strong argument in support of the tax by the assertion that the general export of coal had not decreased since this tax was applied. Assuming that to be the case it was only stating half the truth. The point of view which he wished to impress upon the House and upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that the export trade was only being maintained by the wages of the colliers being reduced to the extent of the burden of this tax and that was a very serious matter. Upon this subject it was just as well to take the opinion of men on the spot, and in order to show how this tax hampered the operations of
984
British coal exporters he would remind the House that Consul Johnson last year reported from Amsterdam that the total importation of British coal again showed a decrease as compared with the year 1902, and he said that the exertions made by the Westphalian Syndicate to monopolise the Dutch market and to create an export trade for German coal had been unremitting and very successful. He further stated that if this duty was only lowered by 6d. per ton the German coal would not be able to compete with English coal. In these days when we heard so much about dumping we should be careful not to give the foreigner any undue advantage over the home competitor.
He desired in this connection to deal with the coalfields of Scotland. There was pending just now a very serious dispute in the teal trade which could be traced almost directly to the operation of the export duty on coal. The inspector for the East of Scotland had called attention to the fact that trade had been depressed, that employment had not been regular, that wages had been reduced, and that certain mines were in danger of being closed. The exports of coal from Scotland for the first throe months of this year, according to the figures supplied by the Chancellor of Exchequer, as compared with the opening three months of 1903, showed a decrease of 64,000 tons. There was no doubt that that was largely due to the operation of the shilling duty. Apart from that, the working of the tax had had a direct bearing on the wages of the Scottish miners, and a reflex bearing on the wages of miners all over the kingdom which only those who had studied the matter were able to understand. In reply to a Question put by his hon. friend and colleague in the representation of Merthyr Tydvil, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the quantity of coal exported of value exceeding 5s. and not exceeding 6s. per ton was 944,413 tons; and that the coal exported exceeding 7s. in value and not exceeding 8s. was 707,897 tons. He asked the Committee to observe that under 5s. and over 7s. per ton the exports of coal ran in the neighbourhood of 1,000,000 tons for these three months, but the exports between 6s. and 7s. per ton were only 88,597 tons. What was the explanation? There was no duty paid on coal which did not

985
exceed 6s. per ton value, and the exporter of coal found it cheaper to accept 5s. 11d. per ton for coal exported than it would be to accept 6s. 6d., because in the one case he escaped duty, and in the other he would have to pay it. It so happened that 6s. 6d. was just about the normal export price paid for Scotch coal, and so the working of the duty, so far as the Scotch coal trade was concerned, had been the direct cause of bringing the export price of coal down 1s. per ton below what the actual working of the market would justify. He was sure this argument would carry weight with the House, as the whole of the Scotch coal trade was on the eve of one of those crises which men of all Parties united in deploring. For a number of years there had been an agreement for the regulation of wages, and the minimum wage agreed upon had been 5s. 6d. per day. In view of the conditions of a miner's life no one would say that that was an exorbitant wage. But the average number of days worked of late had been only four and a half. per week, so that the present earnings of the Scotch miners were less than 25s. per week. Employers now found that, largely through the operation of this tax, they were unable to continue paying even 25s. per week and that they must abandon the minimum agreed upon. Therefore the direct outcome of the operation of this tax, so far as the Scotch collier was concerned, was to precipitate what would probably prove to be a long and bitter trade dispute, impoverishing between 60,000 and 70,000 families, and dislocating the entire trade of one of cur great coal exporting districts.
He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would consider the fresh evidence which had been adduced in the course of this debate, or which might come to him throught other channels, and he would come to the conclusion that a tax which had the effects he had indicated was not one that should be continued, or which could be defended. He believed the tax was wrong in principle and injurious in its application. It was imposed as a war tax, and, the war being over, it should now disappear. If one class of people were less imbued with the war fever than another they were the miners of the country. He owed his
986
seat to the fact that the miners in the constituency which he represented were so opposed to the war policy that they rejected a candidate who was in favour of it, and returned him because he was opposed to the war. It was doubly hard that men who did not believe in the war should be specially penalised in paying for the war and its consequences. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would at the earliest possible moment remove the tax.
SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSONsaid this was a tax on only a portion of the coal-mining industry. He believed the coal-owners m ere prepared to be taxed at a time when trade was prosperous, but the people of the exporting districts felt aggrieved that they should be selected to bear the whole tax. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol introduced the tax one of the chief reasons he gave for it was that it would prevent the undue exportation of coal, and retain the coal measures of the country for the purpose of our industries at home in future years. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely erroneous in that for instead of a decrease in the quantity exported there had been a considerable increase. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer when he received a deputation representing the coal trade gave as a chief argument in favour of retaining the tax that the exports had largely increased. The right hon. Gentleman argued from this fact that the trade was prosperous. There was more to consider in this question than quantity. Profits were now much less than at the time the tax was imposed, and many collieries were now losing money. The fact that exports had increased in volume could not be taken as evidence of prosperity. Everyone knew that if they did not, whether in manufacturing or mining, work up to their full capacity they were not working at the cheapest rates, and the fact was that prices had been falling ever since the tax was put on. He did not by any means attribute that entirely to the tax, but as soon as a coal-owner found that prices were going down the only thing he could do to save a loss was to produce the largest quantity possible, so as to diminish his cost. The increase in quantity exported, instead of showing a growth in the

987
prosperity of the trade, showed exactly the reverse. It proved indisputably that masters and men were doing their utmost to maintain profits and wages by the largely increased quantity. That was the reason why the predictions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had proved to be erroneous. He hoped the present Chancellor of the Exchequer would give this matter his most careful consideration.
MR. BEAUMONTsupported the new clause moved by the hon. Member for the Barnsley Division. The case against the tax, he said, grew stronger every year. The tax was originally proposed when the coal trade was particularly good, and it was thought that it would be a nice source of revenue. He had always maintained that this was an indirect way of taxing coal-owners more heavily than other classes, being a sort of graduated income-tax. If a graduated income-tax was proposed, it would not be on his side of the House that it would be opposed, as had been shown in recent debates. It bad been proved over and over again that since the tax was imposed it had had an injurious effect on all connected with coal-mining operations. Coal - owners' profits had been reduced, the wages of miners had been lowered, and shipping had been seriously affected. Competition with foreign coal producers was now much keener than formerly, and that made it very difficult for this country to regain the position it had held. In view of what had taken place in regard to tariff reform proposals, they could not but look upon this as a protective tax, and from that point of view he regarded the continuance of it with great suspicion. It gave a bounty to the foreigner. It was argued by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, and especially by the President of the Board of Trade, at the time the tax was imposed that it would restrict the export of coal and enable us to husband our resources for our own purposes. It had always struck him that that was an absurd argument. Even although the export of coal were to be restricted by this tax by a few hundred thousand tons a year, it could not be seriously contended that this diminution would greatly prolong the life of the coal fields.
988
As a matter of fact, it had not had the effect of restricting exports, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer now defended the tax on the grounds that in 1903 we exported more coal than in any previous year, so that the argument which was used when the tax was first proposed fell to the ground. From every point of view this was a most mischievous tax, and, as it had not fulfilled the expectations which were held out, the case against it was unanswerable. If the tax could not be abolished this year he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer had an open mind on the subject. He felt confident that if the present Government stuck to office much longer their mind would become more open still. The Government would not be able to resist the outcry from all classes concerned against the tax, and if only in view of expediency, when face to face with a general election, they would have very soon to withdraw the tax.
MR. ATHERLEY-JONESassociated himself with what had already been said as to the hardship this tax imposed on Northumberland and Durham and the northern coalfields generally. He derived some encouragement from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said as to the modifying of the tax, or the removing of it altogether. This tax introduced a principle which was altogether novel and it would require strong arguments on the part of the Government to maintain it. He knew of no export duty which had been imposed either by this or any other country in modern times except in respect of an absolute monopoly. Although the steam coal of South Wales might justify the tax on that ground the coal from the Northumberland and Durham coalfields had to meet keen competition and could not afford to pay an export duty. What he wanted to draw attention to was the deplorable fact—they could not complain of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that the members of the Government were not usually present to hear the arguments advanced from the comparatively humble Members of the House against this tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had advanced the plausible argument that since the tax was imposed the exports had gone up. Undoubtedly

989
there had been an increase in the export of bunker and non-bunker coal, but what had been the ratio? The ratio of increase even had not been maintained. For the ten years 1890–1900 the average rate of increase was 1,500,000 tons per annum. The ratio of increase since the tax was imposed was only 138,000 tons. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer played with figures, and told them that the exports of coal had been increasing since the imposition of the tax. The figures given by the right hon. Gentleman were illusory, while figures like those he had quoted showed that there had been a decrease in the ratio.
He also complained that the tax pressed very heavily upon a certain limited section of the coal trade. Of the total amount of revenue received from the tax, which was about £2,300,000, no less than £583,000, or between one-fifth and one-fourth, was collected from Northumberland. Surely that was not an equitable basis of taxation The First Lord of the Treasury in dealiag with the corn tax said that the great objection to it was that it pressed with exceptional hardness upon farmers and that, therefore, was what strongly moved him in removing the tax. Surely he might use that as a parallel and say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Here is a tax that falls on one limited section of the coal-exporting districts of England, and presses to the extent of a fourth or a fifth on the people of Northumberland." The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that he would be disposed to consider the tax. If they showed the right hon. Gentleman that the ratio increase in the export of coal had fallen off, and that the tax pressed on a limited area of the country, they surely had been able to establish two of the most fatal objections to any kind of taxation.
What was the average realised price of coal? We had been obliged through the competition of foreign countries to reduce the price of our export coal. About eight-tenths of the Northumberland coal was exported. In 1901, before the imposition of the tax, the average realised price of this coal was 11s. 2d. per ton. This year the average realised price was only 6s. 3d. per ton. Wages, as well as prices, had been injuriously affected. In 1900 the wages paid to the miners were
990
61 per cent. above the standard of 1879; they were now only 18 and a fraction above that standard. Northumbrian coal went to all parts of the world, but a very large proportion of it went to Holland, France and Belgium. The gravamen of their complaint was that by the imposition of this tax the Government had increased the geographical area over which German coal-owners were able to send their coal and compete successfully with the coal-owners of this country. It was obvious that this 1s. duty increased the area of successful competition. He found, for instance, that from the port of Myth the export of coal to Germany, Holland, and Belgium, which was the area of competition, fell from 700,000 tons in 1902 to 500,000 tons in 1903; and he was informed by people of great authority that that decreased exportation was entirely due to the incidence of this tax, and to the increase of successful competition in Germany, Holland, and Belgium. It was not for the Opposition to suggest an alternative to the coal tax, but his hon. friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil pointed to a tax on mining royalties as an alternative. If the facts and the reasons which had been adduced were inimical to the principle of this tax, and showed that it was inequitable in its operation, that it was slowly, but none the less seriously, affecting the coal trade in the North of England, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer professed an open mind on this question, then the right hon. Gentleman, he hoped, would see his way to remove this tax, which brought in a small proportion of revenue, and which was felt as a serious grievance by an industry which was little able to bear this burden.
MR. COMPTON RICKETTsaid he wished to touch on one or two points which might have been overlooked. The unfairness of the tax had been already referred to, but at the back of that apparent unfairness lay the idea that we should retain in this country as much as possible of the steam coal of Wales, more particularly for war purposes. If that coal was exported in too great quantities the Admiralty might feel the want of it on some future occasion. But he would point out that it was unfair to tax one set of coal proprietors and one group of minerals for the good of the whole country. The logical thing would be to secure

991
a portion of the coal district in South Wales for national purposes, and retain it as a reserve for the use of the Admiralty. The incidence of this tax was very partial; in favour of one part of the trade and against another part of it. A great deal of coal in South Wales was sent 10,000 miles away, and the tax, the freight, and cost of the coal often brought up the selling price to 40s. or 45s. per ton delivered to the ports of India and South America. A tax of 1s. per ton meant a very different percentage on coal from Northumberland, Durham, and Scotland, which was sent across the narrow seas and delivered in Hamburg. Therefore, the coal trade in the North-east of England and of Scotland felt the tax to a much greater extent than the trade in South Wales. The coal in the North-east of England was by no means special, but came nearer in quality to that of the North of Europe than did that of South Wales. That was a monopoly, unique in the world, smokeless, giving the largest amount of steam power, and occupying the smallest amount of cubic space. It had to be remembered that when the great boom in coal died away freights fell, and the lowering of the freights enabled the coal-owners in the North of England and Yorkshire to maintain their foreign trade for some months beyond the general fall in price. But when freights reached a, point which became unprofitable, ship-owners laid up their ships, and the export trade fell off. Consequently, the price of coal was lowered all round. The effect had been to throw more coal into the home market, and the coal-owners of Yorkshire and Derbyshire began to feel the stress. As the price approached the line of exemption it fell rapidly below it. This, reducing the average selling price, tended to depress the miners' wages. He was not pretending for one moment that the export trade wholly determined the price of coal. The price of coal was regulated to a large extent by the iron market. When the iron trade was active a larger amount of coal was engrossed by it, but when the iron trade fell off a larger quantity of coal was set free for export. He was quite sure that it would have been a wiser thing to have put 1d. on the whole trade, instead of electing one branch of the trade for navy taxation.
MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINappealed to the House to bring the discussion to a close.
MR. FENWICKsaid he would not take up the time of the House for more than a couple of minutes. He admitted, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the coal exports and the number of persons employed in the trade were greater last year than in the previous year. The implication of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was that they, therefore, could not be so badly off as they pretended to be. But he would like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he admitted in his speech the other night that, so far as the north-eastern ports were concerned, there was practically no increase. That meant that with the natural increase of population there was an increase in the number employed in the mines, and there was practically a stagnant industry. Although the export trade had been greater last year than the year before, the average rate of progress had not been maintained since the imposition of the tax. For ten years prior to the imposition of the tax, the average annual rate of increase of exports, as a whole, was over 1,500,000 tons; but since the imposition of the tax that rate of development had been very seriously checked. During the three years which had elapsed since the imposition of the tax the average annual increase, instead of being 1,500,000 ions was only 120,000 tons. If the average rate of increase of exports was not maintained, and if there was an increase in the number of persons employed, they were bound to find themselves in the end in a very much worse position than they were previously.
SIR CHARLES McLARENsaid he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had the opportunity of introducing the Budget next year, would, after taking counsel with those who understood the coal and export trade, see his way to dispense with this tax. A great many ingenious figures, no doubt prepared for him, had been used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but with those who knew the trade and the grievances under which they suffered, these figures carried

993
very little weight. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the apparent decrease in the exports of small coal was not real, because bunker coal was taken to a large extent for the coal that was formerly exported. If that were so, it was striking at the advantage which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to derive from this tax, and in the second place, it was striking at the recognised advantage to the shipping trade. Before the tax was imposed, an amount of coal was exported in slow ships to Port Said and other coaling stations where merchant ships refilled their bunkers. Now, instead of filling up their cargo space, they took coal to keep them going throughout the whole voyage, and consequently the merchants who had these depots abroad were diminishing their stocks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that our exports were increasing, which was true; but the right hon. Gentleman forgot that the development of our collieries was also increasing. Every year hundreds of thousands of pounds were being expended in developing new sinkings, and the coal produced from these new collieries went abroad. If they were to reckon percentages, regard must be had to the increased means they had of sending out coal from the best collieries, and to the fact that more would have been exported but for the coal tax. It was true that the exports from the Welsh and the Tyne ports had increased, but there was no increase at all from the Humber ports. That meant that the collieries of Yorkshire, Leicestershire, and Derbyshire had been arrested in their normal increase of output. Owing to the long railway carriage to the seaboard, these collieries were unable to compete with those close to the sea. That reacted on all classes of coal; and if the right hon. Gentleman went
994
down to Lancashire and Yorkshire he would find many men idle, all because the coal tax had throttled the coal trade. This was a working-man's question.
It had been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman that the State ought to assist the trade of the country, but here was a tax on a manufactured article, which was depriving a large number of the most industrious class in the community of their trade, and which was giving an advantage to German and Belgium millers. He would give a concrete example. Some years ago a firm with which he was connected sold 20,000 tons of coal to a French railway; the next year they sold 40,000 tons; and the year before the tax was imposed 60,000 tons. That was good trade. It was a trade which took them years to work up. But the next year, after the coal tax was imposed, they found it impossible to compete with the German coal-owners, who were able to sell their coal at a franc per ton less than the British. There was no chance of getting that trade back again as long as the coal tax was imposed. This was a far more important discussion than any question of tariffs or protective duties. A suggestion had been thrown out that the tax might he put on in a less injurious manner than at present. He agreed with that. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer put a tax of 2d. per ton on coal all round, that would hardly be felt, and would certainly be free from the unfairness which had been so ably described by his hon. friends whose particular counties were closely affected by the existing tax. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take care that this blot on our fiscal system would be remedie next year.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes, 142; Noes, 197. (Division List No. 270.)

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Allen, Charles P.

Foster, Sir Waller (Derby Co.)

O'Shee, James John

Ambrose, Robert

Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

Parrott, William

Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry

Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

Partington, Oswald

Atherley-Jones, L.

Hammond, John

Paulton, James Mellor

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Harcourt, Lewis V.(Rossendale

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Harcourt, Rt HnSirW(Monm'th

Plummer, Sir Walter R.

Benn, John Williams

Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

Power, Patrick Joseph

Blake, Edward

Hayden, John Patrick

Priestley, Arthur

Boland, John

Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.

Redmond, John E.(Waterford

Bolton, Thomas Dolling

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

Rickett, J. Compton

Broadhurst, Henry

Higham, John Sharpe

Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

Hobhouse, C.E.H. (Bristol, E.

Robson, William Snowdon

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Holland, Sir William Henry

Roe, Sir Thomas

Bryce, Rt. Hon. James

Horniman, Frederick John

Rose, Charles Day

Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

Jacoby, James Alfred

Schwann, Charles E.

Burke, E. Haviland

Jones, David Bryntnor(Swansea

Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

Burt, Thomas

Joyce, Michael

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Kennedy, Vincent P.(Cavan,W.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Caldwell, James

Kilbride, Denis

Sheehy, David.

Cameron, Robert

Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal,W.)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

Slack, John Bamford

Causton, Richard Knight

Leanly, Edmund

Smith, Samuel (Flint)

Channing, Francis Allston

Leese, Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Clancy, John Joseph

Leigh, Sir Joseph

Spencer, Rt Hn.C.R.(Northants

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lloyd-George, David.

Strachey, Sir Edward

Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark

Lough, Thomas

Sullivan, Donal

Cremer William Randal

London, W.

Tennant, Harold John

Crombie, John William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr)

Cullinan, J.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Tomkinson, James

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Ure, Alexander

Delany, William

M'Kean, John

Wallace, Robert

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

M'Kenna, Reginald

Walton, JohnLawson(Leeds,S.)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mappin, Sir Frederick Thorpe

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Donelan, Captain A.

Mooney, John J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

Doogan, P. C.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

Elibank, Master of

Murphy, John

White, Luke (York, E. R.)

Ellice, Capt.EC(SAndrw's pghs.

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Whiteley, George(York,W.R.)

Emmott, Alfred

Newnes, Sir George

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

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

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid.

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Eve, Harry Trelawney

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Young, Samuel

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Connor, James(Wicklow,W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.

Fenwick, Charles

O'Dowd, John

Herbert Gladstone and Mr.

Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund

O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.

William M'Arthur.

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Malley, William

NOES.

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon. SirH.

Balfour, Rt. Hon. G. W. (Leeds)

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Bailey, James (Walworth

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Arkwright, John Stanhope

Baird, John George Alexander

Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin

Arnold-Forster,Rt.Hn.Hugh O.

Balcarres, Lord

Beckett, Ernest William

Arrol, Sir William

Baldwin, Alfred

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

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

Bignold, Sir Arthur

Bigwood, James

Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens

Bill, Charles

Grenfell, William Henry

Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Gretton, John

Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington)

Bond, Edward

Greville, Hon. Ronald

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Boulnois, Edmund

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Pemberton, John S. G.

Bousfield, William Robert

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)

Percy, Earl

Brassey, Albert

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Pilkington, Colonel Richard

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

Pretyman, Ernest George

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Heath, James (Staffords. N.W.

Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

Bull, William James

Helder, Augustus

Pym, C. Guy

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J.A.(Glasgow

Hickman, Sir Alfred

Reid, James (Greenock)

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

Hoare, Sir Samuel

Remnant, James Farquharson

Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside

Ridley, Hon. M.W.(Stalybridge

Cavendish, V. C. W.(Derbysh.

Horner, Frederick William

Ridley, S.Forde (Bethnal Green

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Howard, J. (Midd.,Tottenham)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Chamberlain, RtHnJ.A(Worc.)

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Robinson, Brooke

Chamberlayne, T.(S'thampton)

Hunt, Rowland

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Charrington, Spencer

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T.(Denbigh)

Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Clare, Octavins Leigh

Keswick, William

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Kimber, Sir Henry

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Coates, Edward Feetham

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Myles

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

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Saunderson, Rt.Hn.Col.Edw.J.

Colomb. Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Sharpe, William Edward T

Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew

Corbett, T. L. (Down North)

Lawson,JohnGrant(Yorks.N.R.

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Sloan, Thomas Henry

Crossley. Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Smith, RtHn. J Parker(Lanarks.

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

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

Cust, Henry John C.

Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Davenport, William Bromley

Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol,S

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs

Dickson, Charles Scott

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

Lowe, Francis William

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

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Loyd, Archie Kirkman

Thompson, Dr. EC(Monaghan,N

Dixon-Hartland, SirFredDixon

Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)

Thornton, Percy M.

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Doxford, Sir William Theodore

Macdona, John Cumming

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Duke, Henry Edward

M'Iver, Sir Lewis(EdinburghW

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Manners, Lord Cecil

Valentia, Viscount

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Vincent, Col. SirC.E.H.(Sheffield

Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Fergusson, Rt.Hn.SirJ.(Manc'r

Maxwell, Rt. Hn. SirH.E.(Wigt'n

Welby, Lt.-Col.A.C.E.(Taunt'n

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Maxwell, W.J.H.(Dumfriessh.)

Whiteley, H.(Ashton und. Lyne

Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne

Melville, Beresford Valentine

Whitmore, Charles Algernon

Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Fisher, William Hayes

Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G

Wills, Sir Frederick

Fison, Frederick William

Mitchell, William (Burnley)

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

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

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

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

Flower, Sir Ernest

Moore, William

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

Forster, Henry William

Morrell, George Herbert

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

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

Morrison, James Archibald

Gardner, Ernest

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Gore, Hon. S.F.Ormsby

Murray, RtHnA.Graham(Bute

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Alexander Acland-Hood and

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Graham, Henry Robert

Newdegate, Francis A. N.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Nicholson, William Graham

Question put, and agreed to.

And, it being half-past Five of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, further proceeding
998
on consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
Bill, as amended, to be further considered upon Monday next.

TELEGRAPH (CONSTRUCTION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read, and discharged; Bill withdrawn.
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK (RECOMMITTED) BILL [NOT AMENDED].
Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
POST OFFICE BILL.
Read a second time, and committed for Monday next without discussion.

THE SEIZURE OF THE "MALACCA."
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN(Stirling Burghs) said he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether he had any information to give to the House in reference to the "Malacca."
THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR): I said that if a Question were asked at the adjournment I would answer it; but I am sorry to say I have no information of an official character to give to the House at the present time.

WHITE LABOUR ON THE RAND.
MR. REGINALD LUCASsaid he wished to ask whether, in view of certain statements made the previous night, the Colonial Secretary was able to say if there had been any diminution in the number of white men employed
1000
in the Transvaal since the arrival of the Chinese.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): I am informed that in round numbers 1,000 Chinese are at present employed at the Rand mines. Before the war at the Comet Mine 133 white men were working as superintendents. The number went down in consequence of the shortage of native labour to thirty-four. Since the arrival of the Chinese, that number has increased to ninety-six, and the number who it is estimated will be employed when the Chinese are thoroughly familiar with their work will be 143.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The right hon. Gentleman says in regard to the Comet Mine that the number of white men employed is less than before the war, and that it is going up. But, in answer to a Question the other day, did he not say that a larger number of white men, taking the mines all round, are employed now than before the war, and, therefore, must not the Comet Mine be an exception to the case?
MR. FLAVIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, is it true, as reported in one of the evening papers, that the wives of Chinamen are not allowed to wear their pigtails when landing in South Africa?
Adjourned at seventeen minutes before Six o'clock, till Monday next.

COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent—
Hall-marking of Foreign Plate.
Education Board Provisional Order (Swansea).
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (London).
Education Board Provisional Order Confirmation (Birmingham).
Education Board Provisional Order (Cardiff).
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 4).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 6).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 7).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 12).
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14).
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15).
Local Government Provisional Orders (Gas).
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2).
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 4).
Commons Regulation (Morrow) Provisional Order.
Commons Regulation (Oxshott) Provisional Order.
Land Drainage Provisional Order.
Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Order.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (No. 1).
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 5).
Canal Rates and Charges (Regents Canal) Order Confirmation.
Motherwell and Bellshill Railway (Abandonment) Order Confirmation.
North British Railway (General Powers) Order Confirmation.
Paisley District Tramways Order Confirmation.
Leith Burgh Order Confirmation.
Airdrie Corporation Gas Order Confirmation.
Wishaw Corporation Order Confirmation.
Leith Corporation Tramways Order Confirmation.
Govan Corporation Order Confirmation.
Caledonian Railway Order Confirmation.
Glasgow and South-Western Railway Order Confirmation.
Donegal Railway.
Mullingar, Kells, and Drogheda Railway.
South-Western and Isle of Wight Junction Railway (Extension of Time).
Bexhill Water and Gas.
Harrow Road and Paddington Tramways.
London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway.
Leicestershire and Warwickshire Electric Power.
Manchester Ship Canal (Finance).
Preston Corporation Water.
Shipley Urban District Council.
Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire
Electric Power.
Great Northern Railway.
Matlock and District Gas.
Ticehurst and District Water and Gas.
London and North-Western Railway.
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway.
Brymbo Water.
Great Central and Midland Joint Railways.
Humber Commercial Railway and Dock.
Southend-on-Sea Gas.
St. Mary Woolnoth.
Minehead Urban District Council Water.
Clyde Valley Electrical Power.
Birkdale Improvement.
Crystal Palace District Gas.
Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time).
City of London (Central Criminal Court House).
Filey Improvement.
Maidenhead Bridge.
Great Central Railway.
London County Council (Money).
Plymouth Corporation.
Wolverhampton Corporation.
Liverpool and Wigan Churches.
Barrow-in-Furness Corporation.
Richard Jaeger's Patent.
Doncaster Corporation.
Skipton Water and Improvement.
Soothill Nether Urban District Tramways.
Llanelly Harbour.
Tynemouth Corporation.
Great Eastern Railway.
North-Western Electricity and Power Gas.
Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway.

MARQUESS CONYNGHAM.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Victor George Henry Francis, Marquess Conyngham in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the election of Representative Peers for Ireland has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10);
Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 8).
Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:—Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Radcliffe Tramways and Improvement Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Felixstowe Gas Bill. Reported, with Amendments.
Saddleworth and Springhead Tramways Bill. Moved, That the order made on the 14th day of March last, "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after the 16th day of June next, "be dispensed with, and that the Bill be now Read 2a; agreed to. Bill Read 2a accordingly and committed.
Scarisbrick Estate (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Various Powers) Bill; Thurles Urban District Council Bill. Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
Wild Birds Protection Acts Amendment (St. Kilda) Bill. Brought from the Commons.
Aberdeen Joint Passenger Station Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]; Dumbartonshire (Vale of Leven) Water Order Confirmation Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]; Holywood Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan District Railway Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
Ebbw Vale Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Harrogate Waterworks Tramroad Bill [H.L.]. Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments. The said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Arbroath Corporation Water Order Confirmation Bill; Dunfermline District Water Order Confirmation Bill; Melrose District Water Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
Dundee, Broughty Ferry and District Tramways Order Confirmation Bill. Read 3a (according to order); Amendments made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BAHAMAS.
  Amended prison rule relating to the personal correction of prisoners. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and, ordered to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITIES OF OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE ACT, 1877.
  Statutes made by the Governing Body of Worcester College, Oxford, on the 4th March, 1904, amending Statutes II., III., IV., V., VI., and VII. of the Statutes of the College. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No.156.)
  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  No. 3228. Japan (Yokohama); No. 3229. Egypt (Port Said and Suez).
  SEA FISHERIES ACTS.
  Annual Report of proceedings under the Acts, for the year 1903.

  SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACTS.
  Annual Report of proceedings under the Acts, for the year 1903.
  Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  WINTER ASSIZES ACT, 1876.
  Seven Orders ill Council of the 15th July, 1904, relating to the ensuing winter assizes.
  EXTRADITION ACT, 1870.
  Order in Council on the 15th July, 1904, entitled, "The Straits Settlements Fugitive Offenders Order, 1904."

  FOREIGN JURISDICTION ACT, 1890.
  Orders in Council of the 15th July, 1904, entitled respectively "The China
  890
  and Corea (Shipping Registry) Order in Council, 1904" and "The China and Corea (Consular and Marriage Fees) Order in Council, 1904."

  COUNTY COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  House in Committee (according to order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I think it would be more convenient that the Amendments which will be necessary to this Bill should be moved in the Standing Committee, where they could be more easily discussed than in the full House. That is what I would suggest; but, of course, the matter is one entirely in the hands of your Lordships.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  MINISTERS AND THE FISCAL POLICY.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE, who had given notice to call attention to the attitude and declarations of certain members of His Majesty's Government in relation to fiscal policy; and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state to what extent the Government purposes to support the policy of preferential tariffs, including the imposition of import duties on food, said: My Lords, I do not think His Majesty's Government will complain if, at this late period of the session, indeed on the last, or almost the last, day on which it will be possible for the House to discuss anything except matters of the most urgent legislative importance, I ask them, if it be in their power, to give us some further information and enlightenment on a question which occupied the almost exclusive attention of the country during the last Parliamentary recess; which has received considerable attention in the other House of Parliament during the present session; which, so far as we can see, will again excite a great deal of interest and discussion during the next Parliamentary recess, and which also must, at some probably not very distant time, form the principal subject for the consideration of the country when next it may be called upon to elect another Parliament.

  891
  It is possible that His Majesty's Government may consider that discussions have been raised in the other House of Parliament which have been unnecessary or inconvenient; but it certainly cannot be said that we who, in this House, entertain strong opinions upon the fiscal question, have been unduly inquisitive or obtrusive in putting them forward. We have had one debate in this House, which was raised on the Motion of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Crewe, which, although it was confined to a limited portion of the question, did enable us to have a fairly full discussion on the whole subject. But since that time we in this House have been content to be silent spectators of the further development of the position of the Government and their supporters, which has resulted in intermittent and somewhat desultory discussions which have taken place in the other House. But quite recently, so recently as last week, some members of the Government took certain steps, and made speeches, in connection with the reconstruction of the Liberal Unionist Association which seem, in our opinion, to indicate a new departure on the part of some members of the Government, or at least some advance in a direction which had been already indicated, which we think fairly calls for some consideration on the part of your Lordships' House.
  Before I refer to those proceedings and speeches I should like for a very few moments to remind your Lordships of some of the proceedings which have taken place in the other House with regard to this question. I am not going to refer to speeches in the other House. That would not be in order; and although the rule is not very strictly observed in this House, it is not necessary, I think, for my present purpose that I should attempt to infringe it. But I do not believe there is any rule which precludes us in this House from taking notice of the proceedings in the other House of Parliament as they are recorded in their Votes and Minutes. There have been in the House of Commons during the present session three discussions on the fiscal question—the first one initiated on an Amendment moved by one of the leading members of the Opposition, and the other two raised by private members of the Opposition on such occasions as
  892
  were available to them by the forms of the House. The first observation I desire to make on those discussions is that, in the divisions which have followed the debates, His Majesty's Government has, on every occasion, been supported by majorities very much smaller than their normal majority; and it is a matter of notoriety that those majorities would have been much smaller, if they had not disappeared altogether, but for the support which the Government received from a section of their free-trade supporters who had felt able to interpret the declarations of the Government, and of some members of the Government, in the sense that the Government was not committed to anything more than the policy which was expounded last autumn at Sheffield, that they were not only uncommitted, but as a Government opposed to anything in the nature of a policy of protection or preferential treatment of the Colonies based on the taxation of food. The first point, therefore, I desire your Lordships to note is that, notwithstanding the support of this section of their Party, so great has been the divergence of! opinion in their own Party that they have on this question received a very much smaller amount of support from their Party than they are accustomed to look for upon any other question.
  There are some curious incidents which have occurred during the course of those discussions in the other House. In the first debate, one of great length, from which the Prime Minister was unfortunately absent, the declarations of the members of the Government who took part in it, and even of the members of the Cabinet who took part were, if not absolutely contradictory, yet of such a character as to lead to the inevitable conclusion that there existed within the Government two sections of opinion—one favourably disposed towards a policy of preferential treatment of the Colonies, the other opposed to it, or at least distrustful of it. On the next occasion, on the discussion that was raised by Mr. Pirie, an Amendment was placed on the Paper which was understood to have been drafted with the approval of the Government and to express the views of the Government. With your Lordships' permission I will read that Amendment—
  "That this House approves the explicit declaration of His Majesty's Ministers that

  893
  their policy of fiscal reform does not include either a general system of protection or preference based on the taxation of food."
  But after it had been placed on the Paper that Amendment disappeared, and the Government were unable to accept the expression of the confidence of the House of Commons which was contained in it, based upon their own declarations. I should like to ask the Government whether they can give us any explanation, which I do not think was given at the time, or has since been given, of the circumstances under which that Amendment disappeared. Was it that on further reflection they deemed that it did not accurately represent their own position, or was it that they discovered that an expression of confidence based on those grounds would not command the necessary amount of support from their own followers? I feel that that transaction throws a good deal of light upon the divided condition of opinion, either of the Government or, at all events, of those who support the Government.
  On the next occasion, on the Motion moved by Mr. Black, the Government found it so impossible to frame any Amendment which would represent their own views, or which would be accepted by their own Party, that, after more than one attempt, I think, they were obliged to resort to the course of refusing to allow the House to express any opinion whatever upon the Motion, and to move a kind of previous Question," in a form, I think, almost unprecedented, of a vote of confidence—a totally irrelevant vote of confidence—moved by one of their own Members, which, of their it had the desired effect of setting aside the Motion which was really before the House, was laid aside and has never been heard of since. I do not desire to comment further upon these proceedings — I will not call them manœeuvres — but I think they do indicate a condition of uncertainty and doubt in the minds of the Government, and of those who support them, upon a question which, it is true, may not be included in their own policy, but which is a question as fully, if not more fully, before the country than their own policy itself. And I do not think it will be denied that the condition of uncertainty and doubt is confusing and perplexing to the minds of the people of this
  894
  country in their consideration of the most important subject which they will shortly be called upon to decide; and in this perplexed and confused condition of opinion it is almost impossible that they can arrive at any just or any permanent conclusion.
  From these proceedings one thing, at all events, has become perfectly clear, and that is that the Government must know well, and every one of us must know, that there exists at present in the House of Commons a section of their own Party which is sufficient in numbers to have turned the scale against them, and to have put an end to their existence as a Government, which would have made it impossible for them to propose either their own or any other fiscal policy is this or any other session. I say it must be perfectly clear to all of us, and to none more clearly than to the Government itself, that there is that sufficient number of their present followers who would have withdrawn their support from them but for the belief, which they have been able still to entertain, that the Government is not committed, and is, in fact, opposed to any policy which goes beyond the policy which was expounded at Sheffield, and which is known as that of freedom of negotiation and of retaliation, and who are opposed to anything in the nature of the policy of preference based upon the taxation of food. I do not suppose for a single moment that the Government desires to retain office by means of the support of any section of their Party which is founded on a misconception of the real nature of their policy; and I cannot doubt that they will be glad of the opportunity, which, I think, my Motion gives them, of clearly and distinctly showing whether any such misconception as to the nature and drift of their policy really does exist.
  In these circumstances it has been thought necessary to reconstruct the Liberal Unionist Association. I am not going to trouble your Lordships with the affairs of the Liberal Unionist Party or of the Liberal Unionist Association, which has up to now represented it. I do not think the history of that Party or of that association is altogether devoid of interest; but that is not the point which

  895
  is before us to-day; and I will not trouble you: Lordships with any discussion of the difficulties or dissensions which have occurred within the ranks of the Liberal Unionist Party. What does concern us is the proceedings which have recently taken place, which amount to the constitution of a new political organisation, which professes to be founded upon a more democratic basis than that of the organisation which preceded it, and which also openly avows its intention of taking a more active part in general politics than its predecessor, politics not specially connected with the question of the government of Ireland, with Home Rule, or with the Union. Certain members of the Government have been invited to join that association, and have joined it, and to take office in that association, and have accepted that invitation. And I submit to your Lordships that the proceedings of such an organisation, created, as it has been, for a special purpose, and with reference to special questions, have an interest for Parliament which is different from and far greater than the interest which can attach to any proceedings of an organisation already existing, although it may have been conducted on similar lines. I assume, and I think we must all assume; that my noble friends the Foreign Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty, who have taken office in this new association, were aware of the proceedings which were going to inaugurate its existence. I think there is internal evidence that they were so aware of them. I have seen a copy of the agenda originally prepared for the first meeting of the new council. After the election of its officers the first business of the council was the submission to the council or a number of resolutions purporting to have been sent up by a large number of local Liberal Unionist associations. There have been certain revelations as to the mode in which those resolutions were obtained, but that is not a question into which I wish to enter to-day. After the submission of these resolutions the next business was to have been the following resolution, to be proposed to the council—
  "That this council believes that a system of mutual preference between the United Kingdom and the Colonies will be beneficial
  896
  to British commerce and industry, and will tend to consolidate the Empire, and approves of the policy of fiscal reform which has been laid before the country by Mr. Chamberlain."
  I should like to ask my noble friends whether, before accepting office in this, association, they were made aware of this proposed resolution, and whether it was due to any representations on their part that that resolution was not moved. For that was not the resolution that was moved; the resolution which was substituted for it was the following—
  "That this council, believing that the time has come for a complete reform of our fiscal system, approves of the demand made by the Prime Minister for increased powers to deal with hostile tariffs and the practice of dumping, and further expresses its earnest hope that the ties of sympathy which already unite the British Empire may be strengthened by a commercial union with the Colonies based on preferential arrrangements between them and the mother country."
  I should like to hear from my noble friends whether it was due to any action on their part that a resolution was dropped which committed the association and the council so directly to a policy labelled with the name of Mr. Chamberlain, as the first resolution did; in the next place, whether the withdrawal of the first and the substitution of the second resolution was due in any degree to their influence; and I should like to hear from them in what respect, in their opinion, the two resolutions differ in substance one from the other, except that from the second resolution was dropped the name of the author of the policy.
  This resolution was moved and was adopted, I presume, with the assent and concurrence of my noble friends. It is not a mere resolution of sympathy with a preferential policy; it is a resolution expressing an earnest hope, which I presume my noble friends share, that the ties uniting the British Empire may be strengthened by commercial union with the Colonies based on preferential arrangements. I submit there is a wide and broad distinction between a formal resolution passed by an important political association which at that very moment had been joined by two important members of the Government and a mere casual expression of sympathy with a policy which may easily escape any orator when carried away by the applause

  897
  of an enthusiastic audience. Therefore, I attach a great deal more importance I to the formal resolutions moved and adopted with the assent and concurrence of His Majesty's Ministers at the business meeting of the conference in the morning than to the eloquent expressions and messages of sympathy which may have fallen from their lips at the meeting in the evening at the Albert Hall.
  But I do not think we can altogether ignore the significance of the expressions of sympathy which were communicated to that meeting, on his own part and on the part of the Prime Minister, by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne. Speaking in this House on 19th February on behalf of the Government, my noble friend referred to a declaration which had already been made in the other House by the Home Secretary, and he quoted this declaration and said he adhered to it. The declaration he quoted was this—
  "I have pointed out that preference is not a part of the policy of the Government at all; I have said that the Government are opposed—"
  Mark the words, my Lords—
  "are opposed to any duty on raw material or food."
  But my noble friend, not content with quoting the declaration of the Home Secretary, went on on his own account to say categorically—
  "We as a Government—and we cannot speak except as a Government—are opposed to duties on raw materials and foodstuffs. Why is it we are told that our policy leads down to the Birmingham abyss? I say that instead of leading to Birmingham—it leads if anything in the opposite direction—as far as it goes our policy is inconsistent with the policy of colonial preference."
  I am glad to hear behind me a cheer in recognition of this declaration; but I cannot reconcile the expression of sympathy which my noble friend gave to the policy of preference on his own part and on the part of the Prime Minister with this explicit declaration which he made on his responsibility in this House. I admit that my noble friend has not yet got beyond sympathy. Sympathy has been to the Government almost as blessed a word as Mesopotamia itself; it has found a place in almost all of their speeches, and now it finds its way into their resolutions. But when they express their sympathy it is fair to ask them what it is they sympathise with. Are they in sympathy with
  898
  the idea of fiscal union, or is it with preference founded on the taxation of food which the leader and prophet of this movement has assured us is the only means by which the idea of fiscal union can be attained?
  There is an old French proverb, "Quiveut la fin veut les moyens." I think there is a good deal of troth in it, and I think it is a truth which His Majesty's Government do not altogether realise; and unless they are able to define—and the definition they have not yet attempted—whether it is the end or the means or the object with which they express their sympathy, I venture to think that the introduction of the word sympathy into a political resolution purporting to set forth a policy is as irrelevant as would be the introduction of the word into a commercial prospectus. I hope they will be able to-night to give us some clearer definition of the meaning they attach to this word, and meantime I venture to suggest the sense which it seems to me it alone can bear. It appears to me, as I take it, that these members of the Government who express their sympathy with the policy of colonial preference can entertain, in their own minds, no objection to that policy on principle, and that the only doubt that restrains them is the practicability of putting it into force at the present time. It is only fair to the Prime Minister to say that I do not think that he has ever concealed that this is his own view. I do not recall a single word in which the Prime Minister has ever expressed the smallest objection in principle to a policy of colonial preference, or the taxation of food which is necessary to secure it, other than that it is not at the present moment a practical policy the people of this country are likely to adopt. That means, I conclude, that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister and of his Government, they would not be likely at another election to get a majority in the country in favour of the taxation of food, and they are doubtful whether they would get a majority for it even in their own Party.
  But, supposing, as the result of the next campaign, Mr. Chamberlain is able to convince the Government that a

  899
  majority in the country in favour of preference and food taxation is attainable, and that, at all events, it would be adopted by a majority of their own Party, then I ask whether the impracticability vanishes, whether their sympathy thereupon will be translated into active support. I think, my Lords, these tactics in regard to this portion of the fiscal policy which are being adopted by His Majesty's Government are not of a very heroic character. Mr. Chamberlain is sent into the country either as a missionary or as an advance guard. I think he has been described in both terms. If he takes the risk, the Government propose to take the credit and profit of his success. If Mr. Chamberlain fails, then the Government will have committed themselves to nothing but sympathy. If he succeeds it can easily be shown that that success was largely due to the sympathy given by the Government. But I am afraid the Government are giving Mr. Chamberlain something more than sympathy, and that they are indirectly giving him aid which they shrink from openly tending to him.
  What is going on all over the country is that the seats of Unionist free-traders and the claims of Unionist free-trade candidates are being openly attacked or covertly undermined by the efforts of the Tariff Reform League, which are now being, I suppose, aided and seconded by the assistance of the newly constituted Liberal Unionist Council. These attacks are never discountenanced by leaders of the Party, and the assailants of these Members can point to the sympathy professed by the Government with their object. On the other hand, where a candidate professes the most deep adherence to the full scheme of tariff reform, then he receives the full benediction of the Government. If a free-trade Unionist unfortunately ventures to give expression to his free-trade principles by giving a vote for a free-trade candidate against a supporter of the Government, then he is denounced as a traitor to his Party. My Lords, I say I do not think these tactics deserve to succeed. I do not think they will succeed. I believe the course taken is more likely to mislead the Government than to guide them to the formation of a true judg-
  900
  ment on the state of public opinion in the country or, indeed, in their own Party. I believe they are imperilling any prospects of the success of their own policy which it may ever have possessed, by allowing it to be identified or inextricably mixed up and confused with a policy which is not their own, but which through their hesitation and their indecision is slowly and gradually, but certainly, being identified with their policy.
  I am afraid that in these observations I may not have succeeded in altogether explaining to my noble friends the points on which I desire to obtain some fuller information; but I will, in conclusion, address two or three plain Questions to them, Questions which I think are plain and susceptible of a plain and definite answer. I ask my noble friend the Foreign Secretary whether he adheres to the declaration which he made to this House on 19th February. I ask him whether, notwithstanding his expression of sympathy for the policy which he said was inconsistent with the policy of the Government, he still opposes preference based on the taxation of food. I ask him whether, in his opinion, that policy is still inconsistent with the policy of the Government so far as it goes. I ask whether his opposition is based on principle, or only on his opinion as to its present impracticability. Finally, I would like to ask him whether he will undertake to discourage the pressure which is being placed upon his own friends to adopt that policy which is not the policy of the Government, until he and the Government themselves arc convinced that it is a policy which is not only a practicable, but also a sound policy.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, so large a portion of the noble Duke's observations had reference to myself, that I think it would be convenient to your Lordships if I should intervene at this early stage of the debate, in order to refer briefly to some of the remarks which fell from him. There is one portion only of the noble Duke's speech with which I will ask him to excuse me from dealing. He dwelt at some length at the commencement of his speech upon various proceedings which took place not long ago in the House of

  901
  Commons. I do not know whether it is entirely usual for your Lordships to review what takes place in the other House of Parliament. But putting aside altogether the question of order, I would much prefer not to attempt the elucidation of those proceedings, because I frankly own that, not having been a Member of that House myself, I am in some difficulty in following the intricacies of what takes place in that Assembly. The noble Duke has, however, had a very long and a very distinguished career in the House of Commons; and I cannot help thinking that it must have been within his experience that the Party Whips usually contrive, if they possibly can, to arrange that the issue presented to the House should be presented in such a shape as' to bring about the most favourable expression possible to the Government of the day; and I have no doubt the Party Whips in this case did not depart from what is, I suppose, the accepted tradition in similar circumstances.
  The noble Duke has made reference to the attitude and declarations of certain members of the Government, and has asked Questions with regard to that attitude and those declarations. Let me say a word with regard to those declarations—because, if I was able to follow the noble Duke, I think the only declarations which he singled out for criticism are certain statements which have been made by myself in your Lordships' presence on various occasions, and one made more lately at a meeting in the Albert Hall. My statement in the Albert Hall was not intended to go, and I believe it did not go, beyond the statement which I had already made in this House, nor was it intended to go, nor did it, I believe, go, beyond the statements which had been made by the Prime Minister at Sheffield, at Bristol, and, I think, at other places. In that speech I expressed my concurrence in, and my intention to support, the accepted policy of His Majesty's Government—the policy usually referred to as the policy of negotiation and retaliation; and I expressed my concurrence with the general object and aspirations of those who desire to bring about closer relations between the mother country and the Colonies. The noble Duke would have seen, if he
  902
  had read my speech carefully, that I took some pains to explain to my audience the gravity of the steps involved in that attempt to bring about closer relations with the Colonies, and that I stated explicitly that in my belief we must know a great deal more about the attitude of our people at home, and still more of the attitude of the great Colonies, before we could safely commit ourselves to any policy of the kind.
  The noble Duke asks me whether I can reconcile the statement which I made upon that occasion with the statement which I made to your Lordships' House on 19th February. That statement is distinctly present to my mind. I then ventured to tell the noble Duke that in my view it was scarcely reasonable of him to call in question the accepted policy of His Majesty's Government, because if that policy—I mean the policy of making commercial arrangements with foreign countries—was pushed to the furthest point possible it would have the effect of throwing difficulties in the way of that other policy of special commercial arrangements with the Colonies which filled him with so much apprehension. It was a debating point and I thought it was worth making, and I believe it to be absolutely true in logic. Surely it is incontestable that if the policy of retaliation and negotiation were carried out successfully—so successfully as to cover the whole ground with a great system of commercial treaties between the United Kingdom and foreign nations—you would have less room than you otherwise would have for special arrangements with the Colonies. That seems to me to be incontrovertible; and I imagine that if such a thing were to happen the only course open to you, if you desired to make special terms with your Colonies, would be to negotiate commercial treaties with them just as you had negotiated them with foreign countries. That seems to me something nearly approaching to a truism, and I do not know why the noble Duke should have taken exception to it. I cannot get rid altogether of the feeling that if on that particular platform I had announced that in my belief two and two make four, the noble Duke would have discovered some faint trace of heresy in that proposition.

  903
  Then the noble Duke asks me whether I still adhere to another statement which I made in this House, I believe on the same occasion. I said that we, as a Government, were opposed to preferential arrangements with the Colonies based on the taxation of food. To that statement I adhere. Proposals of that kind are not included, and never have been included, in the programme of His Majesty's Government; and it is only on what we are prepared as a Government to put before the country that we have, as a Government, any right to speak. When we get beyond that we pass into the region of conjecture and prophecy into which, it seems to me, we cannot profitably travel.
  With regard to the attitude of the incriminated Ministers, what is the charge against us? The charge against us is that we accepted office in the reconstituted Liberal Unionist Association, that we took part in the meetings of that association, and that we did so in spite of the fact that the majority of the members of that association are probably in favour of a policy which goes a good deal further than the policy which as a Government we have accepted. I ask your Lordships to consider what the position of the Unionist members of the Government was when this reconstitution of the association took place. We were, and had been for many years, members of the Liberal Unionist Party; and I am sure that I am representing the views of my friends and colleagues who belong to that Party when I say that we look back on its history with no little pride, and that we certainly could not without deep reflection and without a very bitter pang have separated ourselves from it. My Lords, the Liberal Unionist Association, as far as vie are aware, holds the same views as we do upon most of the matters with which it is concerned. I admit that upon this one question of fiscal policy the majority probably goes further than we do. But the fiscal question is not the only question before the country. I conceive that there was no reason whatever why we, on account of the mere fact that a good many of our friends desire to go faster and further than we do, should separate ourselves from the Party to which we have so long belonged; and if we were to remain members of
  904
  the Party, we had to consider whether we should do so as members of its rank and file, or whether we should maintain the old connection between the official members of the Party and those who were not official. I confess it seems to me that, if we were to remain in the Party, it was our business to have the courage of our opinions and to take in the Party a position corresponding with that hitherto filled by its official leaders.
  But the gravamen of the complaint is that the association was at that time reconstructed upon a new basis. The reconstruction of the association was, in my belief, absolutely inevitable. I remember once listening for a considerable time to a statement in which the noble Duke ex-explained to his audience the recent history and present position of the association. The noble Duke is one of the clearest exponents of a case that I have ever had the good fortune to listen to, but I am bound to say that at the end of his observations I found great difficulty in discovering whether the Liberal Unionist Association had any organisation at all, or, if it had any, what the nature of that organisation was. At any rate, it seemed clear to us, that the time had come when it was absolutely necessary that the association should be brought into closer contact with the Party in the country and reorganised on a more popular basis. The reorganisation took place; and at the first meeting at which that reorganisation was discussed, the meeting of 4th February, it was clearly laid down by Mr. Chamberlain and in the resolutions handed in from the country that the main object of the reconstitution was to maintain the Liberal Unionist Association. What we had to consider was whether the association was to be maintained or whether, as I believe the noble Duke desired, steps should be taken to dissolve it altogether. We believed, and I remain of that opinion, that we were right in thinking that efforts should be made to keep it in existence. The noble Duke, deeply to our regret, found it impossible to remain with us; and when he determined to leave us he must have realised that it was inevitable that the statesman who, next to himself, had taken the most prominent part in the affairs of the

  905
  Party for many years past would take his place at our head.
  Now I come to the proceedings of the 14th of this month. The noble Duke has referred to the fact that upon that day two different resolutions were discussed, one at the morning meeting and one at the evening meeting at the Albert Hall, and he has commented with much minuteness on the text of these resolutions. The first resolution is that which gives him most offence. Let me in the first place deal with a comment which the noble Duke made upon it in passing. He noticed that the resolution which was actually put, moved by Dr. Sinclair, of Manchester, and expressing an earnest hope that the tie of sympathy which already united the British Empire might be strengthened by commercial union with the Colonies based on preferential arrangements, was not the resolution which appeared originally in the earlier edition of the agenda paper. I believe that is perfectly true, but neither the original resolution nor this resolution were drafted by the central body. They were resolutions that came up from branches of the association in the country. I say frankly that the resolution actually adopted was chosen on the ground that it was of a complexion which rendered it more acceptable. to the whole of those who were present than the somewhat more strongly worded resolution which engaged the attention of the noble Duke. Both that resolution and the resolution passed in the evening no doubt indicate a strong desire on the part of those who supported them for some arrangements of a preferential kind between the mother country and the Colonies.
  The noble Duke apparently was ready to accept under protest the word "sympathy" in this connection, but the word "hope" seemed to him much more shocking and dangerous. I confess I am not able to discern the precise difference between the two expressions, but even if we assume that hope carries us further than sympathy, what was there in these resolutions to oblige us to dissociate ourselves from the Party to which we belonged? Is not this entirely a new doctrine that the noble Duke is advancing I mean the doctrine that the
  906
  leaders of a Party have no business to take any part in the proceedings of their followers if those proceedings carry them beyond the officially accepted programme of the Government. I believe that, if the noble Duke will look into the history of these matters, he will find that no such doctrine has ever been accepted by any Party with which we are familiar in this country. I have here a series of resolutions which in past years have been put forward at the conferences of the National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations, the Party organisation of the Conservative Government. The Prime Minister has usually been at the head of it. Lord Salisbury was at the head of it; he attended its meetings on several occasions, and the present Prime Minister has done the same.
  I find that in 1887, 1891, 1892, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1898, 1900, 1902, and 1903 resolutions were carried at these annual meetings inviting the Government to take up the question of promoting a mutually favourable Customs arrangement between the Colonies and the home country, in favour of the preferential reduction by the Colonies of fiscal duties on home goods, the commercial federation of the Empire, and so on. No one ever supposed for a moment that there was anything irregular in the Prime Minister remaining at the head of such an association, although those particular proposals were not taken up and at the time were, if I remember right, considered impossible of adoption by the Prime Minister and the Government of the day.
  Then the noble Duke goes on to ask us a Question. He asks us to state to what extent the Government purpose to support the policy of preferential tariffs, including the imposition of import duties on food. My answer is that we do not support that policy. We have, on the contrary, pledged ourselves as a Government not to support it. But for that which lies beyond, for the unborn Governments, which may be drawn from that side of the House or from this, how is it possible that we can give any pledges? We do not know what the next Government will be or what the position of these great questions will be. We do not know what the attitude of

  907
  the people of this country will be or, what is still more important, what the attitude of the great Colonies will be with regard to those questions. The noble Duke considers that, because we are not prepared now, immediately, to pronounce a final and irrevocable decision on these immense Imperial questions, we are to be accused of indecision, and that our attitude is certainly, I think he said, far from heroic?
  I confess I do not see anything pusillanimous in a refusal to be hurried into a decision on questions so momentous. This is a tremendous problem. If I may use a homely simile, we are asked to ride at a fence a fall over which might break every bone in the body of the Empire, yet you accuse us of indecision and hesitation because we express a desire to know what there is on the other side. You ask us to draw a hard and fast line. You tell us that virtue is to be found on one side and vice on the other, and that unless we take up a position on your side of the line we deserve the condemnation of all right-minded men. I venture humbly to protest against that doctrine. I protest against the doctrine that, no matter what terms our great Colonies may propose to us, we are to treat this question in advance as a chose jugeé. I object altogether to the idea that when they stretch out their hands to us across the seas and ask us so draw closer to them we should refer them to some early Victorian treatise upon political economy and tell them that their proposal is out of order. Our attitude is a much humbler one than that of the noble Duke and those who think with him. It is a humble and a cautious attitude; but I can assure the noble Duke that it has not that Machiavellian character which he endeavoured to impute to it.
  We do not desire to be rushed to a premature decision either by the Tariff Reform League or by the noble Duke and his friends. We have before us the example of other nations who have drawn the constituent parts of their realms more closely together under arrangements of this kind and who have thriven under them. We know that our Colonies earnestly desire that this question should be further examined. We know that
  908
  these proposals have moved the people of this country as few questions have moved them within our recollection. Therefore we decline to closure the discussion or to withdraw our names from our own Party organisations simply because those organisations desire that these proposals should receive the attention and the examination to which they are entitled. I shall, I hope, never say a word—I hope I have not said a word to-night—which is disrespectful towards the noble Duke who has introduced this subject. I can assure him that no day in my political life was more painful than that on which I ceased to acknowledge him as my leader. I am willing to accept his judgment, I am willing to be corrected by him, if he thinks correction deserved. But I do honestly believe that the tests and standards which he asks us to apply to our political life are new tests and standards, and that the restrictions which they involve will be intolerable to those who believe, as we do, that free discussion and independent thought are the very life and breath of our political existence in this country.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, if the question which is before us were not so serious it would be a subject of perpetual delight to dispassionate observer to watch the gyrations of His Majesty's Government in the presence of the anxious inquiry of the country as to what their policy may be. I venture to think that whatever doubt they may feel with regard to it will not have been removed by the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who has plunged us into deeper darkness than before as to what that policy may be, but has at any rate given one correct description of it as cautious and as humble. He said the Government are not so unwise when approaching a big fence as not to take some reckoning of what may be on the other side. The Government are approaching a general election, and they are extremely anxious, if they can, to face that general election perfectly free on both sides—either to adopt the policy of Mr. Chamberlain, if it should succeed, or to repudiate it if it should fail.
  The noble Marquess has attempted to prove that in becoming a vice-president

  909
  of the reconstituted Liberal Unionist Federation he has done nothing unusual, nothing abnormal, but has, on the contrary, followed the true traditions of sympathetic partisans and refused to desert the association at a moment when his services might be required. I will not pour upon the Conservative Association, or whatever it may be called, all the contempt and contumely which the noble Marquess poured upon it in reading the long disregarded resolutions which that assembly has annually passed. He said that for years past they have been endeavouring to urge upon the inattentive leaders the question of tariff reform, and vet that never prevented those leaders from attending in the evening and haranguing them on the popular questions of the day. Why, then, said the noble Marquess, should not we go to an assembly which has just passed a resolution of which we entirely disapprove, which is opposed to our most public and repeated declarations, and cheer them up in the evening and give them the benefit of our countenance and eloquence?
  I will point out to the noble Marquess what does not seem to have occurred to him, and if it has occurred to him he has at once suppressed the hideous thought that there are two very great differences between the position of these annual and customary meetings of the Conservative Association and the meeting of the Liberal Unionist Association which he attended in the capacity of vice-president. One difference is that the Liberal Unionist Association had just undergone a violent upheaval and disruption, and had lost its president and its head. Why? Because of a difference on the fiscal question, which tore that association from top to bottom. But there is a greater difference between the two cases. What has never happened at these meetings of the Conservative associations, and what I believed would have broken up the Party if it had happened, is that the Minister who spoke in the evening should have expressed unabated sympathy with the resolution passed in the morning. That is where the cardinal difference exists between the two cases.
  The noble Marquess has not thrown any fresh light on the policy of the Government, because we already knew that it
  910
  was humble and that it was cautious. He has, as I have said, infused a new element of darkness into what was murky before. He has repeated that the Government's policy of retaliation is in direct opposition to Mr. Chamberlain's policy of Imperial preference. I may note in passing that even as to the Government policy of retaliation the noble Marquess has not hesitated in a debate this session on the coasting trade to make some very withering remarks, so that even of the policy of retaliation he is by no means sure in his own mind. But he has pointed out that the policy of retaliation is entirely opposed to Mr. Chamberlain's policy of preference. Why, then, may we ask, if there is that direct opposition, should the noble Marquess have thought it necessary to attend the meeting and give his benediction to the resolution which has been read out to the House? The association had simply been destroyed in order to give effect to this policy. It was reconstituted to democratise it, but it was also reconstituted to further the fiscal policy of Mr. Chamberlain. Yet, though the noble Marquess has truly said that the policy of the Conservative Government, so far as we can obtain a glimpse of it, is wholly opposed to the policy of Mr. Chamberlain, no sooner has the association been reconstituted, no sooner have they passed a resolution in support of Imperial preference, than the noble Marquess and his colleague the First Lord of the Admiralty find it convenient to become the only two vice-presidents of the reconstituted association, and go and give it their public benediction in the evening. If that be so, the policy of the Government is more confused than ever. The noble Marquess gives a doubtful approval of retaliation, except in the case of the coasting trade; but he is wholly opposed to the policy of Imperial preference. Yet he takes the earliest public opportunity of giving it the most unequivocal support he can.
  Let us come to the democratisation of the association. Here let me observe on the extraordinary number of coincidences which have occurred in connection with this fiscal question during the past year. If the late Professor Morgan were still alive—and I daresay there are distinguished mathematicians who still take

  911
  an interest in the doctrine of coincidences —he would find fruitful matter for thought in the number of coincidences which have accompanied the development of the fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government. The series began with the coincidence of the repeal of the shilling duty on corn, promptly followed by the speech of 15th May in which the new policy was promulgated. Then there was the coincidence that, whereas the treatment of Canada by Germany had remained unnoticed for four years, simultaneously with the promulgation of the new policy it was thought necessary to notice that treatment. Now we have this further extraordinary coincidence—that when the noble Duke finds it necessary to retire from the presidency of the Liberal Unionist Association it is found that that association requires democratising. In the eloquent words of Mr. Chamberlain, it has been transformed from an oligarchy into a republic. There have been a good many kinds of republics. There was the republic which was established under the first Napoleon on the 18th of Brumaire, the constitution of which almost exactly resembles the democratic constitution of the Liberal Unionist Association. There was the First Consul, the Second Consul, and the Third Consul. I hope the noble Lords the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the First Lord of the Admiralty will not mind my reminding them that there was no alarming amount of individual liberty under that Government, and that, whilst the name of the First Consul remains permanently identified with its policy, the names of the Second and Third Consuls have been absolutely forgotten except by careful students of history. That may give them some cause for reflection.
  But we already see the process of democratisation in full force. The noble Marquess took up the resolution which caused the noble Duke so much uneasiness—the first unamended resolution—and when questioned about it by the noble Duke said, "Yes, no doubt we thought the other one preferable, but there was no inspiration about this resolution. It only came up casually from one of our provincial centres." And at once a bright vision of liberty accorded under the new rules of the association proceeded to spread itself before our
  912
  eyes. But I suspect that there is a little interference with these provincial centres from headquarters, and they are not entirely left to their unguided genius. I do not know whether Lord Belper is in the House. If he were in the House he could furnish us with a very interesting document which came from the headquarters of the Liberal Unionist Association, and which went to the branch at Nottingham and pointed out to that branch that, though they had by a tangible majority refused to send any representatives to the federation to be held in London, it might be well if the minority—behold the democratic order of the new constitution—sent up at least a dozen representatives to the central body. Therefore I should not be exceedingly surprised to learn that even this resolution, which came like water from the rock, springing apparently from the fertile mind of a provincial association, had been to some extent inspired by the central office in London like that communication to Nottingham.
  Let me here pause for one moment to say that the noble Marquess seems to think that there is nothing strange, in spite of the differences which appear to exist between him and the majority of the Liberal Unionist Association, in his going to attend their meeting and becoming their official, because, as he says, fiscal reform is only one of the many questions before the country, and it is the custom to discuss all the main questions of the day at their meetings. Well, I might call attention to what passed at the meeting, but I will give him a very exact analogy of what might have happened in the year 1885. If in that year Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke, who were then in the Cabinet and who were supposed to be not unfavourably inclined towards Irish aspirations in a modified form, had thought fit to become vice-presidents of the Irish Home Rule Association, what a hullabaloo there would have been. I can see almost every noble Lord on the Benches opposite who was then alive springing to his feet in a fury to denounce this ambiguous action on the part of two of the Ministers of the Crown, though as a matter of fact Home Rule was only one of several questions of policy at that moment before the country, and by no

  913
  means the most prominent. I offer that analogy for the consideration of the noble Marquess when he is next about to become vice-president of some political association
  But the morning and the evening proceedings of this remarkable association, this democratised association, do deserve a little more attention than they have received at the hands either of the noble Duke or the noble Marquess. In the morning we had a really drastic resolution, a resolution approving of Imperial preference. We had other resolutions, one of which, I think, was rather remarkable, which urged—and that ought to be an answer to the distrust of the noble Duke —which urged that support should be given to all Liberal Unionist candidates without regard to fiscal considerations. It is a resolution which I have no doubt will give great comfort to Sir John Dickson-Poynder and other Members of the House of Commons who have been openly attacked in their seats under the inspiration of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Altogether the proceedings were so interesting and remarkable that one gentleman went so far as to say that he still hoped that he might remain a member of the Liberal Unionist Association although he was a convinced free-trader. But at all events what happened was this. A preferential tariff resolution was passed in the morning, and all this doubtful and possibly ambiguous business was got out of sight before the noble Marquess appeared in the evening. I am not sure whether the noble Earl accompanied the noble Marquess.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): Yes.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: Oh, he did. Well, the noble Earl is the head of a militant branch of the Government, but I think that on that occasion he adopted a safer course than the noble Marquess and made no speech. In the evening we had most harmless and beneficent resolutions. There was a resolution against the dropping of the Aliens Bill by His Majesty's Government, which appeared in some way or another to have been the fault of His Majesty's Opposition. We had also the usual resolution about the Anglo-French Agreement, which the noble Marquess declared was an excellent
  914
  bargain and which at any rate received the approval of that vast assembly. And then we had the speech of the president of the association, cast in the old slap-dash style which he has too much neglected of late, banging the Opposition about and giving great refreshment to all his hearers. Then came the speech of the noble Marquess. I hope the noble Marquess will not be offended, but will consider it a compliment in this hot weather if I say that his speech appears to have exercised a somewhat refrigerating influence on the assembly to which it was addressed. It is true that he came to announce the unabated sympathy of Mr. Balfour with the resolutions which had been passed, but it is also true that the main mass of his speech was couched in a tone of such extreme good sense with regard to the resolution which had been passed in the morning that I honestly think there is hardly a word of it which those on this side of the House who distrust Mr. Chamberlain's policy from the Imperial point of view could not heartily have adopted; and I am given to understand, and can well believe it from reading the speech, that the exercitation of the noble Marquess caused a somewhat depressing effect on the audience.
  Now how are we to take all these proceedings in their entirety? Do they give the impression of straightforward dealing with the country upon a matter of high national importance? Are the Government dealing fairly with the country at this moment in extending sympathy to Mr. Chamberlain's proposal although they profess to be altogether opposed to it? The noble Marquess says, "After all, this is only one item of the programme." But I would ask him to remember this. The British are essentially a commercial nation, and to consider the fiscal policy of this country as merely an item in a vast number of subjects which have to be considered by the nation at large is very seriously to misapprehend both the feelings of the nation and the policy itself. Is it credible, would it not be incredible had it not existed, that His Majesty's Government should keep the country on tenter-hooks as to what their future fiscal condition is to be, with unabated sympathy towards Mr. Chamberlain's policy on the one

  915
  hand, with deep affection for retaliation, which is opposed to it, on the other and by this cautious and humble policy leaving the mind of the country absolutely blank as to what the fiscal condition of this country may be after the next general election
  That is the point which I earnestly press upon His Majesty's Government. It is not a question of minor importance; it is a question of the very breath of the nostrils of this country. Do you suppose that this irresolute and undecided attitude has not already had its effect on the commerce of this country? If you ask men of weight from any of the great commercial centres of the country you will hear but one tale of the prejudicial effect which your indecision is exercising upon their prosperity and their commerce. I really think that is a matter which His Majesty's Government cannot treat in the jaunty manner in which it has been treated this evening and on too many previous occasions. There is another side to it too, and to that I attach not less importance than to the consideration of what the future policy of His Majesty's Government may be. It does seem to me that these proceedings call for not merely the gravest suspicion, the most unceasing vigilance, but the closest union among all those who, with whatever opinions they may be ticketed, hold that free trade is essential to the prosperity of the country.
  I confess I am somewhat disquieted, when I see the considerable skill, the variegated manœeuvres, with which the policies of Mr. Chamberlain and His Majesty's Government are carried on, as if in concert, to see that there does not appear to be on this side enough of union, enough of cordial co-operation, enough of withdrawal of opposition in the constituencies, and that that dangerous condition of want of cohesion may lead, in the opinion of some wise judges, to a disaster which the Opposition, excited by their by-elections, do not seem to apprehend. The Times, the devoted organ of the Government, at a very early period of these transactions gave us a warning, which we should not have neglected, that the Prime Minister and Mr. Chamberlain were playing their game like two skilful whist players, each
  916
  of whom well understood what the other was about. It is against that policy, which has been followed by the action of the noble Marquess and the noble Earl, that I desire to enter my most emphatic protest, because I believe that the country does not understand it, that it is one which is causing disaster now and which may cause ruin in the future, and that, at any rate, it is setting an example of political conduct which will long be deplored in the annals of this country, and which will reflect no credit on the names that are associated with it.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I waited some time before rising because it seemed to me that the remarks of the noble Earl who has just sat down merited some reply on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I do not desire to occupy the time of the House for many minutes, but there are some considerations which occur to me which I think I should be wanting in my duty if I did not humbly and respectfully put before this Assembly. This is no mere matter of a dispute between two sections of the Liberal Unionist Party. A good deal, not unnaturally, of the speech of the noble Duke, and, in consequence, of the reply of the noble Marquess, was taken up with the discussion of these matters and of the transactions in the Albert Hall last week, with which I frankly say I have no personal concern. But, my Lords, those of us who, like myself, are intellectually convinced that free-trade is the best policy for the commerce of this country, cannot be expected to be satisfied with the present position of affairs; and I think the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs scarcely did justice in his reply to that part of the speech of the noble Duke which recounted the history of this matter and the declarations which we have received from time to time from His Majesty's Government.
  I think I shall carry all your Lordships with me when I say that no man in our recollection has led this House with greater acceptance than my noble friend the noble Marquess, and no one, I venture to say, has so rapidly increased his influence amongst us as the noble Marquess has done since lie assumed that responsible place. But, my Lords, I ask him, and I

  917
  ask the House, whether in his dealing with what is known as the incident of the Wharton Resolution he quite did himself or the House justice. The noble Marquess said that he could not follow all the intricacies of what had gone on in another place because, as I understood him, he had never had the honour of a seat in that House. I am in the same position. I do not profess to he an authority on the details of the procedure of that illustrious Assembly, but I venture to think that the main issues of that matter were quite plain, and the reason I do not understand them is not that I have never had a seat in that House, but because I was not a member of His Majesty's Government at the time they occurred.
  The Resolution put down in the name of Mr. Wharton was a perfectly plain, straightforward, and simple Resolution. It was—
  "That this House approves the explicit declaration of His Majesty's Ministers that their policy of fiscal reform does not include either a general system of protection or preference based on the taxation of food."
  We have had those statements made over and over again. They have been made to-night by the noble Marquess; and if it is the case, as I know it must be the case, that they mean what they say, why is the House of Commons, on the initiative of one of their most loyal and trusted supporters, not to pass a Resolution in that sense? I should like to ask two plain questions. I want to know whether it is the case that the Resolution was withdrawn because it did not express the opinions of the whole of His Majesty's Government, or whether it is not the case that it was withdrawn because a certain number of the supporters of His Majesty's Government intimated that they would not consent to it, and that if it had been persevered with the Government would have been placed in a minority.
  I hear a great deal from time to time of the disloyalty of those Unionist Members who do not come to the House of Commons to support His Majesty's Government. Many of those with whose opinions I am closely connected have been singled out for this form of obloquy. If what I have said is true, why is it to be laid to the charge of a free-trade Unionist that he is disloyal in not voting for a policy which is against his con-
  918
  scientious convictions, if those who threaten to put this same Government in a minority for another reason are not also to be regarded as disloyal to the cause which they have been returned to support? I pass from that topic to what is really the subject of the noble Duke's notice—namely, to call attention to certain declarations of certain members of His Majesty's Government in regard to fiscal policy. I need not recapitulate the history which the noble Duke gave us further than to say this, that I entirely associate myself with the noble Duke in his acceptance of the declarations made in this House on 19th February, as at that time perfectly satisfactory to us. But, my Lord, we have since had these proceedings at the Albert Hall, and the announcement from the lips of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the unabated sympathy of the Prime Minister with the resolution then passed, which covered a good deal, in fact, of the policy known as tariff reform.
  It has, I think, escaped notice in this debate that this is the first time that there has been any public expression of unabated sympathy on the part of the Prime Minister with the whole policy, as I understand it, of tariff reform. At the time that the Prime Minister spoke at Sheffield we had never heard anything about the average 10 per cent, duty. That appeared for the first time in the speech of the ex-Colonial Secretary in Glasgow; and the question I should like to ask is this, whether the expression of unabated sympathy conveyed by the noble Marquess on behalf of the Prime Minister to the meeting in the Albert Hall was or was not intended to express sympathy with the policy of the average 10 per cent. duty? That is a very plain and a very simple question, and I do not think it is unfair on the part of those who, like myself, greatly dislike that policy and are determined to oppose it, to ask simply and plainly if we can be told whether the Prime Minister sympathises with it or whether he does not.
  I should like to ask also how far this sympathy is intended to mean practical aid. Is it a policy of neutrality which isannounced, or is it a policy of benevolent neutrality, or what is the precise meaning of the word "sympathy," and

  919
  is it or is it not to be translated into action at some future time, say after the next general election. It is admitted that at present the Government is not only not committed to the policy of tariff reform, but we have been told to-night that it is actually opposed to it, that the policy of the Government is inconsistent with it. I ask, what, then, is the barrier which the Government offer to those like myself upon which we can really rely—to those of us who find we cannot accept this policy of preference, who are against its adoption, but who are afraid that in the fulness of time a vote which is now given or will be given at the next election for the Government will be translated to mean, and understood to mean, a vote in favour of the wider policy which is also before the country. In other words, is the opposition of the Government to this policy a real opposition? And if it is a real opposition, how, in the ordinary use of language, is it possible for members of the Government to express sympathy with that which they intend to oppose.
  I ask if votes are given to the Government on the faith of their speeches, is there not a danger that those votes will be counted as supporting the policy of Mr. Chamberlain? Is there not a danger that those who support Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Chamberlain himself, will be led into a belief that his policy has a much wider support than I believe it really has? The noble Marquess spoke at the Albert Hall, as the noble Earl has said, in a strain which almost any of us might have accepted. He said of the policy—
  "We are dealing with communities which have reached robust manhood, communities to which we have given freedom and liberty with open hands, and we must be able to tell them exactly what it is that we propose—exactly what sacrifices, if any, we ask of them."
  and he went on to say—
  "We must be able to explain exactly what it is that we intend to the people of this country."
  It is exactly my complaint of the method in which this question has been raised that that is not what we are asked to do by Mr. Chamberlain. We are asked by him to commit ourselves to the policy before we know what it is; we are asked to commit ourselves to it in principle; we are asked to say we will go in for Imperial preference before we know what sacrifices are demanded, either from the Colonies
  920
  or from the people of this country. The Colonial Secretary said the other day, with regard to colonial preference—
  "I appeal to my friends and to my opponents not to close the door upon it. They ask us not to support it. Let me beg of them not to commit themselves against it. I have said distinctly, on several occasions, that I think the policy of colonial preference and its details require further discussion—anxious, deliberate discussion—before it is embarked upon."
  The noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty and the noble Marquess cheer that sentence. They cheer it under the impression that it was Mr. Chamberlain's, but it was Mr. Lyttelton's. I associate myself with it entirely, because it is in direct antithesis to the demand which is made upon us by Mr. Chamberlain, to the demand which was made upon us by Mr. Chamberlain while I was yet in the Government, that the whole principle of colonial preference was to be given away by giving a preference of a 1s. duty last year to Canada. The whole principle would thus have been in effect abandoned.
  I agree with the noble Marquess as to the gravity of the step. I claim most strongly to be as good a friend of the Imperial connection as exists in your Lordships' House or anywhere out of it. It is because I am a friend of that connection, it is because I dread the danger to it on account of the way this question has been rushed, that I give my unqualified opposition to the policy outlined by Mr. Chamberlain. It is always assumed by those who support this policy that it will be a bond of union. It is precisely because I distrust that assumption, precisely because I do not believe it to be true, that I give this policy my profound opposition. If I thought it would lead to closer union I would be only too glad to consider it. But, my Lords, I am afraid that these great free communities will not—I am sure they will not—give up their freedom, and I am apprehensive that in the process of bargaining for this amount of duty or that amount of duty upon a specific article, we shall run a greater risk of friction than if we depend upon the sentimental tie which has served us so well in the past. I am told that the United States of America and the German Empire are examples which we should imitate. In both these cases there is a complete commercial free trade between the constituent parts of that great republic

  921
  and of the empire. There is one taxing authority for the whole of them, and if you could in the nature of things follow that example to the full, no one would be more cordial in support of it than myself. It is because I know that at the present time we cannot do that, that I think it is unfair to quote those two great countries as examples which we should imitate. It is because it is impossible to give up the freedom which each of our communities have to settle their own fiscal system, that I dread the danger of difficulty and of friction. Sometimes it is asked, are you not prepared to make some sacrifices for this great ideal? Yes, my Lords, I am prepared to make sacrifices; but I think it is not only fair, but, as I have said, absolutely necessary that we should have at any rate some idea put forward by the responsible authority of what these sacrifices are to be, what the demands made upon us are to be, and precisely what return we are to get for it, before in principle we commit ourselves to this great step.
  The noble Marquess says it is a stirring ideal, and he expresses sympathy with it. I suggest to him and to this House that that is a dangerous attitude for a man in the responsible position that he is in to take, because he will be expectedto arry that sympathy into practical action, and we know from him not only that he does not at present see his way to do that, but that the Government are going to oppose it. Therefore, I think it is likely to lead to difficulties if he expresses sympathy in this more or less vague way, and has no idea of how it is afterwards to be carried into action. Look at this vague talk that we hear about a corn duty. Is it to be a shilling, or eighteenpence, or two shillings, or half-a-crown? What is it to be, and what are we to get in return for it? One of the difficulties of the method in which this question has been raised is that we have never had in an authoritative form any collection, either of the resolutions or speeches, or so-call id offers, which have been made from the other side of the sea. I say if these things exist, let us see them collected and presented to Parliament on the authority of a Government Department, so that we may know how far they take us and how far we may rely upon them. I object to
  922
  committing this country to a tax on corn, meat, dairy produce, or on any staple article until I have some assurance as to the extent to which it is likely to go. From that position we are not prepared to depart until some definite proposal is made to us.
  I see in the ordinary channels of information that there is a 10 per cent. duty proposed upon manufactured iron. I do not know that anybody has as yet ever suggested more than 2s. upon wheat, and part of that is to go back in the form of a preference to Canada. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Agriculture realises that 2s.a quarter is not even 10 per cent. upon the value of wheat; and what will the agriculturist think of it when he finds that the maker of iron is to be better treated with his 10 per cent. than the producer of wheat? But that does not prevent vague appeals being made at the time of a by-election. I read a letter in the newspapers yesterday from Mr. Chamberlain to the candidate for he Oswestry Division, in which there occurs this paragraph—
  "Fanners can make little profit, and although the labourers are better off than they were fifty years ago "—that is an admission worth having—" they have not progressed as much as the workers in other trades, and they are constantly being driven into the towns for want of well-paid employment on the land."
  And the letter suggests that if they vote for Mr. Bridgeman these things will be remedied. I want to know whether by this reform the President of the Board of Agriculture sees his way to confer any real benefit on the agricultural population, whose interest he has at heart? If we are asked to commit ourselves in violence of all the traditions of fiscal policy of the last half century, then the least that can be done is to make the demand that is to be made upon us as distinct and as certain as it is possible for language to make it.
  I want to say one word as to my personal position. We are told that this issue is above and beyond all other issues. My Lords, I have been a Conservative all my life. I agree with those with whom I have been associated on matters affecting the government of Ireland, religious education, and the establishment of the Church; I believe myself to be as good an Imperialist as any of them; and I hope that before this debate closes I will receive

  923
  some assurance from the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House as to what is the proper policy for me and those who think with me to pursue. I do not know whether I should appeal to the noble Marquess the Lord President of the Council for advice as to what I am to do to remain a free-trade member of the Conservative Party; or whether I should appeal to the noble Marquess sitting next to him, who by hereditary right and, if I may say so, by personal character and position, will be gladly welcomed by many Conservatives as their Leader in this House; or whether the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture will undertake to advise me. Last, but not least, there is the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, for whose lifelong devotion to the Party no one has a greater admiration than I have.
  I want to continue a loyal member of the Conservative Party, but I cannot accept this new policy. I believe it would be disastrous, as I have indicated to your Lordships, to the best interests and even to the unity of the Empire; and I ask my Conservative friends to say distinctly whether or not they intend to allow the next election to be made a national plebiscite on this new policy. You say you do not, and I am bound to, and I do, believe you most fully. But if that is your view, then these declarations of sympathy—whether unabated or not—ought to cease. If you do mean to make the next election a plebiscite on this new policy, then it is upon you, and not upon me and those who think with me, that the ruin of the Unionist Party and of the causes with which it is associated will rest. I wish to impress upon those upon that Bench not only the profound regret with which I find myself differing from them, but, whatever it may cost me, my profound determination to oppose to the uttermost a policy which I believe to be disastrous to the best interests of the Empire.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I think His Majesty's Government are entitled to a reply in the debate raised by the noble Duke, and as no member of the Front Opposition Bench has risen, I presume they are going to treat this as a disputation—I use that word without any offence—between old friends and are not going to intervene. I must ask
  924
  your Lordships' indulgence if for a brief moment I allude to what I may call the personal aspect of this case so far as it concerns me. I have been censured from more than one quarter to-night, because I am a vice-president of the reconstituted Liberal Unionist Association. I have now for sixteen years held office in that association, and I hope I always shall. I can conceive no policy, no resolution that the majority of that Party might adopt, which would cause me to leave that body so long as their raison ďêtre was determined opposition to Home Rule, and so long as opposition to Home Rule was the only test of membership of that body.
  The difference of opinion between the noble Duke and some of us as regards our position on the Liberal Unionist Association is really this. The noble Duke and many of his friends think that the fiscal question is now more important than the Home Rule question. They are perfectly entitled to their view, but they cannot complain if the great majority of the Liberal Unionist Party, who do not take that view, decline to accept their advice as to the attitude they ought to adopt. And, my Lords, I do not think it is very difficult for one who has been born into politics in the middle of the Home Rule strife to show your Lordships why the great bulk of the Liberal Unionist Party in this country, to whatever particular shade of fiscal opinion they may adhere, differ absolutely from the noble Duke in thinking that the fiscal question is a more important question than that of Home Rule. Whatever mistake might be made in formulating tariffs for this country, the same authority that made it might remedy that mistake. It has been done over and over again in this and in other countries. But once an independent Parliament has been established in Dublin, then, I say, my Lords, without hesitation, it is not the Imperial Parliament that could repeal that local Parliament. It could only be repealed by the sword.
  I respectfully but entirely demur to the noble Duke's differentiation between the Liberal Unionist Association as reconstituted and the National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Associations or another body of which the noble Earl on the Cross Benches has from time

  925
  to time heard—the National Liberal Federation. I deny in toto that there is any distinction whatever. Why should I—forgive the personality—holding these views on the duties of a Liberal Unionist, and with my connection with the Liberal Unionist Association, dissociate myself from that association or refuse to take office in it? Why should I cast the dust of that association off my shoes any more than the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, who, when Prime Minister, inherited all the resolutions of the Newcastle programme—
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: No.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: With a very large percentage of which I believe the noble Earl did not agree. And, my Lords, we know, projecting our eyes into the future, that if a Liberal Government were returned to power after the next general election the National Liberal Federation is committed to Home Rule for Ireland. But we also know, through their recent speeches, that some of the most distinguished members of the future Liberal Cabinet have abjured the doctrine of Home Rule. And am I to be told that the freedom and liberty of political conscience and opinion which has been enjoyed in every Cabinet of which our history has record, which were enjoyed in the last Liberal Cabinet and will be enjoyed in the next, are alone to be denied to members of His Majesty's present Government? When the noble Earl on the Cross Benches was seeking for a parallel to his travesty of the position of the reconstituted Liberal Unionist Association, when he imagined what would have been said of the loyalty of Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke if they had joined a Home Rule Association while they were members of Mr. Glad-stone's Government, he forgot another parallel, and perhaps a closer one, not to the actual facts, but to the travesty of the facts which he presented to your Lordships. He forgot that a few years ago the unity and mutual co-operation of the Liberal Party was largely assisted by the inauguration of a body called the Liberal League, which I have always understood was not on the best of terms with the National Liberal Federation. The noble Earl asked me what the genesis of the
  926
  resolution was which was passed at the meeting of the Liberal Unionist Association. I do not know. I only saw the resolutions after they were printed on the paper sent up from the local branches; but I do recollect that the particular resolution which was singled out was sent up by the Liberal Unionist Association of Crewe—an interesting fact which I thought the noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Crewe) might like to know.
  Having dealt with what seems to me the personal aspect of this case and the status of the Liberal Unionist Association, I turn to the gist of the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down. I think he will not contradict me when I say that when I use the words "noble friend" to him they are no formal or meaningless words; and any regret which he feels at the difference of opinion which has come between him and many of his political friends on this fiscal question is more than shared by me. But, my Lords, what is the real gist of the accusation— an accusation of a very damning kind, if all the words used by the critics of the Government would bear the weight that their users put upon them—that is made against us? We have propounded a policy which has been described to-night as one of negotiation and retaliation; it is that policy to which we adhere, and it is that policy to which we intend to adhere to the full during the whole of the life of the present Government. Did noble Lords opposite doubt that? They did not Then what are we asked? We are asked what is going to be the future policy. I reply respectfully, but without any hesitation, that to ask us what is going to be the policy of an unborn Government in some future time is a question that has never yet been asked by Parliamentary critics of an existing Government, and which no existing Government would ever be so foolish as to answer.
  The extraordinary part of the matter is this, that, to judge by the speeches of my noble friends even when they are asking this question, they at least are confidently assured that this Government are not going to be returned to power again. Therefore, they are asking a question not as to what will be done by the successors of the present Government, but by a future Government of which we

  927
  do not know who will be Prime Minister, or what will be the component parts. I say, therefore, it is not reasonable, it is not constitutional, it is without precedent to try and press us to commit ourselves as to our opinions in an unborn and unforeseen future. I would ask my noble friends the same question as they have asked me. If we have shown any sympathy, which I think is a word they admit, on this question of colonial preference, why is it? It is because to us the possibility of a closer unity of the Empire is the greatest of political ideals. My noble friend who spoke last shares that ideal, but he believes that the particular road of preference will lead not towards the realisation of that ideal, but away from it. He is perfectly consistent in his view, but why should he complain of us if we are unable to share that perfect certainty which pervades his mind? What we say is that toward this ideal we will close no roads in advance if we can help it. Is my noble friend prepared to say that in no circumstances whatever, whatever offers or suggestions might come from the Colonies, would he consider preference as a road to that greater unity? I do not believe he is.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: I beg the noble Earl's pardon for interrupting him; but an offer has come from the Colonies, I understand?
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: What offers have come from the Colonies the noble Earl knows just as well as I do. He knows that the Colonies have, great groups of them, given us certain preference already. He also knows quite well that I was not speaking of past transactions. I was asking him and my other noble friends whether it was reasonable to ask us to say, what I do not believe the noble Lord himself would say, that in no circumstances, whatever offers might come from the Colonies, would we consider the question of preference.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: The point I endeavoured to make was this. I quoted extracts from a speech of the present Colonial Secretary, asking us not to make up our minds against the policy at present; but I said that was not the demand of the late Colonial Secretary.
  928
  Mr. Chamberlain's demand is that we shall make up our minds in advance to accept the policy of preference before we know anything, or practically anything, of the offer or what it is to lead to.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I have not Mr. Chamberlain's speeches with me, but I do say, without hesitation, that that is not the general impression that those speeches have made upon my mind, and I do not think, if the noble Lord would re-read them, that he would be able to adhere to that description as a really just one of Mr. Chamberlain's attitude towards us and himself on this question. And I would remind my noble friend of what Mr. Chamberlain said only the other day at the Albert Hall. It is quite true that the words which my noble friend the Foreign Secretary cheered when read by Lord Balfour were the words of the present Colonial Secretary, and when I joined in cheering them I knew that fact; but my noble friend the Foreign Secretary had in his mind these words which Mr. Chamberlain used on the same occasion—
  "I do not under-estimate the difficulties in our way. Difficulties exist in order that statesmen may overcome them. We do not ask them "—I believe the reference is to the Government and the country—" for a hurried decision. We do not ask for premature action. We desire in this great matter that we should carry with us the goodwill of all that is best in the nation."
  I do not think that can fairly be described as endeavouring to bind the country in advance, or to proceed precipitately to the realisation of the project.
  LORD BALFOUR of BURLEIGH: I hope the noble Earl will excuse me again interrupting him. I think I can supply him hereafter with the quotation to which I referred; but the particular matter which was uppermost in my mind was this, that long before our separation I asked repeatedly before committing myself for or against the policy of preference for information on this very point, and it was studiously withheld.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I think my noble friend and I are rather at cross purposes. I do not wish to misunderstand him; but what I maintain, as strongly as he maintains, or as strongly as my noble friend the Foreign Secretary or Mr.

  929
  Lyttelton maintain, is that this question involves the gravest issues for the whole Empire, and that no part of the Empire can be rushed into it, but that the country —meaning both the people of the United Kingdom and of the Colonies—should know exactly what they are going to give and what they are going to receive. I do not think Mr. Chamberlain has ever said that he will ask the Empire or any part of it to accept without discussion and mutual assurances any scheme he or anyone else might propose. Before I sit down I should like to answer the direct Question put to me by my noble friend. He asked to how much of the policy did the sympathy expressed by the Prime Minister refer. My answer is that the sympathy referred only to closer union between the different parts of the Empire, and to, maintaining and developing commercial intercourse between the mother country and her dependencies.
  Now, my Lords, I have only one further word in conclusion. My noble friend rebuked me in advance for being actuated in this matter by an ideal, and I understood him to say that no expression should be given to an ideal in a matter so serious unless a practical solution had been found in regard to it. It seems to me that that is a barren and sterile theory, for if it was adopted I do not know any great political movement that would have been evolved, much less realised. I cannot accept that as a standard which those should adopt who believe in this ideal of greater union and do not wish to close any possible channel towards that unity. I realise, I think quite as fully as he does, the great responsibility that rests on those who advocate this ideal, but it seems to me that a responsibility also rests on those who, while not repudiating the ideal—who, while sharing in the ideal, might seem to lead the Colonies to suppose that their preconceived ideas on other subjects would make it necessary for them to turn a deaf ear to any proposal in that direction that the Colonies might make. I do not believe that is really the attitude of my noble friend, and I think it is a great pity that he should give that impression.
  LORD STANMORE: Will not the noble Earl give some answer to the Question
  930
  with regard to the attitude of the Government towards their loyal supporters who are free-traders?
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I am most desirous, in the few words that I shall address to your Lordships, to bring back the discussion to the point from which we started with the speech of my noble friend the Duke of Devonshire. We have rather wandered from the question into inquiries whether this or that part of the policy was correct, or whether it was wise, but the original question was: What is the policy? It is to that that we were anxious to direct attention, and I ask how far, if at all, we have made progress in ascertaining what that policy is. I should like to say, in the first instance, that the Leader of the House is in error if he thinks that any censure was being passed upon him for the course he has taken. Such an idea is entirely foreign to my mind; but what I wish to know is what deduction we may draw from the action he has taken; what impression the country is likely to derive from that action; what was contemplated when that action was, as I suppose it was, sanctioned by the Government; what deduction was to be drawn by candidates at by-elections from that action; and what deduction was to be drawn from that action by those who are already in possession of seats, but whose seats were being attacked, partly because it is not thoroughly understood what the position of the Government is?
  Some progress perhaps we have made. We have had strong declarations again from the Government that they are opposed to the taxation of food and to a colonial preference based on the taxation of food. But there are candidates who are threatened in their seats and against whom already other candidates are being put forward because they are opposed to that same preference to which His Majesty's Government are opposed. The noble Duke asked the noble Marquess what was the attitude of the Government towards the two sides of the Party. The noble Marquess did not touch that in his answer. Mr. Balfour has had the same question put to him, it has pointedly been put to him by a sitting Member who was threatened in

  931
  his seat. What is the attitude of the Government towards those who support the Sheffield policy, but who would not support anything that savoured of further development? No reply was elicited. Being without a reply, the public, candidates, and sitting Members must judge by the actions of members of the Government and not by the words of any Resolution. At a moment when the fiscal question has split the Liberal Unionist Association, as to a certain extent it has split the Unionist Party, we watch the action of Ministers closely. The analogy as to the National Conservative Association, or any other association, falls to the ground, because the circumstances are so entirely different at the present moment. What has taken place? The function was the celebration of the triumph of Mr. Chamberlain over the free-traders in the association. Would not ordinary men take that view of the situation and say, Mr. Chamberlain is our general and under his banner we march." I would ask the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he does not think there is some analogy in their taking office in this Association at the present juncture, under the presidency of Mr. Chamberlain—whether there is not some analogy between that and officers on full pay joining the Committee of the Navy League. That Committee wishes to support the Admiralty but they desire to go much further. They wish to put a little more energy into the Admiralty; and I think my noble friend would be surprised if officers on full pay were to join the Committee of the Navy League and say, "The First Lord of the Admiralty himself sends unabated sympathy with your efforts." It is a curious thing that the question whether Mr. Balfour is a free-trader or is not is one of the most frequent topics of conversation is every class of society and wherever men meet together.
  But here we come to a point that differentiates this case from those as to which my noble friend asks is it customary to press for information as to what is passing in the breasts of the Government. The curious thing is we are told a great deal about one part of their policy but a greater part is withheld. It is because there is danger in the intimate connection
  932
  between those measures which the Government have adopted and those which are to follow that not only men who are busy with politics, but the nation at large, want to know what the views of those who ought to guide the country are as to the development of their policy.
  Mr. Balfour has told the country that he intends to lead, but on this question he refuses to lead. That is the complaint of many of his followers and loyal supporters. People say he is shepherding his flock, and no doubt he does it admirably. Mr. Balfour says we are not entitled to know more. But the country is suffering from want of knowledge, and Lord Rosebery was perfectly justified when he said that this state of uncertainty was having a baneful effect on the commerce of the country. It is damaging the House of Commons. It is letting down the dignity of the House of Commons. I am sorry to say also — I say it with profound regret—it is damaging, on the whole, the Prime Minister himself. Supporters of the Government are entirely in the dark as to the attitude of their Leader upon the question on which the next election will turn. Every candidate in every constituency is put at a disadvantage. Candidates may pledge themselves to this 10 per cent., and may afterwards find the Prime Minister saying, "No, I am against this 10 per cent. I never said I would support it. You cannot find a statement to that effect anywhere in all my utterances." Other candidates may say they were so confident of this unabated sympathy on the part of the Prime Minister as to pledge themselves to colonial preference and to taxation of food; yet when the address to the electors is finally determined upon, it may be found that this does not form part of the official programme. There is now a state of greater doubt and uncertainty than I can ever remember during the whole of my political life.
  As between Home Rule and protection, I think the disruption of the Empire by Home Rule would be the greater calamity; but unless there is vigorous opposition, protection is infinitely more likely to arrive in the near future than Home Rule. It is more insidious than Home Rule. I believe,

  933
  whatever the views may be of any Party in the State, the nation will continue to be as strongly opposed to Home Rule as they were in 1885–86. At that time we were told that Mr. Gladstone had thrown his weight into the scale for Home Rule, and that we could not resist it. We did resist it, and I can assure my noble friend that, with reference to any fear that this country will ever consent to Home Rule, there is very little necessity for any organisation at the present time. It is good Party warfare to drag this red herring across the path, but it does not frighten me in the least degree. We have to deal now with protection, and we will deal again with Home Rule when the time comes. Mr. Chamberlain's expression, "No preference, no Empire, "was most unfortunate. The country was not prepared to stand declarations of that kind; and I am glad to think that even those who are in favour of colonial preference have now come to much saner views upon that. At that time we were told, at the point of the bayonet—Accept this or your Empire will go. Now we are told that we must not close the door to the examination of this subject. I would not close the door on the examination of any subject that might lead to the consolidation of the Empire. The present Colonial Secretary spoke of the finer tempered links that join us to the Colonies, community of language, community of ancestry, and community of literature, and he has said that besides these it would be well to have commercial union. What a difference there is between this language and that which was used by Mr. Chamberlain! I have made my observations not with the slightest intention of animadverting on the noble Lords, but only because of my anxiety to press for the removal of this cloud of uncertainty, not from us who sit on these Benches, but from the community at large, from the constituencies which will have to decide the question, and from those candidates who will otherwise have to go to the election on an unintelligible conundrum.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, as the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty rather twitted me, or those sitting on this Bench, with not having spoken on this question, I desire to say
  934
  a few words. I associate myself with every word said by my noble friend Lord Rosebery, and should be perfectly happy to leave the whole master in his hands after the admirable speech he has made. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty put this question as one that could be legitimately left as an open question. I venture to differ from him. There are questions which no doubt may be left open in a Cabinet; but there are questions of such enormous political and national importance that they cannot be kept open, and the decision of the Government upon them must be given. The noble Earl asked what would have happened if members of the Cabinets of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Rosebery had differed on Home Rule, and some Members had spoken in one sense and some in another in Parliament or in the country. I will reply to this and I say that the Government would immediately have broken up. The present Cabinet if they differ materially upon the question now raised ought not to be considered as homogeneous, and as a Cabinet agreed on the great questions of the day.
  On the question of associations I entirely differ from the view taken by the two noble Lords opposite who are members of the Cabinet. I see the broadest possible distinction between a political association which has been in existence a great many years, and every year has passed various resolutions which the Government of the day may differ from or not, and an association just formed for the promotion of a particular policy, and which immediately propounds resolutions with regard to it. The noble Lords at the Albert Hall, as has been said, gave their blessing and benediction to this new society, knowing the principles which it had just laid down in particular resolutions passed at the morning meeting. You cannot dissociate this new association from Mr. Chamberlain and his views. They are practically the views of a protectionist, and the country will certainly regard the two noble Lords who have taken office in the association over which Mr. Chamberlain presides, as supporters of those views which he so boldly, energetically, and ably presents to the country. The Government, through the noble Marquess and through the Prime

  935
  Minister, shows the greatest possible sympathy with the views and proposals of Mr. Chamberlain, and even speaks of the very high ideal held out. Surely, when they express this great sympathy we may suppose that if the constituencies are converted, at that moment they will come forward and heartily support this policy of preference, with which they say they do not at present agree. We have heard a great deal of what has been said by Mr. Chamberlain. My noble friend the Chairman of Committees quoted a letter he wrote to a candidate at a by-election, and I would like to speak further on that point. Mr. Chamberlain wrote strongly supporting the candidate who advocated his views, and argued that free trade had done immense harm to farmers, who should therefore support his policy. What has happened since? The so-called Tariff Commission have issued their first proposal which recommends a 10 per cent. duty on iron and steel—the very thing which will do harm to the farmer, making his industry far more expensive because it will seriously effect the implements which he uses.
  In many other respects we have seen Mr. Chamberlain propounding extraordinary doctrines. He boasts of the 200 Members of the House of Commons who support him, and of the enthusiasm with which his views are received at meetings in the country. He also speaks in a remarkable manner of his old colleagues, and uses terms towards them which are far from complimentary. We have heard a great deal from him on the subject of preference, but I cannot touch on that question to-night. I shall merely try to endorse what has been said so ably by many others, and ask the noble Marquess and those who work with him whether they do desire to support actively the general political policy of the Liberal Unionist Association or not. I can hardly believe that after their connection with the great meeting referred to, and with what took place before, they can be wholly opposed to the views of the association. We have a right to ask, Parliament has a right to ask, and the country has a right to ask what they intend to do. How are the electors to be guided? Are they to consider His Majesty's Government opposed to preference and the taxation of food? These are questions of the greatest importance, and I think
  936
  the debate which has taken place will show in what a state of doubt, uncertainty, and vacillation His Majesty's Government is on this great and national question.
  The subject then dropped.

  SAVINGS BANKS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Amendments reported (according to order), and Bill to be Read 3a on Monday next.
  REGISTRATION OF CLUBS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  RAILWAYS (PRIVATE SIDINGS) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION ACTS MENDMENT (ST. KILDA) BILL.
  Read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 157.)
NEW BILL.

  OFFICIAL SECRETS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Official Secrets Act, 1889, with respect to the consent of the Attorney-General to the institution of prosecutions under that Act—Was presented by the Lord Chancellor; Read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 158.)
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.