Sitting of 11 April 1905

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

  PRIVATE BILLS [LORDS] (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Hastings Harbour Bill [Lords]; Hessle Gas Bill [Lords]; Marylebone Chapels Bill [Lords]; Metropolitan Railway Bill [Lords]; Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time) Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

  SUBSTITUTED BILLS [LORDS] (STAND- ING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY IN- QUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, introduced in accordance with the provisions of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—Clyde Navigation Bill [Lords].
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
  Croydon Gas Bill. Read the third time, and passed.
  Dublin Corporation (Superannuation) Bill. As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  McConnell's Divorce Bill [Lords]. Read a second time; and committed.
  Woolwich Borough Council Bill (by Order). As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
  Electric Lighting Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill. "To confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Bury (Rural), Conway; Goldborne; Haydock; Hipperholme; Little Lever; Southall-Norwood; Spalding; Whitwood; and Whitworth;" presented by Mr. Bonar Law; supported by Mr. Victor Cavendish; road the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 160.]
  Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill. "To confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Ballaghaderreen," presented by Mr. Bonar Law; supported by Mr. Victor Cavendish; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
  Halifax Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Stockport Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section A]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bristol Corporation Bill. Reported, with Amendments, from the Police and Sanitary Committee [Section B]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

  1. "That, in the case of the Worcestershire County Council (Bridges), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.

  2. "That, in the case of the Levens Patent Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill.

  3. "That, in the case of the Great Northern (Ireland) and Midland Railways Bill, Petition for dispensing with Standing Order 128 in the case of the Petition of the 'Portadown Urban District Council,' against the Bill, recommitted Resolution of the 6th day of April, referred to the said Select Committee with a view to consider whether, under the circumstances of the case, Standing Order 128 should be dispensed with in respect of the said Petition, the said Standing Orders ought not to be dispensed with."

  First two Resolutions agreed to.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to extend the periods prescribed by the scheme of arrangement

  1247
  relating to the Mortgage Insurance Corporation, Limited, for the liquidation of their affairs; and for other purposes." [Mortgage Insurance Corporation Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to effect a fusion of the undertaking of the Hand-in-Hand Fire and Life Insurance Society with that of the Commercial Union Assurance Company, Limited; and for other purposes." [Commercial Union Assurance Bill [Lords.]
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers on the Urban District Council of Clacton in regard to the Seashore Recreation Grounds and other matters; and to make further and better provisions in regard to the health, local government, and improvement of their district: and for other purposes." Clacton Improvement Bill [Lords.]
  And, also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Truro Water Company to construct additional waterworks, acquire lands, and raise further moneys; and for other purposes." [Truro Water Bill [Lords.]
  Mortgage Insurance Corporation Bill [Lords]; Commercial Union Assurance Bill [Lords]; Clacton Improvement Bill [Lords]; Truro Water Bill [Lords]. Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

PETITIONS.
  HIGHLAND LIGHT INFANTRY.
  Petition from Glasgow, against isolation from the other regiments of the Highland Brigade; to lie upon the Table.
  LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL VETO (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Petitions in favour; from Bellshill; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Perth; and Troon; to lie upon the Table.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petitions against; from Clevedon; Folkestone; Holyhead; Kingston-on
  1248
  Thames; Lewisham; Lincoln; and North Kensington; to lie upon the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COAL IMPORTS (FRANCE).
  Return [presented 10th April] to be printed. [No. 121.]
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Copy presented, of a Licence granted to James Smith, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A. of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
  Copy presented, of Colonial Report No. 446 (St. Vincent) Annual Report for 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  EAST INDIA (TRADE).
  Copy presented, of Tables relating to the Trade of British India with British Possessions and Foreign Countries for the five years 1899–1900 to 1903–4 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' (IRELAND) PENSION FUND.
  Annual Accounts presented, of Receipts and Payments for the year ended 31st December, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Irish National School Teachers.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a statement made in the House on April 18th, 1904, † by his predecessor in reference to national teachers being at the absolute mercy of the managers; whether he has recently been appealed to by Protestant teachers for redress; and, if so, what steps, if any,
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxiii., 436.

  1249
  does he intend taking to remove the alleged grievances.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I have read the statement referred to. I have not yet received the appeal mentioned, but will give it careful consideration when received. The matter appears to be one very largely for the managers and teachers to settle between themselves. The Commissioners of National Education provide certain forms of agreement for execution between managers and teachers; and they cannot further intervene.

  Railway Rates for Carriage of Fish from North of Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate whether he can see his way to communicate with the railway companies concerned with a view to secure a reduction in the through rates charged for the carriage of fish from the North of Scotland to the southern markets.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) I am sorry that I can only refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question on February 27th. †

  Port Ness Harbour.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate, in view of the fact that the harbour and breakwater at Port Ness, Island of Lewis, are in such a condition as not to warrant the expenditure requisite to render the harbour of service to the fishermen, will he state whether Messrs. D. and T. Stevenson, by whom the plans for this harbour were prepared, are still employed by the Scottish Office.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) There are no harbour works at present in progress under the superintendence of the Scottish Office which require the employment of a professional firm of civil engineers.

  Education of Children of Tinker Families in Scotland.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Lord-Advocate, having regard to the fact that a number of children of school age, belonging to tinker families in Scotland, receive no education whatever, will he state whether
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 1321.
  1250
  he can see his way to so amend the Education (Scotland) Bill now before Parliament as to secure to these children the benefits of education.
  (Answered by Mr. Scott Dickson.) This matter is one of great difficulty, which has received and is still receiving most careful consideration.

  Waveney School, Ballymena.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Waveney School in Ballymena has been in operation in temporary premises since August, 1903, and has been reported upon by the sub-inspector in November, 1904, by a chief inspector in May, 1904, and by another chief inspector in December, 1904; will he state when and by whom the Waveney School temporary premises were reported as unsuitable and insanitary; and when was intimation to that effect first given to the manager of the Waveney School.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) The Waveney applicant school, Ballymena,has bean in operation in temporary premises since August, 1903. The application for aid was reported on by the local inspector in December, 1903, and by the Board's two chief inspectors in May, 1904, and December, 1904, respectively. In the May report of the chief inspector it was stated that the premises were unsuitable, that there was no playground, and that there was very insufficient out-office accommodation. The chief inspector who visited in December reported, in addition to the foregoing defects, that he found children crowded into a room of cramped dimensions (19 feet 6 inches by 9 feet 8 inches by 10 feet) and that the air in this room was very much vitiated and dangerous to the health of teachers and pupils. The Commissioners are satisfied that this school is not required, and they have so informed the applicant on several occasions. In replying on March 6th last to a letter from the applicant, in which temporary recognition of the school was sought for, the Commissioners, while refusing such recognition on the grounds that the school was not required, stated as an additional reason for not aiding the school, even temporarily,

  1251
  that the premises were unsuitable and insanitary.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that when the chief inspector visited the Waveney School, Ballymena, in December, 1904, there were 149 pupils on the roll, of these ninety-eight being infants, and forty-eight of them had never attended any other school in Ballymena; that the remaining fifty infants were withdrawn from the following:—Guy's Infants (35), Model Infants (10), Harryville Girls (5); and if he will

  Schools.

  Number withdrawn.

  Accommodation at 10 square feet per pupil.

  Average.

  Model Schools

  27

  375

  167

  Guy's Schools

  57

  422

  401

  Harryville

  6

  448

  414

  Ballymoney Street

  4

  193

  94

  Other National Schools out side Ballymena

  22

  —

  —

  The following tabular statement shows the average attendance and the accommodation at nine and ten square feet per pupil at the Model Infants, Guy's

  Schools.

  Average Attendance.

  9 square feet.

  10 square feet.

  Model Infants

  57

  89

  81

  Guy's Infants

  156

  155

  140

  Harryville Girls

  207

  252

  224

  Rebuilding of Guy's National School Ballymena—Approval of Site.
  MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what steps have been taken towards the rebuilding of Guy's National Schools, Ballymena; if the Commissioners are satisfied that an
  state what available accommodation exists in these schools, allowing ten square feet per pupil.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) When the Board's chief inspector visited the Waveney applicant school, Ballymena, in December last, he found 149 pupils on rolls, 91 of whom were under eight years of age. The chief inspector reported that of the pupil a on rolls only 33, all infants, had not been at school before, and that the remaining 116 had been withdrawn from the following school—
  Infants, and Harryville Girls National Schools. An allowance of nine square feet for each pupil in attendance is considered sufficient in infants' schools.
  eligible site has been procured by the governors of Guy's School; and have they approved of it.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) A grant towards the rebuilding has been provisionally sanctioned, and the site has been favourably reported on by the Board

  1253
  of Works, but the acceptance of the site will not be decided on until plans and specifications have been received and considered.

  Discovery of Smokeless Coal in British North Borneo.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can furnish information in regard to the reported discovery of smokeless coal in the North-East of British North Borneo.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) We understand that a discovery of smokeless coal has been made at a place called Jambongon, on the north-east coast of the British North Borneo Company's territory. Full details have not yet been received, but investigations are in progress.

  Cotton Cultivation in British North Borneo.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any companies have yet been formed with a view to the cultivation of cotton in British North Borneo; and can he state whether any samples of native cotton have been submitted to British valuers; and, if so, with what result.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) We are informed that a company is in course of formation with a view to the cultivation of rubber with catch crops of cotton in British North Borneo. Samples of native cotton have been examined and have been favourably reported upon.

  Improved Mail Service at Millport and Kilchattan Bay.
  MR. LAMONT: To ask the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to the need of an improved mail service at Millport and at Kilchattan Bay; and whether he will consider the advisability of an early morning delivery and departure viâ Fairlie, to continue throughout the year.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am having inquiry made into the question of providing the additional postal facilities to which the hon. Member refers, and I
  1254
  will acquaint him with the result in due course.

  Promotion of Assistant Postmen.
  MR. JAMES O'CONNOR: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in Liverpool, Glasgow, and other places, there are assistant postmen with more than three years service for whom there appear no chances of early appointment to full duties; and whether he will take steps to remedy this, in accordance with the promise made by the Postmaster-General in 1903 that assistant postmen should be given full appointments after not more than three years service as assistants, and on reaching the age of twenty.
  (Answered by Lord Stanley.) I am aware of the facts to which the hon. Member refers. The difficulty results from the scheme whereby half the vacancies on the class of postmen are given to ex-soldiers or ex-sailors, and half to Post Office servants. During the war the operation of the scheme was disturbed, since Reservists could not be obtained, and consequently an undue proportion of Post Office servants entered the class of assistant postmen. The scheme being now once more in full operation, the Post Office servants, not withstanding their excessive numbers, have only half the vacancies as full postman, and consequently their promotion is retarded. I trust that this state of things, though unfortunate, is only temporary, and no effort on my part shall be spared to relieve it. No absolute promise was made in 1903 that full appointments would be given after not more than three years service as assistant postman, or before reaching the age of twenty. My predecessor undertook only that this should be done as far as possible.

  Altacarry Head Lighthouse, Rathlin Island.
  MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether the attention of the Commissioners of Irish Lights has been called to the fact that the lighthouse on Altacarry Head, Rathlin Island, being, on the east

  1255
  side of the island, is entirely invisible from the West, and only comes into view in a north-westerly direction to vessels coming from the westward; and whether, those interested in the coast trade of the North-West of Ireland have requested the Commissioners to erect a new lighthouse with fog syren or gun on the west end of the island, arranged so as to serve the south side of the island; and if the Commissioners purpose erecting such a light.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) Representations were made to the Commissioners of Irish Lights by the Advisory Committee of Shipowners, etc., on New Lighthouse Works, urging the erection of a lighthouse and fog signal at the western end of Rathlin Island. The Commissioners estimated the probable cost at between £20,000 and £25,000, and applied for the necessary financial sanction of the Board of Trade, who withheld it in deference to the wish of the Advisory Committee, who expressed the view that, although they had in the first instance asked for this work, the necessity for it was not great enough to warrant so large an expenditure.

  French Import Duties on Hams.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade what are the French import duties on hams of British origin; and what are the corresponding duties on hams of American or Canadian origin.
  (Answered by Mr. Bonar Law.) The French import duty on ham of English or Irish origin is at the rate of 30 francs per 100 kilogs. (12s. 2d. per cwt.) American or Canadian hams pay 50 francs per 100 kilogs. (£1 0s. 4d. per cwt.), and, in addition, a surtaxe d'entrepôt of 3 francs 60 cents. per 100 kilogs. (1s. 5½d. per cwt.) if imported viâ a European country.

  Sale of the "Boadicea."
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the percentage terms upon which the "Boadicea" is being broken up.
  1256
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The terms are that the Admiralty will receive the reserve price placed upon the sale of this ship as a minimum, and, in addition, a percentage upon any sum realised above this reserve. It is not desirable to state what this percentage rate is.

  Issue of Annuities for Payment for Elec-tric Light and Power in Naval Es- tablishments.
  MR. ASHTON: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury for what period annuities have been issued to pay for electric light and power in naval establishments under the Naval Works Act, 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The Act referred to sanctions borrowing for any period up to thirty years. The annuities so far set up run for twenty-nine years. They provide for repayment of sums borrowed for the purposes of the Act generally.

  Income-Tax Abatements.
  MR. J. H. LEWIS: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of abatements paid to income-tax payers during the year ending March 31st, 1904.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) If the hon. Member will refer to Table CCXXXIV., on page 229 of the Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue for the year 1903–4 [Cd. 2228], he will find an analysis of the repayments of the income-tax made in each of the ten years to March 31st, 1904. It shows that in the year ending March 31st, 1904, the turn repaid in respect of
  "Abatements" was £931,703 out of a total of £2,868,798 for repayments of all kinds.

  Imperial Revenue—Contributions from Direct and Indirect Taxation.
  MR. MOUNT: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state what were the proportions contributed by direct taxation and indirect taxation respectively to the actual revenue in the years 1894–5, 1899–1900, and 1904–5, and to the estimated revenue in the year 1905–6.

  1257
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The proportions of Tax Revenue (excluding Coal Export Duty, but including

  Year.

  Direct.

  Indirect.

  1894–5

  45·4

  54·6

  1899–1900

  48·4

  51·6

  1904–5 (approximate)

  49·1

  50·9

  1905–6 (Budget Estimate)

  50·2

  49·8

  French Duties on British and Indian Silk and Jute Goods.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: To ask the Secretary of State for India what are the French import duties on Indian silk goods and Indian jute goods; and what are the corresponding duties on British silk goods and British jute goods.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) The French import duties on silk goods and on jute goods are numerous, owing to the minuteness of classification adopted in the tariff. The various duties on silk goods and jute goods the manufacture of the United Kingdom are set out in detail on pages 80–82 and 100–102 of the Parliamentary Return of Foreign Import Duties for 1904. Similar goods the produce or manufacture of India pay the same duties, except so far as the United Kingdom, in virtue of most-favoured-nation treatment, enjoys certain conventional rates which do not apply to India.

  Sentence on J. R. Sullivan, of Millstreet, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of His Excellency has recently been called to the case of a prisoner named John R. Sullivan, of Millstreet, county Cork, who was sentenced at the Winter Assizes, Nenagh, 1891, to fourteen years and ten years penal servitude, to run consecutively; and whether, in view of the prisoner's conduct, and the circumstances of his wife and family, His Excellency can now see his way to exer
  Local Taxation Revenue) derived from direct and indirect taxes respectively, are as follows—
  cise his prerogative and commute the sentence of this man.
  MR. JOHN O'CONNOR: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named John R. Sullivan, of Millstreet, county Cork, was sentenced at the Nenagh Assizes, 1891, to two terms of imprisonment, viz., fourteen years and ten years, to run consecutively, and that this prisoner's conduct has been regarded by the prison authorities as so exemplary that the first term expired in 1902; and whether, in view of the prisoner's conduct and of the circumstances of his wife and family, and also that life sentences and long-term imprisonments for offences committed about the same period have been commuted, he will recommend the Lord-Lieutenant to order the early release of this prisoner, who has already suffered fourteen and a half years imprisonment.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) I understand that this case has already been considered by the Lord-Lieutenant, and that it will again come before him in due course. It does not fall within my province to make any recommendation in the matter.

  Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will furnish a copy of the report of the inspector appointed by the Estates Commissioners in connection with the

  1259
  proposed sale of the Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
  (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) These reports are furnished for the information of the Commissioners, and are confidential documents which cannot be made public.

  Rifle Manufacture—Cost of Inspection.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can state the estimated cost of inspection per rifle at Enfield, as compared with that at the Birmingham Small Arms and London Small Arms Factories respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Bromley Davenport.) It is estimated that the cost of inspection of rifles made at Enfield and by the Birmingham Small Arms and London Small Arms Factories during the past financial year is the same.

  Civilian Chaplains serving in the South African War.
  CAPTAIN NORTON: To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state why acting chaplains who served with the troops in South Africa during the late campaign have not received the gratuity of £100, to which, by the wording of Article 601 B of the Pay Warrants, they appear to be entitled; and whether these officers are entitled to any allowance for outfit.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Civilian clergy employed with troops were not regarded as appointed to military positions in the Imperial forces during emergency, and wore consequently ineligible for the gratuity specially given on retirement from such an appointment. The regulations do not admit of the grant of outfit allowance to them, but an advance of pay was granted at the commencement of their employment. Further, they received a war gratuity on the cessation of their employment provided that they had been so employed for nine months and had given their whole time to the service of the Army.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Admiralty Sales of Blue Serges.
  MR. BARRAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the value of the blue serges sold by auction and tender in the months of November, December, January, and February last.
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. ARTHUR LEE, Hampshire, Fareham): Blue serge, value about £3,000, was sold—all by auction—at Deptford on the 6th December, 1904. This was the only sale of serge during the period named in the hon. Member's Question.
  MR. RUNCIMAN: Cannot the hon. Gentleman give the price per yard realised?
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEY: And are you not at the present moment buying serges?
  MR. ARTHUR LEE: I must ask for notice of any further Questions.

  Cost of the Infantry Soldier.
  GENERAL LAURIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the actual number of efficient soldiers of Infantry of the Line of twenty years of age obtained from each 1,000 recruits enlisted at ordinary recruiting age; the actual amount expended directly or indirectly on such 1,000 recruits, including all expenditure on those who do not attain the age of twenty and become efficient soldiers, and can thus ascertain the actual cost of each soldier becoming fit for active service; and whether he has compared such cost with the expense incurred by the Admiralty in enrolling boys for the Navy and training them to become efficient seamen for the Fleet.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): The average number of efficient soldiers of Infantry of the Line, of twenty years of age and upward, obtained from 1,000 recruits enlisted at ordinary

  1261
  recruiting age is 827. The expenditure on each batch of 1,000 recruits, including the expenditure on those who do not attain the age of twenty and become efficient soldiers, is about £70,000, giving a cost of about £84 10s. for each soldier fit for active service. Figures relating to seamen have been given by my hon. friend in reply to the hon. Member's Question on the 5th instant.†

  Status of Volunteer Officers.
  MR. WILLIAM RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he would be prepared to give consideration to a proposal for improving the status of Volunteer officers on the lines of granting Army rank or honorary Army rank to those being duly qualified and efficient, who would be willing to undertake the legal obligation of foreign service in the event of war, the minimum period of such obligation being (say) three years; and whether such officers who had served under such conditions should be entitled to Army rank upon retirement in ordinary course.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: The whole question of the Reserve of officers is under consideration by a specially appointed Committee, and I will undertake that my hon. friend's suggestion shall be laid before that Committee. I will point out, however, that in many cases officers undertaking such a liability as he suggests would necessarily be withdrawn from their own units in time of war.

  The Reduction of the Volunteer Force.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the feeling expressed in all parts of the House and the country against any reduction in the numbers of the Volunteer force, and against it being financially stinted, he will reconsider his recent proposals and carry out without further delay the unanimous recommendations of the Duke of Norfolk's Commission.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: As my hon. friend is aware, considerable addi
  † See page 449.
  1262
  tional expenditure would be necessary for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Norfolk Commission. I have already informed the House that it is desired to make concessions to the Volunteers greatly in excess of those recommended by the Norfolk Commission, when funds are available for that purpose, but that no sufficient sum will be available until the reduction of the force has taken place.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my last Question, whether he will reconsider his recent proposal for the reduction of the Volunteer force?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir; it cannot be reconsidered.
  MR. McCRAE: The right hon. Gentleman has already given an undertaking that there shall be no reduction in the grant to the Volunteers this year. Will he give a similar undertaking with regard to the numbers?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: No, Sir; that would be impossible.
  SIR HOWARD VINCENT: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to reduce the numbers?
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have already answered that Question twice. I have said that during the current year we hope to reduce the force by enforcing the medical inspection standard more rigidly, and by reducing those units, if there are any, which are clearly not capable of rendering military service.

  Army Serges.
  MR. BARRAN: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he will state the value of the blue serges sold by auction and tender during the months of November, December, January, and February last.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BROMLEY DAVENPORT, Cheshire, Macclesfield): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. No blue serges have been sold by auction or otherwise.

  Cost of Machine Guns.
  MR. HIGHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why, in the Army Return Cd. 2431 just issued, the comparison has been left incomplete in the case of machine guns, the cost of those manufactured at Enfield (Table IX.) being given, but the cost of those ordered from the trade (Table XVII.) being omitted.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: It was a condition of the manufacture of machine guns by the trade that, the price would not be published. It was not, therefore, possible to include this information in the Return mentioned.
  MR. HIGHAM: Would it not be possible to give the average cost so as to disclose no one's secret?
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORT: I will consider if that can be done without a breach of the undertaking we have given.

  Zionist Expedition against the Nandi.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the punitive expedition against the Nandi, said to be necessary by the Zionist Commission, will be undertaken at the cost of the Zionists; if his sanction will be necessary for such an expedition; and, if so, before granting it, will he cause the strictest independent inquiry as to the position of this tribe to be made.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I have received no communication from the Zionist Commission on the subject of an expedition against the Nandi. No such expedition would be permitted without my sanction and without cogent proofs furnished by His Majesty's Commissioner for the East Africa Protectorate that it was necessary.

  Chinese Coolie Strike at the North Randfontein Mine.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he yet has any information of a strike of 2,000 Chinese
  1264
  coolies on Saturday week last, at the North Randfontein Mine, near Krugersdorp, the alleged grounds of revolt being dissatisfaction with wages; that, on the police being called in, the casualties among the Chinese were considerable, and that fifty-three coolies were eventually arrested; and whether he can state the particular gounds affecting wages which appear to have caused the outbreak.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state how many Chinese coolies were concerned in the riot which took place at the North Randfontein Mine on 1st April; what was the cause of the disturbance; what were the casualties among the coolies and among the police; how many coolies were arrested; and, if their trial has already taken place, what sentences have been inflicted.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The facts as reported to me by Sir A. Lawley are briefly as follows: The number of coolies at the Randfontein Mine are about 2,000, and a general strike arose out of a dispute between the mine manager and the labourers as to the interpretation of Clause 6 of the contract of service. The labourers claim that each individual labourer was bound to receive, fifty shillings per month irrespective of amount of work which he might perform. The head boys incited all other labourers on the mine to refuse to drill more than twelve inches during a shift of ten hours, a hole of thirty-six inches being accepted ordinary day's work for unskilled labourers. Work in the mine was impeded for three days, when mine management decided to have the ringleaders arrested and charged before magistrate. Ringleaders resisted police, who were also set upon by the coolies. Eventually they arrested fifty-nine ringleaders without firing a shot. No lives were lost, casualties practically nil. As soon as ringleaders had been removed the remaining coolies went quietly to their work. I have not yet received information as to the trial and sentences of the ringleaders.
  DR. MACNAMARAasked the right hon. Gentleman whether, after six months,

  1265
  these labourers were not now entitled to at least 1s. 6d. a day.
  MR. LYTTELTON: Yes, Sir; and they are receiving that.
  DR. MACNAMARA: Is it not the fact that they caused this riot because they have not received it?
  MR. LYTTELTON: No, Sir. The dispute arose not as to the right to receive 1s. 6d., but as to the day's work for which the 1s. 6d. was to be received.
  MR, HERBERT SAMUELasked whether, if the coolies did not perform the amount of work which the mine-owners considered satisfactory, they would not receive the 1s. 6d?
  MR. LYTTELTON: The judges as to whether a day's work is satisfactory or not are not the mineowners but the Courts of law.
  MR. LOUGHasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he considered the arrests because the men asked for better pay were legal?
  MR. LYTTELTON: That is not the point. They were not arrested for asking for better wages, but because the ringleaders impeded the work of the mine.
  MR. LOUGH: And is the arrest for that legal?
  MR. LYTTELTON: No doubt.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state what was the average rate of wages paid to the Chinese labourers employed on the North Randfontein Mine before the recent riot; whether these labourers have been in the Transvaal for the period of six months which would entitle them to be paid a minimum wage of 1s. 6d. a day; whether they were recently asked to sign any supplementary contract of service; and, if so, what were the terms of that contract.
  MR. LYTTELTON: I have received the following statement from Sir Arthur Lawley:—Coolies had been in Transvaal
  1266
  six months. There has not yet been time since expiration of six months employment to compute rate of wages paid, but assessment appears to be under £2 10s. 0d.; coolies on day work Were receiving eighteenpence per ten hours shift for ordinary day's work. Coolies on piece-work or desiring piece-work were offered opportunity of accepting and signing a supplementary agreement in terms of Clause 6 of the contract of service at following rates: halfpenny per inch drilled with a bonus of threepence per shift if thirty-six inches or over were drilled. Acting Superintendent has most carefully explained to coolies this offer, which is more favourable to ordinary worker than day pay of eighteenpence.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Has that contract been sanctioned by the Courts?
  MR. LYTTELTON: No sanction of such a contract is required of the Courts; but I entirely agree with the hon. Member, if that is the suggestion which underlies his Question, that no supplementary contract of this kind should be entered into without the closest investigation in the interests of the men.
  MR. HERBERT SAMUEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Transvaal Government, instead of arresting fifty-nine men, who in this country would be called trade union leaders, but in South Africa are called ringleaders, did not take steps to have this contract examined?
  MR. LYTTELTON: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman includes in the term trade union leaders, but I do not agree with him in supposing that trade union leaders are those who constantly oppose the law.

  Transvaal Profit Tax.
  MR. CAWLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the amount realised by the 10 per cent. Profit Tax in the Transvaal for the year 1904.
  MR. LYTTELTON:The amount was £357,023.
  MR. CAWLEY: Has that been paid in?
  MR. LYTTELTONwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

  Export of old Horses to the Continent.
  MR. CREMER: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to state the result of the inquiries which, in August † last year, he promised should be made concerning the number of old and slaughtered horses, or horses unfit for work, that are periodically exported from this country to Belgium, Holland, and Germany; and if he can say for what purpose their carcases are used; and whether their flesh is made into condiments of various kinds, returned to this country, and sold as articles of food.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PERCY,): I regret that, owing to an oversight, some delay occurred before the information was asked for, but we hope to obtain it before very long, and I will then communicate it to the hon. Member.
  MR. CREMER: Will you make the statement publicly? I want the country to know the facts.
  EARL PERCY: Yes, if the hon. Member will put a Question down.

  Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Fines— Case of Joseph Wright.
  MR. YOXALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on April 3rd Joseph Wright, an artisan, of West Bridgeford, Nottingham, a man of respectable antecedents, who has never before been charged with anyoffence by the police, was, upon being fined 10s. by the Nottingham bench of magistrates for riding a bicycle without a lamp, refused permission to go out for or telephone for the sum of 2s. 4½d., which he required to make up the fine; that he was driven to the county gaol in the prison van, made to strip and to put on prison clothing,
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxix., 977.
  1268
  and imprisoned in a cell until his employer paid the balance of the fine; and whether he can take any steps to prevent the recurrence of such treatment.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I have made inquiry in this case and find that the prisoner made no application to the magistrates for time to pay his fine. He had not sufficient money with him for the purpose, and though the police, who were very busy at the time, did what they could to send a message to his employers, the reply did not come till after Wright had been removed to prison. On his reception there, on a commitment showing him to be a convicted prisoner, the prison authorities had no option but to treat him as such. So far as I can see no blame attaches to either the police or the prison authorities, but at the same time it seems to me very unsatisfactory that a respectable man should have gone to prison in default of paying a fine which at the time he appears to have been both willing and able to pay, and I am in communication with the magistrates with a view of seeing how best such an occurrence can be prevented in future. The case is an unfortunate one.
  MR. JOHN ELLIS: The man made every effort to be allowed to pay the fine.
  *MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS: Still I do not think the police are to blame.
  MR. YOXALL: Other cases of this kind have occurred. Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a circular to all justices' clerks with regard to these cases?
  *MR. AKERS DOUGLAS: I am in sympathy with the hon. Member, and think that hardship has been inflicted on Wright, but I cannot see that either the police or the prison authorities are to blame. But it does seem—on the facts supplied to me—that the magistrates might have made further inquiries as to Wright's position and ability to pay. I am not prepared to issue any such general circular as suggested, at all events until I have received the answer to my inquiry.

  "Passive Resisters"—The Postmaster- General and the Tibenham Postmaster.
  MR. SOAMES: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. William Hewlett, of Tibenham, county Norfolk, has received an official intimation that if he is summoned again as a passive resister the post office at Tibenham will be removed from his premises; and if this intimation has been sent to Mr. Howlett with his knowledge and sanction.
  THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Lord STANLEY, Lancashire,): The facts of the case areas follows:—Mr. Howlett was informed by my direction that I cannot permit the scandal caused by distress being levied on premises where Post Office business is conducted, and he was warned that if anything of the kind occurs again the office will be taken out of his hands.

  The Australian Mail Service.
  MR. RUNCIMAN; I beg to ask the Postmaster-General a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether the Australian Commonwealth Government and the Orient Pacific Line have yet been able to arrive at an agreement for the resumption of a fortnightly mail service between Australia and the United Kingdom, and, if so, when the new service will commence.
  LORD STANLEY: Yes, Sir; I have received a telegram from the Postmaster-General of the Commonwealth to say that terms have been agreed upon between that Government and the Orient Company for a fortnightly service, which will be alternate with that which this country has by way of the Peninsular and Oriental Company. The first service will begin from Adelaide on April 13th for the homeward mail, and the outward mail from Naples on April 16th.

  Allotments.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how much land for the purpose of allotments has been acquired under Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Local Government Act,
  1270
  1894, which relate to the acquisition of land otherwise than by agreement.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): According to the Parliamentary Returns of February 10th, 1898, and May 28th, 1903, giving particulars on this subject, 269 acres, 3 roods, 31 poles had been acquired compulsorily up to March 31st, 1902, for the purpose referred to. All this land has been acquired under Section 10, which deals with compulsory hiring. Since then, Orders authorising the compulsory acquisition under the same section of 31 acres, 2 roods, 38 poles have been confirmed. I cannot state positively that the land has been acquired.

  Boards of Guardians and Underfed School Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is now in a position to say how far boards of guardians may assist local education authorities in the work of providing food for children in attendance at public elementary schools suffering from want of proper food.
  MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I do not think that I can conveniently make a statement on this subject for the moment, but I hope shortly to be in a position to issue a circular to boards of guardians with regard to their powers and duties in relation to underfed children.

  Millport and Kilchattan Bay Railway Service.
  MR. LAMONT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to a complaint made on behalf of the inhabitants of Millport and of Kilchattan Bay, that their business is hampered by the action of the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company in cutting off communication between Fairlie and those places during six months in the year; and whether, in the interests of the trade of Millport and of Kilchattan Bay, the Board of Trade will use their good offices with the railway company to induce it to maintain the connection throughout the year.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BONAR LAW, Glasgow, Blackfriars): I have communicated with the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company on the subject of the hon. Member's Question, and the companies have replied that there is not sufficient traffic during the winter months to warrant the continuance of two competing railway steamers, but the Caledonian Railway Company's steamers, which carry the mails, maintain a winter service between Wemyss Bay and Millport.

  Brussels Sugar Convention—British Ap- peal to the Permanent Commission.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what day has been fixed for the sitting of the Brussels Sugar Convention to hear the appeal of His Majesty's Government against the condemnation of the countries mentioned in the despatch of 26th November; who will represent this country at the hearing of the case; and whether he can state the grounds on which the appeal is founded.
  MR. BONAR LAW: The Permanent Commission is now sitting. The British Delegation consists of Sir H. Bergne, Mr. Llewellyn Smith, and Mr. Martineau. With regard to the last Question I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer returned to him on the 16th February † last by my right hon. friend the Member for Central Leeds.
  MR. LOUGH: Has the appeal of this country been admitted?
  MR. BONAR LAW: I do not think I shall do any harm by informing the hon. Member that no prohibition orders will be necessary in the case of any countries in regard to which we appealed, and I believe the Commission ceased its sitting last night.

  Annual Account, National Debt (Savings Banks and Friendly Societies).
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can say why the Annual Account, National Debt (Savings Banks and
  † See (4) Debates, cxli., 312.
  1272
  Friendly Societies), for the period ended 20th November, 1904, presented on 16th March and ordered to be printed (No. 85), has not yet been distributed.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): The Return to which the hon. Member refers was issued on Saturday last.

  School Teachers' Duties to Underfed Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is now in a position to issue a circular to public elementary school teachers respecting assistance from the boards of guardians for hungry children; and, if so, whether he will shortly state the main terms of that circular.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): This matter is being put forward with all due despatch, but I am afraid I am not yet in a position to make any definite statement on the subject.

  Lord Provost of Perth—Question of Precedence.
  SIR THOMAS DEWAR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will state whether the Royal Warrant of the 11th March, 1905, in any sense abrogates the order of precedence hitherto held by the Lord Provost of Perth, who under the Royal Charter of King James VI. of Scotland, bearing date 1600, has always come immediately after the Lord Provost of Edinburgh in the procession at the opening of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, as well as at State or Court Functions, such as the presentation of the Lord Provosts and Provosts of Scotland to Her Majesty the late Queen, on which occasion, viz., the celebration of the Diamond Jubilee in 1897, the Lord Provost of Perth was presented immediately after the Lord Provost of Edinburgh.
  *THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton); I am informed that the Royal Warrant does

  1273
  not affect the precedence of the Lord Provosts of Perth with, reference to other Lord Provosts or Provosts.

  Procurators-Fiscal and Cost of Outside Medical Opinion.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if in the case of a procurator-fiscal calling in outside medical opinion from a distance without reasonable grounds for such action, he will be compelled to pay out of his own pocket the extra expenses thereby entailed on the county.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: This is a legal question to which it is impossible to give a sufficient reply except with reference to the precise facts of a particular case.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the facts of a case if I send them to him?
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: Yes, Sir.

  Outdoor Relief to Widows.
  MR. FINDLAY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in cases of relief to widows with young children, the Local Government Board will use its influence and see that outdoor relief be given to suitable cases of such an amount as will enable the home to be kept on, instead of offering the poor-house; and whether such influence will be used incase 43,145 brought under the notice of the Secretary to the Local Government Board, Edinburgh, on 14th March and in previous communications.
  *MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I beg to refer the hon. Member to the circular issued by the Local Government Board for Scotland on June 5th, 1902, which specially dealt with the relief of widows with young children. The Local Government Board have endeavoured to secure that due effect should be given to the views therein expressed in the case referred to by the hon. Member.

  Lord Kenmare's Kerry Estate.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates
  1274
  Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board have taken or propose to take any steps to negotiate for the purchase of the estate of Lord Kenmare, in the county of Kerry, or of the congested portion of it, as the landlord has signified his willingness to sell and the tenants to buy, but in connection with which no advance has been made owing to the difficulty as to terms.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.): No, Sir. The arrangement of terms is obviously a matter for the parties themselves.
  MR. MURPHY: Then am I to understand that the Estates Commissioners will do nothing to bring about a settlement in this case?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I think that is the correct interpretation of my Answer. It is not a case for outside interference.

  Cahirciveen Hosiery Industry.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the capitation grant payable to the Cahirciveen hosiery industry is insufficient to develop the industry; and whether, in view of the fact that a sum amounting to about £400 has been provided from private sources, the Department will now sanction the grant of £80 which has been voted every year by the county council out of the funds at its disposal during the past five years, but which the Department has hitherto refused to sanction.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Department cannot answer the first inquiry. A grant-in aid is not the only circumstance upon which the development of an industry depends. The Department are not prepared to sanction the proposed grant, for the reasons stated in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of March 22nd†.

  Dennehy Estate, Glencar.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant
  † See (4) Debates, cxliii., 799.

  1275
  of Ireland whether he is aware that negotiations for the purchase of the Dennehy Estate, Glencar, have taken place between the Congested Districts Board and the landlord; and can he state on what terms the Board were willing to purchase the estate.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Board made an offer for purchase which was not accepted. The terms cannot be disclosed.

  Kerry Technical Instruction Schemes.
  MR. BOLAND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that although schemes of technical instruction, approved of by the Department of Agriculture, can be put into operation in the congested portion of county Kerry, the grants by which alone they can be worked are not forthcoming; and can he state what steps will be taken to put the congested districts of the county on the same footing as the non-congested districts.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The funds available under the scheme of technical instruction adopted by the county committee, and approved by the Department, are applicable to congested and non-congested districts alike. As I have already stated, the Congested Districts Board have no funds to contribute to the county scheme.

  Kerry and the Congested Districts Board.
  MR. MURPHY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to complaints made as to the failure of the Congested Districts Board to use their powers effectively in the county of Kerry and elsewhere in the South of Ireland, he will now consider the advisability of adding a representative from the South of Ireland on the Board with the view of making their work effective in that part of Ireland.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I am not prepared to admit the assumption that the work of the Board has not been effective in the South of Ireland. There is no present vacancy on the Board. When a
  1276
  vacancy occurs, all the existing circumstances will be fully considered.
  MR. MURPHY: Is it not the fact that the Board have done nothing in Kerry but purchase two farms? Does the right hon. Gentleman call that effective work?
  MR. WALTER LONG: I do not think that that is correct.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that complaints are made by public bodies all over Ireland as to the action of this Board?
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir, since I have been Chief Secretary I have received many complaints.

  Steamer Services on the South West Coast of Ireland.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Dingle District Council protesting against an arrangement alleged to be entered into between the Congested Districts Board and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company, whereby the former give an undertaking not to subsidise for the next five years any steamer on the south west coast of Ireland; whether this arrangement has been entered into; and, if so, what is the object.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Yes, Sir. The arrangement has been entered into. Its object was to secure favourable railway rates upon the withdrawal of the subsidised steamship service.

  Kerry Evicted Tenants.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have given any, and, if so, what financial assistance to the evicted tenants reinstated in the county of Kerry; whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have taken no steps to reinstate any evicted tenant in the county; and whether they will now initiate proceedings with the various

  1277
  landlords for the reinstatement of those men.
  MR. WALTER LONG: The Commissioners are prepared to consider proposals to reinstate evicted tenants on estates which may come before them for sale; and if they should acquire untenanted laud in the county the claims of evicted tenants will be considered. No financial assistance was given by the Commissioners to the nineteen evicted tenants who have been reinstated by landlords.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELL: What is going to happen to those tenants whose landlords will not sell? How long are they going to remain without being reinstated?
  MR. WALTER LONG: The hon. Member knows that where there is untenanted land steps are taken to reinstate them.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable sales of land are taking place in North Kerry—of untenanted lands in the occupation of the landlords? Will he take steps to enter into negotiations in these cases?
  MR. WALTER LONG: If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I will inquire.

  Land Purchase in South Cork.
  MR. EDWARD BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state how many and what estates have been purchased since the passing of the Land Act, 1903, in South Cork; how many tenants are affected; what is the total purchase price and net rental of each estate so purchased.
  MR. WALTER LONG: Statistics by Parliamentary Divisions are not available. In the entire county 207 estates, comprising 3,204 holdings, have been purchased. Of these holdings 3,170 were tenanted, the rental being £68,365. The purchase price of the tenanted land was £1,453,507, and of the untenanted land £27,765.

  Sir Antony MacDonnell.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether Sir Antony MacDonnell holds the position of Undersecretary for Ireland on the lines and under the conditions laid down in the late Chief Secretary's letter when making the appointment; and, if not, will he explain the terms, if any, under which he retains office over and above those of an ordinary Civil servant.
  MR. GRETTON: May I at the same time also ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if the conditions under which the Under-Secretary was appointed by the late Chief Secretary have been in any way changed.
  MR. WALTER LONG: I had hoped that the reply given by me on the 6th inst.† to the Question of my hon. friend the Member for South Belfast sufficiently explained the relations subsisting between myself and the Under-Secretary. I observe, however, that considerable misconception still appears to exist, and I think it necessary, therefore, to make a fuller statement in order to remove, as far as possible, all misunderstandings in the matter. It has been suggested that a special compact exists, the object of which is to avoid the publication of correspondence. There is not the smallest foundation for this suggestion. It is invidious for me to have to criticise my predecessor, and I have hitherto refrained from doing so; but I conceive that the prevalent misunderstandings have their origin very largely in the declaration made by my right hon. friend in this House on February 20th,‡ when he stated that the letters that had passed between him and Sir Antony MacDonnell made it perfectly plain and clear that the latter was invited by my predecessor rather as a colleague than as a mere Under-Secretary to register his will. I must dissociate myself from this conception of the status of the Under-Secretary in so far as it affects our relations. My predecessor reserved to himself, I believe, full power of supervision and control; whether he exercised
  † See page 648.
  See (4) Debates, cxli., 650.

  1279
  this power I cannot say. The relations between Sir Antony MacDonnell and myself must, as I have stated, be the same as those which have existed between me and the permanent head of any Department of the State with which I have had the honour to be associated—namely, that, while he may express his opinions on any administrative act and advise me in any matter of policy, everything must be under my complete control and subject to my approval. If this involves a change, then there certainly will be a change in the administration of my Department.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the conditions under which Sir Antony Mac-Donnell was invited to accept the appointment have, as a matter of fact, been altered?
  MR. WALTER LONG: That really must be a matter of which the hon. Member is as good a judge as I am. I have stated quite distinctly what are the conditions that exist between the Under-secretary and myself. I have stated also that the observance of those conditions must depend on the administration of the Department. All I have said—and to this I adhere—is that I possess and that I intend to exercise full powers of supervision and control. If that involves a change, then that can only be proved by the system of administration we shall pursue.

  Caldbeck Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have yet come to a decision with regard to the distribution of the untenanted land on the Caldbeck Estate, Ballacolla, Queen's County; and whether the claims of the thirty-four small occupiers in the locality for portion of this untenanted land will be considered.
  MR. WALTER LONG: No, Sir; the matter is still under consideration. A question of law, regarding the distribution of parcels of the estate, is involved.

  Irish Postmasters as Emigration Agents.
  MR. HUGH LAW: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether postmasters in Ireland are still permitted to act as emigration agents or to exhibit emigration notices in their post offices.
  LORD STANLEY: There is no prohibition against postmasters and sub-post-masters in Ireland acting as emigration agents so long as their official duties are not interfered with; nor are they forbidden to exhibit emigration notices at their offices.

  Defence Against Invasion.
  COLONEL WELBY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, seeing that the land, marine, and submarine defences of the shores and ports of the United Kingdom are partly under the War Office and partly under the Admiralty, whether the Committee of Imperial Defence has worked out a complete and united scheme for repelling invasion raids; and whether he can see his way to manæuvres this autumn which will put that scheme into practice by land and sea, over a stretch of exposed coast in the defence of which both Departments are concerned.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In answer to my hon. and gallant friend, I have to say that the submarine defences referred to in the first sentence of his Question are already under the sole charge of the Admiralty, a change which has been brought about very largely in consequence of discussions in the Defence Committee. As regards the latter part of his Question, I would venture to suggest to my hon. and gallant friend and the House that, though, of course, I have no objection to these Questions being asked, I think they would be asked more usefully when I have had the opportunity of explaining to the House at length, and possibly in some detail, the views to which the Defence Committee have come and which I promised to lay before the Committee of the House at an early date after Easter. It is difficult to deal with these complicated problems by way of Question and Answer; and, if

  1281
  they are to be so dealt with, they can be dealt with with much more advantage when the House have the general views of the Government before them and have had time to consider them.
  COLONEL WELBY: Can my right hon. friend say whether the submarine defences of the non-naval as well as the naval ports have been taken over by the Admiralty?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know that the change has already been effected, but it is certainly in process of being effected, and will be completed, I hope, shortly.

  The Irish Viceroyalty.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will now consider the advisability of abolishing the office of the Viceroy of Ireland, and of substituting for it a Secretaryship of State.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are undoubted anomalies in the office of Viceroy of Ireland; but the change which my hon. friend suggests, which has been often under the consideration of the House, involves questions of policy too large to be dealt with at the present moment. Certainly the Government are not going to bring in a Bill in the course of the present session.
  MR. COGHILL: Have we not had quite enough, by this time of government of Ireland by Dublin Castle?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not know where the new Secretary of State would carry on his work, except in Dublin Castle, and, that being the case, I do not see that my hon. friend's suggestion contains any remedy.

  Redistribution Proposals.
  MR. COGHILL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, in view of the position given to the question of the Redistribution of Seals in His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, he will introduce the Resolution on which the Bill is to be founded before the House separates for the Easter recess.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think I answered this Question yesterday.† It would be impossible for us to find time before Easter to introduce any proposals on this subject.
  MR. COGHILL: Has the Government really serious intentions of dealing with this subject this session, or is the Bill to be introduced for the purpose of what is called shop-window dressing?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not quite understand the contrast between serious and shop-window which appears to govern the Question of the hon. Gentleman. The proposals we mean to make to the House are serious proposals.
  MR. LAMBERT: How soon after Easter will they be made?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is much too early to name a day for any business after Easter.

  COAL MINES (WEIGHING OF MINERALS) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Trade, etc.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 122.]
  Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed. [No. 122.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from serving on the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: Mr. Herbert Samuel; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Tennant.
  Report to lie upon the Table.
  † See page 1010.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from serving on the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure in respect of the Trades Unions and Trade Disputes Bill: Mr. Jordan and Mr. Clancy; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hayden and Mr. Nannetti.
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY further reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had appointed Mr. Charles Craig a Member of the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure.
  Reports to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in respect of the Drunkenness (Ireland) Bill: Mr. Lonsdale, Mr. Joseph Nolan, Mr. Nannetti, Mr. Conor O'Kelly, Mr. Hugh Law, Sir James Haslett, Captain Donelan, Mr. Wood, Mr. Sloan, Mr. O'Dowd, Mr. Crean, Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Mr. Thomas Lorimor Corbett, Mr. John Gordon, and Mr. William Moore.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  Mr. HALSEY Mr. HALSEY reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to serve on the Standing Committee on Law and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure in respect of the Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister Bill:—Colonel Lockwood, Colonel Denny, Sir Gilbert Parker, Sir William Brampton Gurdon, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. David MacIver, Mr. Burt, Mr. John Talbot, Lord Edmund Talbot, Mr. Boscawen, Mr. Malcolm, Colonel Welby, Mr. Mount, and Mr. Worsley-Taylor.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MILITARY MANŒUVRES BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 163.]
  RESERVE FORCES BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 164.]
  SERVICE OF MILITIAMEN BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 165.]
  SEAMEN'S AND SOLDIERS' FALSE CHARACTERS BILL [LORDS].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 166.]
  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (FEEDING OF CHILDREN) BILL.
  Order for Second Reading To-morrow read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.
NEW BILLS.
  HIGHWAYS BILL,
  "To amend the Law relating to Highways," presented by Mr. Henry Hob-house; supported by Sir John Dorington, Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, Mr. Bill, and Mr. Herbert Lewis; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 5th, and to be printed. [Bill 167.]
  EDUCATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Education Acts, 1870 to 1903," presented by Mr. Lambert; supported by Mr. Henry Hobhouse, Mr. Eve, and Sir Edgar Vincent; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 12th, and to be printed. [Bill 168.]
  LAND TENURE BILL.
  "To amend the Law relating to the Tenure of Land," presented by Mr. Lambert; supported by Mr. Eve, Mr. Soares, Mr. Charles Allen, Mr. Fletcher Moulton, and Mr. Edwards; to be read a second time upon Friday, May 12th, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To make further provision for Local Government in Scotland; and for other purposes," presented by Mr. Maxwell; to be read a second time upon Monday, May 8th, and to be printed. [Bill 170.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith) in the Chair.]

  TEA.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That there shall be charged on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and five, until the first day of July, nineteen hundred and six, the following Customs Import duty on tea (that is to say)—
  'Tea, the pound Sixpence'"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR GEORGE BARTLEYsaid that all agreed that if there were a subject of indirect taxation that ought to be relieved it was, beyond all question, tea. But the taking off of 2d. a 1b. from the duty was open to one serious objection, and that was that the very poor would not derive any benefit from the relief of taxation. The reduction of 2d. would no doubt benefit those who bought their tea in large quantities, but those who had to purchase it in very small quantities could not possibly get any advantage from the change. They had always been told that the income-tax payers had the first claim to consideration when an opportunity was afforded for the remission of taxation, and it certainly seemed hard that their interests should have been neglected in this instance, and that the consumers of tea alone should have received the benefit. Of course they all wished to see a reduction of taxation of every description. He desired to emphasise one statement, and it was that in his judgment the poor income-tax payers formed the class of persons who paid the largest amount of taxation in the whole country. He regretted that it had so
  1286
  often been held that these people were not worthy of much consideration because they were supposed to be rich men, but those who had studied income-tax statistics well knew that the smaller persons were those who paid the largest proportion of the tax, and therefore, he thought it was a pity that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not taken the more heroic line of saying that, inasmuch as he could not possibly fulfil his pledges to income-tax payers to relieve them of a portion of their burden, he would devote the whole of his surplus to the payment of debt instead of relieving indirect taxation by reducing the duty on tea. No doubt it was a very pleasant thing to reduce the cost of tea, but it should be remembered that the expenditure of this country was growing to an enormous extent, and the people were continually demanding further assistance from the State. The time had come, therefore, when it was desirable to pay an increased amount off the Debt, and he, for one, would have looked with satisfaction at any arrangement by which even more than a million would have been set apart for that purpose.
  He knew that the payment of debt was not always popular, but it was a question which struck at the root of our whole financial system. In spite of our enormous prosperity, and in spite of the tremendous increase of wealth in this country during the Last thirty or forty years, we were not now paying off more of our debt per year than when Sir Stafford Northcote first introduced his system. Sir Stafford fixed the annual repayment at that time at £28,000,000 a year and under the present system the figure was the same, if only we had adopted the policy of our forefathers in this matter the financial position of this country would have been far better. After all, the strength of the country lay in its ability to cope with any emergency, and its financial strength was one of the most important factors in connection with its defence. He did not wish to say a word against the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion, but he must repeat that, he thought the time had come when the question of the repayment of debt must be gone into more carefully, and that their efforts should be directed towards that

  1287
  rather than to the remission of taxation. It might he suggested that the public, in view of the national expenditure on alcohol, were not overburdened, and undoubtedly a nation in which each family could voluntarily set aside as much as £20 per annum for alcohol for legitimate use, and which at the same time owed nearly £700,000,000, ought to set apart a larger sum than it now did for the repayment of debt. He had long held that opinion, and he was again crying in the wilderness. He believed, however, that there were other Members who agreed with him that they should do more towards the repayment of debt than they now did. He certainly did not think that £30,000,000 would be an excessive sum to set apart for that purpose annually. The increasing expenditure of the country was largely due to the spirit which had recently been manifested of demanding that the Government should do much for individuals and communities. He thought that that spirit was a mistake and that it undermined the self-reliance of the people. The more they could get the public to look after themselves the better it would be, instead of calling upon the State and municipalities to do so much at the public cost. They still owed money that was raised, practically speaking, at the beginning of the last century for the great French War, and in his opinion that ought to have been cleared off years ago, and it would have been if they had followed the policy adopted by their ancestors at the beginning of the last century. But, instead of that, they had added to their debt.
  He was well aware that the reduction of the tea duty commended itself to many people, not only because tea was a necessity, but also because the reduction would benefit our Indian Empire and would encourage the trade of India. So far as that went, the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had his complete sympathy, but he did hope the right hon. Gentleman would take into his consideration the question of the reduction of the Debt, and would set himself resolutely to the task of diminishing the permanent burden.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he would like to add to
  1288
  the expressions of congratulation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the interest and lucidity of the speech in which he introduced his Budget on the preceding night. He was sure the whole House listened to the right hon. Gentleman with great satisfaction, and that it was with especial satisfaction that they heard what he had to say as to the trade of the country and the improvement which had occurred in connection with it. He thought also that the Members on the Opposition side of the House were, on the whole, I satisfied with the actual proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, because those proposals were in the direction which they had always advocated, namely, greater reduction of the National Debt and the diminution of indirect taxation, and especially of the tea duty.
  Undoubtedly, the great question of the present moment was how the national expenditure was to be reduced, for, so long as that expenditure remained on its present scale, they could not hope for any substantial reduction of debt or of taxation. The general financial position last year was rather curious. It appeared from the right hon. Gentleman's figures that there had been a considerable increase of elasticity in the income-tax apart from what he might call his "hustling" policy, for the tax had produced nearly half a million beyond what had been estimated, and in addition to that the arrears had been brought in more rapidly. But indirect taxation—Customs and Excise—had, on the other hand, shown a great want of elasticity.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)here interrupted the hon. Member, and said that the increased product from the income-tax had been due not so much to the elasticity of the tax as to the fact that he, last year, had rather underestimated the product.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid that, at all events, they had had a very satisfactory receipt from the tax, while, on the other hand, the receipts from the Excise and Customs had not been so satisfactory. It seemed to him to prove that the general trade and commerce of

  1289
  the country were in a satisfactory condition, but that the burdens on the consumers at the present moment were so heavy that they had been unable to extract any elasticity from the Customs and Excise. After the right hon. Gentleman had delivered his speech introducing the Budget on the preceding evening, he (the speaker) spoke to a tariff reformer and asked him if he did not regret that nothing had been taken off the income-tax, and the reply very promptly came that it was a matter of perfect indifference because nobody now had any income. The produce from the taxation of other articles consumed by the poorest members of the community had also shown, unfortunately, a want of elasticity, and in the matter of sugar there had not only been the burden of taxation, but the price of the article to the consumer had also been increased by the operation of the Sugar Convention.
  The right hon. Gentleman had avoided any mention of the results of certain taxation he introduced last year. For instance, there was the stripped tobacco duty. He certainly did say he rather congratulated himself that, in spite of the alleged disorganisation of the tobacco trade, the revenue from the tobacco duty had been satisfactory. But he (the speaker) wanted to know what had been the actual result of the duty upon stripped tobacco. Had not that very thing happened which they on that side had declared in the course of the debates of the previous year would occur, namely, that there had been practically no stripped tobacco imported into this country, and that there consequently was no revenue arising from it.
  He thought that the country might well be congratulated on the fact that the last few months had shown a real turn in the tide of prosperity. A few months ago there appeared to be a falling off, but there had now been a most remarkable change—a change all the more remarkable when they bore in mind the effect of the disturbance of trade through the uncertainty which at the present moment existed in most trades in consequence of the fiscal agitation, and the public ignorance as to what was likely to be the future fiscal policy of this country. No doubt this prosperity
  1290
  was somewhat disheartening to those who had been telling them that their trade was disappearing, and who had been attributing that disappearance to the operation of the principle of free trade. But the great blot on the Budget was the item of expenditure. He was glad to think that the plague of expenditure had to a certain extent been stayed this year. He, however, did not think it was altogether satisfactory that the reduction of expenditure this year as compared with last amounted to less than one million sterling. The whole of that was due to the reduction of the Navy Estimates which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol twelve months ago declared were far in excess of the needs of the country. It was, undoubtedly, essential that there should be a reduction in those Navy Estimates this year, but he thought there was considerable disappointment that that reduction had not been larger than it appeared to be. There had also been extreme disappointment because they were not to have any reduction on the Army Estimates at all in the present year. They had been told by the Secretary of State for War that if he were allowed to carry out his scheme of Army reform it would involve a large reduction of expenditure, but unfortunately the various schemes of reform which had been produced had, in turn, been placed on the scrap heap, and instead of expenditure on the Army having diminished it was continuing at its old figure. The result of all this was that at the present moment they were asking for a sum of £141,000,000 to cover the national expenditure for the year as against a demand for £96,000,000 in the year 1895–6 when the present Administration came into office. And this, it must be borne in mind, was peace expenditure with the exception of about £4,000,000 which represented the contribution towards war expenses—the amount by which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon raised the Sinking Fund two years ago.
  The right hon. Gentleman had made three proposals. One was the redaction of the tea duty, and he was glad the right hon. Gentleman chose that in preference to the income-tax,

  1291
  because he felt that the indirect taxpayer had the greater claim to relief. Then there was the second proposal, that dealing with debt, and again he was able to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having taken a step in the right direction. And finally, by the abolition of a certain number of small charges which fettered particular trades, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had had it in his power to proceed in the direction of the simplification of our fiscal and financial system, and had at the same time exemplified some of the advantages of free trade. He thought, however, something more might have been done to reduce the Debt charge. He did not know if people generally were aware how very little of the South African War debt had yet been paid off. The war cost £220,000,000, and out of the actual proceeds of additional taxation the amount paid in reduction of that cost was £55,000,000; so that there were still £165,000,000 of war charges which had not been met, and were not likely to be met unless the Debt charge was considerably increased. When the matter was under discussion two years ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer was anticipating the receipt of £6,000,000 from the Chinese indemnity and of £30,000,000 as a war contribution from the Transvaal, but neither anticipation had been realised, and personally he was not very much impressed with their chances of getting the latter sum. But still these were the facts on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon justified his contention that there was no necessity to raise the Sinking Fund above £27,000,000, as he calculated if these moneys came in they would produce such an increase of the Sinking Fund as would enable the Debt to be reduced to £694,000,000 by March, 1908. At the present moment the whole Debt amounted to £796,000,000, and last year the whole operation on the Debt was this, that while £7,500,000 were paid off, £9,500,000 were added. The fact was that at the end of five years the country, so far as debt was concerned, was exactly in the same position as before.
  The right hon. Gentleman had drawn a distinction between the dead-weight debt and the debt as against which
  1292
  he said there were specific assets, but with the exception of the Suez Canal shares, which had proved a very good investment, the telegraphs, and perhaps the Uganda Railway, there were no realisable assets, as money spent on naval and military works could not be realised in any sense of the term. The only asset remaining for the capital expenditure on guns and forts and powder and barracks might be said to be the Transvaal itself, and so far that had not proved very profitable. All were glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman express a hope that the capital expenditure would this year be reduced. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman was rather over sanguine in regard to this matter, because as soon as one programme was finished another more expensive one was started either for the Army or the Navy.
  With regard to the credit of the country one of the objects of the Sinking Fund was not only to reduce the Debt, but also to maintain the credit of the country by annually purchasing funded or unfunded debt. Last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer bought Consols with the Sinking Fund somewhere about £89; that was to say, he was buying annuities and paying £2 16s. per cent. for them, and in the same year he issued £6,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds upon which he had to pay 3¼ per cent. So that with one hand he was selling stock at £2 16s. per cent. and then buying stock for which he had to pay 3¼ per cent. Of course that was not a profitable transaction for the National Exchequer, and the security which the Sinking Fund ought to give was neutralised. With regard to the £1,000,000 of unclaimed dividends in his balance-sheet, he noticed that he credited himself with £1,000,000 on that account. He would like to know how much Consols had he to sell for that sum and at what price he sold them. He thought that would show the absurdity of the position of the Government having to buy things dear and sell them cheap. He had some doubt whether the particular proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to take £10,000,000 of Exchequer Bonds and apply £1,000,000 each year would be a more satisfactory proposal than merely adding £1,000,000

  1293
  a year to the fixed debt fund. He should have thought that this course would tie the hands of those who had to deal with these matters each year and force them to extinguish these particular Exchequer Bonds when the Sinking Fund as a whole might be more profitably employed elsewhere. He thought it would have been better simply to have raised the Sinking Fund by £1,000,000 instead of earmarking this money for this particular purpose.
  He was entirely in accord with the proposal to reduce the tea duty, and he regretted that the expenditure of the country did not allow the right hon. Gentleman to reduce, other duties also. The hon. Member opposite seemed to think that because this proposal would benefit the Colonies the members of the Opposition ought to oppose it. He would remind the hon. Member that those sitting on the Opposition side of the House were just as anxious to benefit the Colonies as any hon. Members, when they could do it with advantage to the Empire as a whole. One reason why the tea duty was selected was that it would benefit the British consumer as well as the colonial producer. He thought the figures in regard to direct taxation which had already been quoted conclusively showed that in this year the right hon. Gentleman, having only a limited amount of money, decided that indirect taxation had a greater claim upon him than the income-tax payer. While the direct taxpayer was paying £10,000,000 a year more in consequence of extra taxation, the indirect taxpayer was paying £13,000,000 more. Within the last two years the direct taxpayer had had a remission of £18,000,000, whilst the indirect taxpayer had only been remitted £2,000,000. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman was dealing in a fair way as between the direct and indirect taxpayer, and he trusted that next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able by a reduction in expenditure and increased elasticity in the revenue to take the remaining 2d. off tea and give the direct taxpayer some relief as well.
  *MR. WYLIEsaid that he joined in the congratulation which had been showered upon the Chan
  1294
  cellor of the Exchequer in regard to all his Budget proposals with the exception of that referring to a reduction of the tea duty. He desired to repeat what he had told the Committee upon a former occasion, namely, that tea had no nutritive properties whatever, that it was merely a stimulant like alcohol and tobacco, and that in the excessive quantities in which it was used by very many in this country it was a very deleterious luxury. It was, therefore, perfectly absurd to endeavour, as many hon. Members had done, to put this stimulant in the position of a prime necessary of life. Sugar was very much wanting in many of the essential qualities of a nourishing food and it ought to be used very sparingly. The consumption of tea in this country had increased by leaps and bounds. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when proposing to put 2d. on the tea duty last year, stated that the community was "saturated with tea." The consumption increased from 2½ 1bs. per head in 1864 to 6½ 1bs. at the present time. The consumption of sugar had also increased to an enormous extent. A very large amount was used in connection with tea, and it was also used in large quantities as confectionery. This combination of tea and sugar with its concomitants of a little milk, a little butter, and a very large amount of bread, principally white bread, had become to millions of people in this country the staple diet. It was used morning, noon, and night, and according to the Report of the Commission on Physical Training in 1903, and that on Physical Deterioration in 1904, this diet was the cause of an enormous amount of physical deterioration. It was so destitute of nutritive properties that the families living upon it were in a state of semistarvation. The deterioration was specially marked among infants and young children, and the effect remained all through life. Infantile mortality was enormous, and one of the great causes of this was the diet to which he was referring. The teeth of the present generation were inferior to those of their ancestors, and the Report of one of these Commissions stated that there was no doubt whatever that this was due to the absence of proper diet. It had also been

  1295
  clearly shown that ænemia dyspepsia, and many other forms of disease wore brought about by tea and sugar diet. The supporters of the tea and sugar diet stated that if it was bad it was the best the poor could afford. He would have no difficulty in disposing of that argument. It was quite true that the poor could not afford flesh, fish, fowl, and eggs, which were necessary to supply the deficiencies of the other diet, and which the better classes could afford. But in oats, peas, beans, barley, etc., well cooked as porridge and used along with, milk, they had splendid substitutes containing an enormously greater amount of nutriment which could be obtained at a cheaper price. Soups made with beef or mutton, with a large proportion of bone, and containing vegetables, cereals, and pulses, afforded a far better and more nutritious diet, and they could be got for about the same price as the porridge and milk diet to which he was referring.
  He had a large amount of statistical and other information on this subject, but he would not trouble the Committee with it. He would put it in the form of a concrete example. A labouring man with a wife and six children, ranging from two to sixteen years of age, required, when using the tea and sugar diet, to spend 15s. 6d. to 16s. 6d. to maintain them even in a condition of semi-starvation. With the other far more wholesome and nutritious diet that man could maintain his family on from 10s. to 11s. per week. If the income was only £1 per week, what an enormous benefit the saving on food of 5s. per week gave to the family for the purpose of providing better clothing and better housing! The objection to this more wholesome diet was that it required a great deal of skill and patience in the cooking. One advantage of tea was that it could be easily cooked. He had great sympathy for the poorer classes, the exigencies of whose employment compelled them to use the more readily cooked article of diet, but tea and sugar formed the diet of an enormous number of the lazy and thriftless in the community. The education authorities had come to recognise the importance of this subject, and to see that it might be
  1296
  of more practical value to a boy or girl to possess information about the elementary principles of health than to have a smattering knowledge of subjects which would be in after life of little use. There was an anti-tea duty society. He thought an anti-tea diet association would be of more practical benefit, and better still a rational food society, and one of its first duties would be to assign to every article of diet used by the working classes its proper place in dietetics, and to instruct the people as to the best method of using it. By this means hundreds of thousands of families who were in a position of penury would be elevated into a position of comparative affluence. He had endeavoured to show that tea and sugar, instead of being necessaries for the poor, were really luxuries they could not afford except in small quantities, so small that any duties upon them would be to the consumers almost infinitesimal—while those who could afford to use them in larger quantities would also be able to pay the taxes. Under these circumstances the question the Chancellor of the Exchequer should consider was not how he could reduce the tea duty, but how he could increase it to the same proportion is that of the kindred luxuries of alcohol and tobacco. In that way the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to increase the tea duty to 1s. 4d. per 1b., the figure at which it was in 1874. This would open up to future Chancellors of the Exchequer the fine prospect of being able to raise £20,000,000 extra, while at the same time greatly benefiting the health of the community. But, Chancellors of the Exchequer, like ordinary human beings, made their plans in accordance with popular sentiment and the opinion of the time.
  There had been a great deal of nonsense talked about "the free breakfast table." They might as well talk about "the free dinner table," including beer, which was regularly a part of the diet of some people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had sympathised with the false sentiment and remitted the tax on tea to the extent of 25 per cent. Scotch Members would be much better employed in endeavouring to restore their national diet, than in

  1297
  inveighing against the tea and sugar duties. English Members, some of whom had shown great aptitude in adopting Scotch customs such as playing golf and drinking whiskey, in which pastimes they sometimes excelled the Scotch, would do better if they assisted to introduce in their country a solid system of diet among the working classes, similar to that which still obtained among hundreds of thousands of the working people in the North. And Irish Members, if they reformed the diet of their fellow-countrymen, would have the double satisfaction of being dietetic reformers and of bringing the taxation of their country into a more proper proportion, according to their ideas, with that of the adjacent island. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had shown great financial ability in regard to other items in his Budget, but he would have shown statesmanship of a higher order if he had retained the duty on tea at 8d.
  *MR. REAsaid he would not attempt to follow the hon. Gentleman in his very interesting and valuable discourse on food and food taxation. He would confine himself to a more superficial criticism of the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In listening to the not altogether unsatisfactory exposition of his Budget by the Chancellor of the Exchequer he felt animated by sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman because of the extreme disappointment which the right hon. Gentleman must have felt in having to open such a Budget to the House of Commons. He remembered that last year the right hon. Gentleman in his Budget speech said that he looked for relief this year to the reforms which his right hon. friend the Secretary for War was preparing in the Army system of this country. Well, they would have been glad for relief from such reforms, but the real objection to his Budget was not to the Budget itself but to the necessity for the Budget. In the situation in which the right hon. Gentleman found himself from the Estimates already accepted by the House, they could not object very much to his proposals. In his estimate of revenue for the year the right hon. Gentleman
  1298
  had made an extraordinary good shot—almost a bull's eye; but his hit was compounded of misses. The errors he made in regard to Customs and Excise were excusable; but the right hon. Gentleman had not made allowances for the extraordinary social phenomena manifested in the reduction of the consumption of beer and spirits by the inhabitants of this country. He did not agree with the hon. Member for Devon-port that this was to be explained simply by the poverty of the people. On the contrary, he believed that that poverty had been exaggerated on both sides of the House for fiscal purposes. In spite of the statistics of pauperism, unemployment, and consumption of beer and spirits, he did not believe the working classes, as a whole, were suffering from any unprecedented destitution.
  He noted that the consumption of tobacco had increased enormously. The tobacco duty had increased by £600,000—more than £250,000 above the estimate. He should like to repeat the question already put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer:—"How much of that increase was due to stripped tobacco?" The hon. Member for Liverpool had assured the Committee that the import of stripped tobacco had entirely ceased, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was therefore wrong in denying last year that the revenue from tobacco was no longer elastic.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No. I never said that.
  MR. REA: I beg pardon. It may have been the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor the year before who stated that the taxation of tobacco had reached its limit.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What I said last year was that I was advised that to increase the rate of the tax on tobacco would probably reduce the consumption, which might largely affect the revenue. That is not the same thing as saying that the revenue was not elastic.
  *MR. REAsaid he wondered that the right hon. Gentleman, in considering

  1299
  this tax, did not accept the suggestion which the whole tobacco trade made to him last year. The right hon. Gentleman was told that the trade would prefer to have the duty raised all round to 3s. 3d. per 1b. on all tobacco. If the right hon. Gentleman had accepted that suggestion, he might have found a new source of revenue which would have relieved him at present.
  But the chief criticism he had to make on the right hon. Gentleman's proposals was his dealing with the fixed debt charge. That proposal had been met with a chorus of approval and congratulation; but he could only give his congratulation in a very modest degree and to a qualified extent. He asked the right hon. Gentleman why he had not taken the opportunity of dealing with the terminable annuities which fell in next year, and of bringing in a scheme which would have associated his name in a prominent degree with a reform of the finances of the country, and would have conduced very much to the stability of trade? The right hon. Gentleman said that he thought it right to leave that matter to the next Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that was too great a temptation to leave in the hands of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. A bird in the hand was a very tempting thing; and next year the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have in hand £3,000,000 for which the spending Departments and the tax-payer would compete, but which should be applied in reduction of the permanent Debt. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he would so apply it if he held then his present position. He could promise the right hon. Gentleman that they on that side of the House would remind him of his pledge and hold him to it. But human nature was weak; and the weakest form of human nature had lately been incarnated in the shape of recent Chancellors of the Exchequer. What was to prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer next year, when he had this windfall in his hand, using it for another purpose?
  *MR. COHENsaid he associated himself with the congratulations which, without exception, had been showered on the head of his right hon.
  1300
  friend. He could not help thinking—while sitting listening attentively to his right hon. friend—that there was one whose voice, alas, they would never hear any more, who would have associated himself with those congratulations; because if there was one principle more than another which the late Sir William Harcourt pressed on the House of Commons it was the urgent and constant necessity of increasing the resources of this country by the diminution of debt. If he might be pardoned preferring his own opinion he would say that the one feature which more than anything else stood out as deserving of commendation in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, was his resolution and firm determination to ensure the continuance of the diminution of the Debt which had grown up with enormous, though unavoidable, leaps and bounds. Having said that, he would like to add his thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had laid down as to the financial principles which should guide him. Of course they could not expect a Chancellor of the Exchequer— and he did not think the right hon. I Gentleman could, if he would—who had spent many valuable years of his public life at the Admiralty—when he got to the Treasury, which was a purifying atmosphere, to propose to sweep away if not the mischievous, certainly the unhappy, arrangements for increasing the Debt by the system of expenditure for naval works. He was surprised to find, such an authority on finance as his hon. friend the Member for Poplar make the error of very vehemently reproaching former Chancellors of the Exchequer for the additional expenditure in connection with the naval and military works. Then the hon. Member for Poplar had said that while we were reducing the Debt by £7,500,000 we were increasing it by £9,000,000. His (Mr. Cohen's) reason for viewing that expenditure with indulgence was because they had not to depend on a courageous, but an orthodox. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whether the right hon. Gentleman liked it or not that expenditure must be extinguished by Votes in Supply and was beyond the control of any Chancellor of the Exchequer. He, therefore, regretted those additions to the liabilities of the

  1301
  country, because they were created, to a certain extent, clandestinely, or, in other words, not in the straightforward and above-board way of adding to the expenditure of the country by Votes of Supply.
  They had heard a good deal of the way in which the expenditure of the country was mounting up, but personally ho did not look for any great reduction of expenditure. He believed the most powerful influence for reduction was to be found in the propagation of such principles as those laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, as, for example, that of reducing debt by a manner which would not be dependent upon any particular Budget Estimate of any year but would work automatically, and would ensure that when these repealed claims for expenditure were put forward the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "You can have them all, provided that you pay for them by additional taxation." He rejoiced in the restoration of the £28,000,000 to the service of the Debt. They knew it was only reverting to the figures of Sir Stafford Northcote, when the Debt was much smaller and the expenditure very much less lavish than it was now. He thought those two alterations in the consideration of the case might render more, and not less, obligatory the rigid appropriation of a minimum of £28,000,000 at a time of peace, and he believed and hoped, of prosperity.
  The hon. Member for Poplar had called attention to the fact that we were buying Consols and at the same time were selling £1,000,000 worth from the unclaimed dividends. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee he knew that the Government, when it sold and bought the same article at the same time, generally did so at a loss to the Exchequer. He would be glad to hear how the Chancellor of the Exchequer arranged the selling and buying of Consols. If the right hon. Gentleman could do these things for himself, it would be a great advantage to the Exchequer, because he knew that Stock Exchange members gained an advantage when a Minister appeared there both as buyer and seller. The right hon. Gentleman
  1302
  merited congratulations in having framed his Budget not to court popularity, but in such a way as to protect him, not only from himself, but from any future Chancellor of the Exchequer who would be obliged to redeem £1,000,000 of Exchequer bonds a year—thereby strengthening the credit of the country, and rendering it more sound, more stable, because more free from incursion.
  MR. HARWOODventured to say that the national balance-sheet was presented to the House, and through the House to the country, on a system which would not be tolerated by any business firm in the country. On a previous occasion he had been told that Mr. Gladstone had sanctioned the system. If that, were so he was still sorry to say that he differed from it because a great deal of misunderstanding and foolish talk arose from employing a wrong method of rendering a balance-sheet. The national expenditure consisted of two things—they had to keep the nation going and had to pay for its Army and Navy; but the nation ran other businesses, such as the Post Office and the Telegraphs. That expenditure ought not to be included in the national expenditure, but should be kept absolutely distinct. A business man would keep a separate account and only bring the profit or loss into the general account, but in this national balance-sheet they had on one side the Post Office receipts and on the other side they had the expenditure. If the State took over the railways, the expenditure would be jumped up by £100,000,000 and it would be perfectly absurd to call that national expenditure. They were told that the national expenditure was £141,000,000, but £14,000,000 was required for the Post Office and Telegraphs, out of which a profit of £5,000,000 was made, and the expenditure was consequently £127,000,000. They ought to know exactly from year to year the proper amount of the expenditure of the nation. He asserted that there ought to be a separate account for each separate business of the State, a Post Office account, a telegraph account, and so forth. He remembered when the Telegraphs were taken over by the nation, when

  1303
  according to the form of book-keeping the expenditure jumped up nearly £5,000,000, although it had not really done anything of the sort. The nation was now going to take over the telephone system, and he supposed under the present form of book-keeping the expenditure would go up another £5,000,000. It was not generally known that out of the Post Office the nation made £6,000,000, whilst the Telegraphs was a losing business. What was wanted was a separate account for each business so that we could put our finger on the losing businesses and see whether we could not stop or reduce those losses. When we took over the telephones we ought to have a separate account for them so that we could see whether we were losing or gaining. What the nation really wanted in these Estimates was to know what it was spending for national purposes, what were the national purposes on which it was making the expenditure, and whether that expenditure was going up or down in future years. The figures now were quite useless. They wanted to know what the Army, the Navy, and the Civil Service—what all those things which were necessary for running a nation—amounted to altogether; and, secondly, they wanted to know how each separate business was going on. He, therefore, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give those reasonable facilities which were necessary for this purpose in order that a great deal of the confusion and misunderstanding that now existed might be cleared away.
  MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GOREassociated himself with the remarks of the hon. Member who had just sat down as to the manner in which these Estimates had been presented to the House. He heartily congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on his most able but unsensational Budget, especially on the part in which he had allocated so much money to the reduction of the National Debt. He did not altogether agree with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire in regard to the taxation of food. He was glad the right hon. Gentleman had seen his way to taking something off tea, although he himself had a kindly feeling in favour of a remission of the
  1304
  taxation on sugar. He thought, however, the benefits which were derived from a reduction on tea very nearly counterbalanced those which would be obtained from a reduction on sugar. No doubt there would be some heartburning because nothing had been taken off the income-tax. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the income-tax only hit the rich; those whom it hit hardest were that large body of the community, the clerks. Another bad effect of that income-tax was the large amount of capital it drew from new businesses, but under the present conditions he thought the right hon. Gentleman was quite unable to reduce this tax. He hoped, however, that later on in the debate a Motion would be moved in favour of a graduated income-tax. There were a great many arguments in favour of such a departure, and he for one would rejoice to see a difference made in favour of incomes earned as against those derived from investments.
  Another point to which he wished to call attention was the flotation of Consols. When Lord Goschen, in 1888, passed his scheme for the conversion of the National Debt, it was received with great acclaim, but he had never been able himself to see the benefit derived from that transaction. True, the nation derived £1,500,000 taxation from it, but the ultimate result had been that the taxpayer paid less taxation because he received less on his Consols, while the scheme at the same time had had the effect of reducing the stability of the National Debt. The effect of that reduction of the interest payable on the National Debt gave rise to the wildest speculation. The flotations in 1886 amounted to £90,000,000 odd, and two years later to £150,000,000. There was the Argentine boom, followed by the Baring crisis, the South African boom, the cycle boom, and the most fruitful result of the conversion was a plenteous crop of Jabez Balfours, Hooleys, and Whitaker Wrights. He thought that it would be better for the country if Consols were still 2¾ instead of 2½ and he hoped eventually to see the interest raised to the original 3 per cent. They had now Consols, the war loan, and the Irish loan all carrying different rates of interest, and he hoped that some

  1305
  future Chancellor of the Exchequer would at some time come to the House and say that it would be better for the nation and better for the people to revise these matters and put all these loans on the same basis.
  MR. HELMEregretted that the Estimates did not show as large a reduction as the Committee had a right to expect. The House during the war willingly provided the necessary sums for its prosecution, and naturally when it was over they looked for a reduction in the charges for the maintenance of the services. The Prime Minister ought to have insisted upon a more moderate expenditure, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have curbed the extravagance of the various Departments. The Secretary of State for War had held out hopes of far greater economies than had yet been effected. It had been shown to be possible to make a reduction in the charges for the Navy, and why was it not possible in the Army? It was absolutely necessary to adopt the homely idea of cutting one's coat according to the cloth at one's disposal, and the people were not willing to bear as heavy burdens in time of peace as they were in time of war. The process of balancing income and expenditure was an interesting one, but one of the first concerns of the Government should be to consider the extent of that expenditure, and the country had a right to complain that, although there was a slight remission of taxation, the relief was not considerably larger. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had evidently learnt the lesson of his last Budget. The £1,000,000 which the right hon. Gentleman took from unclaimed dividends, instead of being applied to the ordinary expenditure of the year, ought to have gone to the reduction of debt. He would be glad to hear at what price the Consols connected with that operation were sold. With the Sinking Fund proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Opposition would cordially agree. They were anxious to see the national credit stand high, and the Chancellor's proposals tended in that direction. He was glad that the tea duties had been reduced, though he regretted that the amount
  1306
  available did not allow of a larger reduction. He was glad to hear that the drink bill had been diminished, and, although it meant less revenue to the Exchequer, the spending of the money in other directions would doubtless mean greater prosperity and happiness in the country. The everyday life and comfort of the people would be improved by still further reduction of taxation, and to that object he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would turn his attention.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The
  debate may presently be directed more particularly to the tax which is the subject of the Resolution before the Committee, and before the discussion is narrowed down in that way it may be for the convenience of the Committee that I should reply on the general discussion which by consent has taken place on this Resolution. In reference to the tea tax, I would only say that I do not share the fear of my hon. friend below the gangway that the relief now given will not reach even the smallest consumer. I think it will reach him, if not in money, in improved quality of tea; I am hopeful that the competition which exists will be sufficient to secure that the relief should go, either in better quality or in lower price, to the consumers in the country. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire made some interesting observations. No doubt the advantage of tea can be exaggerated, but I do not go so far as my hon. friend in regarding tea as an insidious and deleterious article of food. At any rate, I hope the course apparently recommended upon certain posters now decorating the hoardings will not be followed, and that now the duty is lowered tea will not be made an ordinary article of infants' food. I share the regret—no one more than I—expressed by my hon. friend for North Islington that there is no relief for the income-tax payer in this Budget.
  Unlike the hon. Member for Poplar, I do not consider that the balance in recent years has bean to the disadvantage of the indirect taxpayer. On the contrary, it has been greatly to his advantage, and at the present time the scale is in his favour and presses unfairly against the direct

  1307
  taxpayer. The hon. Member added up the amounts estimated to be received from each addition of taxation, direct or indirect; subtracted one total from the other, and arrived at the result that the indirect taxpayer is contributing a greater proportion than he used to. That is a very misleading method. The hon. Member misleads himself when he makes a calculation on that basis. The only way in which you can make the comparison fairly is to take the respective proportions of the total taxation borne by the two classes of taxpayer. Yesterday in my Budget statement I compared the respective estimated yields of direct and indirect taxes with the actual results, and showed how that, owing to the falling off in the receipts from various sources of indirect taxation, the indirect taxpayer had contributed a smaller, and, consequently, the direct taxpayer a larger, proportion than I had expected. The proportions last year, according to my Budget Estimates, were 51·8 per cent. from in direct taxation, excluding the coal duty and stamps, and 48·2 per cent. from direct taxation. The actual yield was approximately only 50·9 per cent. from indirect and 49·1 per cent. from direct taxation.
  MR. McCRAE: Does that include the amount raised from local taxation?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, and on my Budget Estimate for the present year indirect taxes fall to 49·8 per cent. while direct taxes rise to 50·2 per cent. Although it was not framed to produce that result, my Budget scheme of last year assigned exactly the same proportions to direct and indirect taxation as were estimated for in the year before the war. It will be seen, therefore, that the position of the indirect taxpayer is not less, but more, favourable than before the war, and, in my opinion, it is the direct taxpayer who has the greater right to complain of the present distribution of the burden. If it had been a question this year between the relief of the indirect taxpayer and the relief of the direct taxpayer, I think still, as I thought and said last year, that the latter would have had the first claim to consideration. But I regarded it as my
  1308
  first duty to make a greater provision for the reduction of debt, and when I had taken the sum which I thought sufficient, but not more than sufficient, for that purpose, the money remaining available for the remission of taxation was insufficient to give the income-tax payer relief even to the extent of 1d. I commend that comparison to the attention of the Committee; I think it is a much more accurate one than the method of comparison adopted by the hon. Member for Poplar, and I only need to add, in order to make my views complete upon this subject, that I think, although we have been accustomed to make these comparisons from year to year, and they may serve some useful purpose, that it should always be remembered that the distinction between direct and indirect taxpayers is wholly artificial. Whilst there are indirect taxpayers who do not pay direct taxes, there are no direct taxpayers who do not pay indirect, taxes. My hon. friend the Member for Islington said that amongst those most worthy of consideration when we are recasting our financial arrangements are the small payers of income-tax, upon whom probably, in spite of the abatements, the income-tax falls with sensible force, and who also have to make very great contributions to indirect taxation.
  Hon. Members on the other side of the House have not subjected my Budget proposals to any severe criticisms. They have, in fact, rather directed their remarks over my head or through me to those whom I may call my spending colleagues. They have claimed that I do not exercise a sufficient restraining influence upon them, and when I appear at this Table they say that I do not speak with sufficiently bated breath about the enormous amount of our expenditure, or dwell upon the urgent need for a reduction with the force and with the frequency which have been common with some of my predecessors. I said last year, and I repeated it yesterday, that I see no advantages in taking this course whilst the expenditure is on the increase. I think it is the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to provide for the expenditure which, in his opinion, and in the opinion of the Government, is requisite for the service and safety of the country. I often find it my duty inside this House

  1309
  and outside the House to criticise proposals for expenditure. Sometimes the House listens to me and sometimes it does not. What passes between myself and my colleagues is our affair alone, and I do not pretend to reveal the secrets of our discussions here. I only say that if I did not believe that the expenditure embodied in our Estimates was necessary it would not be possible for me to continue to hold the position that I do. It must be my duty to scan that expenditure closely and to secure for the taxpayer, as far as it is in my power to do so, good value for the money expended, and to see that I do not provide more money than is necessary. I do not, however, regard it as any part of my duty, as the guardian of the national finances, to reject proposals for expenditure, merely because they involve expenditure, without regard to their merits or necessity for the defence or improvement of the country.
  The main point of this Budget is the proposed addition to the fixed debt charge and the measures which I have brought forward for reducing the Unfunded Debt. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not seriously criticised these proposals except from the point of view that good as they are, they would have been better if they had been larger, and the hon. Member for Poplar, speaking from the front Opposition bench with all the authority that that position gives him, came very near to pledging those of his colleagues who act with him that when they came into power they would still further raise the fixed debt charge. I shall be interested in the future to see whether they carry out that pledge should circumstances happen to transfer them to this side of the House, and when the future Chancellor of the Exchequer will have to consider all the questions that are now brought before me. All I can say is that if I find that they are inclined to go further than the course which I have now taken, I do not think they will find a very hostile critic in the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. But, Sir, I think the Committee should know what we are proposing for the reduction of debt. The hon. Member for Poplar in the statement which he made to the Committee fell into an error which has been
  1310
  noticeable in more than one speech made in our debates, namely, that he took no account whatever of the Sinking Fund which is specially attached to the debt created for the works charged to capital account. Sir, that Sinking Fund is on a scale out of all proportion to the Sinking Fund attached to the ordinary debt. Hardly any of that Debt extends over a period of more than thirty years, and the Sinking Fund is such as to reduce the whole of it within that time. I estimate that the Sinking Fund which is provided outside the fixed debt charge and in the Votes of the various Departments was in 1904–5, £1,204,000. I estimate that in the present year it will be £1,683,000, and that sum has to be added to the amount of the Sinking Fund included in the fixed debt charge amounting to £8,428,000. Therefore the total amount available for the extinction of debt in the present year should be no less than £10,111,000. I think that is an adequate provision to make for the redemption of our debt, large as that debt is, and I think I should have been unduly tempting my successors if I had adopted the suggestions which have been pressed upon me from some quarters as to "applying the whole surplus to increasing the fixed debt charge without giving any relief of any kind to the taxpayer. I am all for a high Sinking Fund, and all for a big fixed debt charge, but I think there is some danger in pressing that principle too far, for by so doing you may make the Sinking Fund a burden so great that you may produce a reaction in the minds of the taxpayers which would undo the work you had done, and thus fail to achieve the very result which you wish to accomplish.
  Sir, I will say one word in reply to the hon. Member opposite. All I need to say is that if he would do me the honour to read the second speech I made yesterday in answer to some observations made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, he would see that I dealt with the criticisms he made upon me to-day for not dealing this year with the terminable annuities which fall in next year, and that I have shown that, whatever be the merits of establishing new terminable annuities in preference to reducing debt in other ways,

  1311
  the particular course which he invited me to pursue as being one that would connect my name favourably with the finances of the country would not in my opinion reduce a penny more debt than the other ways which I have adopted. There are some hon. Members to whom the system of terminable annuities has a great charm and mystery, but if they understood more exactly their working they would attach less reverence to that particular method, and they would see that it is only one way which may or may not be the best one of obtaining the result which they desire.
  There are a couple of Questions put by the hon. Member for Poplar as to the sale of Consols held on the unclaimed dividend account. I cannot give the figures because I have not got them with me, but if the hon. Member will put a Question on the Paper I shall no doubt be able to supply the information. No part of those Consols as sold in the market, but they were bought on account of another account by the National Debt Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman also asked for some information as to the yield of the increased duty on stripped tobacco last year. I estimate that I received from that source, after the Budget concession which reduced my proposed duty to one-half, on account of all stocks about £400,000 in the course of the year. The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether it was not the case that the importation of strips had very largely fallen off since the imposition of the duty. Certainly it has. It was part of my contention that the old scale of duties favoured strips unfairly to the disadvantage of whole leaf, and of course, if there was anything in that contention, as I still hold there was, the readjustment of the duty would naturally result in a larger importation of whole leaf and a smaller importation of strips. But apart altogether from that, I should add that the importation of strips is one thing and the consumption of strips in the course of a year is another thing; and the falling off in the consumption of strips in this country was very much less than the falling off in their importation. That is natural, and was the necessary result of the concession which I made
  1312
  for strips already in bond at the date of the introduction of the Budget, because any strips which are now imported are not coming in at 3s. 3d. merely in competition with whole leaf at 3s., but they are strips coming in at 3s. 3d. in competition with other strips at 3s. 1½d.; and, as the House knows, there was a very large stock of strips on hand at the time the new duty was imposed, of which rather more than one-third passed into consumption in the course of the past year, still leaving a very large number in this favoured position. It will not be until they have been very much more largely worked off that we shall be able to say what the result of the duty will be on the future course of the trade.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked at what figure the right hon. Gentleman estimated the receipts from the taxation of last year, and whether it was not a fact that the imported strips had fallen off.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I can get for the hon. Gentleman the whole of the figures. If he tells me that he has refreshed his memory lately as to the fact I will take it from him. There has been an enormous falling off in the importation of strips. This is natural. Why should anyone import strips at 3s. 3d. when there are large stocks in the country ready to come into consumption with a duty of 3s. 1½d.? All the strips at present on hand have a preference of 1½d., and it cannot be expected that strips will be imported as long as the stock of them is sufficient.
  The hon. Member for Bolton raised a question which he has raised before in regard to the form of our national accounts. The hon. Gentleman speaks with great independence, disregarding every authority. He does not mind what Mr. Gladstone said; he holds his own view. He does not mind what the hon. Member for King's Lynn says, although he holds to Mr. Gladstone's idea. There are really two schools of thought on this subject. The hon. Member for Bolton, and those who think with him, would like to assimilate our form of national accounts to those of any business concern. There is a great deal to be said for that, and I have very great sympathy with

  1313
  the desire. I think it does mislead the House, and certainly the country, that the total expenditure is put on one side, and the revenue from the Post Office on the other side, of the accounts, and although profits grow year by year, not perhaps so much as we should like to see them, yet our expenditure is shown in a way which represents it to the taxpayer as if he were paying more taxes. The expenditure due to this cause is lumped in with the total and represented as being due to increased provision for naval and military purposes. I think that is a misconception fostered by the present form of accounts, and if I had to frame the accounts for the first time I do not think I should be inclined myself to frame them in the way they are now. But the present form has high authority behind it. It is the form which our accounts have taken for many years, and there is always a certain disadvantage in altering the form of accounts because it is apt to confuse the comparisons with previous years. Against the opinion of the hon. Gentleman and those who think with him, I have to balance the opinion of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and those who agree with him, that the present form is the right one, and that we ought actually to go further in the same direction. The hon. Member for King's Lynn makes it a complaint that every appropriation-in-aid does not in the same way appear on both sides of the account. We carry out, let me say, the service for some petty loan. We advance £1,000 and receive it back. According to some hon. Gentlemen that ought to be shown in a separate suspense account, and ought not to enter into our balance-sheet at all. According to the hon. Member for King's Lynn the tax-payers will not know the true state of affairs until it is first added to the expenditure and then the revenue, and appears on both sides of the account. Who shall decide when doctors disagree? I am not by any means wedded to the present way of presenting the accounts. I have shown that by adopting the form of circular which was this year placed in the hands of Members when the Budget was introduced, and which I owe to the hon. Member for Exeter, to whom I think the Committee are indebted in this matter. I know that if I attempt to introduce changes without the general
  1314
  consensus of opinion behind them, however desirable in my opinion or that of hon. Gentlemen, there would arise great opposition, and a great expenditure of time would be caused. I think the Public Accounts Committee have some right to be consulted in these matters. Any expression of opinion from them would, of course, always receive my serious attention, and if they thought it well to recommend a change such as the hon. Gentleman proposes I should at any rate feel that that was some further inducement to incur the risk of criticism and of condemnation by the hon. Member for King's Lynn. I hope if we are to have a discussion with special reference, to this tea tax the general discussion may now be allowed to close, so that we may take that special discussion before half-past seven.
  MR. BROADHURST MR. BROADHURST (Leicester) moved that the tea duty be reduced to 4d. instead of 6d. as proposed by the Chancellor the Exchequer. The Committee would be perfectly justified in further reducing the tax, and in bringing it back to the sum at which it stood before the war. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire had dilated at considerable length on the evil effects of tea-drinking, and suggested that Scotch broth should be adopted in place of tea as an article of diet. Scotch broth was no doubt an excellent diet, but it would be inconvenient for working people who used tea because they could carry it with them to their places of employment, where of necessity they must drink it cold. He would not argue this subject at length, but he did contend that tea was an article of necessity in the homes of the people. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that many people who paid indirect taxation did not pay any direct taxation. That was undoubtedly true, but was it not a great misfortune to the people who did not pay direct taxation? Many people would be delighted to be in the position of having to pay income-tax. Ho would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that although the workers did not pay income-tax, they stood in a wholly different relationship to the State from that in which the richer portion of the community stood. The worker every hour

  1315
  of his working life was contributing to the maintenance of the State, and without him the State would soon become a thing of the past. The workers suffered in many ways. In the recent bad times thousands of them suffered from want of employment. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer should again feel inclined to argue that the workers escaped direct taxation he should remember that by their labours they made a great contribution to the maintenance of the State. Therefore, they were entitled to wholly different consideration from that which was given to the people who paid income-tax. He agreed with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the income tax in its present form was a great burden to a large number who now had to pay it. He could bear witness to the fact that many people paid income-tax who really were not liable for it, and who would be exempted if their case was thoroughly examined and properly put before the Income-Tax Commissioners. He hoped that the results of the labours of the Committee appointed last year to consider this great question would be to protect people of limited incomes from the imposition of heavy burdens.
  The tax on tea was now, in some cases, upwards of 100 per cent. on its wholesale value. That was an enormous tax to levy on an article of everyday use, chiefly among the poor, and ought not to be allowed to pass. It ought at least to be brought down to the amount at which it stood in the ante-war period, viz., 4d. per pound. Some years back the right hon. Member for West Bristol, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, made him a conditional promise that he would go into the question of taxing tea on its value. Why not tax tea according to its value instead of according to its bulk or weight? He hoped the Chancellor would consider what could be done in that direction. It might be said that his proposal would reduce the Chancellor's revenue by a million and a half. He was, of course, not called upon to make good the deficiency. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer had graciously consented to select the next Chancellor from the Opposition Benches; but it was rather unkind of him to make arrangements somewhat in advance of the occasion.
  1316
  He could not expect to be that Chancellor, and therefore it was not for him to point out how the Chancellor could recompense himself for reducing the tea duty to 4d. But there was a very simple way. The Exchequer might be recouped by a reduction of expenditure. The Chancellor might turn his attention to his colleagues' extravagance in Pall Mall. It would be a much more difficult thing to reduce the efficiency of the gentlemen there than their extravagant expenditure, because they had a notorious habit of spending money without giving the nation adequate results. He might also consider the question of taxing ground rents. In the Metropolis alone an income of several millions was obtained from this source.
  HON. MEMBERS on the MINISTERIAL Benches: They pay income-tax already.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid they paid income-tax on their gross income, but here would be an additional source to tax. Other sources of revenue could be obtained from pure luxuries and extravagance of living. The whole object of taxation should be to make all classes bear an equal sacrifice according to their position and the means at their disposal.
  Amendment proposed—
  In line 5, to leave out the words "six pence, and insert the words "four pence."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'six pence' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
  *MR. HIGHAMsaid that the hon. Member for Leicester had stated that the duty on certain kinds of tea was 100 per cent. of its value; but the hon. Gentleman had understated the case. It was considerably over 100 per cent. The tea most used by the working people was sold wholesale at from 4½d. to 5d. per 1b, and on that a duty of 8d. per 1b. had been paid last year. But that was not the only pressure put on the working classes, for they had to pay duty on the tea, and then also the percentage of profits on the whole price of the goods which had been increased in price by the duty. That was one of

  1317
  the evils of all indirect taxation; and a man who bought a tea originally sold at 4½d. per pound had to pay for it 15d. or 16d. per pound, whereas the man who bought a high-class tea at 4s. per pound paid a much smaller proportion of the duty compared with the working man. If some hon. Members would only visit the towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire they would see hundreds and thousands of tins containing tea being carried to the workpeople two and three times daily, which showed the extent to which the beverage was consumed, and they would realise that a duty of even 6d. per pound was exceedingly heavy upon them. To impose the same duty on every quality of tea might be paralleled by levelling the same tax on every house in a town of, say, 20,000 inhabitants—whether it was a poor man's house or a rich man's house with three or four times the accommodation. He did not believe in what was called the relative proportion of direct and indirect taxation, for indirect taxation always carried with it a double burden, as it involved a taxation on profits as well as on original cost.
  MR. BRIGGsaid it had been suggested that the tax on tea should be graduated according to the price paid for it. To a large number of people tea had now become an article of luxury, and many paid as much as four or five shillings a pound for it. A graduated tax should be put upon tea, and the burden of the tax would then fall on the shoulders of those who were well able to bear it.
  SIR JOHN GORSTthought the Amendment could not possibly be agreed to because the finances of the country would not bear it. It seemed to him that the right state of things in regard to indirect taxation would be reached when they got back to the condition prevailing before the war, and when there was no taxation on articles of universal consumption except such as were regarded as a luxury. He was afraid that he must class tea as a luxury, and he was of opinion that the quantity of tea and bread now given
  1318
  to children contributed very largely to the physical deterioration of the rising generation. The habit of drinking tea and eating bread and butter had lately been condemned by every hygienic authority. One of the causes of the great increase of insanity in Ireland was the practice of feeding children with tea and bread and butter in that part of the country. Tea and bread and butter did not furnish the materials required for the building up of bone in children. He did not put sugar in the same category. It was true that they could not feed a child on sugar alone, but in conjunction with other articles it was an extremely wholesome food, and he hoped to see the day when it would be untaxed, as it was in former days. No doubt it was an article of general consumption which in times of emergency, such as war and when the whole population of the country was called upon to make a sacrifice, might be taxed, but in times of peace it ought to be the object of every Government to free sugar from taxation as early as it could possibly be done, having regard to the due maintenance of finance. It was no part of the duty of a Government to say to the country what luxuries should be indulged in. That decision must be left to the people and whether the Government approved or not of the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, or tea, their feelings should not influence their minds on the subject of taxation. They might look to the taxation of those articles as reasonable incidents in the raising of the Revenue. He hoped the tax on tea might be further reduced as soon as the financies of the country would permit.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid even a small amount of duty fell upon the consumer. He did not agree with the view of reducing the tea duty instead of the sugar duty. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer had granted a reduction in the sugar tax he would have conferred an enormous advantage upon the country. He believed that, owing to the Sugar Convention, sugar held a totally different position to that which it held before. The Continental countries willingly contracted themselves out—
  *THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The question of sugar does not arise on this Amendment. The hon. Member must confine himself to tea
  MR. KEARLEYunderstood that by the arrangement of the previous night a general discussion was to be allowed.
  *THE CHAIRMANpointed out that this Amendment must be disposed of before a general discussion could take place.
  MR. CAWLEYsaid he desired to argue that sugar had a much greater claim to reduction than tea but in deference to the Chairman's ruling he would not continue his argument. He would at another time point out to the Chancellor the Exchequer the grave danger to the country likely to accrue if the sugar tax were not reduced.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)said that owing to the exigencies of the case the Government was unable to accept the Amendment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the question of an ad valorem duty on tea had been raised by the hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion. He did not think the hon. Gentleman was aware how great would be the difficulty in imposing an ad valorem duty. They heard a great deal of comment regarding the high ad valorem rate which the tax bore to the value of the article. He did not think the way in which that argument was used was always honest or frank because he did not know among those using it any one who was in favour of an ad valorem duty. He recently received a very influential deputation of the trade which touched lightly on the proportion of the duty to the value, and he put the question to them direct—would they like him to impose an ad valorem duty? They did not give him a definite answer at first but told him it would be impossible to collect such a duty, and subsequently they begged of him
  1320
  with all the emphasis at their command not to do it. They pointed out that it tended to penalise the higher class article; to force the consumption of the lower grade and to restrict the consumption of the higher grade teas. He did not know whether much tea was sold at the prices I named by the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he could assure him that it was by no means a universal fact that poor people or the working classes drank the worst tea. Some time ago he had occasion to examine some Irish budgets which were familiar to members of the Congested Districts Board, and he wanted the amounts respectively spent on tea and tobacco. There was no estimate set out of the quantities, and he consulted an hon. Member from Ireland as to what he thought would be a fair price to charge upon the tea which was consumed in that country. The hon. Member replied that he could not answer the question off-hand, but it might be taken for certain that the poor Irish peasant generally drank a good tea and would not be put off with poor rubbish. Accordingly an ad valorem duty might not result in bringing relief to that particular class to which the hon. Gentleman was anxious to give it. But even if it were not open to that objection there would be an enormous difficulty in imposing a duty in that form. Sales of tea no longer took place as formerly in the sale rooms. Some of the great distributors now had their own tea gardens and imported their own tea. In 1834–35 there was an attempt to graduate the duty and there were three rates, 1s. 6d., 2s. 2d., and 3s. respectively, but the discrimination then in force would not be applicable in the circumstances of to-day. That attempt to graduate the tea duty really broke down because the Customs authorities of that time found it impossible properly to distinguish between the different teas, and whatever theoretical attractions it might have to the hon. Gentleman it would prove to be harassing and annoying to the trade. It would require them to intrust an enormous discretion to the Customs authorities which could not be exercised without criticism, and might in the end result in the poor people having to pay a far higher price for their tea than they did now.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 249; Noes, 184. (Division List No. 131.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets)

  Lawson, Hn. H L W. Mile End)

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel.

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawson, JohnGrant(York. N. R.

  Allsopp, Hon. George.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lee, Arthur H(Hants., Fareham

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Arrol, Sir William

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham)

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Long, Rt Hn Walter (Bristol, S.)

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Fellowes, Hon Ailwyn Edward

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs)

  Lowther, C. (Gumb., Eskdale)

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

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

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch)

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Gardner, Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Garfit, William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh, W

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

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

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Bigwood, James

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Bill, Charles

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H E (Wigt'n)

  Bingham, Lord

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Boulnois, Edmund

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesb'ry

  Milvain, Thomas

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Greene, Sir E W. (Bury Edm'nds)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Bowles, Lt. Col. H. F (Middlesex)

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Brassey, Albert

  Gretton, John

  Moore, William

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morpeth Viscount

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Butcher, John George.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Morrison, James Archibald

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

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

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

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Mount, William Arthur

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray, C.

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Cayzer, Sir Charles William

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords N W

  Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Myers, William Henry

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A (Worc.

  Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hoult, Joseph

  Percy, Earl

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

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Coddington, Sir William

  Howard, J. (Midd. Tottenham)

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Colston, Chas. E. H. Athole

  Hunt, Rowland

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Compton, Lord Alwyne

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Purvis, Robert

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Kerr, John

  Randles, John S.

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Keswick, William

  Rankin, Sir James

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rasch, Sir Frederic Garne

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Renwick, George

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Denny, Colonel

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Spear, John Ward

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stanley, Hon. Rt. Lord (Lancs.)

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stroyan, John

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

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wodehouse, Rt Hn E. R. (Bath)

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

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

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Samuel, Sir Harry (S Limehouse

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson.

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tuff, Charles

  Younger, William

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H (Renfrew)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Turnour, Viscount

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E. H (Sheffield

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

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

  Viscount Valentia.

  Smith, Rt Hn. J Parker (Lanarks.

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton and. Lyne

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

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lloyd-George, David

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lough, Thomas

  Allen, Charles P.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Lundon, W.

  Ambrose, Robert

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Field, William

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark N E

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  M'Crae, George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Flynn, James Christopher

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  M'Kean, John

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Black, Alexander William

  Furness, Sir Christopher

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Blake, Edward

  Gilhooly, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Boland, John

  Gladstone, Rt Hn Herbert John

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Brigg, John

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Moss, Samuel

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Grant, Corrie

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Murnaghan, George

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Murphy, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Hammond, John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Burns, John

  Harcourt, Lewis

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rurt, Thomas

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Harwood, George

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Caldwell, James

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Helme, Norval Watson

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

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Crean, Eugene

  Horniman, Frederick John

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Dowd, John

  Crombie, John William

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Crooks, William

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.

  Cullinan, J.

  Johnson, John

  O'Mara, James

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Joicey, Sir James

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea

  Perks, Robert William

  Delany, William

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Joyce, Michael

  Price, Robert John

  Dillon, John

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Rea, Russell

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Reddy, M.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Duffy, William J.

  Kitson, Sir James

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Labouchere, Henry

  Roche, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Lamont, Norman

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ellice, Capt E C (S Andrw's Bghs

  Langley, Batty

  Runciman, Walter

  Emmott, Alfred

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

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

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Shackleton, David James

  1324

  1325

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick, B.)

  Tennant, Harold John

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Thomas, Sir A (Glamorgan, E.

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  Sheehy, David

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

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Tillett, Louis John

  Wilson, Fred. W (Norfolk, Mid.)

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Toulmin, George

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

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Ure, Alexander

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Woodhouse, Sir J T (Huddersf'd

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wallace, Robert

  Young, Samuel

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C R. (Northants

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Stanhope, Hon Philip James

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Broadhurst and Mr.

  Sullivan, Donal

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Channing.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Main Question again proposed.
  MR. CAWLEY, in calling attention to the effect of the sugar duty, pointed out that at the time of the imposition of that duty Continental countries had of their own free will contracted themselves out of certain industries because by giving bounties they had so raised the price of sugar within their own boundaries that it was impossible for their people to go into businesses which had wonderfully thrived in this country. Under these circumstances, the position with regard to the sugar duty now was very different compared with that at the time of its imposition, and he could not see how our confectionery manufacturers could carry on their business unless the sugar duty was taken off or the Convention denounced. As the Convention could not at present be denounced, he submitted that the duty ought to be repealed. The confectionery trade had grown up under a system of protection of the very best kind—protection at other people's expense. The bounties had enabled our manufacturers to obtain their raw material cheaply, and the consumer also had benefited. But the Germans were now relieved of their bounties; the price to the German consumer was as low as in this country, and, Germany being the largest grower of beet sugar, the German manufacturers would have the advantage which accrued to the producers of the raw material. The result, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer saw his way to repeal the duty, would doubtless be to reduce our confectionery trade by at least one-half. All British manufacturers wanted were even, terms, but these they would not have under existing circumstances. The reduction of the sugar duty might well be advocated
  1326
  on the ground that sugar was a food of the poor, but for the moment he urged that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should give his attention to the aspect of the case as it affected the confectionery trade, otherwise some thousands of hands might be thrown out of employment.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The speech to which we have just listened is a remarkable one as coming from that side of the House. The hon. Member practically states that the trade for which he is expressing anxiety has been protected, and that unless that protection is renewed large numbers of workmen will be thrown out of employment.
  MR. CAWLEYregretted he had not made himself better understood. What he said was that the industry had been protected at other people's expense, and what he wanted was that the raw material should be brought into the country duty free, the raw material not being grown here, in order that our manufacturers might be on equal terms with other people.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think the hon. Member's explanation corrects my statement to any appreciable extent. He ascribes the prosperity of the trade to the fact that it was protected. He says it was at other people's expense. Undoubtedly it was—partly at the expense of the foreigner and partly at the expense of other industries in this country. The hon. Member further says that the trade cannot continue to exist in any condition of prosperity unless either the Convention is denounced or the present duty of 4s. 2d. per hundredweight repealed.

  1327
  Of course, the denunciation of the Convention will bring no advantage whatever to the trade unless it results in the restoration of the protection which the ton. Member desires.
  MR. CAWLEY: At other people's expense.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN:We have often tried to find out what really was the point of view of hon. Members opposite in regard to bounties, and from the hon. Member at any rate we have now had a clear statement. He would consider it the duty of any British Government to stimulate the granting of bounties by foreign countries. If bounties are good for raw sugar they are equally good for confectionery. And why should not the consumer of the articles have the advantage of the bounty? And why should not the manufacturer on the Continent have the advantage which the producer of the raw material has hitherto had? You cannot defend these bounties in regard to one article without defending them in regard to all articles, and it would be interesting to see the condition of trade which would be introduced if the hon. Member had his way, and extended among our competitors a general system of bounties upon all goods which compete with our home-made productions. The hon. Member has rightly said that the Convention cannot be denounced at present. I do not think it is likely to be denounced at any time, unless it has so efficiently done its work that there is not much probability of a recurrence of bounties. That being so, the hon. Member says the confectioners cannot live unless the sugar duty is repealed. Why not? What trade are they going to lose? Their export trade does not suffer. They get a drawback when they export, and are thereby put in the same position for exporting as if there were no duty. Then it is their home trade. But why? This duty is not confined to articles manufactured in this country. Imported confectionery has to pay the same duty as has been charged on the sugar used in the manufacture of confectionery here. Accordingly, as far as the home trade is concerned, the British manufacturer of
  1328
  confectionery is on those equal terms which the hon. Member desires, and which he in the same breath declares are not sufficient to preserve the industry from extinction; whilst in regard to the foreign trade, by reason of the drawback, he is at no disadvantage whatever. The hon. Member says that our home manufacturer will be at a great disadvantage because an enormous amount of sugar is produced in Germany, whereas none is grown here. But he does not press that to the logical conclusion to which I should have thought his protectionist theories would have driven him, and suggest that the same encouragement should be given to the producer of beet in this country as has existed in Germany. What he does suggest is that the growing of sugar by Germany will give the German manufacturers of confectionery an unfair advantage in competition with our own manufacturers unless the duty is removed. The idea that a particular price of Germany is a world's price is rather a peculiar one, and the hon. Member will find little commercial or economic authority for that theory.
  MR. CAWLEYmade a remark which was inaudible in the Press Gallery
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member should not interrupt with an observation which is entirely irrelevant. The hon. Member's argument was that the price would be lower in Germany because Germany was a sugar-producing country. There is nothing to prevent anybody buying German sugar, and the fact that there is a prohibition of the importation of sugar from the Argentine or Russia does not in the least affect the transfer of sugar from Germany to this country or the fact that the price of sugar is a world's price. It is not relevant to the hon. Member's argument, which was confined to German sugar. It does not affect my statement about the world's price because, although Russian and Argentine sugar does not come here at this moment, it does enter into the world's supply and consumption, and therefore does enter into the world's price. The hon. Member opposite seemed to be under the impression that Germany, unlike ourselves, had no duty upon

  1329
  sugar. ["No."] The hon. Member is also mistaken if he thinks that the duty on sugar is higher in this country than in Germany. If he entertains any idea of that kind he is completely mistaken. Our duty is 4s. 2d., while the duty in Germany is 7s. 1½d.
  MR. CAWLEY: But the German manufacturers get a drawback.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Our manufacturers, we are told, cannot compete with the German manufacturers of sugar because they are called upon here to pay a duty of 4s. 2d. which is charged upon all imported confections of sugar, whilst in Germany the manufacturer have to pay 7s. 1½d. I am aware that there is a drawback given on the export of sugared goods from Germany exactly as there is an export duty here, but so far as it enters into competition at all for trade purposes the duty is lower here to-day than it is in Germany. I think I have said enough to show that whatever may be said either for or against a revision of the sugar duties it cannot be urged upon the grounds which the hon. Member opposite has put forward.
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never persuade any class of manufacturers that to tax their raw material, whatever drawbacks were allowed, left them in as good a position as if it had not been taxed. The German Government was at present endeavouring to arrange for a system of drawbacks to enable English cloth to be imported to make German jackets, but it was found almost impossible, and when it came to be worked out the difficulties of ascertaining how much of the raw material entered into the composition of any particular kind of goods loft an opening for the manufacturers to defraud the Government as was done largely in the United States. The difficulty of determining how far the raw material entered into the article left an open field either for defrauding the Government or for putting the manufacturer to a loss which the Government did not compensate him for by means of the drawbacks. Apart, how
  1330
  ever, from the question of cost, the very great inconvenience and trouble were always hampering conditions to the manufacturer. The fact could not be ignored that sugar had a strong claim for consideration, as not only the food of the people, but also as the raw material not of one industry, but, as had been said over and over again in the House, of many industries. It entered into the production of many articles which did not usually come before them, and which most of them did not know had sugar in their composition. He came up in the train the other day with a rather I rabid supporter of the Government who told him that while he considered sugar a proper instrument by which to tax the consumer, it was a most abominable thing to tax it as the raw material of his industry, for he happened to be a manufacturer of an article of which sugar was a raw material. That sort o f thing was not confined to one Party. People did not like taxation which hit themselves. With regard to the bounties the position was this: The sugar-using industries of this country had had the advantage and the disadvantage—he would call it a doubtful advantage—of protection, and now that they were brought into open competition with the rest of the world they were to some extent at a disadvantage. There was no doubt that every protected industry, though it might enjoy some advantages, was, like a hothouse plant brought into the open air, weaker for the conditions under which it had lived. It was, however, a protection which at all events had not been to the disadvantage of the consumer in this country. Having had that advantage taken away, their case was one of peculiar hardship that their raw material should be thus doubly hit, and this made the tax on sugar one to be removed as soon as possible.
  He did not see why there should not be issued at the time of the Budget a Paper showing in a very brief form of profit and loss the accounts of the Post Office. It should always be recognised that part of the expense of the Post Office was interest on capital and depreciation.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: A Return is published giving the information desired.
  MR. THEODORE TAYLOR: In the shape of a balance-sheet?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No; as a Return giving the information.
  *MR. THEODORE TAYLORsaid he suggested the Return should take the form of an annual balance-sheet and profit and less account of that Department. It would be a very useful thing, and prevent misconception on the part of the public and the mixing up of one fund with another. Might he make another practical suggestion which would prevent a great amount of misconception, and which would, he believed, tend to economy—that economy which they all professed to desire and so few really tried to promote? The Commissioners of Inland Revenue, when issuing the demand note for income-tax, might give upon it in small epitomised form the amount of the national expenditure to which the taxpayers were called upon to contribute their quota. He had long thought that it would be a most useful thing if the taxpayers were informed in this way of the amounts required for the Army and Navy, education, the Civil Service, and other things. This would bring home to the taxpayers the real objects for which the money was paid, in the same way as was done by local authorities. He did not see that the Imperial Government should be above taking a lesson in this matter from the local authorities. This information could be given without incurring any additional cost. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the Committee that afternoon that he was not personally responsible for the Army and Navy expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman said he saw no advantage in the homilies which Chancellors of the Exchequer sometimes gave while expenditure was increasing. The hon. Member would like a homily from the Chancellor of Exchequer when expenditure was being decreased, and he thought it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman would nail his colours to the mast in the way former Chancellors had done. He hoped if the right hon. Gentleman was still in office next year he would not only give them a homily but an illustration in the reduction of expenditure, because though, he
  1332
  might not be responsible for military I expenditure he was an important member of the Government which was responsible. The right hon. Gentleman had shown pluck this year in defying the strong feeling not only in the House but in the country in favour of the reduction of the income-tax. He urged the right hon. Gentleman to show a little more pluck and to put more pressure on his colleagues, so that when he brought in another Budget next year he would be able to preach an economical policy and to give better illustrations than he had done this year.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he agreed with the hon. Member opposite that there was nothing more important than that the public accounts should be made intelligible to the ordinary person. They were not so at present. The two suggestions made by the hon. Member would not tend to simplify them. The first suggestion was that the whole of the public expenditure should be printed on the income-tax paper in anepitomised form. The House would remember that the income-tax paper was issued in the autumn of each year and the total expenditure of the country was not and could not possibly be known until March 31st following. Therefore the suggestion of the hon. Member was like a request for six months further credit. If they were to wait until they got the total expenditure they would not pay until March 31st what they ought to pay before December 31st. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the revenue and expenditure of the Post Office should be put in the form of a balance-sheet. A balance sheet did not show revenue and expenditure; it was a statement of assets and liabilities, which was an entirely different thing. One of the assets of the Post Office was the monopoly right of carrying letters and sending telegrams. That a was good asset, but would the hon. Gentleman suggest the amount at which it should be valued? He submitted that it was impossible for the Post Office to give that kind of balance-sheet. He thought that what the hon. Gentleman meant was a profit and loss account. That was really published already, because there was an account with the receipts on one

  1333
  side and the outlays on the other. It was within his knowledge that the telephone department of the Post Office made an annual loss while the National Telephone Company made a profit. The remarkable thing with regard to the Post Office accounts was that the real effectual revenue came not from the telegraph and telephone sixpences, shillings, and half-crowns, but from the magic penny.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINindicated assent.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid he was glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer cheered that. He would recommend the penny to the right hon. Gentleman as a great engine of taxation. Any Chancellor of the Exchequer who knew how to use it in the same sort of spirit as it had been used by the Post Office would obtain a large increase of revenue.
  He did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been quite fair in his treatment of the sugar question. The right hon. Gentleman asked how it was that the sugar manufacturers were suffering and how they could not manufacture now as before. For the simple reason that sugar had doubled in price. The same sugar which formerly cost his constituents 1¼d. per 1b. now cost 2½d. With the raw material of this industry so largely increased, it followed as a matter of course that the industry could not be conducted with the same success as before. The remarkable thing was that although it was said the increase in price was due to the shortage of crops the price had not gone up, but had gone down in the other countries which were parties to the Sugar Convention. It was only here, the great sugar market of the world, that the price had gone up. How could they talk of the world's price when they excluded from this market the sugar produced by countries like Spain, Russia, Denmark, the Argentine, and San Domingo? The Argentine was a country from which previously we obtained large quantities of sugar. When a monopoly was given, as in fact was done in this case, this mischief arose. That was what had been the greatest element, in his belief, in the rise in the price of sugar. That was why the confectionery and jam industries had seriously suffered.
  1334
  In his own constituency the import of sugar had enormously declined. Not only was sugar dearer, but a great deal of work had been lost to those who used to unload the sugar and handle it afterwards. It would be an affectation to doubt whether the export of confectionery and other cognate products had not been affected by the Brussels Convention. The right hon. Gentleman knew that by this Convention we had been made slaves of the Brussels Commission composed for the most part of foreigners. It should not be forgotten that an appeal was made by the Government against what we considered the totally unfair methods in which articles manufactured in this country, into the composition of which sugar entered, were treated when exported to the contracting countries. He hoped that that appeal would be successful. The cruel loss to the sugar industries of this country was not due so much to the tax this House had given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as that we had given a monopoly of the greatest market for sugar in the world to the co-signatories of the Convention, and the result had been most disastrous. He thought that sugar was a very important article of food. It was well known that in cane sugar producing countries every animal, from man downwards, got fat, round, and rubicund when the new crop of sugar came in. The right hon. Gentleman might keep his sugar tax as long as it was necessary for revenue, but he regretted the fetters by which we had unfortunately bound ourselves in consequence of the Sugar Convention, which was contrary to every sound principle of sound finance.
  MR. O'MARAsaid he would not enter into any discussion of the fiscal aspect of the Sugar Convention. What concerned him was the sugar tax, which was the subject more strictly before the Committee. This sugar duty was imposed by a former Chancellor of the Exchequer as a merely temporary tax, which was to be taken off as soon as the war was over. At the time of the impost he himself protested against the increased burden which it would put upon the people of Ireland. He protested all the more strongly against the tax because it had been

  1335
  imposed in order to carry through the South African War—a war waged against the most sacred sentiment which Irishmen possessed, a war against the liberties of a free people. If this matter was brought to a division he would vote against the tax. Earlier in the evening there was a discussion as to the proportion which direct taxation bore to indirect taxation. It was pointed out that the proportion of indirect to direct-taxation was 49 per cent. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in replying, did not tell the Committee that the system of taxation imposed on Irishmen had very different results, because it worked out that the proportion in Ireland of direct to indirect taxation was 37 per cent. That had the result of putting an extreme burden on the poorer population of Ireland. It was time that some Irishmen should protest against such a system of taxation which was largely responsible for the unfortunate economic condition of that country.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he wished to know whether any consideration had been given by the Cabinet to the great question of the reform of local taxation. Every four years the Agricultural Rates Continuance Act was passed, which was a great injustice to urban taxpayers.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That question is not before the Committee.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYsaid he wanted to know whether they were to have every four year a continuance of those Bills to which there was so much objection from hon. Members on that side of the House, and whether—
  *THE CHAIRMANsaid this did not come within the four corners of the Finance Bill. It was not even a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but came in the province of the Local Government Board.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYbegged to think it must be in the province of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He would not persist in his arguments, but he thought it a surprising ruling.
  *THE CHAIRMANpointed out that a Bill was already before the House and was under the control of the Local Government Board.
  MR. GEORGE WHITELEYhad no desire to argue the question, but would ask whether the whole matter of the reform of our local taxation was under the consideration of the Cabinet, and whether there was any prospect of this great question being dealt with.
  *THE CHAIRMAN: That is a matter for the Prime Minister.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSsaid the present tax on sugar was a serious impost on the food of the people. The money spent on the country had somehow to be raised, and vari us taxes had to be devised. They could not judge in a single year what would be the effect of the Convention upon the supply of sugar in years to come. Already in various cane-growing countries there had been a great stimulus, and they might expect to have sugar supplied in increasing quantities and at a decreasing cost. With regard to Germany—
  THE CHAIRMANsaid the hon Member was not entitled to discuss the subject of the Sugar Convention. He was entitled to refer to it so far as it influenced the price of sugar in this country, but to go into the whole question would not be relevant to the Question before the Committee.
  MR. ALEXANDER CROSSexplained that he was only following an argumen raised by an hon. Member who had taken a wrong line. He thought the Government were to be congratulated on the liberal way in which they had dealt with the tea tax. There were a great many persons in his constituency upon whom the burden of the income-tax pressed very hardly. He, for one, sympathised with the income-tax payer in that he had not been chosen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a subject for relief. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, in his wise discretion, given the

  1337
  relief to the consumers of tea, and they all looked to him to make further remissions when he had further funds in hand.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes, 247; Noes, 168. (Division List No. 132.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Denny, Colonel

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Dewar, Sir T. R. (Tower Hamlets

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th

  Auson, Sir William Reynell

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks. N R

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred. Dixon

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham

  Arrol, Sir William

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

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

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

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

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Lowe, Francis William

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W. (Leeds

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

  Finlay, Sir R. B. (lnv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Fison, Frederick William

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  MacIver, David (Liverpool)

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Forster, Henry William

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Galloway, William Johnson

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Bigwood, James

  Gardner, Ernest

  M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W.

  Bill, Charles

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Bingham, Lord

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

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

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

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriesshire

  Bowles, Lt.-Col H. F (Middlesex)

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn)

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Brassey, Albert

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Milvain, Thomas

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'rySEdm'nds

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)

  Bull, William James

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)

  Moore, William

  Butcher, John George

  Gretton, John

  Morpeth, Viscount

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

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Morrell, George Herbert

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

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Mount, William Arthur

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire)

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.)

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords. N W

  Myers, William Henry

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

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Chapman, Edward

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Clive, Captain Percy A.

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

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

  Hoult, Joseph

  Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversham

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Percy, Earl

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Hunt, Rowland

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Jameson, Major J. Eustace

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.

  Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Purvis, Robert

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Pym, C. Guy

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Kerr, John

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Cust, Henry John C.

  Keswick, William

  Randles, John S.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Rankin, Sir James

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Renwick, George

  Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyneside

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

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker (Lanarks

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton and. Lyne

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

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

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Spear, John Ward

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk

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

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.)

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

  Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

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

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Stroyan, John

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-

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

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Samuel, Sir Harry S. (Limehouse

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Younger, William

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Tuff, Charles

  Viscount Valentia.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Vincent, Col. Sir C E H (Sheffield)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Kean, John

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Ffrench, Peter

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Allen, Charles P.

  Field, William

  Mooney, John J.

  Asher, Alexander

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Austin, Sir John

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Murphy, John

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Gilhooly, James

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nolan, Joseph, (Louth, South)

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Norman, Henry

  Black, Alexander William

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Boland, John

  Harcourt, Lewis

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Brigg, John

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Harwood, George

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

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Burns, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Burt, Thomas

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Caldwell, James

  Higham, John Sharpe

  O'Dowd, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.

  Cawley, Frederick

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  O'Malley, William

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Johnson, John

  Perks, Robert William

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joicey, Sir James

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea

  Rea, Russell

  Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Reddy, M.

  Crean, Eugene

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Cremer, William Randal

  Joyce, Michael

  Rickett, J. Compton.

  Crombie, John William

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Crooks, William

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

  Roche, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Kilbride, Denis

  Runciman, Walter

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Kitson, Sir James

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Delany, William

  Labouchere, Henry

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

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galw'y

  Lamont, Norman

  Shackleton, David James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Langley, Batty

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Dillon, John

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Sheehy, David

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Slack, John Bamford

  Duffy, William J.

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Lloyd-George, David

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Elibank, Master of

  Lundon, W.

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Ellice, Capt. E. C. (SAndrw'sBghs

  Lyell, Charles Henry

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

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Stanhope, Hon. Philip James

  Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

  M'Crae, George

  Sullivan, Donal

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  1340

  1341

  Tennant, Harold John

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Md.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

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

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

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wilson, J. W . (Worcestersh. N.)

  Toulmin, George

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Young, Samuel

  Ure, Alexander

  Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  Wallace, Robert

  Wills, Sir Frederick (Bristol, N.

  O'Mara and Mr. MacVeagh.

  Resolution to be reported to-morrow to the House.
  Committee to sit again to-morrow.
  Sitting suspended at 7.28.

EVENING SITTING.

  HITCHIN AND DISTRICT GAS BILL [By ORDER.]
  As amended, considered.
  MR. JOHN BURNSsaid he respectfully protested against the way in which the local authority of Hitchin had allowed this Bill to go through without protesting in the only way that was open to them, namely, by dividing on the Second Reading as a protest against the way in which this Bill had been treated by the promoters. For the first time for twenty-five years the House of Commons had denied to a big corporation a compulsory purchase clause, and thus denied to the people of Hitchin in the future the right to have their own municipal gas.
  MR. HUDSONsaid that he had withdrawn his opposition to this measure because he found half the local authority of Hitchin were in favour of leaving matters as they were, and a very large proportion of the inhabitants of the town were still more in favour of it. It was under those circumstances that ho withdrew his opposition to the Third Reading of this Bill and, if what the hon. Member for Batter-sea said was true, then all he could say was that the fault lay with the people of Hitchin and not with him.
  Bill to be read the third time.

  IRISH NATIONAL TEACHERS' PENSION FUND.
  MR. HAMMONDsaid in rising to move the Motion which stood in his name he could only regret that the fortune of the ballot had not placed it in more competent hands, He would, however, content himself with a brief review of the question, and his colleague the hon. Member for West Kerry, who was an authority on this matter, would make it quite plain that a serious wrong existed which ought to be remedied, and that the responsibility rested upon the Government to restore this fund to a state of solvency. He only gave expression to the general trend of public opinion in Ireland when he said that the national school teachers in Ireland deserved well of their country. Their work was highly appreciated, and exercised a large and permanent influence for good, and they themselves commanded the respect of the people. There had been, no doubt, in recent years a very great improvement in the position of the national school teachers, who had gained in credit and repute in the same ratio as education had been more highly prized, but under the present conditions they were unable to furnish for themselves adequate provision for their old age, when they could no longer carry on remunerative work. That was the disability under which the national school teachers of Ireland laboured. He contended that in this matter the Government had failed to do its duty. In the year 1879, under the auspices of two distinguished statesmen—Sir Stafford Northcote, at that time the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for West Bristol, then Chief Secretary for Ireland—the National School Teachers Pensions Bill became law. Under the operation of that Act, £1,300,000 Fund became the nucleus of the pension fund, and when it came into force inducements

  1343
  were held out to the national school teachers to join it, and they were officially informed of the advantages that would accrue, and the amount of contribution they would have to make. The national school teachers, having devoted the best years of their lives to the service of the country, found themselves with not enough to provide for themselves and their families. They were public servants and were entitled to adequate and appropriate pensions on retirement. They deserved well of their country, and what they asked was that the maximum pension should be two-thirds of the maximum salary; that the full pension be optional for men after thirty-five years service and for women after thirty years service; that in case of enforced retirement owing to disablement in body or mind a male teacher should receive a pension of £20 a year, with £1 a year added for every year's service, and a female teacher should receive a pension of £15 per annum, with 13s . 4d. a year added for each year of service; and that all the disablement pensions should be provided by the State.
  *MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLsaid this was no small and unimportant question, whatever it might appear to those who had not considered it. Over £2,000,000 of Irish money was involved, and the provision for the old age of 12,000 Irish national school teachers was concerned. Education in Ireland was a question which was receiving the greatest attention in that country, and unless sufficient money was provided and primary education placed on a proper basis, it was useless to expect there could be any advantage to the country by the most fanciful and best planned schemes. The question of pensions for the teachers had in the past received less attention than it deserved. In 1879 an Act was passed which for the first time established a system of pensions for Irish national school teachers. Previous to that the teachers received on retirement one year's salary for every ten years service, which amount came from the Imperial Treasury. When, however, the Act of 1879 was passed, a sum of £1,300,000 was taken from the Irish Church Fund as a nucleus for the fund, and the British Treasury then
  1344
  ceased to contribute for eighteen years after 1879. A British actuary who had been appointed by the Treasury to look into the working of the fund, had stated that through the action of the Government in ceasing to contribute the fund had lost, and that the Treasury should now contribute £400,000. Although the fund had now grown to £2,200,000, and the balance over, last year, after paying all charges, amounted to £45,000 a year, the actuary appointed by the Treasury had stated that it was a bankrupt fund. The income of this fund was over £100,000 per annum, whilst the payment of pensions accounted for £55,000, which showed a balance in favour of the fund of £45,000 in the year 1903. In the year 1897 the fund possessed a balance of £127,000, yet the Financial Secretary, when asked last February why stock should be sold at a loss of £13,000, replied—
  "Pension stock is occasionally sold in order to enable payments to be made at a time when the receipts of a fund fall short of the amounts necessary for such payments."
  which could not be the case when there was a balance of £127,000. He hoped further inquiry would be made into that question.
  The Irish national school teachers had contributed during the last twenty years to the fund a large amount of money. The contributions, which commenced with £9,000, now amounted to £25,000, and the teachers during all those twenty years had been asking for an independent actuary, appointed by themselves, to go into this fund and see how it was being administered. When they saw how much was lost or spent it was only natural that the teachers should be suspicious, and if there had not been in the view of the Government something to hide in this matter, he was sure they would have acceded to the request of the teachers. In the year 1885 Mr. Robinson stated that the fund had a balance in its favour of £200,000 and that it was perfectly solvent and that there was no fear of its breaking down. Five years later the same gentleman stated that the fund was £200,000 in arrears. Another gentleman, Mr. Sutton, also appointed by the Treasury, said the balance against the fund was £837,000,

  1345
  and Mr. Finlaison put it at £924,000. Was it not natural under the circumstances that the teachers should inquire what was the cause and ask that they who paid in such a large amount to the fund should have access to what was their own. In 1895 Mr. Robinson put the deficiency at £1,186,000, and Mr. Finlaison stated that this deficiency amounted to £1,200,000. The national teachers of Ireland naturally felt under these circumstances that although they had contributed a considerable share of their limited incomes to this fund there was no possibility when they reached their old age of receiving any pensions
  A Departmental Committee was appointed, and it reported and made three suggestions which seemed very characteristic in its injustice to a splendid body of Irishmen. They first of all agreed with the actuaries that the fund was becoming bankrupt, and that something should be done to prevent this. It seemed very strange that instead of recommending the British Treasury to vote an annual sum they shrank from doing so, and declared that it would not be suitable that any money should be given for the teachers' pensions out of the Treasury funds, but that it all should come out of Irish money. Their first suggestion was that the pensions of the men should be reduced from £88 to £60 and that the pensions of the women should be reduced from £63 to £47. Their second suggestion was that the teachers' premiums should be raised from £9,000 to £23,000 per annum, and, thirdly, that the retiang gratuities should be done away with. Those were the recommendations of the Committee which sat in 1897, and he did not think a better instance could be found to illustrate the cheeseparing policy of the British Treasury in regard to Irish affairs. The teachers naturally resented this treatment, because they were under the impression that the British Treasury had entered into an agreement with them that if they paid a certain amount out of their salaries they would get a fixed pension, if they complied with all the conditions laid down. An agreement of that kind between man and man would have been kept, but such an agreement be
  1346
  tween the British Treasury—which had no soul—and the Irish teachers was shamefully broken by the Treasury. At the time various opinions were obtained and legal authorities were consulted, and amongst others the Solicitor-General for Ireland was consulted, and he stated in regard to the action of the British Treasury that—
  "The rules are illegal from start to finish."
  He hoped that the Solicitor-General still held the same opinion, and that he would whisper a kind word into the ear of the Secretary to the Treasury to undo the mischief which had been done to the Irish teachers. In a letter to the Teachers' Journal the Solicitor-General wrote—
  "The bargain I say, and say fearlessly, if it was made between man and man would be held good in any Court."
  He trusted that this illegal action which was perpetrated by the Treasury would be undone, and that justice would be meted out to the Irish teachers and that as a first step towards that end, the illegal and unjust rules of 1897 would be withdrawn.
  In considering this question it was well to compare the treatment meted out to Irish teachers with the treatment which English and Scotch teachers received. There were 800 teachers on the pension list in England, and this year's Estimates voted them £84,000, or an average of about £100 a year. There were 1,900 teachers on the fund in Ireland, and the British Treasury only voted them £18,000 or an average of less than £10. The English teachers were no better qualified and did no better work than the Irish teachers, and yet they were voted ten times as much by the British Treasury. Did freland get her proportionate share she should get from the Imperial Treasury for the pension fund not £18,000 but ten times that amount. He asked the Secretary to the Treasury to look carefully over these figures, and to consider whether something more ought not to be done for the Irish teachers. The Irish teachers were an educated class carrying on the very responsible work of educating the youth of Ireland and training her future workers and citizens, and he thought they had at least equal claim to the Irish Constabulary. For the

  1347
  Royal Irish Constabulary £377,000 was voted out of the Imperial Treasury for pensions to a force comprising 11,000 men who had practically nothing to do, or in other words, there was voted every year for Royal Irish Constabulary pensions £34 for every man actually in the service. The Irish teacher had to spend forty years in one of the most trying occupations before he reached the maximum pension of £60 per annum, whereas the ordinary constable, whose education was very limited, had only to serve twenty-five years to reach his, maximum. In the Metropolitan police there was voted for pensions annually £32,000, though there were only 1,100 men in the force, or £30 per man actually in the service, while for 12,000 Irish teachers there was voted £18,000, or an average of £1 10s. per annum for every man in the service. The British Treasury said they had no more money for the teachers, and told them that they must put their hands into their own pockets. The first reform which the Irish teachers demanded was the right to appoint an actuary. He wished to know whether, after what had been said upon this question, the Treasury still refused this very reasonable demand. Before the Pensions Act was passed a teacher was entitled to gratuities from the British Treasury at the rate of one year's salary for every ten years service, and under those conditions the teacher was better off than when he was called upon to pay £3, £4, and £5 a year to the fund. He knew one case where a highly classed efficient male teacher, after twenty-four years service in Ireland, and who was compelled to retire through ill-health, got a miserable pension of £4 6s. 8d. per annum. An ordinary Irish constable, after twenty-four years service, would get about £60. He knew another instance where a female teacher, after twenty-six years service, with nothing against her, and who retired through ill-health, was offered a pension of £3 17s. 10d. This injustice ought to have been remedied long ago, and if they had had with any other body but the British Treasury they would not have had to wait for twenty-five years for such a disgraceful state of things to be remedied.
  1348
  This was more than a teacher's question. Anything which improved the character of the men and women who undertook the teaching of the children, made their position more secure, and took a way the horrible fear that they might have to spend the end of their days in the workhouse, brought to the service of the State a better body of men and women, and encouraged them to give their time more fully and more effectively to the training of the children. The salaries paid and the pensions granted had a good effect not only upon the teachers, but also upon the children and upon the nation, as it was only by giving good salaries and good pensions that the best men could be attracted to and retained in this most important branch of the public service. He hoped, therefore that this would be considered not merely as a question affecting 12,000 people, but as a question which vitally affected the future welfare of the nation. With regard to primary education something would have to be done if they desired to prevent a time coming when no good man or woman would stay or enter the teaching profession. The inspectors had stated that they found it almost impossible to get suitable persons to enter the training colleges the pensions salaries were so low and the pensions offered were so inadequate. Any nation which tolerated such a system for the training of its future citizens as that which existed in Ireland could not possibly get the best results. He trusted that the Secretary to the Treasury would consider that this was a question worthy of his immediate attention. The teachers of Ireland demanded that their pensions should be placed upon a Civil Service basis. That was a reasonable demand, not alone just to the teacher, but essential to securing the best talent and service for the education of the youth of the country. As this was a question on which the House, and the country required enlightenment, he would ask the Secretary to the Treasury not alone to give an independent actuary to inquire into the solvency of the present fund, but also to appoint a small Committee of that House to inquire into the equally important matter the inadequacy of the pensions at present given, and the injustice and hardship caused by the

  1349
  time required to get the maximum. He would press very strongly for this Committee and he hoped it would be appointed as soon as possible after Easter. He did not see why the Treasury should refuse to give to Irish teachers what they gave to the English and Scotch teachers, and at least equal terms to those which they gave to the Irish constabulary and the Dublin police. He begged leave to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in consequence of the conflicting Reports of the Government Actuary on the Pension Fund of the National School Teachers of Ireland, the losses incurred in the management of this Fund, the reduction in the Pensions of this important and deserving body of public servants, and the anxiety as to the solvency of the Fund, upon which even their reduced and wholly inadequate superannuations depend, it is the opinion of this House that the Government should at once secure its solvency by making towards the Fund a grant from Imperial sources, as is done in respect of the Teachers of British Primary Schools, subject the Fund to more efficient management, and at the forthcoming quinquennial examination permit the Teachers, who are at once contributors to and sole beneficiaries of the Fund, to be represented by an independent actuary."—(Mr. Hammond.)
  MR. SLOANsaid that if a debate in the House was the only thing to convince the Treasury of the justice of the demand, sufficient had taken place to convince every reasonable and sane person, much less the Treasury, of the necessity for conceding the demands contained in the Resolution He could not allow the debate to pass without associating himself entirely with the demands from the Nationalist Members, The Nationalist Party deserved the thanks of the Irish people for bringing the matter before the House, and he hoped before the end of the debate the Secretary to the Treasury would be entirely convinced of the justice of the demand. By the Act of 1879 £1,300,000 was granted from the Irish Church Surplus Fund and that was supplemented by
  1350
  premiums stopped from the teachers' salaries. He understood the present accumulated capital was £2,200,000. What surprised him was that, notwithstanding the necessity for the sale of stock in order to meet the liabilities the increase of the fund had gone on systematically every year. If on retiring after twenty-four years service a man received £4 6s. 8d. and a woman £3 17s. 10d., it was a libel to call it a pension, especially when they compared it with the pension of the English teacher, who through ill-health, after ten years service, got £20 a year and £1 additional for every year after that. They had every reason to complain of the injustice done to Irish national school teachers. It had been pointed out that the £18,000 put upon the Estimates for pensions was Irish money, and he quite agreed with that contention, and that they were under no obligation to this country for that money.
  The demand of the Irish teachers was a very simple one, and one that would appeal to any hon. Member, viz., that in the examination that was to take place in regard to the fund next year they should have an independent actuary, and that when the examination of the fund had taken place the wrongs that had been existing in the past should be removed. He himself believed that the sale of stock was not necessary, and there was ground for suspicion that the money had been applied to some other purpose than that for which it was intended. If not, where was it? In 1897 stock was sold at a loss of £13,937, notwithstanding the fact that the income of the year was far in excess of the expenditure. Where was that £13,000? It had not gone to the teachers. Even in 1903 the loss on sale of stock was £67,000, notwithstanding the fact that the income was far above that amount. If they took the national school teachers' salary at £56 a year for a man and £44 for a woman and gave them a pension after twenty-four years of £3 or £4, it was not a tremendous inducement to get a practical man or woman to give primary education to the young in Ireland. There was no Member of the House who would not agree that the mover and seconder of

  1351
  this Resolution had made out a very strong case for the Irish teacher. He was quite sure that the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, who always viewed Irish matters in a sympathetic spirit, would have something to say on the position. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not be frightened by the comprehensiveness of the Resolution proposed. The case which had been presented could not be denied, and it could not be got over by oratory from the Treasury Bench, false promises, or saying, "We will look into the matter," or, "It is under consideration." A definite and honest undertaking ought to be given from the Treasury Bench which would remove all doubt with regard to the future action in connection I with this particular fund. He associated himself entirely with what had been said by the mover of the Resolution. Whatever political differences there might be between the representatives of Ireland, he trusted that they would be in the unique position to-night of standing united on the question of the Irish national school teachers. There was no divergence of opinion among them with regard to the just and reasonable demand made, and he hoped it would be conceded by the Treasury.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid he was closely associated with the Irish teachers, and he was proud to say that a number of them were his personal friends. The superannuation fund was set up by the Act of 1879, which diverted £1,300,000 of the Irish Church surplus for the purposes of the fund, and authorised the taking of premium payments from the teachers. The fund was worked by a schedule, and this was a vital consideration. The schedule set up specifically what the teachers would get in the way of superannuation, what they would get on voluntary retirement before the superannuation stage, and what they would get by way of disablement allowances. It also stated very specifically what they would have to pay. This scheme was worked for twenty years, and when the condition of the fund was examined by a Departmental Committee in 1897 that Committee came to the conclusion that the fund was insolvent at that time. That was a very extra
  1352
  ordinary finding to come to, for it was contrary to several other findings. It was alleged that there was a deficiency of £1,200,000. He could not understand the data on which the Departmental Committee went in coming to that conclusion, for the fund year by year since the beginning had always had an excess of income over expenditure. In 1897, when it was reported to be insolvent, the fund was revolutionised. Notwithstanding the fact that in 1879 a definite undertaking was given that certain superannuations would be paid, and breakdown pensions would be paid, the fund was revolutionised as the result of the Report of that Committee. New premiums were set up, and new benefits arranged, and a new set of rules was issued during the recess of 1897, and the Irish teachers were compelled to agree to them by a certain date. The people who had entered the fund with the solemn assurance of an Act of Parliament that they would get certain benefits were obliged to accept these new rules. A more monstrous proceeding he had never heard of. It was legal, no doubt, because the Government was entitled to issue the rules, but, morally, nothing could be more indefensible.
  What were the conditions which were thrust upon the teachers? The premium payments for superannuation allowances were trebled. They abolished gratuities, ranging from £52 to £282; they raised the retiring age five years; they sensibly reduced the superannuation allowances, and this he considered an acute point. The schedule of the Act provided a maximum pension of £88 for men. That pension was reduced to £60 under the new rules. The retiring allowance for women under the schedule was £63, and that was reduced to £47. He asked the House to contemplate the position of men and women who had their pensions reduced in this way. It was difficult for him to find Parliamentary language to express his view on the question. The breakdown pensions were subjected to the most abominable reductions. It was hoped that with the Treasury grant of £18,000 a year all would be well with the fund as the result of these reductions. The present accumulated capital

  1353
  was £2,191,887. The income both before and after the change always exceeded expenditure. In 1903, according to the last figures available, it was £46,743. The issue of the rules in 1897 was a gross breach of faith. The teachers had paid their premiums for many years of Parliament that they would get certain benefits and what had been done constituted a piece of very grave Parliamentary sharp practice. When Parliament met the hon. Member for Louth, on February 18th, 1898, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, as it was doubtful whether a debate could be raised after midnight on the new rules affecting Irish teachers' pensions under the Act of 1879, the Government would afford an early opportunity for discussing the matter. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied—
  "Personally, I should be glad if the matter could be debated soon, though there is no question of urgency involved, as the new rules are already law."
  It, therefore, appeared that during the recess the new rules became law. The hon. Member for East Cavan asked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to a printed circular recently sent to the Irish national teachers, requiring them to sign their consent to acceptance of the new rules affecting pensions, and whether the teachers had by this circular been required to sign acceptance, notwithstanding that up to the present no opportunity of considering those rules had been afforded to the House of Commons or to the Irish Members of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Central Division of Leeds, who was then Chief Secretary, replied—
  "The Irish Teachers Pension Rules of 1897 were made under the terms of Section 11 of the Act of 1879, and these rules do not require confirmation by Parliament."
  Section 11 was as follows—
  "The schedule to this Act shall be construed and have effect as part of this Act. The rules in the schedule to this Act may from time to time be revoked, varied, and added to by the Lord-Lieutenant with the consent of the Treasury."
  But Section 10 had been entirely overlooked, and he could not help think
  1354
  ing that it had been deliberately over looked. It said—
  "At any time after the passing of this Act, the Treasury, with the consent of the Lord-Lieutenant, may from time to time make rules for the administration of this Act. Copies of all such rules shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days from the date thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, and if not then within fourteen days from the next reassembling of Parliament."
  The rules were issued the during the recess and the House was virtually told that they passed into law before Parliament met. That might be in accordance with Section 11, but it was a flat contradiction of Section 10. He was very doubtful whether these rules were legal now. The Attorney-General might smile, but he held his opinion all the same.
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.): They were discussed before the Court of Queen's Bench.
  DR. MACNAMARAsaid that what was discussed was whether the Lord-Lieutenant had the right to alter the terms for any teacher then on the fund. That was legal, but he called it immoral. Under Section 10 the Government was compelled not to bring the rides into law until they had been fourteen days before both Houses of Parliament.
  As to superannuation allowances under the new rules, which he still thought were illegal from the point of view of Parliamentary procedure, the Irish teacher, paid proportionally a little more premium than the Scotch, English, or Welsh teacher. The maximum superannuation allowance to the Irish teacher was £60 and the average was about £46. The minimum for the English or Scotch teacher, although proportionally he paid less, was £61. The maximum for the woman teacher under the 1897 scheme was £17, and only a few of these allowances were available; the average was £34. The minimum for an English or Scotch woman teacher was £41 8s. 8d. There was an invalid or breakdown pension which in Ireland for men was £11 15s. and for women £4 9s. 2d. The rules applicable to English and Scotch teachers

  1355
  for the corresponding disablement allowances were as follows,—
  "If the teacher is a man, £20 for ten complete years of recorded service, with the addition of £1 for each complete additional year of recorded service; and if the teacher is a woman £15 for ten complete years 13s. 4d. for each complet eddditional year of recorded service."
  The solvency of the fund ought to be guaranteed by the Treasury and a much larger contribution should be made by the Treasury. The money which was devoted to this purpose up to 1898 was taken from the Irish Church Surplus The contribution of the Treasury up till then had been nothing at all. The £18,000 a year was then given to set the fund on its legs. The contributions to the English and Scotch scheme which was set up in 1896 had been in 1900, £40,310; 1901, £52,405; 1902, £55,493; 1903, £62,075; and 1904, £68,775. If the Irish fund had a pro rata contribution instead of getting £18,000 it ought now to be getting £180,000.
  The Financial Secretary of the Treasury might say that the Irish teachers' conditions of service and wages were much better than those of the English and Scotch, teachers. No one who knew the Irish teachers could fail to be impressed with their zeal, devotion, and industry. What were the facts as to their treatment? The average salary of headmasters in Scotland was £176 14s. 3d., in England and Wales £151 9s. 11d. and in Ireland £102. The Irish headmaster received 33 per cent, less than the Scotch and 25 per cent, less than the English and Welsh headmaster. The same proportion was maintained through the different branches of the service. The Irish headmaster got £20 a year less than the English assistant master. The Commissioners would not pay the salary to the teacher direct. He was paid through the manager who might be on his holidays. Not only was the salary meager but the teacher had sometimes to wait months before getting it. The teachers had to produce every three months testimony of their good character. That might be all very well regarding the man, but it was a little contumelious regarding women. He would suggest to the new Chief Secretary that the rule
  1356
  regarding the three months good character might be struck out altogether. Very often, as the inspectors' reports stated, the Irish teachers had to pay the cost of fuel, and of cleaning and repairing the schools, and they had to buy prizes for the children—things absolutely unknown in England or Scotland. With regard to their houses he found the following in the current Report of the Commissioners:
  "The Commissioners expect that all teachers shall have done at their own expense the following, viz.:—Limewashing; cleaning and repairing glass; cleaning privies and ashpits; gravelling yards and walks, and keeping surface I channels in order; sweeping chimneys; making good any damage arising from carelessness or neglect; maintaining fences and gates, except damages from lapse of time; and, in cases of residences built by grants for teachers of national schools vested in the Board of National Education or in trustees, the Commissioners will inflict such penalty as they may deem adequate if the teacher fails to fulfil these conditions."
  That was rather a moderate demand, but among the
  "practical rules" to be strictly observed by the teachers of the national schools was the following:—
  "To avoid fairs, markets, and meetings—but above all political meetings of every kind; to abstain from controversy—"
  The instruction to abstain from controversy was the most self-denying ordinance that could be laid upon an Irishman, and if he only observed it he would be entitled to a pension. The Commissioner's Report stated in regard to the qualities they required that—
  "National teachers should be persons of Christian sentiment, of calm temper, and discretion."
  That was a very good rule to apply to Chief Secretaries and Attorney-Generals—
  "They should be imbued with a spirit of peace of obedience to the law, and of loyalty to their Sovereign; they should not only possess the art of communicating knowledge, but be capable of moulding the mind of youth, and of giving to the power which education confers a useful direction. These are the qualities for which patrons or local managers of schools, when making choice of teachers, should anxiously look. They are those which the Commissioners are anxious to find, to encourage, and to reward."
  When he considered the salaries paid to the teachers and the scandalous treatment they received it was the climax of hypocrisy to put into the

  1357
  rules conditions such as those he had read.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid one of the rules which the hon. Member had read might be adopted in another sphere. He thought that before the quarterly salaries were paid Ministers should present a certificate of character. There was another rule which he was bound to say had a bearing on what had been a burning question lately, namely, the rule which enjoined teachers to avoid controversy. The frank absence of the Chief Secretary was a deliberate confession that the Irish Government was absolutely powerless where Irish finance was concerned, and that the Irish Minister, although he sat in the Cabinet, was subordinate to the Minister who represented the Treasury. Practically, Ireland surrended its revenues at the time of the Union into the hands of a Treasury clerk. He was far from saying anything disrespectful of the hon. Gentleman the present Financial Secretary of the Treasury, who was of noble lineage and belonged to a family long associated with Ireland. He would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that when he had to represent the Treasury on Irish financial questions he should get a Treasury clerk to speak into a phonograph, put the phonograph on the table, and let it make the statement. In that way the hon. Gentleman would be saved from personal dishonour, and from involving himself in financial misstatements, which, if made by Whitaker Wright or Jabez Balfour, would entail prosecution by his colleagues at his side. If any ordinary man of business or board of directors issued a prospectus which contained statements which were false they were liable to be prosecuted as criminals. He did not take much interest in English frauds, but he read the other day of a remarkable scheme called the Nelson Tea Pensions, whereby a number of old women by paying for 2s. tea 3s. 6d. per pound were to become entitled to pensions for the rest of their natural life when they had bought so many hundred pounds. It was a splendid scheme, and at present the Government were engaged in prosecuting the authors. At all events they had been recommended for prosecution simply because they made an
  1358
  actuarial mistake. The worst thing they did was to issue a prospectus to the public and to sell tea at high prices. But their proceedings were not sanctified by an Act of Parliament. The British Government first seized this public Irish treasure to the extent of £1,300,000, and then said to the 12,000 national teachers of Ireland: "All you good people come to us, come to our schools, and we will teach you law and order and loyalty to the Sovereign; and then we will give you salaries, and if you consent to pay, not to Jabez Balfour, or Whitaker Wright, or to the Nelson Tea Pension Fund, but to the Lion and the Unicorn over which the Union Jack triumphantly waves—if you pay John Bull and Company so much a year, we, the British Government, whose flag floats on every sea, whose Army brings the true religion to Lhasa—we will guarantee you Protestant teachers as well as Catholic teachers"—for it was a fraud on the Orangemen in the North as well as on the idolator in the South—"we will guarantee to you, according to the schedule put into an Act of Parliament passed by a Conservative Government, pensions varying from £70 to £80 a year in proportion to your payments." And when these unfortunate men and women had spent ten, twenty, or thirty years under the most awful slavery, viz., the teaching of youth, on a miserable pittance, this great Government, a Government of hon. Gentlemen with names to which they were expected to attach every sentiment of reverence and respect, turned round on these unhappy men and women who had no redress against them, no law Court in which to drag John Bull and Company, and said: "We did not mean what we have said, and unless you agree before a given date to accept new terms and take £45 a year instead of the £80 a year which we guaranteed we won't give you a shilling." And this was the Government, remember, that expected loyalty and respect for the law in Ireland! They expected the flower of loyalty to grow out of the seed of discontent. That was why he invited the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury not to make himself the mouthpiece of the under clerks of Downing Street, whose one idea of business—he

  1359
  said this after twenty-five years experience in the House—was chicane. The late Lord Salisbury attributed nearly all the evils of England to the Treasury. That was said in the House of Lords, and the words were extant. What protection had they, the minority in the House? He asked if the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had tried to go into this matter himself? Could the hon. Gentleman get up and say that he had given to this question one hour's honest thought, or would he say anything beyond what some puny whipster in the Treasury had written out by a typewriter that he, a man of noble birth, should read it at that box as if it were a fourth Gospel? He held that fraud was written on every line of the action of the Government in regard to the Irish national teachers—indefensible fraud.
  What was the very modest demand put forward from those benches? They did not say, "Put us on a level with Englishmen. Oh, no, we are too pigmy for that. We do not even ask to be put on a level with Scotchmen. All we ask is, that a British actuary shall be allowed to investigate the doings of John Bull and Co. in regard to our own money." The Solicitor-General had put on record his opinion that the rules which the Treasury forced down the throats of the Irish teachers were illegal, and not binding. He asked the Government to say by what authority they enforced those rules when their own law officer made that declaration. Would the Secretary to the Treasury venture to rise at that Table and contradict the Solicitor-General? Which of them on those benches were they to believe? They were all honourable men! The Solicitor-General said that the
  1360
  rules were illegal and that teachers had for years been defrauded of their rights.
  He had not seen till that day the Return referred to by his hon. friend the Member for Kerry, but in looking at it what struck him with astonishment was that, in a Return issued by the Treasury for the purpose of giving information to the House, care was actually taken not to put in the totals, so that anyone trying to make out the sense of it would have to add up something like eight columns of figures, so as to arrive at the facts. So far as he could understand, the fund originally stood at £;1,300,000, and something like £700,000 had been paid out. But the teachers' contributions had amounted to something like £1,000,000. Therefore the fund was better off to-day by £300,000 than it was when it was established. This was the fund which was declared to be bankrupt by the Treasury! If the fund was bankrupt to-day when it was £300,000 better than when it was started, what were they to think of the late Sir Stafford Northcote and other able men, who, in this House in the year 1879, said the fund was a competent fund to provide for all the pensions? He held that if the Government undertook to manage an insurance business, for that was what this fund was, they had a right to expect from them the same competence that they would get from any of the great insurance companies, like the Norwich Union, the Globe, or the Ocean. If ordinary human beings sitting as a board of directors could do their business competently, why should not the British Government? There was not the poorest friendly society managed by labourers, not to speak of artisans, and not to

  1361
  speak of such friendly societies as the Oddfellows and the Foresters, which would not be disgraced if it had to confess itself guilty of such malfeasance as the Government had had to own in regard to this matter. Such a society would render themselves criminally liable, and why was the Government, because it was a Government, to escape when poor humble people convicted and sentenced.
  He himself would have put his demand higher than the Resolution went. He maintained that the Government ought to keep faith with these unfortunate teacher, and that every man and woman who had subscribed to the fund was entitled to get what was promised by the Act of 1879 Supposing they carried the Motion, and the Government gave them an actuary, would the actuary present a report of the same kind as in the Humbolt case in Paris? To his thinking they wanted something more than an actuary; they required that the promise of the British Government, on the faith of which the teachers paid their contributions into the fund should be kept, and the national teachers in Ireland would never cease to agitate until the British Government fulfilled its statutory contract.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.)said he should like, in the first place, to say that although the hon, and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, and the hon. Member for Camberwell, had put a little vigour into the debate, he personally had no reason to complain of the line they had taken. Although a good deal of the history of the fund had been recalled there had been
  1362
  no mention of the fact that in 1885 when the first valuation was made, there was a considerable balance of assets.
  MR. FLYNN: Was he a Treasury valuer?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISH: He was. That valuation was followed by what he would call a distribution of profits Certain advantages were given to the teachers by way of benefits and of reduction of premiums. That latter fact ought to be borne in mind. In 1890 the actuary reported that there was a considerable deficiency, and that report was confirmed in 1895. A Committee was thereupon appointed. They investigated the matter and made several recommendations, three of which were that the deductions from the salaries of teachers, for the fund should be increased, that a grant of £18,000 should be made from the British Exchequer, and that part of a lump sum which voted for the purposed of Irish education should be allocated to the pension fund. At the same time the highest class of pensions was abolished. These proposals were discussed in this House, and they had the approval of the Irish National Board of Education. Rules were framed in 1897 in accordance with these recommendations, and they had remained in force until the present time. He admitted candidly that there had been cases of hardship; but it was only fair to point out that the teachers who were in the service on January 1st, 1898, had the option of remaining under the old rules or of coming under the new rules [Cries of "No, no" from the IRISH Benches.] He thought he was correct.
  DR. MACNAMARA: They were compelled to accept the new rules.
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he was told that teachers in the service prior to 1898 had the option. He was unable, on behalf of the Government, to accept the Resolution, but he was ready to suggest a compromise. It was perfectly true that the other day in answer to a Question he stated that he did not think it would be advisable to have an independent valuer; but if it was only as an earnest and a proof that the Treasury was not quite so lax as hon. Gentlemen would have the House to believe, he was prepared to waive his objection on that point, to let bygones, be bygones and to accept an in dependent valuer appointed on behalf of the teachers at the forthcoming valuation at the end of the year. If that proposal would do anything towards bringing to a conclusion these disputes, which were raised far too often across the floor of the House, he would be only too glad. He would undertake, on behalf of the Treasury, that the report received on this valuation should receive the most careful attention, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite would confine their Resolution to the representation of the teachers by an independent valuer, he should not take any objection to it.
  MR. SLOANasked if the investigation would be at the cost of the Treasury?
  MR. VICTOR CAVENDISHsaid he presumed so. He would not make any objection. Of course it was understood that everything would be done to diminish the expense.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid he would like acknowledge the tone in which the hon. Gentle
  1364
  man had spoken, and the concession such as it was, which he had made. But when the hon. Gentleman asked the Irish Members to withdraw the Resolution and let bygones be bygones, that was a course which he could not advise his friends to take. This Resolution asked for more than an actuary. It asked that—
  "The Government should at once secure its solvency by making towards the fund a grant from Imperial sources, as is done in respect of the teachers of British primary schools, subject the Fund to more efficient management, and at he forthcoming quinquennial examination permit the teachers, who are at once contributors to and sole beneficiaries of the fund to be represented by an independent actuary."
  Therefore, he could not agree to the withdrawal of the Resolution, although he thanked the hon. Gentleman for his concession in regard to the appointment of an actuary.
  MR. GORDONsaid that if the hon. Gentleman would assure them that he would put the fund in a condition to carry out the Act of 1879 then they ought all to be satisfied. He took that ground, not by referring to the pensions given to the Royal Irish Constabulary, or to the pensions given to the English and Scotch teachers but to the Pensions Provided for by the Act of 1879. It was on the faith of that Act that the teachers were induced to make their contributions. Without the smallest regard to sanctity of contract some gentlemen met together and said these sums should not be paid in future. That was neither reasonable nor fair. The hon. Member for Camberwell referred to the vital part of this matter when he mentioned the provisions of the Act of 1879, the advantages of which to the teachers

  1365
  had been destroyed. It was not denied that the fund was £200,000 richer than when it was created, but it had also to be remembered that the numbers had also increased, and they had a right to expect that when the investigation had taken place and the actuary had reported the Treasury would make good the deficiency to the teachers.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, Dublin University)said the last speaker who had addressed the House was still under a misapprehension with regard to the actual facts of the case. The hon. Members in introducing and seconding this Motion did so in speeches characterised by great ability and great moderation, and, speaking as they did with actual knowledge and experience of the working of this system, the moderation of their language contrasted favourably with the extreme and exaggerated speech of the hon. Member for Camber-well. What were the actual facts as to what occurred in 1897? The Act of 1879 was passed on the assumption that teachers would contribute about one-fourth of the total amount to provide the pensions under that Act. Unfortunately, in assessing the amount which the teachers were to pay in order to produce that one-fourth these premiums were not assessed on the age of teachers on joining the scheme, the result being that the premiums were assessed at too low a figure. In 1885, when the quinquennial valuation took place, the actuary employed entirely overestimated the position of the fund, and owing to his sanguine overestimate a large distribution of the assets of this fund was made to the teachers who retired during those years to an
  1366
  amount far in excess of that which their premiums or the state of the fund justified. It followed that when the examination was made in 1890 it was found that the fund which in 1885 was thought to be in a very flourishing condition was then really insolvent. That condition of insolvency was found to have increased to a serious extent in 1895. The fund was then threatened with bankruptcy, and it became necessary to consider what could be done to put it in a solvent condition again. A Committee was appointed who recommended that the highest pension that was payable to first-class teachers in the first division should be abolished. The hon. Member for Camber-well made a complete mistake in supposing that these rules of 1897 deprived existing teachers of any right whatever in respect of that pension, because whilst the rules abolished that pension in the case of future teachers of the first division it wag expressly provided that any teacher of that class who paid at the old rate was entitled to continue to pay at that rate and to receive the pension on the old scale.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLinterposed to remark that only on the previous day he was informed of the case of a teacher in the first class who, when the rule came into force, was not retained on the first-class list.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLsaid he had the rule before him and it stated that any first-class teacher in the first division who had to pay the premiums on the old rate would have his rights secured. Rule 19, to which the hon. Member doubtless referred, expressly safeguarded that right. But in addition to that, and in order to save this fund from insolvency,

  1367
  Parliament agreed to vote in that year, and had voted every year since, a sum of £18,000. That sum was not fixed but might be increased or reduced according to the result of the quinquennial valuation. The next valuation would be made in a few months, and until that had been made they could not say whether the condition of the fund was healthy or insolvent. If unhealthy and it was thought that the £18,000 was insufficient, Parliament was not bound to that sum but could vote any additional sum that might be required to keep it in an efficient state.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid the Resolution before the House only asked that the fund should be put in a solvent condition.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLthought that the Motion was entirely premature because at present, so far as anyone knew, the fund was in a solvent condition. Its actual state would not be ascertained until they knew the result of the quinquennial valuation which would take place in a very few months. The Treasury had gone very far in their endeavours to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because all sections of the House were united in desiring to meet the wishes of the teachers and in recognising the efficient way in which they did their work. It was the general desire that justice should be done. His right hon. friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had conceded their right to
  have their interests protected by the appointment of an independent actuary at the next valuation. Why, therefore, should they anticipate that valuation? Why should the House be asked to commit itself to a Resolution calling upon Parliament to put this fund in a solvent condition when it might already be perfectly solvent?
  There was another point to which he desired to call attention. The hon. Member for Camber well forgot to mention that whilst the national teachers in Ireland had been enjoying these pension rights ever since 1879, it was not until 1898 that either English or Scotch teachers were conceded any pension rights whatever. That was a fact which should not be overlooked. He agreed that the scheme under the Act of 1898 was somewhat higher for England and Scotland than for Ireland, but on the other hand Irish teachers had possessed these pensions for nearly twenty years before the same rights were conceded to their brethren in Scotland and England. He would suggest to hon. Members from Ireland that they had accomplished the purpose of the Resolution in obtaining the power to be represented at the next inquiry by an actuary of their own, and that the Motion might be withdrawn.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 113; Noes, 137. (Division List No. 133.)

  EDUCATION.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That there be laid before this House a Return relating to Education for England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1905, in the following form:—
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION, (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): was understood to say that he had explained to the hon. Member why the Return could not be granted in the form asked for. The Scottish and Irish Offices had informed him that they could not supply the information desired. With regard to University education, that was a matter for the Treasury, and it would be extremely difficult to supply the particulars asked for in connection with secondary education. Certain portions of the Return could be given, and he suggested that the hon. Member should consult him as to the form in which it could be granted.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLpointed out that practically all the information he asked for could be obtained from the Estimates, and the Departments concerned might very well compile the table showing the comparative amounts granted to the different parts of the Kingdom. The only reason he could give for the refusal to grant the Return was that the Government were afraid that it would prove that Ireland was very unfairly treated in the matter. Ireland received not a penny from Imperial funds for University or secondary education, while hundreds of thousands of pounds per annum were given to England and Scotland.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton)said that so far as Scotland was concerned several of the particulars asked for could not be given, and the result, for the purposes for which the hon. Member desired the Return, would be altogether misleading.
  1374
  The Scottish Office were quite prepared to give the information so far as they had it, but the Return, if granted in the form asked for, would have to be based upon estimates and figures which would bring out an inaccurate result.
  MR. THOMAS O'DONNELLasked which part of the Return it was that could not be given.
  MR. FLYNNsaid that, in as much as the Government Departments were able to get from foreign countries Returns relating to such questions as armaments and so forth, there could not be much difficulty in the Board of Education getting from the Treasury the information required for this Return. He was unable to accept the statement that it could not be given. There was evidently some desire for concealment, and the refusal was only another proof of the changed attitude of various Departments towards the reasonable demands of Irish Members.
  MR. T. M. HEALYpointed out that in the last Motion they asked for money for education, and it was refused; they now asked for information about education, and that also was refused. All the items of this proposed Return were important from the point of view of showing the discrimination against Ireland, but the House of Commons by its majority, and through the mouthpiece of the Education Department itself, refused to enable the comparison to be made. The House had given a magnificent exhibition of their incompetence to manage Irish affairs, and he congratulated them upon it.
  DR. MACNAMARAsubmitted that all the figures asked for were in existence. The particulars required for the first twelve items were in the educational Blue-books for England and Scotland and the Report of the Commissioners for Ireland; those necessary for the next four or five were in the Blue-book issued annually in connection with grants made to University Colleges, and by the aid of those documents combined with the Census Returns all the particulars asked for could be given.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 112; Noes, 124. (Division List No.134.)

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

  Black, Alexander William

  Caldwell, James

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Boland, John

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Allen, Charles P.

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Ambrose, Robert

  Burns, John

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Barry, E. (Cork, S. )

  Burt, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Crean, Eugene

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  O'Dowd, John

  Crooks, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  O' Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Cullinan, J.

  Langley, Batty

  O' Kelly James (Roscommon, N.

  Delany, William

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W. )

  O'Malley, William

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  O'Mara, James

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dillon, John

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Doogan, P. C.

  Lough, Thomas

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Duffy, William J.

  Lundon, W.

  Priestley, Arthur

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Reddy, M.

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Robson, William Snowdon

  Farrell, James Patrick

  M'Crae, George

  Roche, John

  Fenwick, Charles

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Ffrench, Peter

  M'Kean, John

  Rose, Charles Day

  Field, William

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Runciman, Walter

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, N E

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.

  Seely, Maj. JEB. (Isle of Wight)

  Gilhooly, James

  Mooney, John J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Moss, Samuel

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Hammond, John

  Murnaghan, George

  Sheehy, David

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Murphy, John

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn G. R. (Northants)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid

  Ure, Alexander

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  White, Luke (York. E. R.)

  Johnson, John

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

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Young, Samuel

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  NOES.

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H-

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Kerr, John

  Arrol, Sir William

  Dewar, Sir TR (Tower Hamlets)

  Keswick, William

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Balcarres, Lord

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Lawson, Hn. H L. W. (Mile End)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks, N R

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

  Lee, Arthur H (Hants Fareham

  Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Bigwood, James

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Bill, Charles

  Finlay, Sir RB (Inv'rn' ss B'ghs)

  Lowther, C. Cumb., Eskdale)

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth)

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Bowles. Lt.-Col H F (Middlesex)

  Forster, Henry William

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Brassey, Albert

  Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Malcolm, Ian

  Bull, William James

  Gordon, Hn. J E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Butcher, John George

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

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

  Campbell, J. H. M (Dublin Univ.

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.

  Cavendish, V. C W (Derbyshire

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)

  Morgan, David J) Walthamstow

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Worc.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Muntz, Sir Philip A

  Chapman, Edward

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

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

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Coghill, Douglas Harry

  Hoult, Joseph

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Howard. John (Kent Faversham

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Hunt, Rowland

  Percy, Earl

  1370

  1371

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Turnour, Viscount

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Vincent, Col Sir CEH(Sheffield)

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Welby, Lt.-Col ACE. (Taunton

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Smith, H. C (North'mb. Tyneside

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Purvis, Robert

  Smith, Rt. Hn J Parker (Lanarks

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset).

  Rankin, Sir James

  Spear, John Ward

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Tollemache, Henry James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Sir Alexander Acland-Hood

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Tuff, Charles

  and Viscount Valentia.

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork. N. E.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMid)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Hammond, John

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Hayden, John Patrick

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

  Allen, Charles P.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  O'Connor, James(Wicklow W.)

  Ambrose, Robert

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Henderson. Arthur (Durham)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Black, Alexander William

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Boland, John

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

  Brigg, John.

  Johnson, John

  O'Dowd, John

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Jones, Lief (Appleby)

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Caldwell, James

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.)

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  O'Malley, William

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Mara, James

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Kilbride, Denis

  Reddy, M.

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Langley, Batty

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Crean, Eugene

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Dongal, W.)

  Roche, John

  Cullinan, J.

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Delany, William

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Rose, Charles Day

  Devlin, Charles Ramsay (Galway

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Runciman, Walter

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Lough, Thomas

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Dillon, John

  Lundon, W.

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

  Doogan, P. C.

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Shackleton, David James

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

  Duffy, William J.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Sheey, David

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  M'Crae, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Ellis John Edward (Notts.)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Markham, Arthur Basil

  Sullivan, Donal

  Fenwick, Charles

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Ffrench, Peter

  Mitchell, Edw (Fermanagh, N.)

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Field, William

  Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark NE

  Mooney, John J.

  Young, Samuel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Moss, Samuel

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Murnaghan, George

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John

  Murphy, John

  Thomas Esmonde and Captain Donelan.

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Arrol, Sir William

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

  Balfour, Rt. Hn Gerald W (Leeds)

  Gretton, John

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bignold, Sir Arthur

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th

  Pryce-Jones, Lt. -Col. Edward

  Bill, Charles

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Purvis, Robert

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Bowles, Lt.-Col. H F (Middlesex

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Brassey, Albert

  Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W.)

  Renwick, George

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Hope. J. F (Sheffield, Brightside

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Brotherton, Edward Allen

  Hoult, Joseph

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  Bull, William James

  Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Butcher, John George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Campbell, J. H M (Dublin Univ.

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon Col. W.

  Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ed. W. H.

  Kerr, John

  Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.

  Keswick, William

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Cecil, Evelyn (Ashton Manor)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hn, J. A (Wore.)

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (MileEnd)

  Smith, H. C. (North'mbTyneside

  Chapman, Edward

  Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N. R)

  Spear, John Ward

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

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth)

  Tuff, Charles

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Turnour, Viscount

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Vincent, Col Sir C H E (Sheffield)

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Webb, Colonel William George

  Dimsdale, Rt. Hn Sir Joseph C.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

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

  Doughty, Sir George

  Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire)

  Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Dyke, Rt. Hn Sir William Hart

  Morgan, David J. (Walthamstow

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Finlay, Sir R. B (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Forster, Henry William

  Nicholson, William Graham

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES,—Sir

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

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Viscount Valentia.

  Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick

  Percy, Earl

  Gordon. Hn. J E (Elgin & Nairn)

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  MR. LOUGHsaid that this question of the granting of Returns was supposed to have been amicably settled, but now the whole question was to be reopened because of the refusal of Ministers to grant information most reasonably asked for. Members could not be expected to make these calculations for themselves, and he submitted that the refusal was one of the most outrageous ever made.
  Question put.

  UNEMPLOYED RELIEF (WORK) (LONDON)
  Return ordered, "showing, in respect of the Common Council of the City of London, and each of the Metropolitan Borough Councils, the amount expended in wages for work undertaken specially for the purpose of providing work for unemployed workmen during the six months ending on the 31st day of March 1905, distinguishing the Proportion of such expenditure which was met out of (a) local rates, (b) voluntary subscriptions received by the council, and (c) contributions by the Central Unemployed Committee, and specifying the nature of the work undertaken, the number of men employed thereon in each month,

  England and Wales.

  Scotland.

  Ireland.

  1. Elementary Education, total State grant for day schools for year ended March, 1905

  2. Cost of administration and inspection

  3. Pupils on roll

  4. Average daily attendance

  5. Cost per pupil in average daily attendance

  6. Number of schools

  7. Number of certificated teachers

  8. Average salary of teachers

  9. Total rates and voluntary contributions

  10. Total State grant for Secondary Education

  11. Number of pupils in average attendance

  12. Cost per pupil to State

  13. Total State grants for Universities and Colleges

  14. Total number of pupils

  15. Average cost per student to State

  16. Total grants for all purposes from State

  17. Average per head of population

  the rate of pay given, the period for which the work, or each kind of work, if more than one kind was undertaken, lasted, and the average number of days work allowed each man; also, showing the estimated amount which would have been paid in wages if the work had been Carried out under ordinary condition."—(Mr. Whitmore.)

  CLOSING OF LICENSED PREMISES (CHRISTMAS DAY) (IRELAND) BILL.
  As amended, considered; Bill read the third time, and passed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
  MR. MOONEYasked the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury whether he could explain the Chief Secretary's absence from the House during the discussion of Irish affairs; whether the right hon. Gentleman would also be absent to-morrow night and on Thursday when Irish questions would also be under discussion; and whether the cause of the right hon. Gentleman's
  1378
  absence was his presence at Punchestown; Races.
  MR. ELLIS GRIFFITHasked whether the Prime Minister proposed to be present to-morrow night when the House would really be discussing an academic question which was not before the present Parliament.
  MR. RUNCIMANasked whether the right hon. Gentleman was; aware that important statements had been made in another place with reference to the calling of a Colonial Conference; that, contrary to the practice in the House of Commons, the statements were peculiarly definite; and that, also contrary to the practice in the House of Commons, when the

  1379
  question was raised Ministers did not run away. One of the important features of the statement of the noble Duke who spoke for the Government was that the Prime Minister was definitely opposed to the protective taxation of food. That was a most important statement which ought to have been made by the Prime Minister himself. But a statement in so few words was quite beyond the Prime Minister's mental capacity. He took refuge in circumlocution, evasion, and verbiage, for the purpose not of enlightening but of bamboozling the House of Commons. The only reason that could be adduced why that statement should, not have been made in the House of Commons was that it would have been distasteful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. If the right hon. Gentleman was able to confirm that statement of the noble Duke, the House would have it on authority that the views of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman for West Birmingham were not coincident but divergent. If any declaration so, satisfactory had been made at an earlier stage of the controversy it would not have been necessary for the Government to take refuge in flight.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid the House of Commons was afflicted by having not only a run-away Prime Minister, but also a racing Chief Secretary. The Ministers of the Crown divided among themselves out of public funds £92,500 a year, nearly one-half of which went to the Prime Minister and his relations. As to the Chief Secretary, his duty was to attend to his business in the House of Commons, not to make a book at Punchestown. It was necessary to show the material interests of
  1380
  these sons of Empire. The Chief Secretary had been pitchforked into a position with £4,500 per annum, with house and coals for nothing, and housemaids and gaslight thrown in. He was also allowed expenses, in which no doubt his fare to Punchestown would be included. Why was he not in the House to discharge the duty for which he was paid? Any trustee who so neglected his obligations would be relieved of his duty on the ground of fraud—in the legal, not the moral sense. According to an evening paper, on the very day when Irish University education was to be discussed in this House the Chief Secretary was to be the guest of Lord Iveagh, so that he could attend Punchestown Races more conveniently. He submitted that that was an outrage on Parliament. After that the right hon. Gentleman was to be the guest of Lord Londonderry, and Irish business in Parliament was apparently to be left to take care of itself.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Sir A. ACLAND-HOOD, Somersetshire, Wellington)said he had been very much occupied in looking after the business of the House, and had not, therefore, had the advantage of listening to what had been said in another place. In regard to the presence or absence of the Prime Minister the following evening, the hon. Member for Anglesey would have ocular demonstration if he was himself in his place. As to the Questions of the hon. Members for Dublin and South Donegal, he could assure them that the Chief Secretary had gone over to Ireland on purely Irish business.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes after Twelve o'clock.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:—Worcesterehire County Council Bridges.
And that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—Clay Cross Railway (Abandonment); Chelsea Electricity Supply; Epping Gas; Great Eastern Railway; Higham and Hundred of Hoo Water; Loughborough Corporation; Norwich Union Life Insurance Society; Weybridge and Walton-upon-Thames Electric Supply; Darien Gold Mining Company [H.L.]. The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Great Central Railway Bill [H.L.]. The King's consent signified; and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
Dearne Valley Railway Bill [H.L.]; Brompton, Chatham, Gillingham, and Rochester Water Bill; East Cowes Gas Bill [H.L.]; Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage Bill [H.L.]; Sheffield University Bill [H.L.]. Reported, with Amendments.
Walker and Wallsend Union Gas Bill; Southampton and Winchester Great Western Junction Railway (Abandonment) Bill. Reported, without Amendment.
Administrative County of London and District Electric Power Company Bill [H.L.]; East London and Lower Thames Eletric Power Bill [H.L.]; Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Corporation Bill [H.L.]; City of London Electric Lighting Company Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District) Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers) Bill [H.L.]; North Metropolitan Elec
1158
tric Power Supply Bill [H.L.]; Central Electric Supply Bill [H.L.]; County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [H.L.]. Leave given to the Select Committee not to sit again till Tuesday the 9th of May next.
Morley Corporation Bill. Read 2a, and committed. The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Darien Gold Mining Company Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation) Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway Bill [H.L.]; Rhymney Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Acton Sewage Bill; Birmingham Corporation Bill; Brentwood Gas Bill; Great Berkhampstead Gas Bill; Great Northern Railway Bill; Ilfracombe Harbour and Improvement Bill; London Gas Bill; Nottingham and Retford Railway Bill; Otley Improvement Bill; Seaham Gas Bill; Sunderland and South Shields Water Bill. Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
Abertillery Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Matlock Bath Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Bridgewater Canals Bill [H.L.]; University College, London (Transfer), Bill [H.L.]; Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies Bill [H.L.]; Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Formby Township Bill [H.L.]; Humber Conservancy Bill [H.L.]. Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Monk Bretton be proposed to the House as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Clements (E. Leitrim]; read, and agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  STREET BETTING BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of residents in Nottingham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SUNDAY CLOSING (SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
  Petitions in favour of; of Lodges, of Good Templars (2); residents of Gloucester and Cheltenham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 446. St. Vincent (Report for 1903–1904). Presented (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS, 1853 TO 1891 (CONDITIONAL LICENCE).
  Licence granted by His Majesty to James Smith, under the provisions of the Penal Servitude Arts, 1853 to 1891, to which are annexed conditions other than those contained in Schedule A. of the Penal Servitude Act, 1864.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' (IRE- LAND) PENSION FUND.
  Annual account of receipts and payments in respect of the capital and income of the above fund, for the period to 31st December, 1904.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  ARMY.
  Return respecting. Laid before the House (pursuant to Address of the 31st of March last), and to be printed. (No. 45.)
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered on Thursday next in order to its being suspended for that day's sitting.

  COLONIES (PROPOSED COLONIAL CON- FERENCE).
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH*LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH rose to call attention to the declarations of certain of His Majesty's Ministers concerning the proposed Colonial Conference, and to move to resolve "That in the opinion of this House it is necessary that before the constituencies of the country are asked to determine upon the desirability of such conference they should be
  1160
  informed (1) under what conditions the conference will be summoned; (2) what Colonies and Dependencies will be invited to send representatives; and (3) how far any decision arrived at will be held as binding upon His Majesty's Government and the United Kingdom."
  He said: My Lords, I do not think I need offer to your Lordships any apology for calling your attention to the subject to which the Motion which stands in my name refers, because I think I can find ample justification for the course I am taking in the importance of the subject itself, in the doubt which enshrouds the special aspect of it which is more particularly the subject of my Motion, and, in my humble opinion, the public interest imposes on the Government the absolute duty of clearing away doubts which I think I shall show to your Lordships exist at the present time. I thought I had cast the form of my Motion in a way as little objectionable as it could possibly be put. It seems to me as it stands that it is a proposition so absolutely self-evident that I can hardly understand anybody taking a contrary view. At any rate, if it is the case that at a general election, whenever that event takes place, the constituencies of this country are to be appealed to on this momentous subject, then it does seem to me they ought only to be appealed to with the light of the fullest and most complete information possible; and, my Lords, the only hope of taking colonial questions out of the arena of our domestic controversies is, in the case of them, to be absolutely distinct and clear in the policy which is to be enunciated. I do not like questions affecting either colonial or foreign policy to be made the subject of domestic controversy in this country, and I think I can say that neither on a platform nor in Parliament have I ever attemped to speak either upon the one or the other without a deep and abiding sense of great responsibility.
  The point from which I start is this. It is announced as the policy of His Majesty's Government that there is to be a Colonial Conference upon many important subjects; and it is said, as I understand, that that conference is to be carried on as a free, open, and unfettered conference without any limiting instructions whatsoever. My Lords, why is it necessary

  1161
  to put before the country at this time the question of the expediency of such a conference? It has been described by the Prime Minister, and rightly described, as almost in these days a necessary part of the machinery for carrying on our affairs. Why, then, is it necessary that at this time of day it should be thought expedient to consult the constituencies upon the mere expendiency of holding such a confernce?—The answer, I think, is plain. The answer is to be found in the course which what is known as the fiscal controversy has run in this country during the last two years; and I venture to say, farther than that, that the only possible obstacle to a free and full conference is the position into which the important subject of the preferential taxation of food has been pushed or manæuvred by those who are in favour of that particular policy. But if that is so, the same reason enjoins upon those of us who are not convinced of the expediency or wisdom of that policy, the duty of examining with care and with the fullest information the conditions upon which that subject is to come before such a conference.
  I pause for a moment to ask whether this conference is to be one of the ordinary conferences which have been held at stated intervals during the last few years, or whether it is a new departure of a special kind and for a very special and very important purpose. It is announced that the great dependency of India is to be represented at this conference. One of the questions which I am anxious to have an answer to is, whether India alone of those Colonies and dependencies which are not self-governing is to be invited, or whether Ceylon or others are to be represented at that conference. And, my Lords, I beg to say, in case I should be misunderstood, that the sole object with which I have put down this Motion is to elicit full, accurate, and distinct information, and I have not, if noble Lords on the Front Bench near me will accept the disclaimer, the slightest intention of causing them any embarrasment in the matter. The essential points seem to me to be the conditions under which we are to go into this conference, and the position relatively to that conference in which we shall find
  1162
  ourselves after it has been held. The two points are, in my opinion, closely connected, and to illustrate what I mean I will ask your Lordships to allow me very briefly to glance at some of the essential incidents in the history of the fiscal controversy of the past two years.
  We all recall the events of the summer and autumn of 1903, and at that time the idea of a free, open, and unfettered conference in regard to these important matters had not, I think, been thought of; at any rate, it had not been indicated as a cardinal point of the policy of the Government. The conference then, my Lords, on these lines is a comparatively recent development of the events of this controversy. It was mentioned I know, in the debate in the other House of Parliament in August of last year, and very soon after that debate a Question was addressed to the Prime Minister by Sir Howard Vincent as to whether he would summon a conference, and he replied—
  "I hope that these conferences will be frequently repeated, but I do not propose to take any steps at the present moment on the subject."
  The next occasion on which we heard of this conference was when the Prime Minister spoke in Edinburgh. We all know, I think, the circumstances of that meeting, and at it this announcement was made—
  "In my view we have got to a point when the only possible way of moving out of the impasse in which we now find ourselves, an impasse dangerous to the Empire as a whole, is to have a free conference with these self-governing Colonies and with India. It would enable us to determine one way or the other, in the first place, whether these great dependencies desire an arrangement, and, in the second place, whether an arrangement be possible or not."
  I am not going to attempt to set up the idea that there is any inconsistency on the part of the Prime Minister between the Answer given in August and the speech in October. The Answer in August was strictly limited to the time at which it was given. I go further than that and say that I believe most thoroughly that the idea which animated the Prime Minister in making the announcement in Edinburgh was the idea, as he says, if possible, of getting out of the difficulties and the impasse which had been brought about

  1163
  by the special phases of the fiscal controversy. The same idea has pervaded other speeches which the Prime Minister has made. I will only refer to one or two. In a speech which he made in December, in reply to what is known as the Defence Deputation, he said—
  "If we have the power after the next election, our policy should be to ask the Colonies to join in a conference, and plainly intimate to them that those whom they send shall come unhampered by limitations in this direction on in that direction."
  The whole of the speech was an eloquent plea for a high tone in conducting this controversy, and I am sure no one more thoroughly and more cordially would desire to respond to the invitation and to the indications of policy which were given in the course of that speech. The next reference which was made to this subject was in the speech at Manchester, when the celebrated half-sheet of note-paper was produced; and during the present session of Parliament there have been Questions and Answers and debates in the other House. But, my Lords, they all tend to establish, and I am sure His Majesty's Government will not think I am misrepresenting them when I say this, that their idea of this conference is that it is to be absolutely free and unfettered; that there are to be no limiting considerations and nothing to prevent, as I understand it, a free debate on every sort of question affecting the Empire. Other Ministers have said the same. I am not going to weary your Lordships with further quotations. I had intended to refer to a speech of the noble Marquess, who is at the head of the Board of Trade, but he is absent on duty and I shall therefore pass that by. Nor shall I say anything with regard to a speech which was made by the noble Earl the late First Lord of the Admiralty, who has been appointed to a position which, in my opinion at any rate, ought to take him absolutely out of the arena of Party conflict. And if I may turn aside for a moment to say so, there is no one who more ardently and thoroughly wishes the noble Earl all the success which his most earnest friends can ask for him in the difficult and responsible position to which he has been called. As I have said, other Ministers have made speeches.
  1164
  Those in the Cabinet have, I think, taken on the whole very much the same view of the conference; those who are not actually in the Cabinet, but who hold responsible positions, have not, I venture to think, taken quite the same line. I will only refer to two. The Attorney-General spoke at Inverness on January 9th. He undoubtedly said that both sides would enter into that conference absolutely free, but, personally, he believed that the fullest inquiry would show
  "That the taxation of food between the mother country and the Colonies was neither desirable nor practicable—but they should have the facts."
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, also occupying a very influential position, does not take quite the same line. Speaking at Warrington, he gave a certain amount of lip service to the idea that the conference was to be held, without the electors committing themselves to anything, to consider whether preferential trade was desirable and practicable; but he went on to announce; himself a fiscal reformer as keen as anyone in the country. He wished the inevitable change to be gradual—to be done as circumstances justified the advance; and then he is reported to have used these words—
  "He cared not what was the first step so long as they adopted the principle."
  What I am anxious to make sure of is that in taking the first step, whatever that step is, we shall know, and the people of this country shall know, beyond all manner of doubt, whether or not in taking that step we are going to be held as adopting the principle of this great change. There are other views of this conference, and there has been an agitation by another body—I do not know whether to regard them as altogether supporters of His Majesty's Government or not—on this subject of fiscal reform during the same period. But I must go back to the summer of 1903, to a speech which was made by Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons at the time when he was a colleague of the Prime Minister, and, for that matter, I was also in the same position, and it contained a very striking utterance. It is couched in plain and direct language, the meaning of which I think there is no

  1165
  possibility of mistaking. The words to which I refer are these—
  "Now, nothing would be worse than to negotiate with the Colonies and probably come to an agreement with them, and then at the next general election to find that the whole idea was repudiated by the country. I can conceive nothing more dangerous to union than that. Therefore, before we begin to negotiate with the Colonies, we must have some knowledge of what is the opinion of the people of the country with regard to the principle at stake."
  My Lords, if I were to approach this matter in a controversial spirit I should say that indications of what the feeling of the country is have not been altogether wanting during the past few months; but the essential part for my purpose of that speech is, that nothing can be worse than to negotiate with the Colonies, and probably come to an agreement with them and find it repudiated by the people of the country at the next general election. But that is the very risk which I am afraid we are running at the present time and under the present circumstances; and I want to know, if I may humbly and respectfully ask for the information, whether His Majesty's Government agree with that expression of opinion. If they do not, what is their answer to it? And, if they do, what course are they going to take to avoid the possible danger indicated?
  The matter does not stop there. Mr. Chamberlain spoke at Luton within a few days after the Prime Minister's speech in Edinburgh. I would never have referred to this matter if, after the consideration which must have taken place during certain months, Mr. Chamberlain had altered his views of policy and had frankly and freely and fully accepted the conference proposed by the Prime Minister, not as committing us to a policy, but as one for free and unfettered inquiry. But after saying at Luton that it had been an understood thing hitherto that if the representatives of either foreign countries or the Colonies came to an agreement, that agreement should at once be submitted to the Parliaments and the Legislatures of the separate States concerned, he went on to say—
  "I cannot understand what is the necessity of a second plébiscite, involving, as it would do, two mandates, two general elections on the same subject, coming within a few months one of the other. I think it would be very incon
  1166
  venient and very unpopular; but it is more serious than that. If, after coming to an agreement with your fellow-subjects, you are then to postpone the matter until every Legislature in every one of the Colonies and at home has been re-elected for this particular purpose—if you are going to do this, how long is it going to take?"
  My Lords, I do not want to say a harsh thing on any of the speeches which the Prime Minister has recently made, but it seems to me that he is perfectly and entirely oblivious of the fact that any such agitation as this has been going on in the country. At any rate, so far as I know, he has never referred to it in terms either of condemnation or objection. Is it possible under these circumstances to get a really free and unfettered conference? I do not think the Government themselves, when it is thoroughly examined, really propose a free and unfettered conference. As I understand it, they bar the possibility of any preference on raw materials. If you go into a conference with the idea of preference on raw materials barred and yet you are great patriots, why are we who have equally strong objections to a preference in the important matter of food to be told that we are disloyal to the Empire, and that it is impossible to consider this matter except in a free and unfettered conference. Why is it so reprehensible on our part to take exception to the expediency of taxing food? What are to be the instructions to the delegates who go into the conference supposing somebody who comes from Canada should happen to propose a preference on timber as well as on corn, or somebody from Australia should propose a preference on wool as well as on meat from New Zealand. These things are different in degree, but they are not different in kind, and it is because I am anxious to know exactly where we stand that I want to elicit the information for which I am asking.
  Another Question I want to put to His Majesty's Government is this, what guarantee is there that the Colonies will come to this free and unfettered conference? They are in their policy protectionists; they have the right to be protectionists if it suits them. We have given them freedom and we do not desire to interfere with their freedom; but, as I understand it, their delegates will certainly come to the conference on

  1167
  the understanding that their general system of protection is not to be interfered with or broken up. Are we, or are we not, to go into the conference on the same understanding with regard to our fiscal system? My Lords, you cannot have it both ways. It seems to me, and I put it strongly because I feel strongly upon it, that the asking and the receiving of this information is, in my opinion, nothing but a matter of simple, downright honest and fair dealing. We are asked to go into a conference. If it is to bind us, you must tell us the policy. If it is free, we must be assured on the authority of everybody who accepts the conference that the people, sometime or another, and in my opinion sooner than later, will have a free and full chance of deciding whether or not they will accept the policy recommended by the delegates. Mr. Chamberlain says it is the custom in conferences to regard the policy resolved upon as binding on the Legislatures concerned. So it may be, but in that class of conference and under those circumstances there are limiting instructions, and the delegates are told what they may agree to and what they may not agree to, and I say, with all the force of conviction that I can put into it, you must take it one way or the other. Either this is to be a free and unfettered conference, or we are to know distinctly and clearly the policy which is to be advocated by our delegates when they go into it.
  As far as the other point is concerned, there is danger of delay. There is danger of other questions coming up and interfering with the possibility of putting this matter as a simple and sole issue to the electorate; but until you have in the Constitution something like a referendum which you have not got now, that is an inevitable accident of the position in which we are placed. If I am not wearying your Lordships, I will illustrate my difficulty in another way. A good deal has centred recently round the maxim which is to the effect that you must not have taxation except for revenue purposes. I think that was thrown over at Sheffield; and it was also part of the policy upon the half-sheet of notepaper that that maxim was not in its full force to bind us in the future. In January, 1904, the Prime Minister referred to it as an error and a prejudice, at least
  1168
  so I understood him. He referred on the same occasion to his speech to the corn-tax deputation of the previous May, and he used these words, to which I call special attention. He said that even a small duty on food would never be tolerated as a mere fiscal and financial expedient, but that, if it was part of a wider or an essential element in a wider scheme of Imperial union then, and not till then, we might have a small tax on food as part of a preference system. I do not know whether that is intended as an acceptance in principle of the policy of food taxation. I do not like to express a definite opinion upon it, but at any rate I may go so far as this, that anyone who can use that language, who can hold that language, cannot be regarded as in principle opposed to it, and, therefore, if this conference should decide in favour of that policy, I am not sure that we can look to the Prime Minister to stand between us and its adoption. I carry it no further than that.
  But to show how far some people go, I will again quote Mr. Chamberlain. Speaking at Liverpool on October 28th, 1903, he ridiculed the doctrine that the justification of a tax is that it is purely for revenue purposes. He laughed at the idea that if the tax only benefits the Exchequer it is a good tax, but if it incidentally or directly benefits any trade it is to be utterly condemned. He went on—
  "Now I call that a preposterous doctrine. My object is—I may be quite wrong in my methods, and everything else may be quite wrong—but my object is simply this: I want to establish a scientific taxation for a taxation which, in my opinion, is a taxation in its most brutal and arbitrary form."
  It is never safe absolutely to commit oneself to a general proposition as suitable for all times and for all circumstances; but if there ever was a proposition to which I should be inclined so to commit myself, it is the proposition which has been the canon of our taxation for fifty years—that the justification of a tax is its power to produce revenue, and not its capacity for conferring benefits on this or that class of the population. There may be cases in which that maxim, strictly interpreted, would work injustice, but, if so, it is surely fairer and safer to produce these specific

  1169
  cases and prove them up to the hilt before you take an exceptional remedy and cast discredit on what I venture to think is the only true canon of scientific taxation.
  My Lords, I earnestly hope that no one will think it a light matter to try experiments in these negotiations with the Colonies. I hope people will not run away with the idea that you can try this thing and let it drop as and when you will. I venture to say if you do that you are practically certain to come to grief. You will arouse susceptibilities you will excite hopes which you cannot fulfil, and you will perhaps make bargains which will preclude you from an honourable retreat. This is no new thing. It has been tried before. The history of the country tells you what was the outcome of preferential taxation with the Colonies, and it tells you by bitter experience of the difficulties of getting rid of it once it is started. In my humble opinion sentiment is a stronger and safer tie than business; freedom and equality are better than bargains. I should like to put in, for my own sake, one word of caution. Do not let anyone say that I am opposed to the ideal of a closer union of the Empire. I would be the last to deny that it is a great ideal and an ennobling aim, It is not the ideal of a closer union that we mistrust; but do not let us allow the ideal to entice us into a policy which we shall find to be impracticable. I for one, at any rate, do not accept the assumption that the preferential taxation of food is the only road to a closer union of the Empire. Indeed, I regard it as a road to certain disaster; and the danger I see is that those who want some change, who are discontented with the present circumstances in some respect or another, who say, as few of us can say, that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, that those who want some change because they think any change will be a change for the better, may be tempted to accept a complex scheme of compromise to which in their calmest reason hereafter they will not be able to assent. Our circumstances and our conditions are not the same as those of our Colonies. Our difficulties and our interests are not the same, but one thing we have in common—the same love of equality and
  1170
  freedom. The services we have rendered to each other in the past have not been rendered in the hope of making a commercial profit out of them; and I venture to say for my part that what has been called the gossamer thread of disinterested affection will bind us together more closely and keep us together more surely than any appeal to the baser motive of commercial gain. I say, let us take care that in appealing to the one we do not weaken the older, and, in my humble opinion, the nobler tie. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
  Moved to resolve, "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that before the constituencies of the country are asked to determine upon the desirability of a Colonial Conference they should be informed (1) under what conditions the conference will be summoned; (2) what Colonies and Dependencies will be invited to send representatives; and (3) how far any decision arrived at will be held as binding upon His Majesty's Government and the United Kingdom."— (The Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Duke of MARLBOROUGH): My Lords, my noble friend who has just addressed your Lordships has inquired of us concerning certain utterances of His Majesty's Ministers upon a very important matter—the question of a Colonial Conference. No doubt the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will deal with many of the observations which have fallen from my noble friend, but perhaps your Lord ships will permit me, as being the representative in this House of a Department of the State closely concerned in this important question, to offer a few observations on the speech of my noble friend. A glance at the terms of the Motion which my noble friend has just moved would suggest to anyone who was a stranger in this country that the Prime Minister had stated that in his opinion a Colonial Conference should be summoned, but that after having given expression to that pious hope he had failed to enlighten his countrymen as to the conditions under which the conference would be held, as to which of our Colonies would be represented, and as to

  1171
  whether, in the event of the representatives at that conference arriving at a decision, it would be binding on the Government of the day. I venture to hope that I shall be able to show my noble friend and your Lordships that every one of these matters have been explained by the Prime Minister. The conditions under which the conference is to be held have been thoroughly explained by Mr. Balfour, and his views are public property.
  Though the terms of my noble friend's Motion are comparatively easy to deal with, I confess that the observations which he has made and his reflections are less easy to deal with. It is the desire of His Majesty's Government to resist the Motion which the noble Lord has just moved. Let me say at once that it is the view of His Majesty's Government that there have been lengthy discussions on this principle whether the development of our colonial trade is worth fostering or whether it is not. These discussions have taken place in both Houses of Parliament and throughout the country for a long time past. In our view the time has now come when we must make up our minds to refrain from abstract discussion and attempt to ascertain in a definite way by a concrete, method of procedure whether our Colonies are prepared to make us any definite proposals, and, if so, under what terms and under what conditions those proposals would be binding upon the Government of the day. Let me remind your Lordships, briefly, what the policy of the Government is. It has been carefully defined and laid down by the Prime Minister in his speech in Edinburgh and other speeches. The policy of the Government is, if we are again returned to power at the next general election, to summon a conference which representatives of the various self-governing Colonies and of India will be asked to attend. My noble friend asks whether the representatives of the Crown Colonies will be summoned to that conference. I am unable to answer that Question. I feel that it is somewhat premature to give a reply on that particular point; but I can assure him that in this matter the interests and welfare of the Crown Colonies will not be lost sight of by His Majesty's Government.
  1172
  This conference, as my noble friend has reminded you, is to be unhampered by any precise instructions, limitations or restrictions. It will be free, unfettered, and uncontrolled. What are the subjects which the representatives will be called upon to discuss? They will be asked to discuss whether the idea of a closer union on a commercial or on any other basis commends itself to them, and, if the representatives are favourable to the idea, in what precise manner it can be carried into effect. Any scheme thus formulated will be submitted by the representatives of the Colonies to their respective Governments, and no scheme will be deemed binding on His Majesty's Government until it has been submitted to the electorate of this country. The foregoing is a rough outline of the main principles and the more important considerations of His Majesty's Government as they have been unfolded to us by the speeches of the Prime Minister at Edinburgh and elsewhere, and I confess I fail to understand how my noble friend, after a careful study of the public utterances of the Prime Minister, can claim that the three considerations laid down by him in the Resolution have not been complied with by His Majesty's Government.
  I will dwell for a few moments on some of the observations which fell from my noble friend. In the first place I was glad to hear from him that in his view the Cabinet were quite agreed upon the policy laid down by the Prime Minister. That, indeed, is a concession which of late we have been unaccustomed to receive. I do not propose to follow my noble friend into his minute examination of the different public utterances of the Prime Minister and of Mr. Chamberlain. Sufficient for me to say on this point is this, that with regard to this question of the Colonial Conference, and with regard to Imperial trade, the position of the Prime Minister and of Mr. Chamberlain is one in which freedom is indulged and concord is in no way violated. Your Lordships will have observed the tenor of my noble friend's speech. He displayed great anxiety to know the exact position of the conference. Ha asked us whether it is possible to have a free and unfettered Colonial Conference.

  1173
  He expressed his doubt whether the representatives of the Colonies themselves will come. He expressed his regret or Ms alarm at the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in one of the many brilliant speeches which he has made throughout the country. He displayed an anxiety and a fear that under certain circumstances something might occur which ought not to occur, or that something ought to occur which might not occur. Indeed, my noble friend displayed far greater concern in regard to minute contingencies which might arise under improbable circumstances than a wish to dwell upon what is by far the most important and serious consideration of all—the causes, the reasons, the imperative necessity for the summoning of a Colonial Conference.
  I ask myself, Why is this matter of the summoning of a Colonial Conference a real and a living question? Why is it that a vast volume of public opinion in this country is deeply concerned in this matter? My noble friend alluded to a sentimental consideration, the desire to come closer into union with our fellow-subjects across the sea. All that thoroughly appreciate, and to it I attach the greatest importance and the greatest value. But, my Lords, I do feel that there is something more than merely these considerations. It is the knowledge on the part of the commercial community in this country that they have not inconsiderably benefited by the trade preferences which have already been granted to Great Britain by our Colonies, and of which the Canadian preference forms the most notable example. My noble friend opposite (Lord Tweedmouth) does not seem to attach great importance to what has happened with regard to trade with Canada. Before Canada granted us preference, from the years 1891 to 1897, British exports to Canada fell from £8,500,000 to £6,500,000, whereas in the seven years subsequent to the preference they have increased from £6,500,000 to £12,500,000, an increase of 80 per cent. That increase in our trade with Canada is mainly and largely due to the preferential agreement entered into by them. Six millions at 10 per cent. represents £600,000 a year clear profit in the pockets of the manufacturing classes of this country. I wonder how
  1174
  many families that sum of money has helped to keep in prosperity and in decency during the last few years. When we consider these facts it is difficult to resist the conclusion that the Canadian preference has acted favourably to us here at home.
  Your Lordships are aware that New Zealand has also granted us preferences. I do not propose to dwell upon the figures beyond reminding your Lordships that New Zealand imports amount to £13,000,000 a year, of which £10,000,000 come from the British Empire. I hope that we shall keep that trade, and, if we do, I believe it will be due in no small degree to the effect of the preferential tariff. Finally, my Lords, there is South Africa. We are granted in South Africa 25 per cent. preference on all goods coming from the Empire. As many of your Lordships are aware, South Africa to-day imports from the British Empire £33,000,000, and from foreign countries £14,000,000. We possess to-day, therefore, about two-thirds of the whole of the South African trade. To-day this is satisfactory, but what of to-morrow? Quite recently the Americans and the Germans were increasing their trade with South Africa at a greater rate per cent. than we were. We have spent vast sums of money in South Africa; we have placed our new colonies on a sound financial basis and given them suitable government. Are we going to forego the advantages of trading with the new community in our new colonies? Are we going to ignore the great possibilities which lie there in the future? The community to-day may not be very large, but in years to come it may even exceed the population of Canada and Australia. In ten years time, when the whole of the South African imports are not £50,000,000 but £100,000,000, is our relative position compared with foreign countries to be the same as it is to-day? If it is, I cannot help thinking that it will be in no small degree due to the preference which has been granted to us by the South African Customs Union.
  I have ventured to remind your Lordships to what degree the Canadian tariff has benefited the manufacturing classes

  1175
  in this country. Your Lordships will observe that Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa have got preferential tariffs which apply not only to this country but to the Colonies themselves; that is to say, the Canadian tariff enables the New Zealander to send his goods to Canada at preferential rates; the Canadian is able to send his goods to South Africa at preferential rates; and the imports into these three preference-giving colonies amount to £110,000,000 a year. £57,000,000 of these imports are Empire imports, and £53,000,000 come from foreign sources. Why, if preference has the effect which we believe it has, and I have ventured to quote the case of Canada, should the division of this trade say in ten years not be £80,000,000 of Empire imports and only £30,000,000 of foreign imports? There is one other consideration which I should like to put before your Lordships. If Empire imports into preference-giving colonies win in ten years £23,000,000 from foreign trade, and we are able to enhance our gain in the increase in trade, for, after all, trade is seldom stationary, surely it follows that we are then going to do a greater business within the Empire itself through the preferential agreements entered into by three of the more important of our Colonies.
  Largely increased business means largely increased wealth, and largely increased wealth means largely increased taxable resources. At present, as your Lordships are aware, our Colonies raise all their revenue from import duties, but with, increased Empire trade and correspondingly increased taxable resources surely it is not difficult to see that in future the Colonies will be less dependent on import duties for their revenue and will be able to look for that sum from other sources. Is it too much to hope, is it too much to expect, that when that day comes the first consideration of the Colonies will be to reduce their import duties on imports coming from the Empire, while maintaining their import duties on goods coining from foreign countries; and, if that should occur, surely it will be on the road to breaking down those commercial barriers which to-day exist between the different component parts of the
  1176
  Empire; it will be in the direction of freer trade, of free trade itself, within the Empire. Few, I venture to think, in this House would cavil at such an aim. Why, then, should we refuse to entertain this idea of discussing colonial preference, which I would remind your Lordships is the first step towards the aim which so many are in agreement in desiring. In conclusion, to recapitulate, I would remind your Lordships that this I conference which the Prime Minister has summoned will meet under conditions which have been fully explained by him. I venture further to remind the House that, we have gained not inconsiderably by the Canadian tariff, and that there may be considerably more gain to the Colonies owing to the preferential agreements which they themselves have entered into. Others are more able than I am to dwell upon the enormous gain which accrues to our country in authority and resource in the unity of the Empire. I have confined myself to-night—I know how imperfectly—to the more prosaic, the less emotional aspect of this problem, for I am irresistibly drawn to it, being the representative in your Lordships' House of the Colonial Office, which, having under its charge many lands and many peoples, is absorbed in the development and in the consolidation of a great and a splendid asset.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am sorry I cannot hold out any hope to the noble Duke who has just sat down that the Answer he has given to this Question will afford much satisfaction to the free-trade Members of your Lordships' House, because it was in effect that His Majesty's Government would lay down no conditions against the time when the Colonial Conference met. The Government may, like the proverbial ostrich, hide its head in the sand and lay down no conditions themselves, but the conditions under which the conference will take place will be those laid down by Mr. Chamberlain himself, and I am quite sure that the free-trade Members of your Lordships' House, at any rate, will not find much satisfaction in that. Perhaps the most interesting phrase in the noble Duke's speech was the one in which he said that the relations between Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain were

  1177
  such, that freedom was indulged, and concord by no means violated. I am not quite sure that I understand what that phrase may mean, but, if it has any meaning, it seems to me to mean that Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain have the same ideas with regard to colonial preference; and, if that is so, we have a declaration from a member of His Majesty's Government that they are in sympathy with the taxation of the food of the people of this country. But, my Lords, it is not fair that we should take this only from some chance phrase in the noble Duke's speech. I am entitled to remind your Lordships that Mr. Chamberlain has again and again said that there is no point of principle on which he differs from the proposals which are put forward by the Prime Minister. What we want to know is whether His Majesty's Government accept that definition of their proposals, whether they themselves agree that there is difference between what they propose and what Mr. Chamberlain proposes.
  I venture to hope that from an unexpected quarter of this House we may find a recruit. A speech was made only yesterday afternoon by the noble Lord behind me, who was private secretary to Mr. Chamberlain while he was at the Colonial Office, in which he complained that during his recent visit to Australia it was very difficult for the people there to hear anything but one side of the question then being discussed—the question of Chinese labour. I should like to apply that complaint to this question. So far the people of this country have been allowed to discuss only one side of this question, as it affects the Colonial Conference. We have had from Mr. Chamberlain what he is ready to offer to the Colonies, but we have had no sort or kind of suggestion as to what the Colonies are prepared to give to us; and therefore, we are entitled to say that so far as the discussion has proceeded up to the present it has simply gone upon the lines that we are to give, but we have not yet heard what it is we are to get in return. That has had a somewhat serious result, because it has entirely misled the people of Canada. If any proof were needed I could quote the Resolution which was passed in one of the Legislatures of
  1178
  Canada, and, what was still more important, the Amendment which was defeated. The Resolution proposed was in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals, and an Amendment was moved to this effect—
  "That the people of Conada, to assist in the successful carrying out of this policy, should be prepared to make such further substantial reductions in the Canadian tariff against British goods as shall ensure to British manufacturers an enlarged market in Canada in return for a preference upon Canadian food products."
  That Amendment was defeated, and it seems to me that the people of the Colonies are being grossly misled if they are allowed to think that we are ready to tax the food of the people of this country without getting any adequate return. We are entitled to point out that up to the present we have had no suggestion except one, which having scarcely been made was hastily withdrawn by Mr. Chamberlain after his speech at Glasgow—with that exception we have had no suggestion from the Government or from Mr. Chamberlain as to what should be the colonial side of the bargain.
  The noble Lord who moved the Resolution very rightly laid stress on the fact that whether we go into the conference hampered or not the colonial representatives are not in a condition of complete freedom. They are without exception against any revision of their tariffs which would give equal opportunities to British manufacturers, I will quote what was said by Mr. Fielding. Speaking at the Conference of Prime Ministers he said—
  "There must be no misunderstanding on this point."
  And speaking on the Budget he said—
  "We cannot undertake to give further preference in a manner which would operate to the disadvantage of our own goods."
  If their representatives are to be hampered in the one way, then surely it is not unfair to say that our representatives should have definite instructions given to them mot to agree to anything which would result in the taxation of the food of the people of this country. I turn my thoughts to the country where I experienced so many kindnesses, and consider how the proposals which have been made would affect Australia. I am glad that there is the second Governor-General of Australia

  1179
  in your Lordships' House to-night, and I could wish that he would take part in the debate. I desire to point out one aspect of the question which has not received from Mr. Chamberlain or from His Majesty's Government any consideration opinion up to the present time, and that is the way in which these preferential tariffs will affect the people of the Colonies themselves. The great wool industry of Australia would gain nothing. Wool, being a raw material, is not to be taxed; a drought only half as bad as the drought which recently occurred in New South Wales would kill any gain that there might be to the dairy or agricultural industries of Australia; and, lastly—and this is a point which I have not seen any mention of—any preferential tariff must raise the expenses of every household in the colony. For this reason. Imagine a preference given on wheat. The object of such a preference is to raise the price to the colonial farmer The colonial farmer is to get more for it, and the miller in the Colonies will be unable to get any wheat unless he pays the higher price which the farmer can get by sending his wheat to this country. Therefore, if the miller has to pay more for his wheat, the consumer will have to pay more for his bread, and on every article on which you put a preference the cost to the families in the Colonies must be higher. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that such a newspaper as the Sydney Bulletin should take a firm line against the proposals of Mr. Chamberlain.
  I am naturally not anxious to say that His Majesty's Government are tied down to all the details of Mr. Chamberlain's scheme as he has developed it since he spoke at Glasgow, but we are, I think, guided to some extent by what Mr. Chamberlain said when as Secretary of State for the Colonies he spoke at the last Conference of Prime Ministers. We want to know whether His Majesty's Government hold the same opinion to-day as they did in the year 1902. And there was a still more important speech made by Mr. Chamberlain when speaking to a Congress of the Chambers of Commerce of the Empire in London in 1896. At that time also Mr. Chamberlain was Secretary of State for the Colonies. I
  1180
  imagine that he was speaking what is the opinion, or was the opinion then, of His Majesty's Government. We have a right to know whether or not His Majesty's Government have changed their opinion since that day, and in any summons which they send to the Colonial Premiers they ought to express their difference from, or their agreement with, what Mr. Chamberlain laid down so recently as 1902 at the Conference of Prime Ministers. Mr. Chamberlain, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, speaking on Imperial reciprocity, said—
  "This proposal is in effect that while the Colonies should be left absolutely free to propose what protective duties they choose both on foreign imports and on British commerce, they should be required to make a small discrimination in favour of British trade, in return for which we are expected to change our whole system and impose duties on food and raw material. Well, I express again my own opinion when I say there is not the slightest chance that in any reasonable time this country or the Parliament of this country would adopt so one-sided an agreement."
  We are entitled, I think, to some expression of opinion from His Majesty's Government with respect to that. Referring to Canadian preference, on which the noble Duke the Under-Secretary dilated at some length, Mr. Chamberlain said—
  "The substantial results have been altogether disappointing to us, and in spite of the preference which Canada has given us their tariff has pressed with the greatest severity on their best customers and has favoured the foreigner."
  That was at the opening of the Colonial Conference in 1902, and I am surprised that the noble Duke who represents the Colonial Office in your Lordships' House has got such very different ideas of the result of Canadian preference to-day. The results of Canadian preference, I venture to think, are scarcely so happy as the noble Duke led your Lordships to believe. The noble Duke said that the increase in Canadian imports from Great Britain, from 1896 to 1902, had been 49 per cent.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: What I said was that before the preference British imports into Canada fell 30 per cent, and that subsequent to the preference they have increased 80 per cent.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree, but that does not affect what I was about to say. In Canadian imports there has been a total increase from 1896 to 1902 of 83 par rent.; that is from all countries, including Great Britain. In Canadian imports from Germany we find the increase has been 82 per cent.; in imports from the United States the increase has been no less than 106 per cent.; the increase in the imports from France has been 137 per cent., while from Great Britain the increase has only been 49 per cent. It is not as if that ended what there is to say on the subject. The noble Duke, I think, forgets exactly what a tariff is when he speaks of this preferential tariff doing so much good. As the Canadian tariff stands at present it admits a large number of goods quite free into that country. A large number of goods from this country and a very much larger number from the United States of America go in free, and so it is with other countries. The average duty—and this is the figure to which I would draw the noble Duke's attention—under the tariff on all goods going into Canada from this country is 18 per cent., whilst the average duty on all goods going in from the United States of America is only 12 per cent., because the United States send in a much larger number of things which go in free. Our goods are penalised to the extent of 18 per cent., while goods from the United States are only penalised to the extent of 12 per cent. That does not seem to me to be a very magnificent result of a preferential tariff.
  I am glad to be able to go still further into these figures, and give the proportion of increase in regard to the goods on which duty is levied and the goods which go in free. While in the time which the noble Duke has mentioned the increase on dutiable goods has been from 20,000,000 dollars to 45,000,000 dollars, during the same time the increase in goods which have gone in free has been from 9,000,000 dollars to 16,000,000 dollars, and so it is with regard to the details of the figures of every single one of the various countries which send in goods. It goes to prove what little effect a preferential
  1182
  tariff, or, indeed, any duty of any sort or kind, has upon the trade of a country itself; for we find that while the dutiable goods from the United States have gone up from 39,000,000 dollars to 83,000,000 dollars, the free goods have gone up from 31,000,000 to 74,000,000; that is to say, while the free goods have increased by a great deal more than 100 per cent., the dutiable goods have not done nearly so well. We find, with regard to Germany, that while dutiable goods have only gone up from 5,000,000 to 6,000,000, the free goods have gone up from less than 1,000,000 to very nearly 2,000,000, so that here the free goods have not done so well as the dutiable goods, and dutiable goods have, in spite of the duty which has been put upon them, succeeded in finding an entrance into Canada all the same. I think we are entitled to ask the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action His Majesty's Government will take in regard to Denmark and Norway, countries to which British exports go on a less tariff than Canada gives us.
  I should like also to know whether His Majesty's Government have anything to say with regard to the dumping of bounty-fed pig-iron. We are always told that dumping is doing us so much harm. We find that bounty-fed pig-iron comes into this country from Canada, and we should like to know if His Majesty's Government propose to use that famous loaded revolver on this occasion. The loaded revolver, I confess, is always an amusing metaphor to me, for this reason, that it seems to me so utterly characteristic of the economic views of the noble Marquess. Most people going into battle to-day would prefer a pom-pom or mauser rifle, and I venture to think the antiquity of the weapon chosen by the noble Marquess is a symbol of the antiquity of his economic views.
  There is one item of information given us by the noble Duke for which I should like to express my thanks. The Government have thrown over the idea that the Colonies have made us any offer, for the noble Duke said that they proposed at this Colonial Conference to find out whether proposals

  1183
  have been made. A good many of us have been wondering for some time what these proposals might be, and most of us were forced to the conclusion that this famous colonial offer was more like a leap year proposal than anything else, that it was a proposal which came from the other side rather than from the Colonies themselves.
  I will give the noble Duke one more instance of the effect of preference. In Australia the United Kingdom has 63 per cent. of the import trade; in Canada, in spite of the preference, the United Kingdom has only 25 per cent. One would naturally have thought that the effect of a preferential tariff, if the views of the noble Duke were correct, would have been that we should get a very much larger proportion of the import trade in the country which gave us the preference, but in spite of the preference we do a great deal worse in Canada than we do in colonies which do not give us a preference. As to the other point raised by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, with regard to the representatives who will be present, I should have been glad if the noble Duke could have assured us that there would be representatives of all the Colonies present at the conference whenever it is held. Some of us are quite unable to understand the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Crown Colonies. I venture to say that it would be a great misfortune that people should be allowed to think in this country or in the Colonies that in our opinion the Colonies are badly treated by the mother country in commercial matters. I think that at the coming conference we might very well discuss a large number of matters on which our relations might be improved, chiefly, I think, in the direction of closer political relationship. We might make it easier for colonists to join our Navy, Army, and Civil Service; but if we go into this conference as it is suggested by His Majesty's Government—a free and unfettered conference—it seems to me it will really be a conference in which our delegates, at any rate, will be seriously hampered by the knowledge of what the feeling of the electorate of this country really is. If His Majesty's Government still refuse to lay down conditions I should not be surprised if the
  1184
  Colonial Premiers seriously consider whether their presence will be of any use at all. If yon want a useful discussion you must lay down some limits on which your discussion must proceed. The Colonies have been used long enough by the Tariff Reform League as pawns in the political game. It is time that this was stopped, and that His Majesty's Government explained their whole mind on the subject, not hiding their thoughts, but expressing them openly and straight-forwardly.
  VISCOUNT RIDLEY: My Lords, the Motion on the Paper is, as was said by the noble Lord who placed it there and who opened this debate, one designed by himself specially to be of a harmless character and definitely seeking for information. On the face of it it does not appear that there is anything particularly mischievous or dangerous in that Motion, and I think a natural desire for information is one which very few in your Lordships' House would wish to vote against; but, my Lords, the speech in which it was introduced and the speech of the noble Earl who has just sat down seem to me to show the need of open conferences in this matter. It is precisely to meet the countless difficulties which those two noble Lords see in the way of colonial federation that the most open of Colonial Conferences become necessary. From the point of view which I have always entertained in this matter, the Colonial Conference proposed by His Majesty's Government is not a prime necessity. I and many others have entertained the view that the Colonies have taken action in this matter which it is now our turn to reciprocate, and to establish that principle, I for one, have never seen the need of a Colonial Conference; but there are a number, both in your Lordships' House and throughout the country, who do not share those views, who are anxious, as the noble Earl who has just sat down and Lord Balfour of Burleigh are, to place difficulties in the way, who do not believe that the principles we believe in would be of good to this country, who hold that they could not be carried out without great sacrifices on the part of the people of this country, and who hold that those sacrifices would not be met by corresponding

  1185
  advantages from the Colonies. Can anything be more clear than that the best way to meet those difficulties is to have the most open of conferences, on the most open of terms.
  I confess that the speeches which have been delivered in support of the Motion have determined me to vote straight against it, not so much on the ground of what it contains but because I feel that those speeches show the need for excluding limitation from the conference which it is proposed to assemble. One limitation has been made in the matter of this conference, which, in my humble opinion, is of a dangerous character. I understand that it is proposed that not one general election but two should intervene between us and the solution of this question, I venture to think that the solution is of more pressing importance than His Majesty's Government by that decision would seem to intimate. I venture to think that there is a pressing need for some closer federation with the Colonies, and that this dissolving view of general elections is one which is dangerous to this country. It would not be dangerous were it not, in my opinion, possible that the dissolving view of general elections may involve a dissolving Empire, and when I go on to consider the remarks made by the noble Duke in answer to Lord Balfour I am the more surprised at the action of His Majesty's Government in placing this limitation, which I understand is practically the only limitation they have placed on this conference. For what was the argument of the noble Duke? His argument was that we had derived so great a benefit from colonial preference that His Majesty's Government were determined to have an open conference on the subject. If the noble Duke, speaking on behalf of the Government, and voicing no doubt the matured convictions of the Government on this question, is convinced of the importance of colonial preference, is sure of the advantages which will flow from it, surely every year's delay is a matter of possible danger to this country.
  After all, in this matter it is not merely a question where protectionists range themselves against free-traders. In this matter there are many who would be willing to make some alteration in our
  1186
  system if they thought they could thereby advance the course of free trade. I suppose it is difficult, if not useless, to appeal to those who are convinced free traders, and who are afraid of altering their faith by one iota, but I would in all humility submit that it is possible that this paradox may be true, that the best way to advance free trade may be to change our system in the direction of protection. If your Lordships will allow me I will explain that paradox as it occurs to me. I cannot help noticing that other countries, as a matter of fact, enjoy under their system a larger area of free trade than we do. The area of free trade enjoyed by the United States of America is greater than that enjoyed by these islands. Similarly the area enjoyed by Germany or France is greater than the area which we enjoy, and in every case those great communities have arrived at a system of what is really free trade over a large area by a system which began with preference and ended in commercial federation. I think it would be difficult to approach this question if it were not for the hope that the end of colonial preference may be free trade within the Empire, and therefore to begin by a system of preferences, which the noble Duke has shown to be a practical advantage to trade, may end in what I know to be the ambition of your Lordships—real free trade within the Empire. It is the only possible known way of getting nearer to that end.
  I would not for one moment compare British Empire or British Colonies to the colonial acquisitions of France or the the United States, but I think it is instructive to observe that France in the case of Madagascar, and the United States in the case of Cuba, have both of them established preferential relations with their colony; that in the case of Madagascar the result was to treble the trade of Madagascar and incidentally to kill British trade with Madagascar, and that in the other case the trade of Cuba with the United States increased from 44,000,000 dollars in the first six months of 1903 to 66,000,000 dollars in the first six months of 1904, preference with the United States having been established between those dates. I think those instances are instructive, and that we

  1187
  who have far greater opportunities in our Colonies and dependencies might well adopt a mutual system in return for the advantages which have been given to us by the Colonies.
  The noble Earl who spoke last asked the old question, Where is the colonial offer? This is hardly the moment to quibble about the precise term. I am prepared to stand on the actual deeds of the Colonies in granting us a preference; I am content with the declaration on behalf of His Majesty's Government that that preference has been of advantage to this country; and I will only add this, that I trust, now that we have this clear expression of opinion as to the value of preference, the noble Duke the Under-Secretary, and the right hon. Gentleman who presides over the Colonial Office, will not cease to urge the importance of the information which they possess and the views which they entertain in regard to this question on the Government as a whole, and that the Government will enter upon this conference as free as may be, and, if possible, free from the one limitation to which I have taken objection.
  *THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, in the beginning of his speech the noble Duke who answered on behalf of the Colonial Office declared that it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to oppose the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. Now, my Lords, I must confess I have some difficulty in understanding the reasons which have induced His Majesty's Government to come to this decisions and, moreover, to go to the length of issuing a three line Whip to their supporters to oppose this Motion. The Motion, as I read it, affirms no policy to which the Government can take any exception; it lays down no principle which they would be prepared to dispute, and it contains no criticism of one item either of their present or of their future policy. It is not even an Abstract discussion of an ideal to which the noble Duke referred in his speech and to which we know the Government have very strong objection. Indeed, the most minute examination of the terms of this Motion can detect no meaning whatever
  1188
  except a modest request for the fullest possible information upon a subject of the most supreme importance to the country.
  I can only conclude that the reason which has induced the Government to oppose the Motion is that they have detected some plot hidden away amidst the words in which it is framed. If that indeed, is the case, I fear they have fallen into an error similar to that which was committed by a very distinguished foreign Admiral not long ago. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh is merely a peaceful trawler, fishing for information in the dark and deep waters of fiscal ambiguity, but His Majesty's Government, after turning upon it the full glare of their official searchlights, seem to have discovered in this Motion some hostile demonstration which is threatening them with destruction. I do not believe that my noble friend had any unfriendly intentions whatever towards the Government in putting this Motion on the Paper; and although I agree with his Motion and should vote for it if it went to a division, I at any rate, in supporting that Motion, have no hostile intention whatever towards His Majesty's Government. Indeed, although I have found it necessary in the past to express dissent from several items in the fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government, I think I have found in this last item of their policy, in the matter of a Colonial Conference, one subject, at any rate, in which I can cordially agree with them. At the same time it does seem to me that the request of my noble friend for information on this subject is not altogether unreasonable, because as he has pointed out there are still several matters connected with this policy of a conference which require further explanation.
  There are, in the first place, the points to which the noble Lord himself referred in his speech; in addition there are other difficulties connected with the fact that in June of next year an ordinary conference will in any case be summoned of representatives of the various Colonies. It is in connection with the summoning of that ordinary and normal conference that some of the difficulties in connection with this conference arise. If there is to be an election

  1189
  between now and June of next year, and if by some happy chance the present Government is again returned to power, then I think the matter is quite clear. It seems to be obvious that, in place of summoning the ordinary conference which will meet in any case, His Majesty's Government, having received a mandate from the country, would so augment the representation at that conference as to convert it into an extraordinary and plenipotentiary conference to discuss this question of the commercial relations between the different portions of the Empire. So far there is no difficulty ahead. But suppose the present Government is still in office in June of next year. It is not altogether impossible that that may be the case, for the Government has already remained in power much longer than noble Lords opposite ever hoped, and longer even than some of their supporters expected, and we have recently had the assurance of the President of the Local Government Board that the result of recent elections will not in any way influence the Government in appealing to the country. They intend, he told us, to remain in office so long as they received the support of the House of Commons. If the Government is in office in June of next year I should like to be informed whether it is their intention to postpone the meeting of the ordinary conference which would naturally take place until after the general election, or whether that conference will meet in any case, and, if it meets, whether it will be free to discuss, unfettered and untrammelled, the whole question of the commercial relations of the different parts of the Empire, and to come to some decision with regard to that point; and, if that be the case, whether another conference will be summoned immediately after the election to reconsider exactly the same subjects as the ordinary conference has already considered.
  These points appear to me to be still somewhat ambiguous and to require further explanation; but if there is doubt on these points, one point, at any rate, I think, is abundantly clear, and that is that, whether there be an election before the conference or not, the proposals of the conference, if there be
  1190
  any, will not be placed before Parliament until they have been submitted to the judgment of the electorate of this country. I hope there is no doubt upon that point. The noble Marquess will correct me if I am wrong, but that is what I understood from the speeches of the Prime Minister, and it is what I understood again from the speech of the noble Duke this afternoon. If that be true, my Lords, I would ask you to consider for one moment what it means. It means that no proposals will be submitted to the country or to Parliament until after the election which follows the conference. It is as well, I think, to emphasise the point that has been made clear with regard to that conference rather than points which are still in obscurity. This point, at any rate, seems to be one of very great importance.
  Apparently there were two objects which the Prime Minister had in view when in his Edinburgh speech he declared it to be his intention to summon this. Colonial Conference. The first was, I gather, to provide a rallying ground on which the contending sections of the Unionist Party might be able to unite; and, secondly, to promote the best interests of the British Empire. I will deal with the first and smaller of these objects first, and will ask how this proposal made by the Prime Minister at Edinburgh affects the Unionist Party in relation to the proposals put forward by Mr. Chamberlain. We have it clear, in the first place, as a result of this declaration that the Government have declined altogether to take upon themselves the responsibility of deciding for or against the question of preferential tariffs, and have refused themselves to formulate any proposals on the subject. That they have left to the conference. In the second place, it is clear that the conference itself cannot be summoned Until the Unionist Party is again victorious at the polls; and, finally, it will be the proposals of that conference and no other which will be submitted to the country for its decision, provided always that the conference adopts any proposal. That is to say, my Lords, if I understand it aright, that the proposals put forward by Mr. Chamberlain will never be submitted to the country at all unless by

  1191
  chance they happen to coincide with the decision arrived at by the conference. At any rate the 2 per cent. duty on corn and the 10 per cent. duty on manufactures disappear altogether for the present, and their place is taken by some proposals which may or may not be made at a conference which is to assemble some time in the distant future. Surely if that means anything it means this—that "the Question is that the Question be not now put." Nor will it be put in the next Parliament nor in the Parliament after the next. Indeed, one is inclined to ask with Mr. Chamberlain how long it is all going to take. When the time comes at which the Question will be put, we do not know who will form the Government or who will form the House of Commons that will have to decide upon it. The whole question is relegated to the dim and distant future, and I noticed that the noble Viscount who spoke last did not find very great satisfaction in this indefinite postponement of the question. Unlike the noble Viscount it is precisely on that account that I support the Prime Minister's proposal.
  I now come to the second point—the interests of the Empire. This shelving of the whole question of preference was put forward not only in the interest of the Unionist Party, but in the interest of the Empire itself. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, speaking in your Lordships' House on July 22nd of last year, used these words—
  "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."
  But, my Lords, since the Edinburgh speech there have been set up not one fence but many fences, indeed, we now have a regular Grand National, or I might almost say Grand Imperial steeplechase, a fall over any one of the fences of which might break all the bones in the body of the British Empire. In the first place, there is the next general election, a not inconsiderable obstacle to be surpassed; then there is the conference itself at which all the difficulties which have been put forward in your Lordships' House to-night,
  1192
  and which have been discussed up and down the country for the past three years, will have to be thrashed out again. The representatives of the different parts of the Empire will have to find a means of reconciling all the divergent interests concerned. They will have to ascertain whether it is possible to arrive at a convenient preferential system without the taxation of raw material, and one which, if suited to the Colonies, will also be suited to our Empire of India as well as to the United Kingdom. And, finally, after these two fences have been successfully cleared, there remains the final election at which the decision of the conference is to be put, not only to the people of this country but, if I understand aright, to the electorates in each one of the self-governing Colonies. Here are three fences at any rate, a fall over any one of which might break all the bones in the body of the British Empire. If that were true, my Lords, I do not think there is an insurance company in the world who would take the risk, and we might look upon the bones of the British Empire as already doomed to be broken. But the fact is, fortunately, that the British Empire is safer than the noble Marquess would have us believe. Whatever may happen at the different stages in this steeplechase, whatever may be the final solution arrived at by the conference, it is tolerably certain that the British Empire will not break up by a single vote of the electorate in anyone of its component parts.
  I would like to refer for one moment to a point which was emphasised in the speech of the noble Duke. He laid great stress on the importance of commercial union between different parts of the Empire and on the need for a further extension of the system of preference. It is quite true that trade is a very powerful binding force between nations, and perhaps the strongest force which can bind one nation to another. That I do not dispute for one moment; nor do I dispute the value of the preference already given by Canada and other countries to the mother country; but if trade is to be binding between one country and another, that trade must be a free and natural trade and not an artificial trade. I would ask your Lordships to note the difference between the operation of the

  1193
  two. In the case of natural trade all the bargaining is done between private individuals, but all the advantage of those different transactions is reaped by the nation itself; but under a preferential system such as we are asked to establish all the bargaining would be done by the Government and all the advantage and profit would be reaped by individual traders. Further than that, in any system of private bargaining each individual seeks to obtain for himself every possible advantage, the buyer buys that which he needs the most, the seller sells that which it is most profitable for him to sell, but under this preferential arrangement each partner to the bargain would be asked to do that which he considers both disadvantageous to himself as well as theoretically foolish. Protectionist colonies would be asked to give up their system of protection which they consider to be necessary to their prosperity, and we in this country would be asked to abandon that system of free trade which is ingrained already in the traditions of this country, and with which we should be most reluctant to part. That is why we hold that, though a commercial union if based on free and natural trade may be good, if it is distorted by tariffs it is bound to do harm.
  It is only by a fearless assertion of the individual needs of different parts of the Empire that we can learn to understand each other properly No doubt before we can advance to a further stage of consolidation much time must pass by and considerable patience must be expended. But the British Empire is strong to-day. The ties which bind it are powerful ones, and if that is true we owe it not a little to the exertions of Mr. Chamberlain himself and to the work which he accomplished at the Colonial Office between 1895 and 1903. I cannot comment upon that at any length without straying too far from the Motion which we are discussing, but I would ask your Lordships, whatever you may think of Mr. Chamberlain to-day, not to forget the services which he has rendered to the Empire in the past, and whether you agree now or not with the preference proposals which he has put forward, to remember that during the years which he passed at the head of the Colonial Office he did devote his great
  1194
  ability and great energy to the cause of Imperial unity. Throughout that time Mr. Chamberlain, appealed to the highest instincts and best traditions of the British race all over the world; and in the name of their common race, in remembrance of their common past, and in anticipation of that future which might yet be theirs, he appealed to them to put aside all other considerations and to set to work upon the task of consolidation with united effort and in a spirit of mutual self-sacrifice. His words and work alike helped to bring together many scattered and divergent elements, so that their very variety made for uniformity, and the patriotism with which he endeavoured to inspire them wrought benefit as well as credit to themselves. These were the ideals to which he appealed, these were the sentiments which he endeavoured to evoke, this was the work which I think he accomplished; but, though we remember all this, it does not prevent us from noticing also a very different tone, and a new and jarring note, in the speeches which the right hon. Gentleman has made ever since he coupled the cause of tariff reform with the cause of Imperial unity.
  The passions which he now endeavours to invoke are no longer worthy of the great cause which he has at heart. Instead of goading his fellow-countrymen into further effort he is for ever applying the balm of self-pity and seeking to arouse in them a sense of injury for which there is no justification. Trade he no longer represents as a transaction of mutual benefit to all the parties engaged in it; he refers to it rather as an act of aggression or plunder. He tells us that foreigners are invading our markets when they sell us something of which we have need. The Colonies are described as coming to our assistance when they buy from us something which they require themselves. Our industries are said to be in decay, everywhere it is failure to which he appeals rather than success; grievances and complaints are encouraged rather than heroism and self-sacrifice. The result is that the whole of this controversy is not only demoralising to the people of the United Kingdom but it is also detrimental to a rightunderstanding of our Imperial relations. The Colonies,

  1195
  I think, have shown a very proper reluctance to be mixed up in our fiscal controversy. They are greatly to be commended for the reticent and dignified attitude which all through they have adopted, but the result of that reticence is to set up a not very seemly dispute in this country about what they have offered or will offer, and what we will or will not give them in certain contingencies. It is with the object of putting an end to such disputes and of placing our Imperial relations on an altogether higher footing that I welcome the proposal of His Majesty's Government to summon an Imperial Conference. As I understand it, it implies a determination on their part to raise the whole question of Imperial consolidation out of the arena of mere Party dispute, and to refer it to an assembly of representatives from all the different parts of the Empire, there to be discussed freely and openly from the points of view of all concerned. Whether I understand that policy aright, whether I understand the intentions of the Government, and the result which their policy will have, I respectfully ask the noble Marquess the Foreign Secretary to make them perfectly clear to this House, and through this House to the country.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, however noble Lords opposite may regard the action of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh in placing this Motion on the Paper, I can assure the House that on these benches we are heartily grateful to him for having done so. I conceive that there never has been, at any rate within recent years, any subject of controversy in this country about which there has been so much loose thinking, and, consequently, so much random talking, as there has been on this fiscal question, very largely due, as we think, to the economy—using the word, of course, in its controversial sense—which has been exercised by the Prime Minister in his observations on this question. In the early debate on this fiscal question the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Goschen, used a phrase which has become almost historical, when he spoke of Mr. Chamberlain's proposal as representing a gamble with the food
  1196
  of the people, and what we on this side of the House fear is that this proposition for a conference, unless much more closely explained than it has been by the noble Duke, represents something like a gamble with our Imperial ties and with the relations existing between the Colonies, the Indian Empire, and ourselves.
  If this proposed conference were to be of an ordinary character, I conceive that it would be necessary that the delegates or representatives of the different parties to the conference should arrive with definite views and definite instructions upon the subjects of discussion. It must be assumed by everybody that in a conference of this kind the representatives of the Colonies, and, I suppose, of the Crown Colonies and dependencies, will so arrive, furnished with distinct and definite views of what they require. I should have thought it must necessarily follow that whoever represents this country at the conference must be similarly supplied. The question of the views likely to be held by the representative of this country would, under certain circumstances, be a very simple one. If the representative was one of my noble friends behind me or some right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Opposition Bench in another place, it is pretty clear in general terms what his views would be; but if, and, of course, it is conceivable, the representative at such a conference were to be a member of the Party opposite, a member of His Majesty's present Administration, we do not know in the slightest degree with what views on this important question of the taxation of food he would go into the conference, and it is surely necessary for the Government under these circumstances to give the House and the country some indication of the views with which, supposing they were returned to power after a general election, they would go into the conference and what instructions they would give their representative. I must remind the House that if the representative of this country is the only person who goes into this conference with a perfectly open mind his position, is no longer that of a member of the conference; his position becomes judicial,

  1197
  and it seems to me a most singular effort of Imperialism that the Colonies should be invited to come here to represent their views before such a tribunal. It seems to me to stand to reason that our representative must be furnished with distinct views or instructions, or he will be an absolutely impartial person in the position of a Judge between the different interests involved, and it seems to me a very singular form of Imperialism to suggest that the Colonies should subject themselves to a supervision of that kind instead of being asked to take an equal part in the conference such as we naturally should suppose they would be invited to take.
  Mr. Chamberlain's view in this matter is perfectly clear and well known. He assumes that the representatives of the Colonies will arrive furnished with certain definite proposals which will be discussed in the course of the conference, and he assumes that it would be the right thing for the representative of this country to accept those terms if it can be shown that on the balance this country does not suffer a national disadvantage; that is to say, the Colonies reduce certain duties in our favour, we put on certain other duties which must be, apparently, on food, and the balance is struck between the different parts of the Empire. On that I should just like to say this, that in the first place I do not believe it is possible that such a bargain could be struck at all, but, even if it could, it seems to me to involve confusion between a nation and the individuals who compose that nation in this particular matter. We are continually being taunted with being hidebound political economists who deal with this question in a cold-blooded fashion, on principles derived from economic textbooks; but that is exactly the charge which in this particular instance I should bring against Mr. Chamberlain and those who agree with him. They seem to argue that if on a balance you can show that this country is not suffering by a preference of this kind that you have done enough. I think, my Lords, that that cannot be maintained. I think that when you came to taxing the food of very poor people you leave the region of political economy and enter that of
  1198
  political ethics, and I frankly say that, so far as I personally am concerned, I am not capable of conceiving any preferential offer which could be made by the Colonies which in my view would justify the placing of a tax upon corn.
  Something was said by the noble Duke and by other speakers as to the actual offers which had been made, or may be made, by the different Colonies in favour of this country. The noble Earl behind me (Lord Beauchamp) dealt very fully with Canada, but I should say, speaking generally, that it is not true that the Canadian preference has diverted any substantial body of trade to the United Kingdom from other quarters. Whether it has prevented a further loss of trade is a matter which is purely hypothetical, and upon which, therefore, anybody may hold any opinion he chooses. But, curiously enough, and I am glad to think it, this preference did bring two very distinct advantages to Canada itself. In the first place, although I suppose a thoroughbred tariff reformer would scarcely admit it to be an advantage, it did to some extent cheapen certain commodities to the Canadian consumer; and, in the second place, it has been said, and I believe it to be quite true, that it reacted in this country to the advantage of the Canadian trader by causing a discrimination here between products coming from Canada and from the United States. Formerly, everything which came across the Atlantic was considered to be American, but of late years a very marked distinction has grown up between Canadian and American produce, and there has been a distinct tendency, where the article was equally good, to prefer the Canadian product. Therefore the Canadian preference, like mercy, blessed both him who gave and him who took, and in this particular instance I am not sure that it did not bless the one who gave most of the two.
  As regards the future in Canada, speaking generally so far as our three greatest trades are concerned, it is notorious that within a few years Canada is very much more likely to supply us, not only with crude iron, but with finished iron, than we are to supply

  1199
  Canada, and therefore it does not seem that Canada can do much for us in the way of preference with regard to iron. As regards cotton. Lancashire has not got very much to fear from any competition in cotton; and in the woollen trade the one thing we do know about Canadian preference is that British textiles will not be admitted into Canada if they interfere with the Canadian manufacture of those goods. As regards Australia, it seems again as though the possibilities were not very large. In considering Australia you must remember that various things which rank as raw material there would not be regarded here as raw material at all. Wire fencing, agricultural machinery, and such things as that are placed on the free list in Australia, because they are the raw material of the great industry of that country, and it is just in those particular articles that the United States have of late years gained the most ground over us, and, consequently, if you come to bargaining with Australia you will not find that you will be able to get any preference on those articles because they are already placed in the free list.
  The noble Duke mentions South Africa, and I should be very much obliged if he or some other member of the Government would state what form a South African preference is to take so far as this country is concerned. South Africa has given us a certain preference, but I have not heard it suggested how, without taxing raw materials, any preference can be given to South Africa in return. On the question of raw material I should just like to say this, that it seems sometimes to be rather airily assumed that the taxation of raw material will not be considered by the conference when it is held; but Mr. Chamberlain said across the floor of the House of Commons that that was not so, and that the question of the taxation of raw material would be open to consideration by the conference just as any other part of the fiscal question. If you begin with the taxing of food the time will come when you will be told that on Imperial grounds it is absolutely necessary to tax raw material. The noble Duke, in almost thrilling tones, told us that he hoped the day would come when in response to our
  1200
  action in this matter the various Colonies, being no longer in need of so much revenue in the form of duties, would take the opportunity of reducing those duties still further in our favour; and the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Ridley), from whom I certainly did not expect such an observation, because I frankly believed that as head of the Tariff Reform League he was a protectionist, held out hopes that these preferences might be the beginning of a reign of free trade within the Empire. That seems to me, I confess, a very wild and uncertain forecast. If I did forecast what would be likely to happen my forecast would be of an entirely different character.
  I believe that once this country had tasted the blood of protection it would go on increasing its tariffs, and I believe, furthermore, that it would not be content with placing duties upon goods from foreign countries alone. The final result would, I believe, be that you would have an all-round tariff of considerable magnitude against foreign countries and a smaller preferential tariff against colonial goods in cases where they competed with industries or products at home. The whole question seems to me to come to this, that in this Colonial Conference as proposed—this ad hoc, conference—we see something in the nature of a trap, and, if I may adopt the words of the Prime Minister which he used in another connection in another place, I would say people are perfectly right to lay the trap, but we have also a perfect right to keep out of it if we can. The trap appears to me to be this, that what Mr. Chamberlain and his friends calculate is that if this conference is held they will then be able to go round the country saying, "After inviting all these distinguished gentlemen here to discuss this matter you cannot in decency send them empty away, as that might endanger the relations between this country and the Colonies."
  That is a reason, in my opinion, for a frank avowal at once that, so far as can be judged, this country is not prepared even to discuss the question of taxing food. It is merely a waste of time and almost, I take it, an insult to the Colonies to invite them to a discussion which includes taxation of food, when it

  1201
  is quite certain that the country will not grant that taxation of food. When you come to discussing anything in a general conference held not ad hoc but in the ordinary way, I certainly should be very far from saying that if any member of that conference desired to raise any question whatever he should not be at liberty to do so; but that is a totally different matter from inviting representatives from all parts of the Empire for a special purpose to discuss this fiscal question alone, and then, as I say, laying ourselves open to the very obvious retort that it would have been very much better to have told these gentlemen before they came that there was one side of the question which we did not consider open for discussion at all. I do not for a moment believe that our attitude, if we wore now to declare it, would be in the slightest degree misunderstood by the Colonies. They have never shown any signs of desiring to force a preferential policy upon us; still less have they shown any signs of a desire that we should tax food. On the contrary, they have, almost ostentatiously, explained that they consider it a matter for the inhabitants of these islands to decide for themselves. The opinion in this country being so certain as it is, it would be an infinitely more manly and generous course to tell the Colonies that that opinion cannot admit of the taxation of food, and that, so far as colonial preference depends on the taxation of corn and other articles of food, it is useless to consider it. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will press his Motion to a division.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND (Lord ASHBOURNE): My Lords, I have listened with attention to what has fallen from the noble Earl who has just sat down and who has stated the standpoint of the Opposition with more frankness than I have noticed in any of the previous speeches. Up to the present, the line taken has been that no one objects to a Colonial Conference, but the noble Earl takes a franker way. He says that he regards this suggestion of a conference as a trap to be avoided, and that he would therefore vote for the Motion now before the House with a
  1202
  view to making difficulties and interposing obstacles in the way of the holding of the conference. The fiscal question at large is not for discussion to-night, although noble Lords have taken the opportunity to make various dives into it from their point of view. I put to your Lordships this one broad question. Surely it is better, if a conference is desired, to let it be a frank and free conference. The great and representative men who will attend the conference should be free to consider the question and to express their sentiments subject to the responsibility which they owe to the countries they represent. Everyone expresses himself in favour of strengthening the bonds that connect our great Colonies to the mother country, everyone expresses delight and admiration at the way those bonds were strengthened by the great aid received by the mother country during the war in South Africa; yet doubts are now thrown on the attitude, of the Colonies towards the mother country in the matter of trade. Surely it is wise and reasonable that the representatives of the great Colonies should meet and frankly interchange opinions unfettered and unsuspected, and not regarded as men entering into a trap.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I never hinted for a moment that the colonial representatives were laying a trap. It is the noble and learned Lord and his friends who are doing that.
  LORD ASHBOURNE: That is only playing with the expression. The people who would come here as representatives of the Colonies are not simpletons: they are the greatest statesmen the Colonies have produced; and surely those men when they come over should be free to consider the question and to express their sentiments unfettered. It is a matter for congratulation that the ties of affection, sympathy, and blood which link together the component parts of this great Empire should be so strong; but if an additional tie can be found by the honest interchange of frank opinion, surely everyone should welcome it. My noble friend the Uuder-Secretary of State for the Colonies pointed out circumstances that go to show that this country has gained by

  1203
  what has taken place through the voluntary action of Canada. That, however, was called in question by Earl Beauchamp. I will not attempt to prejudge this question; but, if commercial arrangements can be made advantageous both to the Colonies and to this country, it would be madness and not statesmanship to interpose any obstacle in the way of them. Why are noble Lords opposite afraid of discussion and the free interchange of views? Why do they try to hamper and fetter discussion? The question before the House is not the fiscal question but the narrow question of whether the conference should be useful and free or bound and muzzled.
  LORD BURGHCLERE: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate this evening in which noble Lords have set before us, as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has done, in terms of eloquence, matters affecting our great Empire. We have also heard the advantages which we would derive from a system of preferential tariffs sketched out by the noble Duke the Under-Secretary. It will be my brief task to recall your Lordships to what is the real question which we are debating this evening. No Answer whatever has been given to the specific Questions asked by Lord Balfour. The noble Duke the Under-Secretary informed us that all the Questions which my noble friend had put on the Paper had already been complied with by His Majesty's Government. If that is a fact, why does not the Government accept this Resolution? They have, on the contrary, issued a Whip to their supporters, and from the speeches which have been made by responsible Ministers it is obvious that they are going to oppose the Motion. Everyone on this side of the House, at any rate, heartily welcomed the Motion which Lord Balfour moved, because, if the questions in it were answered, the fiscal air would be cleared, and Ministers would be able to appeal to the constituencies "whether this idea of fiscal union is one which commends itself to us." That was what Mr. Balfour put forward at Edinburgh as practically the terms of reference to the proposed conference. What we want to know is what is the official
  1204
  position of His Majesty's Government as regards this proposed conference? Is it to be a conference ad hoc—a conference simply for the purpose of finding out, as Mr. Balfour proposed, whether this idea of fiscal union is one which commends itself to us, or is it to be "the premeditated and usual conference" concerned with all the affairs of the Empire, and with this issue of preferential tariffs thrown in as a sort of bonne-bouche?
  I will not weary your Lordships by quoting long passages from the speech of the Prime Minister at Edinburgh, but I think there is no doubt that at that time Mr. Balfour intended it to be an ad hoc conference; it was to be, moreover, a conference which would require a general election preceding it and a general election following it. The first general election was to sanction the proposed conference which was to determine whether this idea of fiscal union commended itself to the Colonies and ourselves or not, and the second general election was to appeal to the electorates of the self-governing Colonies and of this country as to any scheme which might be hammered out by the conference. Those are not my words, but the words which the Prime Minister himself used at Edinburgh last year. This proposition was confirmed by the noble Duke's chief, Mr. Secretary Lyttelton. Mr. Lyttelton went to Glasgow to speak on behalf of the Prime Minister who was then unwell, and in his speech at Glasgow in December, 1904, he undoubtedly confirmed the view that Mr. Balfour had put forward previously in Edinburgh. He also, as I read his speech, brought forward the doctrine of two general elections being absolutely necessary, the first one to enable the representatives of Great Britain to go into the conference armed with the authority of the people. That was the first general election. The second one was, of course, in order to refer to the electorates of this country and the self-governing Colonies the plan hammered out at the conference, and this was to be done before the Government could bring in their scheme of preferential tariffs. But previous to this a deputation waited on the Prime Minister

  1205
  at the Foreign Office with regard to Imperial defence, and the statement of the Prime Minister on that occasion seemed to make the conference rather wider. It was to cover other matters, because he stated on that occasion that it would be improper that any such conference should be prevented from discussing anything connected with the closer union of the Empire. Therefore, it would seem that after the meeting at the Foreign Office the views of the Prime Minister, and, presumably, of the Government, were rather enlarged. It was not to be an ad hoc conference, but a conference which was to determine any other matters that might naturally come before such a distinguished body.
  Mr. Secretary Lyttelton at Glasgow stated—and this is an important point, in my judgment—that the conference would be the same conference which had been already determined upon by the previous Colonial Conference in 1902. Your Lordships are aware that at that conference a Resolution was passed that there should be another conference held in 1906, and, as I understand Mr. Lyttelton, it is that conference to which both he and the Prime Minister were alluding as the one in which preferential tariffs were to be discussed. It is because we have up to this moment received no reply from Ministers opposite that I am obliged to put this case so laboriously before the House. My interpretation of the official position is this, that the conference is to be the conference which had already been determined upon, plus a reference to preferential tariffs. If that is the case, incidentally we are led to perceive clearly a subject which has been much thought of and much debated in the country and in Parliament. Your Lordships will observe that this conference is to be preceded by a general election, and if the conference is to be the ordinary conference of 1906, we have now for the first time arrived at what are the limits of the present Parliament, for before the conference of 1906 meets there must be a general election. Therefore it is quite obvious that if the conference is held in May, June, or July of next year there must be a general election some time before that date. I should like to know from His Majesty's
  1206
  Government whether that is the fact or not, and whether my interpretation of the declarations of Ministers is right.
  There is another point which has already been referred to to-night but which is undoubtedly of primary importance. The conference, we have been told by the Prime Minister and by other distinguished members of His Majesty's Government, is to be free and unfettered. Does that mean that representatives are to attend it with open minds and that they may come out of the conference free-traders or protectionists? Speaking from my experience both in Parliament and on platforms in the country I think it would be very difficult to find a man of an open mind on this fiscal question after all the controversy there has been. But the opinions of many of the representatives of the Colonies are known; they have been expressed by resolution and by speeches. Some reference has been made to this matter by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp. The Legislature of Manitoba also passed a Resolution in which they said—
  "This House strongly commends and endorses the policy advocated by Mr. Chamberlain."
  Yes, but there was a rider put forward to this original proposition, and in my humble judgment that rider stated what the policy of preferential tariffs is according to the late Colonel Secretary better than the very vague words of the proposition. The rider declared that the people of Canada should be prepared to make such further substantial reductions in the Canadian tariff against British goods as should ensure British manufacturers an enlarged market in Canada in return for a preference by Great Britain on Canadian products. That, I think, represents the ideas of tariff reformers; but what happened to that unfortunate rider? It was defeated in the Legislature by twenty-eight votes to nine, and therefore it is obvious that it is not the intention of these representatives of Canada, at any rate to give to British goods in return for preferential tariffs an enlarged market in Canada.
  Then I turn to Australia. What is the opinion of Australia with regard to preferential tariffs? In the Commonwealth Parliament the Prime Minister, Mr. Deakin, questioned with regard to that much disputed question of an offer,

  1207
  which I will not go into, said he thought Mr. Chamberlain referred to Canada and South Africa.
  "If the allusion was meant to refer to anything else" (said Mr. Deakin) "it must have been to the Resolution passed at the Conference of Colonial Premiers in London in 1902 in favour of preferential trade."
  He was then interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition who said—
  "That conference did not represent the views of Australia but of seven gentlemen."
  And then comes the pith of the matter. There was another interruption by a member of the Commonwealth Parliament who asked—
  "Is there any danger if the tariff being reduced in favour of the home country?"
  And the Prime Minister replied—
  "If there is any such danger it will come from my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition."
  So that the official opinion of the Government of the Australian Commonwealth is that there is no danger of the Australian tariff being reduced in favour of the home country. These are the opinions of a gentleman who you are going to summon to your conference. These representatives are very important statesmen in their own country. Their opinions are well known. The opinions of right hon. Gentleman and noble Lords in opposition are well known. What we want to know is, what are the opinions of His Majesty's Government?
  Perhaps I may be allowed to refer for a moment to the opinion of New Zealand as expressed by no less an Imperialist than Mr. Seddon, the Prime Minister. Speaking in the summer of last year, in recommending Mr. Chamberlain's scheme, he said—
  "This course would not increase imports from the mother country and would check imports from alien countries."
  So this dream of the tariff reformers falls to the ground, and in the case of New Zealand, where we were told to look for largely-increased trade, we are informed by Mr. Seddon that the imports from the mother country will not be increased to the slightest degree. Then what is the use of a conference for the purpose of gathering the opinion of the Colonies when that opinion has been
  1208
  already declared by their responsible statesmen. I am myself in favour of Colonial Conferences. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland rather twitted my noble friend Lord Crewe with being, I suppose, a Little Englander because he said that this conference would be a trap. As I understood my noble friend, he thought it would be a trap for the colonial representatives unless we informed the Colonies that the people of this country absolutely refused to have taxes put upon their food. On great Imperial subjects where agreement would conduce to strength of union a conference may well be useful, but there must be no false impression at the outset; the colonists must not be led to suppose that the people of Great Britain would accept food taxes. Without this clear understanding a conference would be a danger and a snare, and friction might be created that would take many years to allay.
  The debate was suspended from half-past Seven until Nine of the clock.
  On the resumption of the debate.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, this Resolution seems to me one which, although apparently the Government are not prepared to acquiesce in it, is nevertheless not unreasonable, because this House and the country should ask for information. We were told by two or three speakers on the side of the Government that, as I gathered, the objection to the Motion was that it was essential that the conference, when it takes place between the representatives of this country and the representatives of the Colonies, should be an open conference. The noble Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland said with emphasis: "Let it be a frank and a free conference." I think, my Lords, that any conference ought to be a frank and a free conference, that is to say, that the persons who meet round the table to discuss questions should be free to discuss them from their own point of view. But does anyone suppose for a minute that the fact that a conference is frank and free in any way prevents the giving of instructions to the representatives as to the lines they should

  1209
  take. It is obvious that every colony when they send a leading and important man to speak on their behalf will give their representative instructions as to the lines he should take, what concessions, if any, they are prepared to make, and on what points he is to remain firm. Is it to be supposed that this country is to send its representatives without any instructions, and without knowing what they will say, or what their point of view will be. The principals in this conference are not the persons who attend and speak; the Secretary for the Colonies will not be a principal, nor the Cabinet, nor the present Parliament; the principals are the people of the United Kingdom whose interests are involved. That, I think, was admitted by Mr. Balfour in the early stages of this discussion.
  I shall not follow the noble Lord the Earl of Crewe who tried to track Mr. Balfour's various utterances and to find shades of difference between the earlier and the later speeches. No doubt as an exercise of dialectics that might be done if we cared to spend our time upon it. At any rate, in the more studied and careful expositions of his policy we had, what I think is obvious, a declaration that before any effectual conference would be held with the Colonies, the country shall be consulted, and its views expressed through an election of a Parliament, and then no doubt the Government, whatever it might be, would have what people are pleased to call a mandate. Mr. Balfour has, during the whole discussion on fiscal policy, emphasised the fact that nothing should be done until the country has expressed an opinion and given a lead to those who are to speak on its behalf. Yet we are told that the Government is not prepared to indicate to us on what lines they will instruct their representatives to speak in this conference. I feel, my Lords, that you are not only preparing disappointment for yourselves, but that you are preparing for bad blood and trouble with the Colonies if you encourage people to embark on a conference without letting them know beforehand the limits within which it is possible for you to negotiate with them and the limits beyond which you will not negotiate.
  I should like to see this Return granted, and I am sorry that the Government
  1210
  seem to think it consistent with their dignity and self-respect rather to assume an attitude of inertia and mental vacuity on this subject instead of telling us exactly what they think. After all, the Colonies will not be hoodwinked. Whether the Government like it or not, everyone will see that the country, whenever it has an opportunity of expressing its opinion, on the subject, does so very clearly. Even the House of Commons expressed its opinion the other day with equal clearness and emphasis. I think it is quite idle for persons who are, as it were, the agents of a nation, to pretend that they can enter upon negotiations on behalf of that nation in defiance of the expressed unanimous opinion of the representatives of the nation. Of course if you say that the elected House has lost all representative character and is not entitled to speak for the nation, that is a position which Governments are entitled to take up, but they are only entitled to take it up on one condition, and that is that they appeal from the legal voice of the nation as expressed through its representatives to the actual voice of the nation as expressed at the hustings. But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say you have no occasion to consult the opinion of the nation because you have the confidence of the nation's representatives, and at the same time say, "We will treat them with contempt and not stir a finger to defend ourselves."
  I say the Colonies are not deceived. Our views on this matter are not hid under a bushel; they are known to the far corners of the world. Does anyone suppose that the Colonies will lightly enter into negotiation on the basis that seems to be foreshadowed as the policy of the present Government by the speech made by the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, namely, a policy which rejoices in this preferential and differential treatment, and would make great efforts to carry it. In my opinion the Government at this moment are too much discredited to be able to pose as the representatives of the nation, and everything must be at a standstill until the nation has been consulted. Certainly the discussion of a question freely among representatives is not inconsistent with a definite policy being held by any one of the parties to the conference. What I

  1211
  am afraid of is what has already been indicated by another speaker, namely, that you may enable persons at a distance to misrepresent the facts, and to say that hopes were held out to the Colonies which had been disappointed. Everyone would feel in another delicate matter in private life that it is quite open to a woman to reject a man, but if a woman gives encouragement to a man and then rejects him people call her a flirt and say she has behaved very badly. In the same way speeches in Parliament, such as the speech of the noble Duke, who, although he is not responsible for his Department, yet is speaking on behalf of his Department, are in the nature of giving encouragement to this protective and preferential policy.
  For myself I should be very sorry if the issue of the approval or disapproval of a policy of preference rested merely on the question of the taxation of food or the taxation of raw materials. To a protectionist colony some widening of the area of trade may be a step towards free trade. If a colony which is absolutely protectionist will break down some of its barriers, even in favour of the great industries of the mother country, that undoubtedly opens to the purchasers in that colony a somewhat wider market than they had before. But we have the open markets of the world, and any policy of preference to a colony is not a wider but a narrower policy; it must be based on the introduction of duties where hitherto goods have come in free, in order effectively to narrow our market of purchase. Do not let it be supposed that we and the Colonies should be negotiating on anything like equal terms. One speaker, I think it was the noble Viscount who is now the chairman of the Tariff Reform Commission, spoke in glowing terms of a possible vision of inter-Imperial free trade between Great Britain and all its dependencies. But I say that Imperial free trade between Great Britain and all its dependencies, if bolstered up by discriminatory tariffs against the rest of the world, would be a narrow and most mischievous policy. We enjoy now free trade so far as we can get it. Noble Lords play upon the words "free trade" and say we have not free trade but free imports. We have what it is in our power to get. What is out
  1212
  of our power we cannot have. So far as our laws, so far as our policy, and so far as our example go we do all that we can to secure free trade. We do not suppose for a minute that free trade is not an advantage to both sides, or that the foreign countries and the Colonies which are protected do not lose by being so, and that when they lose we lose too. It would be a deplorable mistake for us for a paltry advantage which is hardly appreciable to sacrifice the good example we have set to the world and turn aside from a policy which has served us so well for fifty or sixty years. The mischief we should suffer would be far greater than any advantage we might obtain.
  As to the case of Canada, I am a little surprised that the noble Duke, who must be familiar with that matter through his office, should have referred to the Canadian figures as showing any advantage under the preferential system. The figures were analysed carefully, and the highest claim that the advocates of that system set up a year or so ago was that it might have arrested the decrease in trade. In the general expansion of Canadian trade, the result of the development of the North West, the trade of Canada with the whole world has increased enormously, but our trade with Canada has not increased so fast as Canadian trade with the rest of the world.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting. The trade between Great Britain and Canada has increased since the preference at a much greater rate per cent. than the trade between Canada and the United States, and the trade between Canada and Germany. I may add that in the increase of English trade between England and Canada those commodities affected by the Canadian trade have increased at a greater rate per cent. than the rest of the trade with the United States. I should like to remind the noble Lord, Earl Beauchamp, that this is an undoubted fact, and I challenge any figures to the contrary.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: The noble Duke has corrected a statement which I never made. The statement I

  1213
  make is that in the great expansion of the trade of Canada the trade of Canada with the United Kingdom has not increased at so great a rate as the trade of Canada with the rest of the world. I did not mention one country or another. I have some figures here which I will give him. The figures are printed, but I do not know where they come from. They show that the Canadian imports from all countries in 1896 amounted to 110,000,000 dollars, and in 1902 to 200,000,000 dollars, or an increase of 83 per cent. The Canadian imports from Great Britain, which I suppose means the United Kingdom, amounted in 1896 to 43,000,000 dollars, and in 1902 to 49,000,000 dollars or an increase of 14 per cent. The noble Duke can look up in his office figures corresponding with these, and on another occasion he can let me know whether they are right or not.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Will the noble Lord give the authority for these figures.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: They were given to me by my noble friend Lord Beauchamp.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Will the noble Duke agree to defer this discussion until the Motion I have down on the Paper is dealt with.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I did not know the noble Earl had a Motion down on the Paper. I suppose he has placed it there to-day.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: It has been on the Notice Paper nearly a month.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: I notice that the noble Duke indicated that it was not fair to compare the lower rate of duties upon goods imported from the United States into Canada with goods imported from the United Kingdom, because the goods imported from the United States are of a lower class, either raw materials or duty free.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: They are all duty free.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: And thus at a lower rate than those that come from the United Kingdom. Therefore when you work out the average duty charged on the whole of the British goods sent to Canada, they work out at a higher figure. I wish that the noble Duke had been able to prompt his colleagues on the Treasury Bench in the debate on Mr. Brodrick's speech when they stated that Indian goods went into France at a lower rate per cent. than goods from this country. I think it is better that noble Lords when dealing with the figures should elect some consistent basis of a sound character. I quite agree with the noble Duke that he has taken a sound view, but you must not compare rates of duty upon different classes of goods as showing a high or a low tariff. You should compare the same classes of goods. The growth of trade between Canada and the United States, having regard to the long nominal frontier between them, must be expected to be greater than the growth of trade between Canada and the British Isles. No artificial arrangement of colonial preference will permanently stop the natural drift of trade which should go and will go on the lines which are most advantageous to the parties trading. I have tried to make it clear that the fact that this conference, if it ever takes place, will be a free conference, is no reason why this country, which is something above Governments and Parliaments, should not know beforehand what its representatives and agents propose to say on its behalf. That, I think, is essential. I think it is also important that we should warn the Colonies beforehand, if we go into this conference at all, in order that there shall be no disappointed expectations, no hopes raised and afterwards dashed to the ground, which will be injurious to the permanent friendship between us and our Colonies. For these reasons I shall support the Motion it it goes to a division.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I feel great difficulty, which I suspect is not confined to one side of the House, in resisting the provocation to discuss something which is really not before the House at all. This debate is like some others to

  1215
  which I will not further refer in that it is not intended to really discuss the question before the House. It is like what I think is attributed to a celebrated theologian who said he had a text for every sermon and a sermon for every text. One text is intended to be preached and which I observe the speakers cannot get rid of, and that is the desire to establish some difference of opinion between different members of His Majesty's Government. I acquit the noble Lord who brought forward the question of any desire for what I think has been fought to be done in all this debate. I am quite sure, knowing him as I do, and respecting him as I do, that he had no ulterior object and only raised the question in order to do what he thought was necessary for the good of the country. But I think it is impossible to have listened to this debate without feeling that those who have taken part in it have a sort of opinion that in some way or another it is like any other subject which may raise the question of fiscal policy, because it is intended to set what I think the noble Lord, Earl Crewe, described as a trap—a trap to inveigle speakers into discussing the fiscal question generally, and therein the question of whether or not there is some difference or divergence of opinion between the thoughts of the Prime Minister and Mr. Chamberlain. In fact, I notice that the noble Lord who brought forward this Motion referred from time to time, inadvertently I am sure, to Mr. Chamberlain's utterances as if they were the utterances of His Majesty's Government, and referred to them as being identical with the views of Mr. Balfour. All I will say upon that subject is that they have expounded themselves, I think, with perfect clearness and distinctness, and the effort to confuse their views and to suggest that because one said something at one time and another said something at another time, therefore, as the noble Lord, Earl Beauchamp, said, we have at last admitted that Mr. Chamberlain's views are really the views of His Majesty's Government. Nothing could be more unjust.
  I must suggest that so far as the debate has been conducted there is an air of unreality about it. We are not really discussing the question which was brought
  1216
  forward by the noble Lord. The noble Lord who has just sat down is a perfect master of rhetoric in regard to statistics and all other things that thereby hang. What has he been discussing for the last twenty minutes? I see an air of protest on his face. I will not say it was for such a long time or that it was an unreasonably long time. He has been discussing the question of fiscal preference. Is that the question we are now upon? Is it relative to the question we are now upon? I Venture to say that it has nothing whatever to do with it. Let us turn to what the noble Lord who is responsible for bringing this Motion before the House suggests. What he has said is intelligible. I may not agree with him, but he is intelligible. He has called attention to the declarations of certain of His Majesty's Ministers concerning the proposed Colonial Conference. May I observe in passing that it is His Majesty's Ministers and not Mr. Chamberlain whose declarations he discusses. Then he goes on to say—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that before the constituencies of this country are asked to determine as to the desirability of such conference, they should be informed"—
  on certain points. We have here a series of problems. The first is under what conditions the conference will be summoned. Why should the constituencies be informed if they are to form a judgment on the conference. Why are we to say, now, what is to be said at the conference, or to pronounce a judgment beforehand, or say under what conditions it should be summoned? If my noble friend had propounded the question what conditions ought to be put forward before the Colonial Conference is summoned it would have been properly discussed. That is not the question. It is that the constituencies should be informed, and that is a totally different matter.
  Then the noble Lord asks, "What Colonies and dependencies will be invited to send representatives?" The question of how many is a question of detail. The Crown Colonies and the others will be summoned, and I do not suppose that my noble friend really believes we should exclude anybody. Then we come to this question, "How far any decision arrived

  1217
  at will be held as binding upon His Majesty's Government and the United Kingdom?" In the first place observe what that means. Is the conference to come to any decision? Has anybody suggested that they are to decide anything? And if they were, has anybody suggested that it should be binding on the United Kingdom? With all respect to my noble friend I think that this proposition on the face of it is absurd. My noble friend appears to suggest that there is to be a sort of decision, as if we were submitting to an arbitration and award something that was to be binding for all time. Nothing can be more inconsistent with the idea of a Colonial Conference. Then what is the real question? I do not hesitate to say what it appears to me to be. Suppose, what the most determined free-traders will admit, that a commercial treaty is within the limits of their political economy and that a treaty with a foreign nation were in debate. Would it be considered right to begin by saying that you would not allow discussion upon this or that matter I do not think that would be the method in which you would begin to treat with a foreign nation if you were proposing a commercial treaty.
  There is a question which I have over and over again heard propounded both in this House and elsewhere, What are the Colonies going to give? You do not know what they are going to give. The Colonial Conference will tell us, and are we to shut that out and prevent there being a Colonial Conference which would enable us to understand what they are desirous or willing to do I observe that my noble friend who brought forward this Motion said that every light that can be given should be given in this Colonial Conference. Why should that not be? Why are you to put something like a restriction upon discussion and say "You may come here and tell us what you like, but observe that upon A., B., or C. we will have no discussion with you at all." I should think that if you wish to treat your Colonies as one foreign Minister would treat another foreign Minister in discussing anything in the nature of a commercial treaty, the very thing we should do is to say "Let us freely converse
  1218
  with each other and see what we can agree upon."
  I will not be tempted into a discussion of the colonial preference question or of the extent to which we or the Colonies might be benefited. It seems to me that that would be falling into the trap described by Earl Crewe of discussing on an indirect Motion in this House what we have refused to discuss, because until His Majesty's Ministers have proposed something and propounded some policy—which they have undertaken they will not do until the constituencies have been consulted—there is no reason why that question should be discussed. When it comes before the country it will be discussed no doubt. This is a counterfeit debate, because advantage has been taken of my noble friend's proposition to bring into this question matters that do not properly arise. I will not proceed to discuss whit the, free-traders contend, that protective countries are able to prosper and get more advantage for all their citizens because they have a wider field over which they may have free exchange of commodities. I am not going to discuss whether that is true or not. All I can say is that if it be true the question of bringing the British Empire, by excluding foreigners, into that wider field of international communication and free exchange of commercial products is one of the very questions which the Colonial Conference will probably discuss. In order that they may discuss it, you ought to allow them perfect freedom in discussion, and that which my noble friend desires, the greatest light you can have, is a light not to be given grudgingly or sparingly, but is to be obtained by allowing them to discuss all questions with freedom, so that the free expression of the colonial views may be obtained.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, after the somewhat remarkable speech just addressed to us by the noble Lord on the Woolsack, I must ask your permission to recall your attention to what is the object of this Motion. I think I can answer for my noble friend Lord Balfour, at least I can speak confidently for myself, that the intention of

  1219
  this Motion is not to oppose the conference. It is to show our anxiety that the conference, when it meets, should be the result of statesmanship and not be a conference moved by Party action. A member of the Cabinet lately told us that one move in the game of Party life had to be met by another.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Who was that?
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Mr. Gerald Balfour. My Lords, I do trust that this conference will not be made the subject of any Party move, and I do trust that we shall all, if a conference is to take place, unite in endeavouring to see that it shall be a practical conference for the benefit of the whole Empire. My noble friend on the Woolsack has given us a little lesson upon the manner in which our debates should be conducted. He has told us this is a sham debate, but he cannot include my noble friend Lord Burleigh in that charge. It was someone who came after him who entered into the question of the advantages of preference. Who was that? It is very hard that my noble friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies should be told by a colleague of such weight and authority in this House that his eloquent advocacy of preference and the advantage of it to the nation was a sham and a pretence, and was something that was done under the guise of supporting or opposing my noble friend for the purpose of misleading this House. It is hard indeed that after we heard a speech so full of ability as the speech made by my noble friend thy Duke of Marlborough, that one whom we ought to regard as his mentor should tell him he had been leading the House astray. My noble friend the Lord Chancellor has said why should these people who are mentioned by Lord Balfour—the electorate—be told what are the views His Majesty's Government take upon this subject.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I never said that.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I understood that he said so.
  THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I said, Why should they be informed beforehand on what conditions the conference should be called?
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: That is exactly what I intended to convey, and I will now tell my noble and learned friend why the electorate should be informed. Of course if you are going to deal with the question as an abstract question there is no reason why you should inform the electorate, but why are you going to consult them and to ask them to say "Aye or no, will you have a conference," and yet not tell them what that conference is to represent. Let there be no doubt on this subject. The Government contains many able men, and there is one who is recognised by the public as a Minister, who, in relation to this fiscal subject, has shown great ability. I mean Mr. Bonar Law. He has told us what is going to take place. He said that the position was that the issue at the next general election was a simple one, whether the people desired a dear or a cheap loaf. The issue was really more than that. It was whether the electors were willing, without committing themselves to anything, to hold a Colonial Conference to consider whether preferential trade was practicable and whether it could be obtained without injury to the nation. No member of the Government has repudiated that. Now you are going to consult the electorate. The issue to be submitted to the people is a very important one and they are to say "Yes or no." Is it fair to that electorate, without telling them what the conference is for? Every candidate upon the hustings will give a different idea of the conference. Free-traders will give one idea, the Government candidate will give his view and, pace my noble friend, the persons who represent tariff reform will give another. Is that a fair way of obtaining a mandate from the people? Is it fair to ask the electors to bear the responsibility of saying whether this conference is to be held or not and yet refuse to tell them what are to be the duties, powers and results of the conference? This will place the country in a ridiculous position. Cannot

  1221
  the Government tell the people what they will be voting for if they vote for this conference? We are asking not that there should be detailed particulars, but that there should be some general explanation of what this conference means. We ask no more, but we say that this is necessary.
  If by giving this information to the electors the Colonies learn our intentions regarding the conditions under which this country is prepared to enter into the conference, I do not think there will be any great evil in being so frank with our fellow-subjects. I will tell the House what will be a greater evil. It will be to bring the representatives of the Colonies here under false pretences. We know pretty well their views. We may anticipate that they will accept what has been stated by many statesmen in this country, that a preferential tariff with the Colonies must impose and will impose a tax upon food. That I think is admitted. More than one leading man who supports tariff reform has said, "If you cannot agree to a tax on food do not talk about a preferential tariff and do not ask for a conference at all." If you are going to ask the electorate to give an answer that must be sent to the Colonies, the answer given by the electorate would be our credentials for the calling of a conference, but the Colonies will ask "What conference are you in favour of? Are you going to give us a preferential tariff?" We shall have to say "No, we cannot tell you whether we are or not, because the Government, led by a great lawyer, asked in advance, 'What business have you to tell the electorate whether they are to agree to taxation of food or not?' and have intentionally kept them in the dark and have intentionally prevented them from making such a declaration."
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that he is not in favour of the protective taxation of food.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I congratulate the noble Duke on making that statement. Now we have obtained
  1222
  the vindication of this debate. Let those words be well noted.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I beg my noble friend's pardon. The Prime Minister has stated that in the House of Commons on several occasions.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I am very glad to hear that. Some of us do not quite understand the Prime Minister's utterances. Now I understand, whether the Prime Minister has stated it or not, on the authority of the Minister who has led in this debate on the part of the Government, that the question of taxation of food is to be barred.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My noble friend is under a misapprehension. I simply stated to him that the Prime Minister has repeatedly declared in the House of Commons that he is not in favour of the protective taxation of food.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Well, I will of course accept that statement. We are discussing to-night the question of the conference, and the noble Duke himself has introduced this subject. I treasure the noble Duke's words, because if the Prime Minister is not in favour of the protective taxation of food I am sure he will not let the conference overrule his views. That statement brings me now to the Question on the Paper. We are to have this conference, and I presume that it will be a special conference, and not an ad hoc conference. Now that we have to summon this conference I ask who is to take part in it on behalf of this country? Of course, I assume that the present Government will be in office. They will have to nominate delegates with or without instructions, ad referendum or not. I take it they are to be selected by the Government and that they will be statesmen of their own thought. Who will they be? If they be my right hon. friend Mr. Alfred Lyttelton, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, and my noble friend the Duke of Marlborough as Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, we shall know, after the speech of the noble Duke to-night, that this country

  1223
  will be represented by two men who are distinctly in favour of a Government which supports a preferential tariff.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but he will be quite unable to find in any statement I made to-night that I advocated protective taxation of food on behalf of this country in order to create a preferential agreement between us and our Colonies.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: That may be so, but the noble Duke was very eloquent in advocating a preference on something. There is nothing else but food to give a preference on. That is one view. But supposing the Prime Minister were to say, "The Colonial Office is very hardworked. I do not think that these Ministers can give sufficient attention to the onerous duties of the Conference and I will find two other Ministers instead." Suppose then he were to say: "There is the President of the Council. The friction of education has passed off and I think he will represent the country very well. Then there is another Minister who has not much work to do—the President of the Board of Trade. I will choose these two Ministers to represent this country at the conference." May I ask in that case would the same voices speak as would speak in the alternative case?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (The Marquess of LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord alludes to me? I am surprised I have been drawn into this matter. As I differ from the views of Mr. Chamberlain and from those of the Duke of Devonshire, I should not give satisfaction to the views of either.
  *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: I beg my noble friend's pardon. I have only used the names of my noble friends for the purposes of illustration. What I am endeavouring to point out is this. Who is to represent the Government? It must be remembered that in representing the Government you must represent the people, and when we speak of represent
  1224
  ing the people we mean those electors who at the next election must avowedly give a decision upon this subject, and that decision will have to be represented by someone who must be in accordance with the views of those they represent.
  Let us now ask what are the instructions for the men who will go into that conference. What are they to discuss? Those who will represent the Colonies will come here, every one of them with positive instructions to support a certain policy of preference that should give some benefit to the Colonies. Are our representatives to have instructions? if so, what are they to be? Is it not fair that those who at the next general election are to say "Yes or no" to the conference, should be told what are to be the instructions of their representatives when they go into the conference? I think I could almost make a bargain with the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and with the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies. Will they say when they go to the electorate with the issue of conference or no conference that they will undertake that those who should represent the electors should not commit them to the taxation of food? If you do not say that you do not make it clear to the electorate what they are going to determine upon. If you will make it clear, I should be satisfied, because I think I know what the determination of the electorate will be.
  There is another question. What is to be the result of this conference? Is the majority of the conference to prevail? If the colonial delegates are agreed in favour of preference, will our delegates have to say, "We agree with you here, but we do not know what our principals, the Government will say. We should have to go back and ask their views?" Then perhaps the British representatives will return to the Colonies and have to say, "Although we have brought you here to discuss this matter, and although you are all agreed on preference, and we are agreed upon it, we cannot go with you, because the Government will not allow us to ratify the decision arrived at." My Lords, you who have been appealed to on behalf of this great Empire and our Colonial Empire, what will be the effect of a decision if you have power given to summon a conference

  1225
  under such conditions? A great deal more can be said upon this question and I have some anxiety upon it, because I believe that some use is going to be made of this conference that we do not quite understand.
  I must refer for a moment to a matter that has affected a Party to which I am proud to belong, a Party which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs assisted in forming some nineteen years ago. We were lately captured as an independent Party and the Liberal Unionist Party was said to be reformed. An authentic circular was issued asking every Liberal Unionist to sign his name to a certain policy. The second article of this policy was "Closer union with the Colonies on the basis of preferential tariffs." We know what that meant. Those who issued the document admitted it meant taxation of food. Correspondence took place, but I do not wish to refer to it at all, beyond saying that public attention was called to the circular by a Member for a Division of Lancashire. It was said that taxation of food was not quite consistent with the views of Unionists and so a change had to be made, and I find that in February the phrase in the earlier circular was altered to "Closer union with the Colonies on a mutually satisfactory basis which it is hoped may be settled at the forthcoming Colonial Conference." That is only the old faith in a new garb, and I hope the Lord Chancellor will not be angry with me when I say that I am afraid that it is possible that this conference may be used for the purpose of carrying out the original purpose, namely, the taxation of food. I hope it will not be so. I hope there will be men like the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who will have power to control their Party, so that this conference shall not be used for the purposes of carrying out a Party struggle at home and that the Colonists shall not find when they come here that they are carrying out the protectionist policy of the newly-founded Liberal Unionist Party.
  My Lords, I have to apologise for the length at which I have spoken. If I have detained you too long, I have done so because of the strong opinions I entertain on the subject. I appeal to the
  1226
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He and I fought together to establish a Party which we believed to be a Liberal Party, Liberal in every respect. That Party never admitted that any interest had the right to render itself powerful or wealthy at the expense of others. We clung to the old doctrines of the Liberal Party, and, at any rate, we knew nothing of this sad business of protection. Can the noble Marquess look upon that Party as it is now and be satisfied with, its condition? Can he hop a that it will spring into its strength again with the true feelings that pervaded it twenty years ago? If there be any want of frankness in dealing with the electors of this country and it be intended by dialectical skill not to present; the truth to our fellow-countrymen still greater disasters will follow and I ask my noble friend to mike it his care to avert such a calamity by dealing with full frankness with those to whom an appeal is about to be made.
  EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I wish that it was not my duty to rise to offer a few remarks at this stage of the debate. I should like to have left the speech which my noble and learned friend has just made, fresh and without any speech following it, to be answered by the noble Marquess to whom he made such an appeal. But I am afraid this is the only opportunity I shall have of saying a few words as representing the Opposition in your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has complained that the general question of fiscal policy should have been brought into this debate, and that the exact terms of the Motion should have been overpassed. I do not think it would be possible to confine the debate actually to the mere question of the conference. For what depends on the conference? The whole question of preference, and that again depends on what is more important still—the taxation of food. How is it possible not to touch on these vital questions?
  I am certainly not opposed to conferences. I believe they play a very important part in the affairs of the world and in the affairs of this kingdom. There have been several conferences, and they have been all most useful in bringing together the leaders of politics in

  1227
  this country and the Prime Ministers of the Colonies. I attach immense importance to them. The Reports are exceedingly instructive and very valuable documents, representing extremely moderate views. The Colonies are quite capable of giving credit to this country for generosity, and at the same time of putting themselves in our place and acknowledging the difficulty we should have in dealing with this question of preference. At the Conference of 1902 there were no fewer than eighteen subjects discussed, and among them this question of preference. But when you come to a subject which has divided and almost broken up a Government, and which occupies the attention of the whole country, is it possible that a conference should be called, in order, as numbers of people in this country suppose, to decide preference and the taxation of food?
  The Prime Minister and other Ministers have made a great many varying statements on this question, and I am not going to disentangle the knot that has been tied. But I wish most strongly and distinctly to point out that you will only confuse the issue before the constituencies if you refer this question of a conference to them. People outside think that the question is simply whether there is to be a conference or not. They do not understand. That such a conference should be perfectly free and unfettered is, in my opinion, perfectly impossible. Will the representatives of the Colonies come to the conference free and unfettered I Every one of them will have his instructions; and is it right that this country should be represented at the conference without distinct and clear instructions being given as to how the proceedings are to be carried out? I am convinced that it is essential that there should be no ambiguity about this among the electors of this country. We cannot at present be clear as to what the Prime Minister and the Government desire. That state of things must be put an end to as soon as possible.
  The question to be put to the country is, Are you in favour of the taxation of food and protective duties in order to secure preference? The speech of the noble Duke went a long way not towards
  1228
  the taxation of food, perhaps, but towards having a fixed tariff on manufactured articles. That must be clearly put before the constituencies. When they have given their opinion, then it will be easy to deal with the conference. The conference is not summoned by Act of Parliament or by the constituencies. The principles being decided by the votes of the constituencies then it will be for the Government in office to decide upon the terms of the conference. I quite agree with what has been said that if the colonial representatives are called over here in the belief that they will have perfectly free and unfettered power of discussion, and then find that they cannot discuss the taxation of food, which is and must be involved in the question of preference, then I think it may be said you will have deceived them, or, at least, treated them unfairly. Let the question be put in a straightforward manner to the constituencies, and then do as you like about a conference. I have nothing further to add, and if my noble friend carries his Motion to a division I shall vote for it.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE): My Lords, the noble Earl has set a good example by confining his observations to the subject of the conference. We have been taunted during the course of the debate with expressing ideas which have been described as nebulous on this subject; but I confess that, after listening to the speeches of our critics, I do not find their criticism so clearly and sharply defined as I could wish, and certainly many of them have left us in doubt whether they desire a conference to meet at all or not. But I take it from the speeches of the noble Earl and of the noble and learned Lord behind me that they do desire a conference to assemble, and I accept the statement without the slightest reservation. I cannot, however, help remembering that not very long ago the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons publicly stated his opinion that the policy of a conference was ridiculous, and that he went on to say that the conference was, in his opinion, a trick and had for its object, not the consolidation of the Empire, but the consolidation of the Unionist Party. I hear that statement

  1229
  cheered, but it was not found in the speech of the noble Earl, nor in those of any of the speakers on the benches opposite, and I hope those cheers do not represent the real opinion there. If they do we cannot acquit them of insincerity in the remarks they have addressed to us.
  Our critics, then, desire that this Conference should meet, but they are extremely anxious to deny to it the opportunity of affording us any useful knowledge on the subject which, above all things, the conference will have to consider.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I ask the noble Marquess what that is?
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I will tell my noble friend in one moment if he will possess his soul in patience. This conference, if it meets, will be the fourth, the others having been held in 1887,1897, and 1902. I am not at this late hour going to pass in review the proceedings of these earlier meetings; but I shall not be misrepresenting them when I say that each showed a very distinct advance on its predecessor, and that at each the proceedings came to resemble less and less those of a debating society and more and more the deliberations of a great Imperial council. Each conference addressed itself more closely than its predecessor to the subject which I conceive was the most interesting of those before it—the possibility of improving the commercial relations between the mother country and the Colonies. That subject was certainly discussed at the conference in 1817, which, the noble Earl will remember, followed closely on a meeting of Australian Premiers, when the question of closer commercial arrangements came up for discussion: and, as for the conference of 1902, I need not recall to your Lordships the Resolution passed by it and the desire then expressed for another meeting in four years. I venture to say that the Colonies that took part in the conference of 1902 must have felt when they looked forward to reassembling in 1906 that their representatives would be in a position to resume the task on which they had been occupied, and certainly not with a less degree of freedom than had hitherto
  1230
  been afforded them. Well, I ask your Lordships, would it not be something like a farce to invite the Colonies to send their best, their most representative, statesmen here, and then to tell them that they have not the right to discuss a question they had already discussed at a former conference? My noble and learned friend has spoken of obtaining the presence of these colonial representatives on false pretences; but I say it will be a false pretence to ask them to come here and then tell them they are out of order if they discuss the question of closer commercial relations.
  What are noble Lords afraid of? Why are they so anxious to circumscribe the proceedings of the conference? Are they afraid that the Colonies will rush us into some extravagant proposal disastrous to the commercial welfare of this country? Are they afraid that the Government of the day will allow itself to be rushed into such a proposal? I will venture to express the opinion that each side is perfectly well aware, without precise instructions, that there are certain limitations beyond which neither side can make concessions to the other. I may say to your Lordships frankly that, in my opinion, it is idle to expect that the Colonies will agree to any changes in their fiscal system which will have the effect of wiping out of existence those home industries which they have expanded so much enterprise and energy in building up. On the other hand it is perfectly well known that we are not likely to listen to any proposals which might have the effect of materially increasing the price of food to the people of this country or of cutting off the supply of raw material upon which they so much depend for their industry. These limitations are perfectly understood; and I do not think you will gain anything by an attempt to fetter the Conference in such a way as to preclude them from discussing any questions verging on either of these points.
  What, I take it, the conference will have to do will be to consider whether within these limitations it is not possible to devise some mutually advantageous arrangement which might have beneficial effects upon the commerce of the Empire as a whole. The problem may be a difficult one. All that we ask is that the conference should be allowed to try to

  1231
  solve it. But, if the criticisms to which we have listened to-night are to prevail, we are not to be allowed even to make the effort. These questions will be ruled out of order. You are to get your delegates together and lay down hard-and-fast limits which they are on no account to exceed. The noble Duke on the bench below the gangway (the Duke of Devonshire) has not addressed to us any observations to-night; but he made a most interesting speech last night; and, although I will not quote it at length, I desire to refer to a single sentence which seems to me to show how completely he and others have misapprehended the spirit in which this conference is to be approached. The noble Duke expressed his sympathy with our desire to unite more closely the Empire by bonds of interest, as well as of sentiment; but he went on to say—
  "Hero, also, we are unfortunately compelled to differ diametrically from them."
  And he represented us as asking the Colonies to make changes in their system which they are unwilling to make in return for concessions which would be burdensome and therefore distasteful to our own people. We have no idea of asking the Colonies to make changes which they are unwilling to make, nor have we any desire of imposing on our people sacrifices which are distasteful to them. Our desire is that the two sides should come together and endeavour to devise some solution of the difficulty, which should be in accordance with the inclination both of the mother country and of the Colonies. If we succeed in our endeavour—if some arrangement can be made acceptable to the Colonies and acceptable to this country and to the people of this country—there will be every reason to rejoice. If we fail we shall, at any rate, have tried our best, and the conference will separate feeling that all has been done that is possible.
  We are asked, why is it necessary that the constituencies should give a mandate for this purpose? My Lords, surely those who take part in the conference will approach their task in a very different spirit and under very different conditions if they know that what they are doing is in accordance with the wish and general policy of the people of this country.
  1232
  My noble friend Lord Lytton asked me what would happen supposing we were still in office next year and the conference therefore met before the constituencies had given their mandate. I am almost tempted to tell my noble friend that, if he will give me twelve months notice of the Question and I am here to answer it, I will give him full information. I will now give him an interim Answer which will perhaps content him. I should say that in that case the conference would meet all the same, and that there would be plenty of useful work for it to do; and I see no reason why it should not, even in that case, address itself to the question of commercial relations. But there would be all the difference in the world between discussions of that subject after the constituencies had given their mandate and discussions when the delegates to the conference did not know whether the people of this country are or are not in favour of a change.
  We are asked whether the decisions of the conference would be binding on the Government and the people of this country. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has already protested against the idea that a conference of this kind can give a decision. The business of the conference is to report and advise, and obviously that decision is not and cannot be of itself a binding decision upon anybody. Those who take part in it are delegates; they are not plenipotentiaries. My noble and learned friend asked me a series of questions as to the constitution of the conference, what members of the Government would represent us, what instructions they would have, and, I think, he even wished to be told how the votes would be taken. These are matters of detail which, no doubt, can be dealt with and discussed at the time; but we are certainly not going, before the appeal to the constituencies has been made, and long before the conference has met, to commit ourselves as to all details of the procedure to be followed.
  I should like to ask your Lordships to consider for one moment what would happen supposing the advice of noble Lords opposite were taken and elaborate and restrictive instructions were given to the members of the conference.

  1233
  What would these instructions be? I take it, if noble Lords opposite had their own way, it would be intimated to the delegates that they were not authorised to discuss any proposals involving protection. On that at once arises the question, what is protection? The noble Marquess (Lord Ripon) laughs. Does he not remember that a few nights ago in this House we had a reference to India as a free-trade country, in spite of the fact that, as we all know, India has a 5 per cent, all-round tariff upon its imports? Has the noble Lord forgotten that there has been a controversy whether a shilling duty on corn was or was not a protective tax? I am rather under the impression that of two successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, both of the same way of thinking as my noble and learned friend behind me on that subject, one maintained that the shilling duty was, and the other that it was not, protection.
  Then I suppose another standing order will be that no proposals for the taxation of food will be in order. But we tax food now; and will it be out I of order to consider whether, as a certain amount of revenue is now derived from the taxation of food, those taxes may not be adjusted in such a way as to facilitate trade between the mother country and her great dependencies beyond the seas? I venture to suggest to the House that any attempt to hamper the conference by minute instructions an such points as these could only lead to very undignified and very infructuose discussions. I am reminded of a famous conference described by an American humourist at which a point of order was raised by a gentleman present with unfortunate results to himself—the result being that "the subsequent proceedings interested him no more"—and I am afraid that if points of this kind were to be discussed at the conference the subsequent proceedings would indeed cease to be interesting to many of those taking part in them.
  It is our desire that there should be no limitations of this kind upon these discussions; that, on the contrary, the discussions should be conducted with the most complete freedom; and, that they should extend to all the aspects
  1234
  not only the economical, but the political, aspects of the case. If such discussions are to be of use, we must trust the Colonies to avail themselves in a reasonable spirit of the opportunity which we are offering to them. We must ourselves approach these discussions with an open mind, and with the feeling that the country is behind us. What strikes me is that noble Lords opposite have approached this question with a feeling of general mistrust of everybody concerned. That they should mistrust His Majesty's Government may be, perhaps, from their point of view, natural; but I do not know why they should extend that mistrust to the Colonies, or to the Parliament, or the people of this country, because that is what it comes to.
  I desire, before I sit down, to notice one observation of the noble mover's, which I heard with some regret; he made it in the course of the very eloquent and animated peroration with which he ended his speech. He told your Lordships that in his view it was to the tie of sentiment to which we ought to look if we desired to maintain the unity of the Empire, and I do not think I misquote him when I say that he referred to the commercial tie as being one of a baser kind. I desire to raise my voice against the suggestion that there is anything base or sordid in the desire of the people of this country and of the Colonies to increase and foster Imperial trade. I believe, on the contrary, that the commercial tie is one of the soundest and healthiest ties by which a great community can be held together, and I for one rejoice that an effort should be made to increase the strength of that tie. Why, my Lords, in the office which I have the honour to fill at this moment, I am constantly brought into contact with the great Chambers of Commerce in this country, and with people who represent the trade of Great Britain in all parts of the world. Shall I be expected to tell them when they come to me that their interests are base and sordid interests? I am afraid we must oppose the Motion of my noble friend; his Motion has been described to us as a very innocent one; but without being unduly suspicious, I must express my general doubt as to the objects with

  1235
  which these ingeniously worded Motions are brought before Parliament. The drafting of these Resolutions has now become a fine art, and my noble friend has produced the latest effort of the kind. We cannot bind ourselves to any pledges beyond those which have already been given repeatedly, and with much distinctness, by the Prime Minister, and we desire that this conference should not be tied and fettered by detailed restrictions.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In what way would my Resolution fetter the conference? It merely asks that the people of this country should be informed of the conditions. There is no question of fettering.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I understood the whole tenor of my noble friend's speech to be that he desired that the people of this country should have explained to them in detail what were the limits beyond which the inquiries of the conference should not go. If I am mistaken, perhaps the noble Lord will explain?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I stand by the terms of the Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Exactly, that confirms what I ventured to say a moment ago. These Motions are drafted with much ingenuity; it is impossible to understand their exact bearing until you hear the speeches by which they are explained, and I say that the speech in which this Motion was introduced shows that its object is to deprive the conference of that free and unrestricted opportunity which we desire it should have, and for that reason we shall certainly oppose the Motion.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, for my part I think I may congratulate my noble friend Lord Balfour on the success which his Motion has had. I do not scruple to say that I think the speech of my noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, coupled with that of the noble Duke who answered the mover, on the whole very satisfactory. I think that we have received a great deal of most important information, which was not in our hands before. For
  1236
  one thing some light has been thrown on a point on which there was some doubt—namely, what was to be the position of the next conference if the Government should remain in power. We understand that then the conference, which would naturally be called next year, will not be a conference ad hoc—to discuss this most important question of fiscal changes, but will be an ordinary conference, and that it would be necessary to postpone to a further year the submission to this country, and to the inhabitants of the Colonies, of those great issues which have been brought before them.
  I am glad to think that the matter is not so urgent as was represented to us a few years ago. In 1903 it was said that this country was on a decline, and that unless an almost immediate decision was come to on these questions the tie which binds us to the Colonies would be weakened. Now we know that next year there may be an ordinary conference, and that the summoning of the conference itself may be deferred to a future year, and then it would be to a paulo-post-futurum conference that the decision would ultimately be relegated. I am quite satisfied with that course of affairs. I never thought the matter was so urgent as was represented in the burning speeches we heard in 1903. I congratulate His Majesty's Government, I cordially agree with them in the position to which they have come, that all this talk about the urgency of the case was really exaggerated, and that we can calmly look forward to a sensible and quiet discussion with the Colonies of the great questions which have been raised. We are free now for some years as regards any urgency for recasting our whole fiscal system. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Balfour on having elicited the clearest expression—the renewed expression—of His Majesty's Government to the effect that no conference is to have any power to decide any of these questions before the matter is once more submitted to the constituencies.
  The noble Lord the President of the Tariff Reform Commission, to whose speech we have all listened with great interest, expressed his profound disappointment at this renewed declaration

  1237
  of the Government, that there was not to be a conference which should decide anything, but only a conference which was to come to some conclusions which were afterwards to be submitted to another decision of the electorate. I cannot agree in the regret of the noble Lord. I rejoice that these great changes are to be considered deliberately and are not to be decided by a conference without a real appeal to the people of this country. This is clear, this is decided once for all, that it will only be after two elections that we shall have before us the questions which are to be submitted to the conference. I congratulate Lord Balfour of Burleigh on having obtained a clear declaration to the effect that the Prime Minister is opposed to the taxation of food.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: The protective taxation of food.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Does that include the two shillings? My noble friend does not answer. I understand that the Prime Minister is opposed to the taxation of food proposed by Mr. Chamberlain. If that is so, we have cleared the ground to a great extent, and I am not so anxious for any special instructions to be given to our representatives at the conference. If it is known by the Colonies when their representatives come here that the Prime Minister is opposed to the taxation of food, they have been advised of the general tendency of this country. Who will be chosen to represent this country at the conference is a matter on which we can scarcely expect the Government to be very explicit, although it is a matter of the deepest importance. I do not think they will commission Mr. Chamberlain to represent us at the conference. We know now that the Colonies have notice, from the words which have fallen from the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, that the Prime Minister is opposed to the taxation of food.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: Protective taxation.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Will the noble Duke explain the difference?
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHNo, indeed, I will not.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My position would be this. In the same way as we have been advised by the representatives of the Colonies that they are not prepared to make concessions to us in the way of lowering duties to admit our manufactures, so they have been advised that we are opposed to the taxation of food and raw materials. The two parties will meet with this notification to each other. If that is the case, I say I shall not demand or expect the Government to give any precise instructions to those who represent us at the conference. Noble Lords will excuse me if I say it, but I think we may congratulate ourselves upon four most able speeches that have been made this evening by some of the youngest Members of this House. It is a great advantage to the House that four such speeches should have been made as have been made by the Duke of Marlborough, Lord Beauchamp, Lord Lytton, and Lord Ridley, and I think the discussion has perhaps been in some respects more satisfactory than some of the much longer and more heated debates in another place. I think we have arrived at some better conclusions. It has been said, "The Colonies have made these offers to you, what are you going to give them in return? The Colonies have given you great advantages in preference; what will you do for them?" Well, I think there is one answer which this country can make to the Colonies, and that is this, "If on the one hand you have given us some preferences, and I value them——"Let it be perfectly understood that I and many of those who act with me value them also. We value these preferences. We think that the Colonies have shown the best temper in the world in granting us these preferences, and for my part I am glad that a conference should be called in order to discuss the whole of this question. I do not associate myself with any of the observations which have been made which are derogatory to the calling of the conference. I rejoice in it; I think it is well. But what I was going to say was this. Do we do nothing for the Colonies while they have made concessions to us?

  1239
  Words have been spoken to-night with regard to the various ties which bind us and the Colonies together. Some think that it is the ties of commerce which are to make the union between ourselves and our Colonies closer, and I trust if those ties are made they will bind us tight. Others have spoken of the ties of sentiment, which have acted in the past, which have acted during a time of severe pressure on this country, and which have proved that, without any commercial union with the Colonies, they were ready to come to our assistance, and to show how they associated themselves with Imperial questions before this question of commercial union had been raised. But there is another tie which binds us to the Colonies, the tie of common defence, the tie which consists in the fact that we put forward the whole power of this Empire, not only to defend our own shores, not only to defend our own commerce, but to defend our Colonies with as great an energy and determination that no colony shall be hurt by any foreign country as we exercise in protecting our own shores.
  And what have we done in order to secure that that tie of common defence shall be carried out and strengthened to the advantage of the Colonies as well as of ourselves. We have doubled our military and naval expenditure. We have done all we can to put ourselves in a position to assist the Colonies and to defend them against the increasing power of foreign countries and against all the newer dangers which may threaten them. Is that nothing that we can take into the common fund of Imperial defence, of Imperial unity, of Imperial interests? The noble Duke spoke, and spoke with eloquence, of what Canada had done for us by increasing our trade with herself, and what an advantage this country has received. But think of the enormous increase of taxation which has been put upon this country, and this country alone, in order to defend not only ourselves, but the Empire at large. I think we may I fairly put forward a claim to the Colonies that if they have given us some preferences, which we value, not only for the material advantage which has accrued, but for the spirit in which they have been given, we on our side also have made some contributions to the common
  1240
  interests of the Empire at large by the enormous accession of taxation which has been borne by this country. I think that is a fair plea that may be urged by our representatives, whoever they may be, in this conference, which I hope will conduce to the advantage both of this country and of the Colonies.
  I think my noble friend has gained much by this debate. I have no exception to take to the speech which was made by the Leader of the House, and in those circumstances I cannot think that it would be advisable for him to divide the House on the Motion which he has set down. He has had an Answer to his Question, and if he were to carry the Motion, which perhaps we may doubt, I do not think that we should be any more forward than we are at the present moment. We should not be able to elicit any more information from His Majesty's Government. I think they have told us all we are likely to gain from them, and, therefore, I would venture to advise my noble friend—and in that I have the approval, I believe, of the Duke of Devonshire—not to push his Motion to a division.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, it will only be by the indulgence of the House that I intervene in this debate after the Leaders have spoken, and after the speech of Lord Goschen. I had no intention of doing so, but I claim your indulgence because I confess that, entering this House with a candid mind, I have been rather filled with suspicion from what has occurred in the course of the debate. In regard to this Question of Lord Balfour of Burleigh's, I occupy a somewhat different position from any of those represented in the speeches to which we have listened. As I read it, I thought it a somewhat academical Question, academical in more senses than one. One sense, I am afraid, may seem somewhat offensive to the Front Bench opposite; but I thought it academical in this sense, that I do not think, so far as I can gather from the symptoms that have appeared in the country, that it is very likely that they will be called upon after the next general election to summon a Colonial Conference, and, therefore, I confess there is an air of unreality in discussing the question

  1241
  of what His Majesty's present Government will do after the next general election is decided.
  Well, it is also academical in another sense. It asks a number of Questions which are irreproachable in their nature and contents, and, therefore, it does not seem necessary to vote on the propositions laid down in the Motion. But I was glad to hear that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack took much the same view as I am taking. He said, as I understood him, that there were conditions as to which no debate could arise. I am not often fortunate enough to be in harmony with the noble and learned Lord; but on this occasion I find myself in agreement with him. What are these Questions from which I am afraid we have departed under the leadership of the noble Duke? And let me congratulate him that, among the many promising speeches delivered by Peers of a younger generation, he should have delivered a speech which has enabled him to occupy the unique position of having sprung in a single night to be hailed as the leader and mouthpiece of the great Conservative Party and of the Government of which he is as yet nominally only a subordinate member. But what are the Questions from which we have departed so much under his leadership?
  "Under what conditions will the conference be summoned?"
  I understand from what has been said that it will be summoned on the conditions of free speech.
  "What Colonies and dependencies will be invited to send representatives?"
  That is a question which may be left to the future. It is not a question really of such great importance as it seems to be on the Paper.
  "How far will any decision arrived at be held as binding upon His Majesty's Government and the United Kingdom?"
  It is quite clear that no decision of a Colonial Conference can be held as binding on the United Kingdom without the consent and approval of Parliament. Therefore I say that these Questions were in their nature academic. They have raised a very interesting discussion. We have had various avowals, chiefly, I think, from the noble Duke, sustained by a some-
  1242
  what dubious silence on the part of his colleagues; and we have had a sort of catechetical speech from the noble and learned Lord opposite, who seemed to bring the whole Front Bench opposite, one after another, on to their legs to answer the Questions which he put. But that is not business in the true sense of the word. It is academic. It rests for foundation on the existence of the present Government after the general election, and it rests on their ability to answer some general Questions which they find no difficulty in answering in the way that Governments generally answer Questions.
  Why is it that I feel called upon to intervene in this debate when I have regarded it as somewhat academic from the commencement? I will tell you in a sentence. The whole of this conference has had a sinister career. In the ordinary course of things, with a four years' limit, an ordinary conference would be called in 1906. Well, what was the origin of this conference? We were told in 1903 that it was a vital crisis to the Empire; that it was a question of now or never; that we were refusing an offer which was like the Sibylline books, and would be shortly withdrawn. We were plunged into an agony of expectation as to what was to happen next to the Empire which hitherto had seemed so united. The last conference had only been a year before. We asked in vain what had occurred in the eight months since the separation of that conference and the middle of May, 1903, that it should be proclaimed that the Empire was in danger. Then we had alarms and excursions for fifteen months more. Then we came to a moment on which Lord Balfour laid very insufficient stress. Indeed, he went out of his way to say that he passed it by altogether. It was the Answer of the Prime Minister in August of last year to the Question, whether he was going to call a Colonial Conference. To that question the Prime Minister replied that he had no idea of the kind. But two months afterwards he hurriedly summoned a meeting at Edinburgh, and called his friends round him, to announce that he had discovered a great new policy which had apparently occurred to no one else before—that of

  1243
  summoning a Colonial Conference at the earliest possible date. When you consider all that had passed, when you consider the Answer which the Prime Minister had given in August, when you pass on to the statement that he made in October, I ask, is the statement of my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition in the other House, to which the noble Marquess alluded with such contumely—I ask, is the statement overcharged, that this conference was called, not to unite the British Empire, but to unite the Conservative Party?
  That is the origin of this Conference. The attempt is now made to convert it into the battle-cry of a general election. I do not believe, even if the Government had been more ingenuous and more diffuse in their explanations to-night than they have been, that there is any chance of that conference being a substantial issue at the next general election; and, therefore, from my point of view, all this has been academic. The history of the conference has been sinister. It is not a candid proposition that has been laid before the country. It is not an open policy. It is our old friend the red herring drawn across the inconvenient path of the erratic Member for West Birmingham. But if this be academic, how does it fit in with the sinister position of this policy? I say that the propositions laid down in the Motion of the noble Lord are so innocent that, if the Government were sincere in their policy, if they merely desired an open conference of the kind that they have so frequently described, they could not raise a finger in opposition to the Motion. "But, ah!" says the noble Marquess, with that perspicuity and that nose for the suspicious which has made him so great an authority in foreign affairs—"Ah," says he, "the Motion is nothing. These Motions are made out as traps for the unwary. I do not look at the Motion. Perish the Motion! What I look at is the dangerous, the misleading, the casuistical speech of my noble friend Lord Balfour."
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I did not make use of those epithets.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: No; the noble Marquess did not. I put in the
  1244
  epithets; I enriched his vocabulary. But they were all in his voice and in his intonation, though they were not in his speech. But now I come to the final question, which alone has brought me to my feet, and no speech is needed in answer to it. Why, if it is against the speech of Lord Balfour that the Government are going to vote to-night, did they direct the issue of a three-lined Whip three days before that speech was spoken?
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Motion.
  Permission for leave to withdraw the said Motion having been refused.
  On Question; resolved in the negative.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.