Sitting of 21 July 1910

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

STANDING ORDERS (AMENDED).
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott)The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Emmott) moved that the Standing Orders relating to Private Business be amended as follows:—
After Standing Order 26, insert the following:—

NEW STANDING ORDER.—(Deposit in case of Bills affecting fisheries in England and Wales.)
Where, under the powers of any Bill, it is proposed to make, extend, or enlarge any dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary in England or Wales, or any sewer discharging into any such river or estuary, a copy of so much of the plans and sections as relates to the proposed dam, weir, obstruction, or sewer shall, on or before the 30th day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and at the office of any fishery board having jurisdiction over the river or estuary.

STANDING ORDER 26A.—(Deposit in case of Bill affecting banks, etc., of river.)
And, in cases where the work is to be situate on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river, a copy of so much of the plans and sections as relates to the portion of the work by which the banks, foreshore, or river-bed may be affected, shall, on or before the 30th day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited:—

(1) If the river is in England or Wales at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries;

(2) Or, if the river is in Scotland at the Office of the Secretary for Scotland;

(3) Or, if the river is in Ireland at the Irish Office, Westminster, and at the Office of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland, Dublin;

1412

(4) And, if there be a Board of Conservators constituted for the conservancy of the river, at the Office also of such Board.

And if the plans include any tunnel under or bridge over the river, the dimensions as regards depth below bed of the river, and span and headway, shall be marked thereon; and such plans shall be accompanied by an Ordnance Map of the country over which the works are proposed to extend or are to be carried, with their position and extent or route accurately laid down thereon.
Leave out the word "And" ["And, in cases."]
Leave out the word "the" ["in cases where the work "] and insert instead thereof the word "any."
After the word "work" ["in cases where the work"] insert the words "proposed to be authorised."
After the word "river" ["or bed of any river"] insert the words "in Scotland or Ireland."
Leave out Sub-section (1).
Sub-section (2), leave out the word "or" ["or, if the river"].

STANDING ORDER 33.
Sub-section (6).—Of every Bill relating to any dock, harbour, navigation, pier, port, or tidal waters, at the Office of the Harbour Department of the Board of Trade, marked "Tidal Waters."
After the word "Bill" ["Of every Bill relating "] insert the words "affecting foreshore or tidal lands within the ordinary spring tides or".
Leave out Sub-section (7).—"Of every Bill of the Second Class, whereby it is intended to authorise the construction of any work on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river, at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and at the Office of the Conservators of the River, if any;" and insert instead thereof, "(7) Of every Bill whereby it is proposed to authorise in England or Wales the making, extending, or enlarging of any dam, weir, or obstruction to the passage of fish in any river or estuary, or of any sewer discharging into any such river or estuary, or the abstraction of water from any river, at the Office of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries and at the office of any fishery board having jurisdiction over the river or estuary."

STANDING ORDER 185.—(Compensation Water).
In the case of every Bill, whereby it is proposed to impound the whole or any part of the water of any river or stream, and to give a flow of water in compensation for the water so impounded, the Committee on the Bill shall inquire into the expediency of making provision, so far as may be practicable, that the whole or a, minimum amount of such compensation water shall be given in a continuous flow throughout the twenty-four hours of every day, and shall report to the House accordingly.
After the word "impound" ["whereby it is proposed to impound"] insert the words "or abstract."
Leave out the words "and to give a flow of water in compensation for the water so impounded."
After the word "practicable" ["as far as may be practicable"], insert the words "for giving a flow of water in compensation for the water so impounded or abstracted, and".

STANDING ORDER 207.—(Second or Third Reading to be postponed when opposed.)
In cases where the Second or Third Reading of a Private Bill, or the Consideration of a Bill as amended by the Committee, or any proposed Clause or Amendment, or any Motion relating to a Private Bill, is opposed, the same shall be postponed until the day on which the House shall next sit. Provided that where any such opposed Private Business is set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and is disposed of, any Motion contingent directly or otherwise thereon, may, with the assent of the Chair, be considered and disposed of at the same sitting.
After the words "Provided that" ["Provided that there were any such"] insert the words, "any opposed Private Business set down at a Quarter-past Eight may be arranged in such order as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine."
The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I do not propose to move the Amendment down on the Paper, Standing Order 30 A. I cannot secure agreement between the Home Office and the London County Council, for the moment, regarding it. With regard to the other Amendments, the new Standing Order, and the Amendments to Standing Order 26 A and to Standing Order 33, Sub-section (7), hang
1414
together, and will relieve the promoters of Water Bills in England and Wales to some extent of their obligations to submit plans which are not considered necessary by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, and which do not affect fisheries. The Amendment to Standing Order 33, Subsection (6) is asked for by the Board of Trade. Powers affecting foreshore are sometimes granted without the knowledge of the Board of Trade, and without the opportunity of asking for protective provisions. The Amendments to Standing Order 185 are proposed at the suggestion of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries. The effect of the Amendments is to extend the power of Committees on Water Bills to inquire into the expediency of giving compensation in cases where water of a river or stream is impounded or abstracted. Committees always do inquire, but the Standing Order does not order them to inquire as it will do in its new form. The only other Amendment, that to Standing Order 207, is for the purpose of stating in terms what the practice is. At present the Chairman of Ways and Means has this power, but I think it is advisable, in regard to Standing Orders which regulate Private Business, that it should be stated on the face of the Orders that he has this power.
Amendments agreed to.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—
Tramways Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Water Orders Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 1) Bill [Lords].
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Bill [Lords].
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill [Lords].
Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill [Lords].
Education Board Provisional Orders Confirmation (Berks, etc.) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time to-morrow.
Provisional Order Bills [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:—
Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time to-morrow.
Cambridge University and Town Water Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Metropolitan District Railway Bill [Lords], As amended, considered; Amendments made:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time. [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Padstow Harbour Bill [Lords],
As amended, considered; a Clause added; Amendments made:—
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Bill accordingly read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Clydebank and District Water Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Considered; to be read the third time to-morrow.
Paisley Gas Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Read a second time; to be considered to-morrow.
Highland Railway Order Confirmation Bill (by Order),
Consideration deferred till to-morrow.
Thames Conservancy (Appointments and Tolls) Provisional Order Bill,
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]. Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]. Bill to be read the third time to-morrow.
London United Tramways Bill [Lords], Reported, with Amendments.
Message from the Lords,—That they have agreed to—
Census (Great Britain) Bill,
Diseases of Animals (No. 2) Bill, with Amendments.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Chili Centenary.
  Mr. BIRDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to our trade interests in Chili, the British Navy will be represented at the forthcoming centenary celebrations of that Republic?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): His Majesty's Government are precluded from being represented at the Chilian, as at the Argentine, centenary celebrations by the national mourning. The reason for their abstention has been explained to the Chilian Government.
  Mr. BIRD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the magnitude of our trade interests in Chili and the very serious competition to which we are exposed, and consider the desirability of conciliating the goodwill of the inhabitants of Chili, and therefore will he humbly suggest to His Majesty the desirability of relaxing the regulations?
  Sir E. GREY: I quite admit the importance of our interests in Chili, but I am sure the Republic of Chili thoroughly understands the position, because exactly the same thing occurred in the case of the Argentine Republic the other day. We have very considerable interests there, and they thoroughly understood the position, and I am sure it will be understood in Chili too.

  Royal Memorial College, Khartoum.
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked whether the vivisection of animals is carried on in the laboratory belonging to or connected with the Royal Memorial College at Khartoum which was erected to the memory of the late General Gordon; if so, why the sanction of his name has been given to a practice he condemned; and will it now be discontinued or General Gordon's name removed from the college?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information about the practice of vivisection at the Royal Memorial College at Khartoum.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the facts?
  Sir E. GREY: I am not quite sure what the position of the Royal Memorial College is, but I will make inquiry into that point.

  Indian Prisoner Savarkar.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communication from the French Government upon the subject of the escape and recapture of the Indian prisoner Savarkar at Marseilles by the French police; and, if so; can he state the nature of such communications?
  Sir E. GREY: His Majesty's Government have been approached by the French Government on the subject, but I cannot make any statement till there has been time to consider the facts and the points involved.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: Will the prisoner be kept on board ship until a decision is come to?
  Sir E. GREY: I must ask for notice of that.

  Mount Dillion Estate (Roscommon).
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked whether arrangements for the sale of the Mount Dillion Estate, county Roscommon, to the Congested Districts Board had been completed or were likely soon to be completed; and whether the distribution of the untenanted land among the small-holders would be carried out?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): The Congested Districts Board have not yet purchased the Mount Dillion Estate. The information asked for in the concluding portion of the question cannot therefore be given.

  Footbridge at Moulnahorna, Kerry.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the whole county of Kerry was now scheduled as a congested district, the Congested Districts Board would favourably consider the application for assistance in constructing a footbridge at Moulnahorna, in the electoral division of Dromore, near Kenmare; and whether he was aware that this application was refused on a previous occasion on the ground that the district was not officially scheduled as congested?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board are making inquiries in connection with this application, which, I understand, was refused on a previous occasion on the grounds stated in the question.

  Irish Exports and Imports (Publication of Report).
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether steps Could be taken to secure the publication before 1st August by the Department of Agriculture of the Report on Irish Exports and Imports for 1909, in view of the fact that the information therein contained would be of the greatest value to the commercial men from all parts of Ireland who would be assembled in Belfast for the furtherance of home and foreign trade during the first week in August, now termed Irish week?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Report in question is expected to be ready for presentation early next month, and every effort will be made by the Department to prevent any delay in the matter.

  Lavagh, Lusmagh (Sale of Lands).
  Mr. REDDYasked the Chief Secretary whether he would direct the attention of the Estates Commissioners to the fact that the Land. Judges of the High Court had ordered the sale of the lands of Lavagh, Lusmagh, in the barony of Garrycastle, King's County, formerly owned by Mr. Joseph Dolan; and whether the Commissioners would buy the land for the enlargement of the existing holdings on the property?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Estates Commissioners have issued a request to the Land Judge under Section 7 of the Irish Land Act, 1903, with reference to 125 acres of the townland referred to. When the necessary documents have been lodged, the Commissioners will consider the question of making an offer for the lands.

  Cattle Driving (Ireland).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary whether he would state, up to 30th June, 1910, the total number of cases of cattle-driving reported to the police, the number of distinct cases in which proceedings were instituted, and the number of persons proceeded against, distinguishing between the different results of proceedings before magistrates and before juries, respectively?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The total number of cattle drives up to 30th June last was 1,389. Proceedings were instituted in respect of 230 of these drives. There were 180 distinct prosecutions directed against 2,128 persons. Summary proceedings were taken in 165 cases, 1,958 persons being brought before magistrates. Of these, 328 were discharged and 1,595 were ordered to find bail, of whom 276 were imprisoned in default of giving bail, and the cases against 35 persons were adjourned. Eleven cases were tried before juries against 148 persons, of whom 17 were convicted and 30 acquitted; the jury disagreed as regard 69, and nolle prosequi was entered in the case of 32. In the four remaining cases 22 persons are awaiting trial at assizes.
  Mr. JOYCE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether any drives of human beings have taken place on this estate during the last fifty years?

  County Court Administration (Ireland).
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary whether he had received any complaints as to county court administration and procedure in Ireland; and whether he was prepared to take any steps in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No complaints on this subject have recently reached me. Suggested reforms in county court procedure have from time to time been brought under the notice of successive Irish Governments, but so far it has not been found practicable to give legislative effect to them.

  Peace Preservation Act (Restoration of Arms).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked the Chief Secretary if he would state the date of the circular containing instructions to the Royal Irish Constabulary with reference to the restoration of arms surrendered under the Peace Preservation Act; the date upon which the Irish Government
  1420
  approved of these instructions; and the date upon which the matter was brought to his notice?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The date of the circular referred to is 1st July, 1910. It was issued by the Inspector-General. The matter was brought to my notice for the first time by its publication in the newspapers.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it was that he did not hear of this circular until 11th July, ten days after it was issued with the approval of the Irish Government?
  Mr. BIRRELL: If the hon. Member turns to the Act of Parliament under which these notices were given he will see that it was an administrative matter, and I suppose it was not thought to be of sufficient importance for my attention to be called to it.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked if the Royal Irish Constabulary had received supplementary instructions that firearms surrendered under the Peace Preservation Act were only to be restored to owners who could prove their claim and produce an Excise licence authorising them to bear arms; and whether ammunition and weapons other than firearms were to be restored without any restriction whatever?
  Mr. BIRRELL: As stated by my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, in reply to the hon. Member's question on the 13th instant, firearms voluntarily surrendered will be restored only to owners who can prove their claims and produce an Excise licence. The quantity of weapons other than firearms is very small, and the ammunition is practically valueless.

  Kilmurry Eviction Proceedings.
  Mr. LONSDALEasked what were the charges against Richard J. Walsh, Kilmurry, and others in regard to which a nolle prosequi was entered at the Kerry Summer Assizes; and whether the withdrawal of these prosecutions indicated an intention to abandon any further attempt to vindicate the law in the matter of the Kilmurry eviction proceedings in June last?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that at the Kerry Spring Assizes, 1910, the defendants in this case were indicted for (1) resisting the sheriff, (2) assaulting the police, and (3) unlawful assembly. The jury acquitted the defendants on the first

  1421
  of these indictments, and the trial on the other two was postponed to the summer assizes, when a nolle prosequi was entered, and the defendants were discharged. No other proceedings are contemplated in the matter.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it was fair to the police, some of whom were seriously injured, that these men should have been allowed to escape punishment?
  Mr. BIRRELL: That is a question affecting the discretion of the Attorney-General in the exercise of his right to enter a nolle prosequi. Considerations on both sides were present to his mind in coming to a conclusion, from which conclusion I do not differ.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Why were six of the fifteen men who were arrested for resisting eviction allowed to go away to America?
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Was not the disturbance on this occasion much less serious than the disturbance which took place the night before last in the town of Armagh, among the hon. Member's own constituents?
  Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Why six persons were allowed to go away? I am bound to say that in my opinion these six persons had much better be out of the country than in it.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Was the action of the magistrates who refused informations brought to the notice of the Lord Chancellor?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I cannot answer that question. I will inquire, if the hon. Member wishes.

  Disturbances at Athlone.
  Captain COOPERasked the Chief Secretary whether any disturbances took place in Athlone oh Wednesday, 13th instant; and, if so, would he inform the House what took place?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The police authorities inform me that no disturbance took place in Athlone on the 13th instant. On the evening of Sunday, the 10th instant, a number of street preachers, who had taken up a position near the Town Bridge, became the abject of a hostile demonstration by a large crowd which collected near them.
  1422
  The police, in the interests of the public peace, requested the preachers to desist, and they did so. The police then escorted them to their residence. No assault was committed, and the action of the police averted what might have become a serious disturbance.
  Captain COOPER: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what was the creed of these lay preachers?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; nor of anybody else.

  Butter Industry (Ireland).
  Mr. JAMES O'KELLYasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the resolution of the Croghan Co-operative Agricultural and Dairy Society, Limited, Boyle, county Roscommon, condemning the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Irish butter industry in so far as the Report proposed to place the control of the industry in the hands of the Department of Agriculture; and whether he would take steps to reassure the Irish creamery industry that no official interference would be attempted by means of legislation or otherwise?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Department of Agriculture have received resolutions to the effect mentioned in the question, as well as others in the opposite sense. Any action the Department may take in this matter will be solely in the interests of the Irish butter industry.

  Congested Districts Board, Ireland (Appointment of Valuers).
  Mr. LONSDALEasked whether any valuers have yet been appointed by the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, what were their names?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have appointed six temporary valuers, namely, Messrs. Matthew Flanagan, William Roberts, Charles Webb, Robert M. Marsh, Thomas S. Moyles, and James P. Dowling.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of giving some of these positions to applicants from the North of Ireland, having regard to the fact that the gentlemen appointed were all Nationalists?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I can only say that the question of the appointment of these persons was referred by the Congested Districts Board to a very small representa-

  1423
  tive sub-committee, who undertook the most disagreeable task of sorting out these gentlemen from a very large number, and they came to a conclusion in the exercise of their discretion.
  Mr. LONSDALE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House who the committee were?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No, Sir; they were a committee of the Congested Districts Board.

  Malta Fever (Investigation of Cause)
  Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if he would instruct the new Commission appointed for the purpose of investigating the origin of Mediterranean fever to reconsider the question from a sanitary and statistical standpoint, in relation to the military, naval, and civil populations, respectively, especial regard being paid to the sudden decline of the disease in the Army six months prior to the prohibition of goats' milk, the gradual decline in the Navy since the dredging operations of the Grand Harbour were commenced and the stoppage of sewage deposit therein, the uniformly lower rate of attack among the civil population compared with the military and naval populations, and the greatly decreased incidence among the civil population in those portions of the island of Malta where extensive sanitary improvements had been recently effected; would he see his way to appoint upon that Commission at least one medical gentleman from this country holding broad sanitary views who might assist the Commission in determining factors other than those of a bacteriological nature; and would he be prepared to add the name of Dr. P. P. Agius, B.A., M.D., Ph.D., of Malta, in view of his scientific attainments, to those of the members of the Commission?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): It is not proposed that the new Commission shall concern itself with any other question than the manner in which goats become infected, which is the only matter in connection with the causation of Malta fever which remains obscure. The elected members of the Council of Government are only prepared to concur in the appointment of the committee on the condition that this question is made the special object of their inquiry. The Secretary of
  1424
  State has agreed to the proposal of the elected members that they should be allowed to nominate an independent local practitioner to be a member of the Commission. It is not yet known whom they will choose.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Do I understand that the inquiry will consist of experiments on animals for the purpose of curing a disease from which they do not suffer?
  Colonel SEELY: That rather prejudges the question. Of course, the inquiry will not be confined to experiments on animals. The question is how far and how they become affected, and that is a very proper subject of inquiry.
  Sir J. RANDLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that the insanitary conditions which prevailed at Malta had not a great deal to do with this fever?
  Colonel SEELY: It is rather difficult to discuss this highly technical matter by means of question and answer. Of course, every sanitary improvement tends to reduce disease. Speaking for myself, having inquired into the matter as much as I can, I think there is no doubt whatever; that goats' milk was the principal cause is proved without a shadow of doubt.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what appears to be a perfectly adequate case has been made out against their being any connection whatever between goats' milk and Malta fever? Will he not institute an independent inquiry into the matter?
  Colonel SEELY: This is a matter of opinion; but I think myself—and I can speak only for myself—that the reply I gave about ten days ago, showing the enormous reduction in Malta fever since measures were taken on the assumption that it was caused by goats' milk, is a conclusive proof.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after goats' milk was entirely stopped in the Naval Hospital the entries for fever were reduced from thirty to one per month, and eventually to none?
  Colonel SEELY: I could not charge my memory with the precise facts, but what the Noble Lord says represents more or less the facts. The figures with regard to the Army were even more startling.
  Mr. CHANCELLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reduction had begun long before?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot bear in mind the exact dates, but I am afraid that that is not so.

  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in estimating the amount still to be expended after 31st March next at Rosyth during the remaining period of time before completion as £1,687,000, he has taken into consideration the sum of £2,717,000 which is given on page 135 of the Navy Estimates as representing the further amount required for completing the work, in addition to £145,000 for new magazines?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The sum of £1,687,000, given as the estimated amount still to be expended at Rosyth during the period extending from the end of 1910–11 to the time of completion is that to be paid on the main contract, Section 1 of which, as the Noble Lord is aware, is due for completion on 30th September, 1913, and Section 2 on 30th June, 1916, with a bonus in respect of Section 2 for earlier completion. The £2,717,000 shown on page 135 of the Navy Estimates for 1910–11 includes, of course, payment on account of the contract already entered into, the, difference between the two sums representing ultimate work in connection with various features of the complete scheme, such as the erection of buildings and contingent work generally.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is a fact that if the dock is to be finished as stated by the Government £600,000 a year will have to be expended till it is completed?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, I cannot say that.

  Royal Marine Light Infantry (J. S. Barnard).
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Nield)asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether John S. Barnard was medically examined before being allowed to enlist in the Royal Marine Light Infantry on or about 26th September, 1896; if so, whether he was passed as sound; when first was he found to be suffering from melancholia; do the medical reports on that or any subsequent occasion indicate the cause of the attack or any circumstances which would account for it; and will he furnish a copy of all the medical reports under the control of the Admiralty relating to this man?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: In reply to a former question of the hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that there is nothing in the official records to indicate that this man has ever suffered from sunstroke, and the medical reports show that his invaliding for melancholia was not in any way attributable to service causes. In reply to the present question, I have to say that Barnard was enlisted in the Royal Marine Light Infantry in September, 1896. He was first found to be suffering from melancholia in September, 1899. The medical reports gave no indication whatever on that occasion, or on any subsequent occasion, as to the cause of the attack, and no circumstances are recorded which would account for it. I am afraid I cannot accede to the request put forward in the last part of the question.

  H.M.S. "Emerald."
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to the "Emerald" having been towed to Cawsand Bay by the Ocean Steamship Company's steamer "Ducalion," after having broken away from the tugs whose business it was to bring the "Emerald" from Ireland to Plymouth; whether the tugs were undermanned; did the crews strike work on the voyage, and were they replaced by stokers from the "Emerald"; whether any of the tug crews did fifty hours' consecutive duty before reliefs were provided; and what is the cost of the assistance rendered to the "Emerald" by the "Ducalion"?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: A report on this matter has been received this morning, and will in due course be considered by the Admiralty. In the meantime, I think it is only right to say that I have myself read the report, and cannot find that the allegations put forward in the question are according to fact.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Does the answer of the hon. Gentleman refer to the whole of the suggestions in the question or to any specific one?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Well, I am not anxious to discuss the matter, because we have a report which will have to be considered. I think it only fair—and I myself have gone through the report in detail—to say, as I have just said, that the general allegations put forward are not according to fact.

  Naval Manœuvres (Men's Leave).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will explain to the House how it happens that last year, after the manœuvres were finished, the ships belonging to the Mediterranean Fleet returned to their respective ports to give leave to the men, and that this year an Order has been issued directing all ships belonging to the Mediterranean Fleet taking part in the manœuvres to return forthwith to their station at the conclusion of the manœuvres; and how the circumstances of the one year differ from those of the other?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty do not consider it expedient on this occasion that the Mediterranean ships should visit their home ports before returning to their station. But nearly all the ships now on the Mediterranean Station which have come home for manœuvres have given leave in England within the last three or four months.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is it not a fact that there is a regulation of the Admiralty which allows leave to be given to the men of the ships. of the Home. Fleet—that the ships must be relieved of their men after the manœuvres are over?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I could not say that.

  Devonport Dockyard (Workmen's Compensation).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Sidney A. Maunder, late hired plumber, Devonport Dockyard, who has been awarded 13s. 10d. a week on the basis of totally destroyed earning capacity; whether, when accepting the scheme under which this sum is the maximum compensation to which the man is entitled, in lieu of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the facts were properly explained to him by a solicitor or some person having the necessary legal knowledge; whether he is aware that the man was earning 34s. 6d. per week as late as November last, that he has a wife and two children dependent on him, and that he himself is suffering from the effects of acute lead poisoning; and whether he will consider the possibility of adding such an amount to his weekly payment of 13s. 10d. as, in the circumstances of the case, seem necessary for the subsistence of the family?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Generally the facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The acceptance of the scheme contracting out of the Workmen's Compensation Act was optional, and its provisions were promulgated beforehand, so as to enable the workmen to determine for themselves whether they should accept or decline. The provisions of the scheme were not explained individually to the men, but every man had full opportunity to consider them. Although the amount awarded in this case is less than the maximum which could be paid under the Act itself, the provisions of the scheme must be dealt with as a whole, and, as prescribed by the Act, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies has certified that the scheme is not less favourable to the workmen and their dependants than the Act. It is regretted that there is no power to add to the amount already awarded.
  Mr. J. WARD: If I understand correctly the answer of the hon. Gentleman, the provisions of the scheme do not give the workmen the same advantages as the Act, therefore the scheme, according to the Act, is out of order?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No. In the matter of Hurt Pay, for instance, the provisions of the scheme are more favourable generally to the workmen than the provisions of the Act.

  Territorial Force (Admiralty Dockyard Order).
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the difficulty experienced in filling up the shortage of 26,000 in the Territorial Forces, he will consider the advisability of amending the Admiralty Order providing that only 2 per cent. of workmen engaged in the Royal dockyards should be enrolled in the Territorial Forces; whether he is aware that the Order, as it now stands, is a hardship on men belonging to the Territorial Force and wishing to obtain employment in the Royal dockyards; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will reconsider the Order with a view of allowing a greater percentage of dockyard employés to join the Territorial Forces?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Order referred to by the hon. Member was issued after very full consideration of all the circumstances, and the Admiralty are not prepared to revoke it. As regards the second part of the question, instructions are being

  1429
  promulgated to the effect that men belonging to the Territorial Force, who are candidates for admission to the dockyards, may be allowed to enter and complete the periods of their existing engagements with that force, notwithstanding the fact that the 2 per cent. may thus be temporarily exceeded.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But when this Order was promulgated it was known that there was a deficiency of 26,000 men.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot admit the accuracy of the figures.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Was it known?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say.
  Mr. H. T. CAWLEY: Will the hon. Gentleman say, in the case of the 2 per cent. of men who are allowed to be in the Territorial Force, which would have to go short on the outbreak of war—the Royal dockyards or the Territorial Force?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If these men are withdrawn, as I presume they would be, of course the Royal dockyards would be to that extent depleted. I may add that there are various other men in the dockyards—Naval pensioners, Army reservists, and men in the Royal Fleet Reserve—all of whom would be liable to mobilisation in a time of emergency.

  Vivisection Experiments.
  Mr. GREENWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been, called to an account of certain operations of oophorectomy performed by Mr. S. G. Shattock upon two rabbits on 12th October and 5th November, 1908, respectively, and published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Vol. III., No. 2, issued in December last, after which operations the animals were allowed to recover from the effects of the anæsthetic administered, and were kept alive for observation, as part of the experiments, until 10th April and 11th October, 1909, respectively; and whether Mr. Shattock held a certificate authorising these experiments at the time when he performed them?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Masterman): As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, Mr. Shattock is the licensee referred to in the Home Secretary's reply
  1430
  of 5th July. The facts are as stated in the question, and the renewal of the licence was refused in consequence. My right hon. Friend regrets that, after what he said in his previous reply, the hon. Member should have thought it necessary to bring forward the name of the licensee.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: I wish to ask, arising out of that reply, whether, in view of the fact that the second of these two experiments was continued till 11th October last, the answer given to me on 5th July that the fact that the case bad not been brought to the knowledge of the Home Office till the statutory period of six months had expired, was not, to that extent, incorrect: that is the reason I put the question?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I must ask for notice of that question.

  Alleged Cruelty to Cat.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a lieutenant at the Salvation Army barracks, at Great Peter Street, recently baked a cat alive by means of placing it in a steam oven; whether he is aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, having satisfied itself of the facts, is precluded from taking any proceedings in view of the provision of the Cruelty to Animals Act requiring proceedings to be taken within one month of the date of the offence; and whether he will consider the necessity for bringing about an alteration in the law?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The attention of my right hon. Friend had not been drawn to this case until the hon. Member wrote to him about it on Monday last. He has made inquiries, and is informed that, when it was found necessary to kill the cat it was placed in a fumigating oven to which steam was applied at a very high pressure. It was submitted that the intention was to kill it as quickly and in as humane a, way as possible. If there had been a prosecution it is very doubtful if a conviction would have been obtained in lack of evidence that there was intentional cruelty. As stated in the question, proceedings under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1847, must be taken within one month of the offence, and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals state that this period is generally sufficient.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the official communication from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to the effect that but for the statutory disqualification they would certainly have prosecuted the officer of the Salvation Army for brutal cruelty?
  Mr. GREENWOOD: Did the hon. Gentleman get the information from the secretary, because we in the society are particularly dissatisfied in this matter?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: Yes. I have seen a letter and I have received information to the effect that on the whole the society regard a month as sufficient. They cannot give us any case in recent times in which the period of a month was not sufficient. That is the information I have received.
  Mr. GREENWOOD: From the Secretary?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: I think so, but I will make inquiry. As to the general practice I am not in a position to make a statement that the information I have received is correct, or whether the information of the hon. Member is correct. There is no doubt about the prosecution; I obtained that as a result of the police inquiry.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman ascertain from whom he did obtain the information?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The information from the police is as to actual facts. The statement as to the opinion of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals that a month is sufficient was, I think, an official letter from the Secretary, but I will certainly inquire further and give the information.

  Police and Hawley Crippen.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked whether, after the attention of the police authorities had been called to the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of Mrs. Crippen, and particularly between the 8th and 11th July, any observation was kept upon the movements of Hawley Harvey Crippen?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps accept in reply to this question the answer which was given yesterday to the hon. Member for West Ham (South).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously hold that it is not in the interests of public justice that he should answer a simple question whether
  1432
  or not between the 8th and 11th July the man Crippen was kept under police observation, and assuming the true answer is in the negative, as I do, does he not think the police would be better occupied in watching the movements of suspected murderers rather than looking out for juvenile smokers of cigarettes?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: My right hon. Friend is quite convinced that it would be against public interest at the present that this particular matter should be discussed, more especially as it can be discussed at a time when it would not be against the interests of justice.
  Mr. BOTTOMLEY: Is that also on the advice of the police?

  Imperial Service Medal (C. O. Emby).
  Major ADAMasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that the Imperial Service medal may be granted to members of the Civil Service who retire after not less than twenty-five years of meritorious service, he will favourably consider the claim of Mr. C. O. Emby, 92, Griffin Road, Plumstead, who has over forty years' meritorious service in the Royal Arsenal to his credit?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: The Home Secretary is inquiring about the case.

  Colliery Workmen (Compensation).
  Mr. JOHN WILLIAMSasked whether in view of the number of bankruptcies which have occurred amongst colliery owners throughout the country during the last twelve years affecting the compensation of colliery workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he will, at his earliest opportunity, introduce a Bill making it compulsory upon all colliery owners to insure their workmen against all accidents, fatal and non-fatal; and whether, in the meantime, he will cause a Return to be made and laid upon the Table of the House showing the number of bankruptcies which have occurred during the period afore-stated, and the amount of compensation affected thereby?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: An inquiry into the question of compulsory insurance will be necessary before legislation can be undertaken. Such an inquiry was promised by Lord Gladstone, and will be instituted as soon as sufficient experience is available as to the working of the present Act. My right hon. Friend has no information to

  1433
  show that the question is one of greater importance to the colliery industry than to others, but he will see what figures can be obtained and communicate further with the hon. Member.
  Mr. KEIR HARDIE: May I ask whether, in the event of this inquiry being undertaken, it will be an inquiry into the promise made four years ago that an insurance Department would be set up for workmen's compensation?
  Mr. MASTERMAN: That is a large order.

  Panama (Consular Reports).
  Mr. BOTTOMLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any Consular Report from Panama has been issued since 1907; and, if not, when the next Report can be expected?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): A Report on the trade of Panama was issued in October, 1908, containing information on trade matters up to August of that year. A further Report is expected to be received next month.

  Baking Trade, Birmingham.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the report issued by the Trades Council of Birmingham regarding the unsatisfactory conditions under which the baking trade is carried on in that town; and, considering the efforts that have been made to have the conditions improved in the interest not only of the employés, but of the good employers and the community generally, will he take action to have those conditions improved?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): My attention has been drawn to the report referred to by my hon. Friend, and I will confer with the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the President of the Local Government Board.

  Brazilian Tariffs on British Goods (Preference to United States).
  Mr. HAMILTON BENNasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether the duties charged in Brazil on paints, pianos, watches, clocks, rubber manufactures, typewriters, cement, and school and office furniture are higher if imported from the United Kingdom than from the United States; and, if so, whether any representa-
  1434
  tions will be made to the Brazilian. Government to accord most-favoured-nation treatment to British goods; and (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the United States Vice-Consul-General at Rio de Janeiro, in a recent report to his Government, that the recent grant of a 20 per cent. preferential tariff on United States cement would have the effect of diverting the supply of cement from European to American sources; and whether; seeing that a large export of cement from the United Kingdom to Brazil exists, any steps will be taken to obtain from Brazil the same concessions as have been accorded to the United States?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A preference amounting to 20 per cent. of the import duties has been accorded in Brazil to certain United States products and manufactures since April, 1904. The list of articles accorded preferential treatment has been extended from time to time and now embraces all those mentioned in the questions as well as wheat, flour, condensed milk, varnishes, weights and measures, refrigerators, windmills and corsets. My attention has been called to the report of the United States Vice-Consul, to which reference is made. There is no commercial treaty between Brazil and the United Kingdom, but representations have been addressed to the Brazilian Government, both by this Government and its predecessor, with a view to securing most-favoured-nation treatment for British goods. Other European Governments—those of France, Germany and Belgium—have also made representations to the Brazilian Government, which, like those of this country, have remained without effect.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the reply of the Brazilian Government was to this question.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I should not like to quote it from memory. If the hon. Member will give me notice I shall answer him.
  Mr. HAMILTON BENN: Am I to understand from the answer that any country can kill one of our important industries by giving an important preference to a rival, and that we can make no effective protest?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I do not know about an effective protest, but we are exactly in the same position as the other important Governments of Germany, France, and Belgium.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: How can the right hon. Gentleman say we are in the same position in view of the fact that we give to Brazil facilities enormously greater than are given by other European countries?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The fact is as stated by the hon. Gentleman. This is a case of preference given to the United States of America to the detriment of all European countries.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that if it were possible for us to offer to retaliate we could not obtain from Brazil terms as favourable as the United States?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Seeing that France, Germany, and Belgium all have powers of retaliating, I think the suggestion made by the hon. Member is somewhat contrary to the facts.

  Welsh Language (Officials).
  Mr. WALTER ROCH (for Mr. Ellis Davies)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can see his way to make knowledge of the Welsh language an indispensable qualification for the post of manager of the Labour Exchange to be opened at Wrexham?
  Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: In selecting managers for the Welsh Exchanges, preference has been given to candidates having a knowledge of the Welsh language, and the same course, will be followed in the case of Wrexham.

  Private Slaughterhouses.
  Mr. GREENWOODasked whether, in view of the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Tuberculosis in 1898 that so long as private slaughterhouses are permitted to exist so long must inspection of meat be carried on under conditions incompatible with efficiency, besides other disadvantages and risks to health, he will introduce legislation to carry out their recommendation that power should be given to every local authority expending money in providing a public slaughterhouse to close all or any of the registered private slaughterhouses in the district?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The question is under my consideration, but I may point out that a clause giving local authorities the powers suggested was contained in the Bill for the Public
  1436
  Health Amendment Act, 1907, but was struck out in Committee.

  Local Government Board Officials.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the President of the Local Government Board what is the total number of persons, not at the time of appointment in permanent Government employment, who have been appointed since January, 1906, to positions in his Department with salaries exceeding £100 a year, and who did not previously to their appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what is the total amount of their salaries?
  Mr. BURNS: The number of appointments made without examination is fifty-nine, and the commencing salaries amount in the aggregate to £22,780.

  Traction Engines (Scottish Roads).
  Captain WARINGasked the Lord Advocate, in view of the fact that there is nothing in the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, which prevents the Secretary for Scotland from varying by administrative Order the provisions of Section 3 of the Locomotives Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1878, in such districts in Scotland where variation is sought for, and in view of the fact that the road authorities, agriculturists, and traction-engine owners in Banffshire are unanimously in favour of the use of studs on the driving wheels of traction engines, whether he will reconsider his refusal to vary the provision so far as it affects the county?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): As already indicated to my hon. Friend, I do not accept the view that Section 3 of the Act of 1878 can be varied for a special district, and I therefore regret I cannot reconsider my previous answers.
  Sir JOHN JARDINE: May I ask whether it is impossible to vary the Order for a particular county, such as the county of Roxburgh, when the farmers all desire it?
  Mr. URE: I think it is not possible to vary it for a particular county. If an alteration is made in the Order it must be made applicable to all counties in Scotland.
  Captain WARING: Is not this a purely local question affected by purely local conditions?
  Mr. URE: That may be so, but it is regulated by statutory conditions.

  Dundee Post Office.
  Mr. WILKIEasked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the Dundee post-office was raised from a third to a second-class office under the Hobhouse recommendations, he will say why the auxiliary postmen who had no uniform at the time, but were regularly employed on the morning delivery, had their wages reduced from 9s. to 8s. 6d. per week?
  The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): I am inquiring into the matter.

  Tuberculosis (Medical Research Work).
  Mr. LYNCHasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in making Grants to medical schools this year, he will pay special attention to that branch of medical research which is directed to combating tuberculosis; and whether, in view of the far-reaching importance of the original research which has been carried out at St. Mary's Hospital bacteriological department, he will remove the financial embarrassment which threatens to impede the development of that work?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): The Board's Grants to such institutions as medical schools are made in respect of organised courses of instruction and not in respect of particular subjects or departments.

  Sea Power (Admiralty Memorandum).
  Lord C. BERESFORDasked the Prime Minister whether the Government still adhere to the principles enunciated in the Memorandum on Sea Power presented by the Admiralty to the Colonial Conference in October, 1902, and amended in April, 1903, namely, that the primary object of the British Navy is not to defend anything but to attack the fleets of the enemy?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): In the opinion of the Government there is no inconsistency between the principles set forth in the Memorandum referred to and the statements made by myself and other Members of the Government as to the standard of naval strength.

  Lord Kitchener.
  Captain COOPERasked the Prime Minister what use he proposes to make of Lord Kitchener's military knowledge and experience; and whether he is at present performing any military duties?
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER - LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in consideration of the personal qualifications of Lord Kitchener, he will reconsider his decision not to invite him to become a Member of the Committee of Imperial Defence?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Lord Kitchener is at present performing no military duties, nor have I any reason to think that he desires to undertake fresh military duties at the present time. It is contrary to usage, and, in my opinion, highly undesirable, to express any opinion as to the qualifications and claims of particular officers for particular posts in the service of the State.
  Captain COOPER: May I ask the Prime Minister if he does not think it would be in the public interest for Lord Kitchener to perform military duties?
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: Are we to understand that Lord Kitchener would be an eligible Member of the Committee if he were in Malta, but not eligible when he is at home in England?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No.

  Scientific Research.
  Mr. LYNCHasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the extension of higher education in neighbouring countries of recent years, and also in view of the vastness of the industrial results which have had their origin in scientific research, he will consider what means can be taken to give a stimulus to scientific research in this country; and whether, in particular, he will raise the office of the President of the Board of Education to the level of importance of that of any other great Department of State?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The Government always have in view the objects advocated by the hon. Member. I do not see how they would be promoted by the suggestion made in the second part of his question.

  Secretary to the Admiralty.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHERasked whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered by the Secretary to the Admiralty at Lydney on the 16th instant, in which he is reported to have declared that, subject to a reduction in the maximum duration of Parliament, the will of the people as expressed at the polls must within the life of a single Parliament prevail, and that Radical leaders could not possibly abandon

  1439
  or even abate this claim; and whether such speech was made with the sanction and approval of His Majesty's Government and expresses the settled policy of the Government?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has not been called otherwise than by the hon. Member's question to the speech of my hon. Friend, and I am not aware in what context the statements attributed to him were made. In existing circumstances I do not think that I ought to say more in regard to the last part of the hon. Member's question than refer him to what I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs on 20th June.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman instruct his subordinates not to make any more indiscreet speeches pending the sittings of the Conference?

  Justices of the Peace (Royal Commission).
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHERasked the Prime Minister what steps the Government propose to take to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace; whether legislative action is necessary to give effect to any of such recommendations; and whether, in particular, those recommendations which urge that, on the appointment of justices of the peace, the Lord Chancellor should reject and repudiate all political influences, require any legislative sanction?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say more at present than that the Report is receiving careful consideration, but no legislative action will be required to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission.
  Mr. HENRYasked if it is his intention to take any action on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Selection of Justices of the Peace; and if he will give an opportunity to the House to discuss the findings of the Commission?
  The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend will find that I answered a similar question on Tuesday last, the 19th.

  Naval Prize Bill.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLESasked the Prime Minister whether he has considered that the Naval Prize Bill is limited to the con-
  1440
  solidation and amendment of Naval Prize Law, and neither deals with nor refers to the Declaration of London, 1909, and that no opportunity will therefore arise on the Second Reading of that Bill for debating the Declaration in question; and will he undertake that, before any steps are taken to ratify the Declaration of London, the question of its ratification shall be submitted to Parliament for express Parliamentary sanction?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I have consulted the Prime Minister upon the subject, and if the Declaration of London cannot be raised upon the Naval Prize Bill another opportunity will be afforded to Members for discussing it. The Declaration does not require the sanction of Parliament, but, as already stated, the House will have an opportunity of considering it before ratification.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: On whose or what authority does the hon. Member state that a Declaration changing the law does not require the assent of Parliament?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The Office I represent has taken the best legal advice on the subject.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: On whose legal advice? Is it on the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown?
  Mr. ROWLAND HUNT: Does the Declaration of London not require to be ratified by this Parliament?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Certainly.
  Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: Will any opportunity be given to discuss the advisability of this Declaration?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: That is what I have already answered.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: If His Majesty's Government can ratify the Declaration by sole prerogative, why is it proposed to take the House into the confidence of the Government at all?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: We thought there was a desire on the part of hon. Members to discuss it.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANS: Will the Government not ratify it unless this House approves of it?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: I cannot undertake to answer that.

  Dismissal of Servants (Driffield County Court).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the case of a farm labourer who recently sued unsuccessfully for nine months' wages in the Driffield County Court, he having been summarily dismissed for demanding time for his meals; and will he introduce legislation which will repeal the existing law which enables a farmer to dismiss a hired servant on a paltry pretext and to appropriate all wages earned and due?
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): The facts are not quite accurately summarised in the question. From the report of the case furnished to me by my hon. Friend it appears that the cause of the labourer's dismissal was his refusal to obey a lawful order given by his employer. It seems a hardship that the result of this single act of disobedience should involve the loss by the labourer of all remuneration for his preceding services, but it must be remembered that the labourer under a general hiring is certain of a year's employment, and that he cannot be dismissed during the twelve months except for misconduct. I will consider the desirability of introducing legislation to mitigate the rigour of the common law in such cases.

  Circuit System.
  Mr. MOUNTasked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to make any alterations whatever in the circuit system before the Autumn Session?
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether an opportunity will be given before the House rises in August to discuss the question of the proposed alterations in the circuit system?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; I understand that no alterations will be made before the Autumn Session.

  Irish Trade Records.
  Mr. BOLANDasked whether, in view of the fact that a number of foreign countries are now keeping statistical records of Irish trade, he will suggest as a topic for discussion at the Colonial Conference the advisability of the various Dominions and Colonies keeping separate records of their trade with Ireland, with a view to supplying much-needed information as to the countries of ultimate destination of Irish exports?
  Colonel SEELY: The matter raised by my hon. Friend is mainly of a technical character, and I am doubtful if it can be usefully discussed at the Imperial Conference. My hon. Friend will remember that it has already been referred to the Governments of the Dominion of Canada and Commonwealth of Australia, who did not see their way to making the arrangement which he desires.
  Mr. BOLAND: As the right hon. Gentleman has a fairly open mind in this matter, will he consult the Department of Agriculture in Ireland on this matter, which is charged with the preparation of these statistics, and ascertain their views on the subject?
  Colonel SEELY: By all means. The matter is rather difficult, but the arrangement of statistics in unanimity throughout the Empire is very desirable, and if anything can be done in this direction we shall be glad to do it.

  Labourers' Home Enfranchisement Bill.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Prime Minister, in view of the amount of legislation accomplished this Session, largely by appropriating private Members' time, whether he will spare what now remains of that time and allow two hours of next Friday for discussion of the Labourers' Home Enfranchisement Bill, which has the support of all classes concerned in Ireland, the only country in which it is intended to operate?
  The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I fear that the hon. Member's suggestion is impracticable.

  County Court Proceedings (Case of Mr. Dockett).
  Lord BALCARRES (for Mr. Nield)asked the Solicitor-General if his attention has been called to the report of certain proceedings in the county court at Leominster, on the 18th instant, from which it appears that a plaintiff named Dockett, who had been a registration agent, and who in his evidence described himself as a political agent for the last five and a half years of the Liberal candidate, sued certain electors of the Leominster Division for the repayment of loans made to them by himself; and whether, in view of the judgment by the learned county court judge dismissing the case, in which he held that the object of these loans was partly, if not entirely, to influence the votes of the defendants at the last General Election, and that the con-

  1443
  sideration for such loans was illegal, and, therefore, irrecoverable, and that it was doubtful if these loans were ever intended to be enforced had the election resulted otherwise, he proposes to have the documents in the case and a full report of the proceedings laid before the Public Prosecutor with a view to further action?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: As I understand an appeal is pending in this case in pu suance of leave given by the judge I would ask the hon. and learned Member to postpone his question until after the appeal has been decided.
  Lord BALCARRES: Will the Solicitor-General give directions for the documents to be impounded?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That is not the question put to me. I was asked whether the case would be laid before the Public Prosecutor. It will be for the judge to say whether the documents should be impounded.
  Lord BALCARRES: Pending the decision on appeal, will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to secure that the documents do not disappear?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: In view of the fact that an appeal is pending, the documents must be preserved.
  Sir F. BANBURY: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman draw the attention of the Gladstone League to the matter?

  Free Licence Holders.
  Mr. FRANCEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider granting some relief in duty to those free licence holders who are paying, under lease, a heavy rent, and are consequently heavily assessed; and who have no power to pass any part of the duty on to the landlord who obtains the advantage of the licence in increased rent?
  The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): The difficulty is to draw a satisfactory distinction between the different classes of free licence holders, and I am afraid I could not undertake to grant relief in respect of all holders of free licences.

  Government Employment (Number of Persons).
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked what was the total number of persons, not at the time of appointment in permanent Govern-
  1444
  ment employment, who have been appointed since January, 1906, to positions in the Department with salaries exceeding £100 a year and who did not, previously to their appointment, pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners; and what is the total annual amount of their salaries?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: One person who did not previously to appointment pass an examination by the Civil Service Commissioners has been appointed since January, 1906, to a position in the Treasury carrying salary over £100 per annum. His salary is £600, rising to £800 per annum, and he received the necessary certificate of qualification from the Civil Service Commissioners. I exclude from this category temporary posts, such as the private secretaries, shorthand writers, and typists to the Lords of the Treasury.
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer cover the Inland Revenue officers?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That I am not quite sure of. I think it does. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put his question down on the Paper.

  Assurance Companies Act.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURYasked whether he will consider the advisability of amending the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, in order to permit assurance companies to deposit Irish Land Stock as security?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Any question of amending the Assurance Companies Act is primarily one for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, but a simpler method of securing the object which the hon. Baronet has in view would be the addition of Guaranteed Stock issued under the Irish Land Acts by order of court to the list of securities, in which cash under the control of the court may be invested. I will consult the Lord Chancellor as to the possibility of this being done.

  Surveyors of Income Tax.
  Mr. FELLasked what sources of information the local surveyors of Income Tax have to guide them in selecting the names for the Super-tax list beyond the Income Tax Returns, which only give the income not taxed at the source; and if they are therefore compelled to estimate the income of the different individuals from the scale of their expenditure?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am unable to add anything to my reply to a question on this point by the hon. Member on the 19th inst.
  Mr. FELL: Will it not have the effect that a man living economically will be omitted from the list, whereas those living extravagantly will be included?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think we can trust the officials eventually to find them all out.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will, when framing legislation to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, give favourable consideration to the cases of widows of unnaturalised foreigners, who are themselves British born, but who are now ineligible for an old age pension because the British law has attached to them the nationality of their husbands?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will be glad to consider the point.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Favourably?
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has received any expressions of approval from Poor Law or other local authorities of his proposal to call upon the Poor Law authorities to partially recoup the Treasury for the cost of removing the Poor Law disqualification from the Old Age Pensions Act; and has he any reason at all to believe that his proposal will be acceptable to the local bodies?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I think any of my predecessors in that office will bear me out—does not lead me to expect that many persons will be at pains to intimate their anxiety that a charge which they now bear should not be removed from them and placed on other shoulders. But I have received from many quarters expressions of hope that the Government will proceed as soon as possible with their scheme for insurance against sickness, invalidity, etc., and that would be altogether impracticable unless the arangement which I have foreshadowed can be carried out.
  Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he has received any representations from the local authorities against the proposal?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is not the question which the hon. Member puts. I shall be glad to inquire, but I should not be a bit surprised.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he still regards this as a relief of local taxation?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly; a very considerable relief of local taxation.
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his proposal for the partial recoupment by the Treasury of the cost of paying old age pensions to those, otherwise eligible, now disqualified through the receipt of Poor Law relief will require legislation; and, if so, when will the Bill be introduced?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the latter part, I cannot yet say when the Bill will be introduced.

  Finance Bill, 1910 (Income Tax).
  Mr. SNOWDENasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider an Amendment to the Finance Bill, 1910, by which the abatement from Income Tax in respect of children under sixteen years of age may be claimed by grandparents or others who are wholly supporting such children?
  Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I will be glad to consider the point.

  FINANCE ACT, 1909–10,

    MOTOR SPIRIT DUTY.
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the uncertainty that exists in country places as to the conditions under which motor cars or motor cabs used exclusively for letting for hire, and which take the place of dabs or flys formerly employed and kept in cab-yards, and which were hackney carriages as defined in Section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1888, how often such a motor car or motor cab must stand on a public stand in a street to entitle the owner to claim the rebate of 1½d. a gallon on the motor spirit used; if he can state what the Inland Revenue treat as plying for hire within the meaning of the Fifth Schedule of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910; and if he can state how often they require a motor car constructed for the conveyance of goods to be used for the conveyance of goods whilst plying for hire to and

    1447
    from railway stations, as is now customary in Scotland, in place of horse-drawn vehicles formerly used, and which were hackney carriages within the meaning of Section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1888?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The definition of a hackney carriage, for the purpose of Licence Duty, is a very wide one and extends to motor cars many of which are not, in any sense, motor cabs or public vehicles, whilst the rebate of duty on motor spirit only applies in the case of spirit used by public vehicles whilst standing or plying for hire. The question as to what is plying for hire is well understood by decisions of the courts, but I may say that no objection is raised by the Board of Customs and Excise to the grant of the rebate in cases where a motor cab which usually stands or plies for hire in a public place is hired from the yard at which it is kept and sent out upon the ordinary terms applicable to vehicles plying for hire. I am afraid I do not understand the last paragraph of the question. If the hon. Member refers to motor vehicles constructed and used solely for the conveyance of goods in the course of trade or business, a licence as a hackney carriage has not been in the past and is not now required for any such vehicle.
    Mr. CATHCART WASON: Are we to understand that in the case of an hotel having motor cabs which are there for use by the public, and to be hired by the hour or the mile, the rebate will be given?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer that straight off. It is a question of law as to definition. If my hon. Friend will put a question down I shall be pleased to answer it.
    Mr. PETOasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the average annual amount of Motor Spirit Duty at 1½d. per gallon paid in respect of each motor 'bus in London, and the total annual amount of revenue that will be collected annually on motor spirit consumed by motor 'buses in London, on the basis of the number now employed, and the average annual amount of Motor Spirit Duty at 1½d. per gallon paid in respect of each motor cab in London, and the total amount of revenue that will be collected annually on motor spirit consumed by motor cabs in London, on the basis of the number now
    1448
    plying for hire, and the nature of the benefit that will accrue to motor 'bus and motor cab owners in London from the proposed allocation of the proceeds of the tax?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I regret that I cannot give the information asked for by the hon. Member.

    INCOME TAX.
    Mr. C. BATHURST (for Mr. Lane-Fox)asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the forms for application for relief from Income Tax under Section 69 of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, will be issued; and when he anticipates that such claims will be met by the Treasury?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As regards the first part of the hon. Member's question, the forms referred to are now being issued to applicants; and the claims will (subject to necessary scrutiny) be dealt with as soon as they are formulated.

    LICENCE DUTIES.
    Mr. GRETTONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to announce a concession on the valuation of licensed houses in Great Britain similar to the concession made in the case of licensed premises in Ireland of upwards of £50 annual value?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs on Monday last.
    Mr. GRETTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of making the alteration suggested in the forthcoming Budget?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think any alteration is necessary for the very reason I gave to the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Mr. George Younger), because we are seeking the revaluation of the whole Kingdom.
    Mr. J. G. BUTCHER: When does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate the valuation will be completed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not say that.

    Development and Road Improvement Funds Act.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked when the Treasury propose to issue the regulations prescribing the mode of appli-

    1449
    cation for Grants out of the Development Fund, as provided by Section 1 (2) of The Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; whether, in the absence of such regulations, all informal applications from any source are admissible; and, if so, to whom and where should such applications be addressed?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: These regulations were issued a month ago.

    Gerhallow and Ardhallow Batteries.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that 101 steamers daily at this season pass through the arc of fire from Gerhallow Battery, on 18th to 20th July, and that these steamers are crowded with passengers; and whether he will compensate owners and passengers for any damage sustained?
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that carriage hirers are warned to avoid the main road during the gun practice from Ardhallow Battery from 18th to 29th July instant; whether he is aware that these ten days constitute the busiest time in the year for people in the carriage-hiring business; and will he consent to compensate them for the loss of trade during the period mentioned?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): I will answer these two questions together. As I informed my hon. Friend yesterday, I am inquiring whether any modification of the arrangements for practice can be made to meet the difficulty to which he alludes. No question, however, of compensation for alleged loss through interference with trade can arise as involving a charge against public funds.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BALFOUR: I understand that the answer given by the Prime Minister the other day with regard to the business for the remaining portion of this part of the Session was merely provisional in its character. Perhaps he will be good enough now to give his final programme?
The PRIME MINISTER: As I stated last week, to-morrow we shall take the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill, the Civil List Resolution, and the Report stage and Third Reading of the Regency Bill.
1450
On Monday we shall take the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, the Report stage of the Civil List Resolution, both of which I hope will be regarded as formal, and the Report of the Budget Resolutions.
On Tuesday we shall take the Indian Budget, and following that the Second Reading of the Civil List Bill.
On Wednesday we shall take the Second Reading of the Accession Declaration Bill, and on that and the following days of the week we shall complete the later and final stages of the Civil List and Accession Declaration Bills. We shall also take whatever opportunities are available for concluding the small non-controversial Bills on the Paper and of considering Amendments to Bills now under discussion in another place.
My hon. Friend will communicate in the usual way with the right hon. Gentleman as regards these small Bills.
The House will have to sit one day early in the following week to receive any business that may come from the House of Lords and to pass the Adjournment Resolution.
Mr. BYLES: On Bank Holiday?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, not on Bank Holiday.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask the Prime Minister why Report of the Budget Resolution is to be put down as third Order on Monday? Does he not consider it ought to be the first Order?
The PRIME MINISTER: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes, it shall be made the first Order.
Mr. DILLON: Before the right hon. Gentleman finally decides to do that I would ask him to consider whether it is not in accordance with custom to put the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill first, and has not that Third Reading a special claim this year, inasmuch as three extra days have not been given for Supply?
Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the Budget Resolutions have not special claims this year, as the Budget Bill is to be founded upon them, and that Bill will not be considered until November?
The PRIME MINISTER: We can move the suspension of the Eleven o'clock Rule.

RAILWAY DISPUTES (CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION SCHEME).
Mr. J. H. THOMAS (Derby): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question of which I have given him private notice:—Whether his attention has been called to the difficulty experienced by the employés of certain railway companies in obtaining an authoritative interpretation of the provisions of an arbitrator's award as to the meaning of which there is disagreement between them and the companies; whether any means exist under the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme, signed by the Board of Trade in 1907, of removing this difficulty, which is causing growing dissatisfaction and imperilling the future success of the Scheme; and whether he can take any steps in the matter?
Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: My attention has been called to this matter, the importance of which I fully recognise. In my opinion, the point put to me by my hon. Friend can be raised, under the 1907 Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme, on a question of interpretation of certain words of that Scheme, and it would probably be most convenient to all concerned that it should be raised in this manner, so that an authoritative decision may be arrived at after the parties have been heard.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a resolution has been recently passed condemning the scheme in consequence of the absolute refusal on the part of the railway companies to call the Conciliation Boards together, and whether, having regard to the danger arising out of this action, he will consider it necessary to take immediate steps and make representations to the companies?
Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I will certainly give immediate consideration to any representations made under the terms of my previous answer.
Sir F. BANBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Great Northern Railway Company informed their men that if they liked to bring an action in the High Court, the Company would pay all the expenses of the men whether they won or lost.
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that, may I ask whether he is aware that if any action
1452
were taken in the High Court as suggested by the hon. Member, it would destroy the whole principle of the Scheme as set out?
Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: As, if the question is raised, I shall have to carefully consider it, I would rather not give an answer either to that or to the other question; but, if a decision can be arrived at under the scheme itself, I think we should all agree that that would be more expeditious and economical than taking legal proceedings.

BILL PRESENTED.
  ECCLESIASTICAL ASSESSMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Law regarding Ecclesiastical Assessments in Scotland," presented by Dr. CHAPPLE; supported by Mr. Eugene Wason, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. M'Callum, Mr. Rainy, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Price, Mr. Dundas White, and Mr. A. F. Whyte; to be read a second time upon Monday next, 25th July.

  ADMIRALTY AND ACCESSION CLEMENCY.
  Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any Order was issued by the Admiralty similar to that issued by the War Office on 23rd May last, granting certain acts of pardon on the occasion of His Majesty's Accession; whether such Order included deserters, and, if not, will he explain to the House the reason for their non-inclusion?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Orders were issued under which men who, on 23rd May, were under sentence of imprisonment for disciplinary offences—including, I may add, desertion—were granted the remission of the residue of their sentences. A similar remission was granted to offenders undergoing certain minor punishments under Article 744 of the King's Regulations. The terms of the Order were most carefully considered before it was issued, and I cannot undertake to recommend any further act of clemency.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: In regard to this act of clemency, was there one Regulation for the Army and another for the Navy?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have stated that the men who were undergoing imprisonment for desertion had the residue of their sentences remitted. Beyond that I cannot undertake to recommend any special clemency.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Then the question of pardon is not to be considered?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Not beyond the terms of my answer.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

  COLONIAL PREFERENCE.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the House will probably agree that this is the most convenient opportunity open to us for raising certain questions which are, indeed, within the scope of Supply, but which come outside the natural limits of any single Vote in Supply. I therefore desire to ask the House to take into its most serious consideration the present condition of this country in relation to the whole problem of Colonial Preference. It is not only, I think, desirable to raise this question for the reason I have stated, but it is peculiarly desirable to raise it on this, which is the last opportunity, I imagine, on which we shall be able to have a general Debate on this subject before the Colonial Conference of next year comes into being. It is, after all, a matter upon which Colonial statesmen and Colonial public opinion, whether in Canada, in Australasia, or in South Africa, is most deeply interested. It is a subject on which I hold they have less reason to feel satisfaction with the policy of the Mother Country, and, in view of the anxious Debates which must occur when the Colonial Prime Ministers meet the Government of the day at the next Colonial Conference, it is surely most desirable that some expression of opinion should be made by at any rate those who think as I do on this subject, even if we are not able to carry the majority of the House with us. May I, in a very few words, recall to the House the leading facts of Colonial public opinion on this subject. It is as far back as 1843, I believe, that the first appeal was made by Canada in favour of some fiscal arrangement between that Dominion and
  1454
  the Mother Country, and that expression of policy of 1843 has been consistently repeated by every Colonial statesman of mark to whatever party he may have belonged during the sixty-seven years which divide us from that date. I do not believe there has been a shade of difference of opinion on this question, whether the spokesmen of our Dominions beyond the Seas belonged to one or other of the great Canadian parties—whether they belonged to the original Colonies of Australia, or to the more modern Commonwealth, or whether they belonged to New Zealand or to the Cape. They all spoke on this subject with one voice. They pressed on the Mother Country one policy, and it is the Mother Country, and the Mother Country alone, which now stands in the way of that policy being carried into effect. If the Colonies have been consistent in their appeal to us they have practically shown that it was no mere paper opinion, that it was no mere platform rhetoric they were indulging in, but that they desired, above all things, to be able to give practical expression to the general theoretical views which they had so often advocated. It was with that end they pressed on the Home Government, in the decade between 1890 and 1900, the denunciation of certain treaties which prevented us giving them preference. The moment Lord Salisbury had accepted their views and had denounced treaties which prevented Colonial Preference, the Ministers of the Dominions came forward, and, without any effort being made on our part to give them preference in our markets, they immediately so arranged their tariffs that preference was given to our manufactures in their markets. That was, I think, in 1897. Remember their views—the views of these great Colonial statesmen—were not purely or merely commercial. They had in view an ideal of Empire kept together-well, perhaps I should not say kept together, but an ideal of Empire, which had as one of its bonds these mutual good offices in the matter of tariffs. Actually at this moment they have got a free list—they have established the principle of a free list of goods within the Empire—not unimportant in itself, but important as a precedent which may be, and I believe will be, followed if we give them the chance in the future.
  3.0 P.M.
  4.0 That was the preface to what occurred in the Conference of 1902. There the Colonial Prime Ministers again pressed—all of them—upon the Government this policy of pre-

  1455
  ference, and it is a matter of common knowledge public to many of us that the majority of the Cabinet in 1903 would have established preference with Canada and other Colonies, but at that time public opinion was not sufficiently matured for a divided Cabinet to take so great and so novel a step, and although the dissentients from that policy were a minority in that Cabinet for the moment the policy could not be carried out.
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for the COLONIES (Colonel Seely): Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what month of 1903 that was? It is vital to the consideration of the matter.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I am afraid I cannot remember.
  The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY (Mr. Joseph Pease): Was it before August?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Oh, yes, it certainly was. Of course. I remember the course of events for it was in connection with the Budget, and I believe the whole thing has been made public, or else I should not be speaking of it now It has all been made public, and it is well known that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Lord Ritchie, entirely opposed, and for reasons which every practical statesman will understand under these circumstances it could not be carried out. That is not material to my main argument. I am not attempting to make party capital out of this either as regards the past or the present. I am not passing any criticism upon the action of those colleagues of mine who differed from me or upon hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite; or anyone else. I am only trying to recall to the House what, after all, we are so apt to forget in the day-to-day turmoil of our political utterances, how steady and how consistent has been the movement in the direction of Colonial Preference not only in the Colonies but in this country, and it surely is a sufficient landmark of that progress that the majority of the Cabinet in 1903 would have endeavoured to establish preference but for the circumstances to which I have referred. Then comes the Conference of 1906, and the only result of that was that the Colonial Ministers, with repeated and eloquent persistence, gave renewed expression to the invariable policy which has animated all our Colonies, but
  1456
  the Government refused to take action on its own behalf, while acknowledging in terms, the most specific and unmistakable, that the advantages which the manufacturers of this country had derived even from the preference which then existed were very great and very notable. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer and present Prime Minister gave the clearest expression to those opinions, and if anybody spoke more strongly than the present Prime Minister it was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who at that time was at the head of the Board of Trade. Therefore we have it on the authority of the Ministers chiefly responsible in the Government then in office that this grant of preference—this unreciprocated grant of preference by Canada—had been of immense value. I think that was the exact adjective used, as far as I can remember, but that is the substance. They admitted the immense value to the manufacturers of this country of the preference granted by Canada. That is broadly the history up to the present time of the efforts of Canada and of the other great Dominions to have an Imperial fiscal relation between the Mother Country and all the other sister States. Now let me turn to another aspect of this history, and that is the treaty policy into which Canada in particular has been forced by circumstances over which she had no control, and which depend upon the fiscal relations between the great manufacturing States of the world. It is the most instructive branch of Colonial, or perhaps I may say of Imperial, history. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite will recall, as I have no doubt he does, the terms of the despatch written by Lord Ripon in 1895—that is to say, fifteen years ago—at the very end of the last term of office of a Radical Government. If he refers to that despatch he will find these words:—
  "To give the Colonies the power of negotiating treaties for themselves without reference to Her Majesty's Government, would be to give them an international status as separate and sovereign States, and would be equivalent to breaking up the Empire into a number of independent States, a result which Her Majesty's Government are satisfied would be injurious equally to the Colonies and to the Mother Country, and would be desired by neither. Negotiations, being between Her Majesty's Government and the Sovereign of a foreign State, must be conducted by the representative of Her Majesty at the court of the foreign Power, who will inform the Government and seek instructions from them as necessity arises."
  That was the Radical policy in 1895. It was not the Radical policy, and in my opinion it was rightly not the Radical policy in 1907, twelve years later. There the Dominion of Canada, technically I suppose

  1457
  it may be said, carried on their negotiations with the knowledge of His Majesty's representative, but it was a purely technical knowledge. I do not believe that His Majesty's Government was ever consulted at a single stage of those negotiations. I do not believe they ever informed themselves or offered an opinion as to what was the best policy for Canada under the circumstances, and I think they were well advised. But then how great is the change and how inevitable, because we all know, it is a matter of common knowledge, and may I add not a matter of regret but a matter of pride or rejoicing, that these great Dominions beyond the seas are becoming great nations in themselves. Integral parts indeed of the British Empire, and always I hope will remain integral parts of the British Empire, but nevertheless claiming, and rightly claiming, to have reached adult stage in the process of social growth and not requiring to lean in the same way on other parts of the Empire as was fitting and proper in the earlier days of their existence. If that be admitted, look at the results that had to happen and look at the results that have happened. The results that had to happen and have happened are these, that Canada, unsupported by any preferential policy on the part of this country, had to deal as an isolated unit from the point of view of international commerce and international treaties with all those great commercial countries with whom she was in direct relation—with France, with Germany, and with the United States in particular, but not, of course, with them alone. She conducted practically in complete and substantial diplomatic independence the negotiations with France and brought herself into special commercial relations with Switzerland with a most-favoured-nation clause, and in consequence of that brought herself again into special commercial relations with Germany, with whom before that period she had had a tariff disagreement owing to the way she had treated us.
  The result of all these things and of her subsequent treaties and arrangements with the United States and the result of every one of these negotiations is the only result that could happen, namely, that every one of them has been accompanied by a diminution in the preferential advantages of this country. It is the inevitable result. The Government and those who support the Government in this matter really appear to think that you can remain outside this network of treaties
  1458
  which is more and more arranging the channels into which international trade is to be conducted. We flatter ourselves, or, at all events, flatter ourselves in public, that we can get all the advantages of these international agreements by the operation of the most-favoured-nation clause. We do nothing of the kind, and I cannot imagine how anybody could have expected that we should be able to do anything of the kind. Whoever heard of getting all the advantages of negotiations when you use as your negotiator some one who has no interests in common with yourselves, and who is really looking after their own interests, not our interests, but do not object, of course, if here and there we are able to pick up some crumb of comfort out of labours which they undertake on their own behalf and not ours? These are the results which everybody knows, and I think everybody who looks into the results of these treaties must know, that although nominally we obtain precisely the same treatment as the countries which obtain the treaties, the terms of those treaties are habitually arranged not to give us the same advantage which they get, and the result is that we have not got, and shall not get, the advantage of those negotiations which we otherwise might. The Dominions feel the impossibility of this policy of isolation as much as every country in the world feels it, and as when the pinch gets a little more severe we ourselves shall feel it in time to come.
  Therefore, they find themselves compelled and, like all other negotiators, they feel they must have something to give for what they are going to receive, and something to take away if they receive nothing. Negotiation without that is the most helpless and futile proceeding, and it is only a British Foreign Minister who is asked to undertake so thankless and barren a job. Therefore, we are quite certain that the great Dominions which have entered upon this course of independent fiscal negotiation cannot in the circumstances of the case stop where they are. The process which has begun must go on, and the process which has gone on must extend from one Dominion to another. Each will feel the pressure which has driven Canada into these negotiations with France, Germany, and the United States, and other countries, and what Canada has done one day, Australia will have to do the next, and the Cape will have to do on the third. It cannot be avoided. In these circumstances I look forward with absolute certitude to seeing

  1459
  the advantages of preference which we now enjoy whittled away, faster or slower as the case may be, until that arrangement which was so loudly be-lauded both by the present Prime Minister and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer only four years ago becomes the shadow of a shade and finally vanishes altogether away.
  I do not see how anybody can contemplate such a contingency with equanimity. Of course I do not deny, I never have denied, that when the time comes, as it is inevitable it will come, when we like other nations have got to deal with other nations by negotiation for our respective exports and imports, an immense amount of labour will be thrown upon British Departments which they now escape. I never regarded these perpetual negotiations on commercial matters as very agreeable for the Governments concerned. They are extremely disagreeable, and I am the first to admit that they have a bad side, but they are quite inevitable. It is impossible that we should go on as we are, and as we could go on with impunity in the days when we had an easy supremacy in commercial matters. It is impossible that we should now go on and see one market after another taken away from us or diminished without our being able to strike a diplomatic blow in our own defence. I do not know how the Government, for instance, are dealing with the Japanese difficulty. I understand that the Japanese have just passed a commercial treaty which is absolutely destructive of the trade of Lancashire and Yorkshire with Japan. They denounced the old treaty favourable to this country, and they passed a new treaty, which will come into operation, unless it is modified, not very many months hence. It is the agreeable task of the Foreign Secretary to negotiate for the modification of that treaty. I believe it to be true that the Japanese Foreign Minister said there could be no negotiations with Great Britain on the subject, because Great Britain had nothing to give. The British Foreign Secretary, dealing with a nation like Japan in a matter of commercial bargaining, has the prospect of a very poor time before him if he has nothing to give. I certainly do not look forward with any satisfaction to the issue of the negotiations which, if this new tariff of Japan is left substantially unmodified, will inflict a very severe blow on some of the greatest of our staple industries.
  1460
  May I summarise two lines of history, and, if you like, of speculation, and show how they are inter-connected? There are two lines of historical development which have been going on in the last few years. The one line shows more and more that our great Dominions, whether they like it or not, must negotiate for their own trading and commercial interests as independent fiscal Powers with other great manufacturing nations. Considered only in itself, I do not say it will produce separation, but it tends in that direction. Whatever effect it has is in that direction. Lord Ripon says it will be equivalent to breaking-up the Empire into a number of separate and independent States. I think he was quite wrong there, but I think there was just this amount of truth in it, that if you considered these separate negotiations by themselves every Dominion must get into the habit of regarding itself as fiscally one of the industrial units of the world which has to fight for its own hand wholly irrespective of anything which occurs in any other part of the Empire. Therefore, as far as it goes, that tendency is towards driving further apart the units of what I hope is an inseparable Empire. There is another tendency which will not only counteract, but far more than counteract that if you give it free play, and that is the tendency in every Colony, part of the creed of every Dominion statesman, common property among all parties in our Oversea Empire, the doctrine, namely, that it is the business of the separate parts of the Empire to consider not merely their separate interests, but their interest as part of a great whole, knowing full well that if we lend ourselves to the great policy of consolidation it will improve the separate positions of the separate units, and that the gain to the separate members will be not less than the gain to the whole Imperial corporate body. My complaint against the Government, put shortly, is that they have encouraged that part of the policy which tends towards making each separate member of the Empire consider itself as apart from all the rest. I do not think they can stop it, I do not think they ought to try to stop it, but they have omitted to encourage the corresponding tendency which, more than anything else, would help the various parts of the Empire to give that great policy of Preference, which I grieve to think is at present advocated only by one great party in the State, though passionately advocated by them, and which

  1461
  I think ought to become, and might become, the common property of all British statesmen as it is already the common property of every Colonial statesman.
  I cannot believe that any man who, apart from doctrinaire prejudices, looks at the tendencies of the times in which we live, can really believe the position of stolid isolation in which we insist on keeping ourselves, is either good for this country or good for the Dominions, or good for this country and the Dominions taken together as integral parts of one greater whole. It is bad for both. I believe we are weakening. I believe we are risking great trading and commercial interests. I believe that more and more we are seeing, and shall see, those exterior markets, on which we more than any other nation in the world of necessity depend, gradually reft from us, or see ourselves compelled to buy those markets at a higher and higher price. I believe you will find, if you persist in this course, that the injury to the great manufacturing industries will be fatal. I believe you will find something even worse than that. You will find, combined with that great injury to our manufacturing interests, that there goes hand in hand a growing feeling among the statesmen of the Dominions over seas that appeals to the Mother Country for this closer commercial union which they have made with a unanimous voice generation after generation, falling as it does on unheeding ears, is one which it is not worth their while any longer persistently to pursue, and if you compel our Colonies to accept that view, if you compel them reluctantly to abandon the doctrine which they have cherished with such faithful persistence in the face of discouragement for all these years, leaving them as you must leave them, and ought to leave them, the completest treaty independence, you will find that their future treaties are made with no reference to the interests of either this country or of the Empire as a whole, but you will compel them to frame their domestic policy as isolated units, and not as parts of the Empire, and in so doing you will have done the worst service, not merely to the commerce and manufactures of the Mother Country, but to those vast Imperial interests of which the Mother Country is the guardian.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): I imagine that we are confined by the Rules of Order to discussing, upon the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill, administrative action, and that we are not
  1462
  entitled on an occasion such as this to debate the larger and wider question whether or not legislative changes which the Government have not undertaken ought, in the interests of the Empire, to have been proposed. That, to a certain extent, limits the sphere of controversy, but I hail with the greatest satisfaction the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen this occasion to raise once more the question which I think has been too long allowed to slumber within the walls of this House, and which, until a very recent date, was a very active issue of political controversy, the question of what is called Colonial Preference. Let me first point out that what seemed to be suggested in some of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, that the Imperial Government is insensible, unresponsive, to the wishes expressed by the Colonies at the Colonial Conference, is not the case. The Colonial Conference which met in 1907 passed twenty resolutions in all, dealing with the most diverse matters of Imperial and Intercolonial policy, and I think I might fairly say that to all, except to three which concerned preferential tariffs, the Imperial Government has, in the interval which has since elapsed, taken effective action. As regards the three as to which we have taken no action, they were resolutions dissented from by His Majesty's Government at the time they were proposed and carried against the decision of the representatives of the Government.
  The gravamen of the right hon. Gentleman's complaint is that we have not departed from the position we then took up, and taken steps to advance what be calls the case for Colonial Preference. Let me, before going into one or two more general considerations, ask the House to consider how the matter stands in regard to the only one of our Dominions in respect of which, it is said, to have reached the development stage—I mean Canada. I acknowledge that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade, and I myself, speaking as Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the Colonial Conference in 1907, stated that the preference granted by Canada to British goods had been beneficial to British trade, and I make that acknowledgment now in exactly the same sense and the same spirit in which I have always admitted that the Protectionist tariffs imposed by foreign nations are injurious to British trade. But they are not so injurious as we sometimes think. Every

  1463
  artificial restriction of the free inflow and efflux of goods between this country and other countries is a diminution of the freedom of commerce and a diminution of the productive and consumptive powers of those countries.
  Let us see exactly how the matter stands at present. The two great competitors in the Canadian market are the United Kingdom and the United States. The United States, of course, enjoys the enormous, the incalculable, advantage of geographical proximity and of daily intercourse, and, therefore, it stands on a different footing from all other nations of the world as regards the Canadian market. What are the facts? For the last nine or ten years the respective shares of the United Kingdom and the United States as importing countries in the Canadian market have been constant, or practically constant, the British being about one-fourth of the whole. It may interest the House to know that during the last year for which the figures are complete, the year 1908–9, of the import trade of Canada, 52 per cent. came from the United States, 30 per cent. from the United Kingdom, 6 per cent. from the British Colonies and Possessions, leaving only 12 per cent. to be divided between France, Germany, and all the other nations of the world. I am coming now to the point the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) made in regard to negotiating power. As the House knows, Canada has three tariffs. She has her general tariff, applicable to the imports of most countries; an intermediate tariff, granted by way of concession to other countries in return for reciprocal advantages; and a preferential tariff, granted to ourselves. The rates of the preferential tariff are approximately 20 per cent. lower than those of the intermediate, and 30 per cent. lower than those of the general tariff. Now I will take what has been done in regard to our two principal industrial competitors in the international and, amongst others, in the Canadian market, namely, Germany and the United States. In regard to Germany, as the House well knows, Canada, in consequence of hostile tariff action on the part of Germany, imposed a surtax some years ago of something like 33 per cent. That was a surtax in addition to the duties leviable under the general tariff. In consequence of an arrangement which has been come to between Germany and Canada, early in the pre-
  1464
  sent year, the whole effect so far as Germany is concerned is this: Germany has now come under the highest or general tariff on all imported goods. The surtax has been got rid of, but Germany is still on the highest of the three scales. Then as regards the United States, under a recent arrangement between the United States and Canada there is a list of articles in respect of which Canada concedes a tariff reduction to the United States, but this reduction is very limited in extent and does not include any articles of first importance in the United Kingdom trade. That is the actual state of affairs as regards the tariff which applies generally and. which is the highest. The intermediate tariff is allowed, with some modifications, to France, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and Austria, and on certain specified articles to the United States. The preferential tariff is enjoyed by the United Kingdom and the Colonies alone. That is the actual state of the facts as regards Canada. Therefore, as the House will see, the result of the exercise by Canada of fiscal freedom in regard to the making of treaties, which, I agree, she ought to enjoy, has not been in any way prejudicial to the trade of the United Kingdom. On the contrary, Germany, which had the biggest revolver, and which flourished that revolver with the greatest assurance and persistency against Canada, is now under the highest scale imposed by Canada.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: Canada had a revolver, too.
  The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. Member says that Canada had a revolver, too. She used it, and put on a 33 per cent. duty. What is the result of this fiscal war with Germany? Germany is not in a better position than the worst treated nation under the Canadian tariffs. [An HON. MEMBER: "The surtax is gone."] I agree the surtax has gone, but let the House remember what a loss there has been to both these countries during the seven years when the surtax existed, and during which the differential arrangements existed in Germany—the loss of actual trade, the loss of business through the impediments to trade, and the diminution of profits both to capital and labour. I do not believe that in the whole history of fiscal warfare you can get a better illustration of the essential folly of Protectionist methods. But, after all, our main concern here is not what our Canadian

  1465
  fellow-subjects do in regard to other countries. Our main concern is what it is suggested we ought to do with them. Although, of course, Canada, Australia, and the other Dominions of the Crown would be glad to receive preferential treatment, I am not aware of any demands put forward from any of those Dominions to make any change in our own fiscal arrangements. I listened to the whole of the Debate most carefully at the Colonial Conference of 1907, and I think that, with the exception of Mr. Deakin, I am right in saying that every one of the eminent Colonial statesmen who appeared, representing their own Dominions, was most careful to make it clear that he did not desire to initiate or even to suggest any change in our fiscal arrangements which was not for the interest of our own population.
  Mr. LYTTELTON: They asked for reciprocity.
  The PRIME MINISTER: What does reciprocity mean? It is a high-sounding phrase, but what does it mean translated into concrete terms? How are you going to give reciprocity? I am repeating a question which I have asked again and again. I want to get an answer to it. Upon what commodities are you going to put your import duties in order to give what you call reciprocity or preference to the Colonies? What are they going to be? Corn? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Let us come to corn. Here I think there is a little rift in the Protectionist lute. Is Colonial corn to come in free? [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see."] In other words, you dare not answer that. Is Colonial corn to come in free, which, I understand, is the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition, and it was certainly the original proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain)? I see one of the pundits of the Tariff Reform Commission opposite, the High Priest, the Grand Llama of that body, and I ask him: Is there to be a small duty, but still a duty, on Colonial corn as compared with the duty on foreign corn, which is not to come in free? Well, perhaps we shall hear an answer to that. If you are going to impose no duty on Colonial corn at all, where does the British farmer come in? Perhaps you leave him out of your account, but you cannot get it both ways. Either you are going to impose a duty or not on the first necessaries of life—that is to say, on the food of the people. Let us really
  1466
  understand where Colonial Preference comes in. I have a further question to ask, which I have also put many times, and to which I have never yet got a satisfactory answer. There are some of our Colonies—some of the most important of them—which send us manufactures in considerable quantity. Some of the most important of our Colonies do not send us food. South Africa, for instance. I suppose the amount of food imported into this country from South Africa is very small—indeed, practically nil. But South Africa does send us a large number of articles. What are they? There are, among others, hides and wool, which are the raw materials of some of the most important of our industries. Take Canada herself. The exports of Canada to this country are no doubt largely in cereals, but not entirely. Canadian timber is one of the most important exports from that country to this country. I ask again, Are you going first of all to discriminate as between your different Colonies, and say that you are going to tax raw materials—in other words, that you are going to give a preference to Canada—because she is a food-exporting country, and refuse it to South Africa because she exports raw materials? Then in Canada itself, are you going to differentiate between the Canadian farmer in the North-West, and say, "You shall have a preference," and to the lumberman, "You shall have no preference"? How are you going to work this thing out? It is all very well to talk about reciprocity. It is a fine phrase, but when it comes to the actual, practical concrete working out- of the policy of Colonial Preference it remains as nebulous and as full of practical inconsistencies and absurdities to-day as it was seven years ago. Then we are told that the Colonies have given us a certain amount of preference by subjecting our imports to lower tariffs than those imposed on the imports of other countries. But it was made perfectly clear at the Colonial Conference three years ago that there is one limiting condition to all Colonial Preference as given by the Colonies to this country.
  What is it? They are not going to allow your manufacturers to become effective competitors with theirs. Anything short of that, anything up to that, they are perfectly prepared to give you. When you reach the stage at which the admission of British products, the products of British capital and British labour, would be in

  1467
  really effective and damaging competition with the Colonial capitalist and the colonial workman who are engaged in the same form of manufacture, then a tariff wall is raised to such a point that you will be excluded, and you are intended to be excluded, from their markets. I make no complaint of that, not in the least; on the contrary, I would like to see as much as any man in this House inter-Imperial Free Trade. It is the great ideal which I think most of us on both sides will be very glad to welcome if it were possible. But it is not possible so long as Colonial opinion and the masses, the democracy, of our Colonies think, whether we agree with them or not, that their own fiscal, economic, political, and social interests require they they should practice the doctrine of protection of native industries. As long as that is so, anything in the nature of inter-Imperial Free Trade is impossible. It appears to us here that cheap food and cheap raw materials are absolutely essential to our industrial prosperity. We cannot consent, either upon food or upon raw material, to impose taxes which would enhance their price and which would thereby handicap our productive power in the great competition of the world, and which, as we believe, would reduce both the profits of the capitalist and the wages of the worker. On the other hand, look at our Colonies. They are young communities. For the most part they consider it essential to the interests of themselves that they should foster and develop, by means of protective tariffs and artificial encouragements, their manufacturing industries. They are perfectly entitled to do so. This Empire would never have been kept together, it would never have been what it is to-day, an Empire bound not so much by material as by moral and social and loyal and affectionate bonds of interest and sympathy, if we had continued to insist upon dictating from Downing Street what should be the fiscal policy of Australia or Canada. Most wisely and most profitably we gave them fiscal authority. The result has been undoubtedly that to some extent we had put a handicap upon our own trade, upon the expansion of our own markets. That is a price we are most glad to pay for Empire, a free Empire, for an Empire which does not rest upon the subordination of one part to another but upon the free consent and the fullest local development of the whole. Let us be content with seeing that while
  1468
  we develop our fiscal system in accordance with our interests we allow our Colonies to develop theirs in accordance with what they believe to be their own interests, and by the interplay of both, by the recognition in every part of the Empire of the fact that complete freedom in these matters is the best security for unity, we shall maintain not only the tradition of our own past but we shall lay the foundation of a still more solid and enduring future.
  Mr. MACKINDER: The Prime Minister in his opening remarks referred to the necessary limitations placed upon this Debate by the Rules of Order. The Prime Minister managed under the limitation which he imposed upon himself to enter upon most of the questions included within the fiscal discussion. I wish, while attempting humbly to reply to some of the points that were urged by him, also to deal more effectively with that very urgent side of the question which was brought before us just now by the Leader of the Opposition. That urgent matter as it seemed to me, if I may venture to say so, the Prime Minister hardly referred to. The Leader of the Opposition when he speaks on this subject speaks winged words. I doubt not that they are already on their way to the ends of the world. But to smaller people it is possible and it is advisable to refer to matters which would not be advisable perhaps for him in his discretion to refer to. Therefore, I may, basing myself upon one expression of his, look at this question of Canadian negotiations with the countries of Europe and the possible negotiations with her great neighbour the United States. I want to look at it for a moment if the House will allow me from the point of view of Canada. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to negotiations with the European countries, and said that Canada was left by us unsupported by any preferential arrangement in the Empire to make the best terms that she could by separate action on her own behalf. I noted just now that the Prime Minister spoke of the remission of the surtax in Canada against Germany. I thought, if I may say so, it was a little ungenerous on his part that he should not have referred to the reason for the imposition of that surtax. It was because Canada stood by the Empire that she imposed the surtax, and if a triumph has been won, the triumph has been won by Canada,

  1469
  because she had the courage to act her part alone. I venture to ask that if such is the triumph that a relatively small country, as Canada is in the economic sense, can inflict on great Germany, how much easier would have been the victory if the whole power of the Empire had been behind Canada? But the right hon. Gentleman told us that there had been great losses on both sides, and I think his expression was that there had been a revolver pointed. May I suggest that the effect up to the present has been to divert the German revolver in the direction of this country, because we have not only got to consider the position of British goods competing with German goods in this country, but also their position competing with German goods in Canada? And the effect of the removal of this surtax is, of course, undoubtedly to benefit German trade in Canada, but at the same time inevitably to damage the relative position of British trade in Canada. It is a little difficult to give any precise assessment of the value of the surtax, because in the 1906 tariff of Canada, as the House knows, we have had substituted for the old ad valorem general preferential arrangement a specific arrangement in regard to particular articles, but I believe that substantially the effect of the removal of the surtax is to reduce by about one-half the benefits which we have in Canada on the articles to which it referred. Therefore, however much we may admire the skilful use to which Canada has put the weapons with which we wish to equip this country, honesty must compel us to admit that the net effect of our laissez faire attitude in this country and of the armed condition of the two Powers, one within the Empire and the other without, which are also concerned, is that we are the sufferers.
  When I say I want to look at the matter a little from the Canadian point of view it seems to me, and this is very important, that there are some things which can be said here, and said by a Britisher, which Canadian statesmen would be too proud to say. In order that I may put before the House the point that I want to urge, I would ask their indulgence just for a moment or two while I state what I conceive to be the economic position in which Canada finds herself as the result of the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to take any action. I think the House will agree with me that the geographical position of Canada may be represented by saying that, geo-
  1470
  graphically, Canada is an artificial construction. The frontier thrown across the Continent runs a right angles to all the natural features, and Canada has been created in the face of the greatest natural temptations to fall into a great Continental State together with the United States—in other words, Canada is the greatest and most signal instance at the present moment of a State which has resulted from a settled policy acting under modern conditions, and the abandonment of that laissez faire policy, which was no doubt suitable to the time of Adam Smith. I venture to put it in this way, that what Canadian statesmen, Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, have attempted to do is to create a national texture in Canada running from east to west. All the threads of natural interchange and communication would be from north to south. The whole object of the continuous policy of Canada has been to insert threads at right angles to those running into the States. That is the meaning of Sir John Macdonald's national policy. I want to express this view that in offering preference to us, Canada was studying, and rightly studying, her own vital interests. We have the opportunity at the present moment of helping her policy. She put up a frontier against the United States; she backed it by a great railway. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, with his Free Trade platform, found it impossible to carry out general Free Trade. He gave a preference to this country. Why? In order to strengthen the east and west system of communication and trade in Canada; in order to strengthen by all possible means the vested interests which to-day constitute the stable structure of any nation. In order to strengthen the vested interests making east and west and not north and south the line of communication you have had Sir Wilfrid Laurier adding two more railways, one a State railway and the other a private concern, and you have great banks extending east and west with their branches. But Canada is constantly subject to pressure from the States, and I venture to say that Canada has been driven to negotiate with Germany and France in order to strengthen the east and west communications because you would not supply the place of France or Germany.
  5.0 P.M.
  Because you would not do that, and because she all the time fears economic absorption by a gigantic neighbour in the south, you have driven her to undertake

  1471
  these negotiations which we know are so largely dangerous to the ultimate unity of the Empire. If there is any blame to be attached for these trade negotiations it lies with those who delayed to take that action which Canada feels to be essential for the preservation of her national existence in the face of the competition of the United States. There is now a fresh offer of the American bribe, and something very different and worse by far than the offer which came from France and Germany, whose negotiations have not tended so far, to remove Canada from the Empire in the economic sense. But every statesman in Canada knows that he has to protect the Southern frontier, as the beginning and the end of all Canadian independence. If Canada is to be independent or a part of the Empire, whatever school of thought you may be following in Canada, you know that the one thing vital to her future separate existence is that communication should not be allowed to run in the main north and south. The figures stated by the Prime Minister just now in regard to the proportion of trade of Canada with the United States and this country is an indication of that very pressure from the south which Canadian statesmen are engaged all the time in fighting. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister referred to the question of wheat. I believe we have had our policy laid down for us on this matter by the Leader of the Opposition. Whatever the differences of opinion I would ask the House to remember that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was destructive in his criticism. The moment you come to a constructive policy there are necessarily Debates as to which particular detail you shall insert in that policy. The right hon. Gentleman knows from practical experience that it is always difficult when you launch a constructive policy which you wish to carry out to prevent just that kind of destructive criticism which the right hon. Gentleman makes, and which we, I think he will agree. wisely postponed. Who can tell what will be the conditions of trade? The conditions of trade today are vitally different from what they were when our policy was proposed in 1903. If we had advanced in 1903 a detailed policy, that policy would no longer be applicable after all the delay. These things are matters of negotiation. The right hon. Gentleman talked to-day as I have heard Free Traders talk on the plat-
  1472
  form. They are always trying to put us on the horns of a simple dilemma.
  Canada is producing woollen articles in only a few lines, but we may classify woollen goods of a hundred different kinds. The treaties of Germany and of all other great States consist of thousands of items. We have a classification which will be before the House this evening in connection with the Port of London Authority Bill. Do not let us say we are incapable any more than foreign countries of constructing a tariff. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that it is a most difficult matter, and I readily realise that it is one from which the permanent officials shrink. We enter upon it solely because we are conscious that other nations, trained bureaucracies, less troubled perhaps by democracy, are achieving these things, and, as we believe, are gradually beating us. If we are incapable of such a complicated scientific precaution, so much the worse in the long run for the democracy. It is said that a 2s. duty on wheat will not be acceptable to the small Canadian farmers of the North-West. That is part of the statical argument which leaves out of account altogether the fact of small things growing to be great things. If you have a little rill of water flowing over a rock, when the spate comes the whole rock is flooded; but if that rill flows on for many years, it gradually trenches for itself into the stone a deep channel and when the spate comes it is confined to that channel. If you grant a 2s. duty, what is the effect? Some who have got a large profit may not be affected by it, but a certain number whose margin of profit is small will be affected by it. The moment you have a small channel for trade, the tendency is for that trade to increase, and the larger the trade you do the more cheaply you can do it. Therefore, a small duty cumulatively acting for many years gradually, and all the time pressing in a particular direction, leads to that condition of things in which year by year it is repeated, "To him that hath shall be given." The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the inflow and outflow of capital and trade as being desirable; he spoke in harmony with the great ideal of a universal Free Trade. I am afraid I am one of those who believe that Free Trade within the Empire is not wholly desirable. I cannot help feeling that what would have resulted from the condition of things which John Bright and Cobden anticipated would have been a concentration of manufacturing here and hewing and drawing in the rest of

  1473
  the world. I cannot believe that our Empire is likely to be strong, to be many-headed, if you are to have concentrated here all the manufacturing of the Empire and elsewhere merely the production of raw materials and food. Therefore I believe it is in their own interests, and in the interests of the Empire in the long run, that the Colonies should protect themselves to a certain extent from this country. But that does not prevent in the least an enormous amount of negotiation such as that carried on by other countries.
  Under present conditions, while I admit that it is essential we should have cheap food and raw material, it is also essential that we should have markets. What is forgotten always, by those who argue that you cannot import without exporting, is that you may transport the very people and capital and so render both the imports and exports less necessary. This idea of bodies of the population moving is an idea clearly left out from that point of view. That is the argument upon which we differ; that is the argument which Canada sees, and which she has shown in practice by preventing the immigration of her people to the United States, by reversing the course of movement of her population, by adding to her strength from the United States instead of losing strength to the United States. She has shown the possibility of doing that, as Germany is also showing it today. I think the Foreign Secretary made an utterance on the point not very long ago at a meeting of the Free Trade Union. If it is argued that Germany is thinly populated as compared with this country, my reply is, what about Belgium, which has twice the density of population which we have, and yet her population grows. What is of vital importance to take into consideration is that you can move your population under the present conditions by public policy, except that part of the population which is tied to the land by agriculture or by the mines. There is food in Canada for far more than the population which exists there, and you move the food to where the populations are. The object of the tariffs is bodily to move the capital and the people from one place to another, and this is possible to be done, as Germany has shown, as Belgium has shown, and as our own colony of Canada is showing. That is the difference in our arguments. What I am fully conscious of is that you have refused to study this question. You have refused to study these three Resolutions of the conference
  1474
  of Premiers of the Empire. You refused to refer them, for any close study, to any body upon which the Colonies should be represented. You refused to see whether you could deal with them. You simply come down here and say, "It cannot be done." The Colonies say it can be done. Is not that dictation from Downing Street? We are told that dictation from Downing Street would break up the Empire. The Colonies tell you that they can negotiate, and you come here and say, "How can you give equal terms to all the different Colonies?" The different Colonies do not ask for equal terms. All they ask you is to study the question and see whether you and they cannot do business together. If you can do business together, then you would make vested interests in that form of trade, just as you have got vast vested interests in this country in another form of trade, which is not so beneficial to workers in this country as to capitalists. All we want to do is to build up other vested interests—small in the beginning, but which will grow. We want to sow the mustard seed, watch it grow, and in the future make a Great Empire. I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells the country of a great boom in trade and of a greater boom coming. You attempt to ride off in the fog of your figures and statistics, while the country is attending to its daily affairs. It is said that it is hard for the rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and it is equally difficult for a democracy, busy with its own daily affairs—when it sees one of those upward waves of trade which are characteristic of the whole world—at the moment to see what is wrong. It is the duty of statesmen to study not the boom of this year, but the general trend of trade. Let us remember that our markets to-day are held by force. Our markets in China, India, Africa, and even our South American markets, where we help to maintain the Monroe doctrine, are ultimately held by force, and you refuse to widen the basis of your power. Your whole system is becoming top heavy. You are dependent on the Colonies and other places for the raw materials and food. And they at any time by their policy can consume their raw material and their food in their own countries, and cut off your supplies. You will thus be left with your population on your hands. You will find yourselves under the necessity ultimately of giving way in all international negotiations, because you dare not trust your strength.

  1475
  We ask, while there is yet time, you will study the general figures, and not the boom of this year, or of last year, that you will consider the relative position of the whole world, not dealing with the condition of this country as compared with what it was in the time of King Alfred. I say that the policy which you are following, as shown by the making of these treaties is driving your own Colonies away from you, and that you are responsible by your delays and by your blindness for the breaking-up of the Empire, which under your very eyes is in progress.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member who has just spoken has covered at least as much ground as he suggested was covered by the Prime Minister and by the Leader of the Opposition. I have no intention of following him except as to two or three principles which detach themselves from his speech. The last words of the hon. Member for instance amount to a kind of threat, I will not say in the name of the Colonies, but in so far as the hon. Member's party is able to speak in the name of the Colonies, that unless this country abandons its policy of Free Trade the Colonies will leave her. If that was not insinuated there was really nothing in the argument. It is an extraordinary assertion to be made by a party professing to be loyal adherents to the British Empire. The Colonies have repeatedly declared through their leading men, and the leading Colonial journalists have declared and repudiated the pretence that they are using any threat in this matter, or that their loyalty in any sense depends——
  Mr. MACKINDER: I am afraid that the hon. Member totally misunderstands what I said. In what I wished to convey there was no threat, I was referring simply to the economic tendency.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: But the economic tendency alleged to be at work could only come to anything in the case of the separation of the Colonies. The hon. Member said we are driving our Colonies away from us—that means that they will ultimately separate from us if the policy of Free Trade in this country is carried on. I will leave it to the Colonies themselves to repudiate now, as they have repudiated in the past, all pretences of that kind. Only the other day Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in spite of what is said by the Leader of the
  1476
  Opposition, not only used language of absolute loyalty to the Mother Country, by declared that the preference that has been given to Great Britain is a preference that is to last for ever, in spite of all the eloquence of the party opposite on the subject of Colonial Preference. The hon. Member advanced a still more remarkable theory in regard to the position of Canada and the Empire. He told us that Canada is an artificial construction. Most States in the last analysis are. He told us that Canada would, as it were, naturally gravitate to the United States, and that the only means by which Canada could be prevented from gravitating to the United States is by the setting up of an artificial tariff system which gives preference to the Mother Country or, it may be, to Europe in general as against the United States. I wonder if hon. Members of the party opposite, the Tariff party, realise the astonishing character of their argument. Their suggestion is that there is a strong natural tendency lying in geographical conditions and economic conditions to the coalescence of Canada and the United States, and that if that strong natural tendency is to be successfully averted it can only be averted by the setting up of a policy of Imperial Tariff Preference. If the tendency that the hon. Member alleges does exist, then the remedy he proposes is ludicrous to the last degree.
  Mr. MACKINDER: My phrase was that Canadian statesmen had to maintain an East-to-West tendency, and I enumerated railways and other matters in connection with that policy.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: The hon. Gentleman's argument on that point was that Canada was an artificial construction, and that you would naturally tend from economic causes and from mere juxtaposition to coalesce with the United States, and that if that tendency is to be averted it must be by carrying out, and I will include railways if you like, a policy which, so far as we are concerned, is to take the form of Colonial Preference, and that this mere Colonial Preference will successfully avert what he declares is the natural tendency to amalgamate between the United States and Canada. A more hopeless ground for looking for the continuance of the British Empire in North America I do not think was ever declared. It is a doctrine of despair. Finally, we have perhaps the most astonishing proposition of all, that when His Majesty's

  1477
  Government, after carefully and courteously hearing all that was said at the Colonial Conference, gives the old answer that this country cannot afford to abandon the policy of Free Trade, then the hon. Member tells us that that is dictation from Downing Street, because we do not do what the Colonies want.
  Mr. MACKINDER Mr. MACKINDER rose——
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would recommend the hon. Member to prefer to think his arguments distorted than to be constantly interrupting.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: If it be suggested that I have distorted the hon. Member's argument, I am only too glad to allow the hon. Member the opportunity of correction.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I did not say the hon. Member was distorting the argument. I said that the hon. Member (Mr. Mackinder) might think his arguments were distorted. It would be impossible that a Debate should be carried on if hon. Members interrupted so constantly.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I quite agree, but as I am anxious not to misrepresent the hon. Member I should be very willing to give way to him. He did say two or three times that there was dictation from Downing Street. I cannot attach any meaning to the phrase at all, except that it seemed to be clear to me, from the hon. Member's way of putting it, that in refusing to discuss any further than we have done, and the hon. Member does not dispute that the matter was fully discussed, and he will not deny that every point raised by Colonial statesmen has been in detail replied to by His Majesty's representatives, and after all that discussion has taken place, he tells us that it is dictation from Downing Street, because we stand as we stood before. I am bound to say that the tables have been turned with a vengeance if it is to be considered dictation from Downing Street, that this country will not bow to what has begun to look like dictation from the Colonies, or from the Tariff Reform League. I come to, the main issues, from which I am afraid the hon. Member rather extensively departed in bringing forward these propositions. Dealing with those main issues of the proposed Colonial Preference, I have to point out that the Leader of the Opposition, in putting his case, absolutely failed to notice the strongest and most comprehensive of all the answers to
  1478
  the pleas he put, namely, the enormous loss that must be incurred by this country, not merely in respect of putting a tariff on food, and the prospect of putting a tariff on raw material, but the inevitable disadvantage that will accrue to this country from the barriers that will be raised in every other part of the world.
  The right hon. Gentleman, by the method of mere innuendo, alleged to the House that at present we got no good whatever from the most-favoured-nation clause in our dealings with any other nation. Not a scrap of evidence was offered for that proposition. The hon. Member practically put the case thus: "How could we hope to get any advantage from tariff negotiations with other countries?" He proceeded to say that it was perfectly well known that although we got nominally most-favoured-nation treatment in our dealings with other States, yet arrangements were made which took away the effect of them. Not a word of evidence is given for this assertion, which, after all, is absolutely vital to the whole Debate. If, as we maintain, we do get and must get an enormous advantage from the most-favoured-nation clause in our dealings with all the nations of the world, it will follow if we get Colonial Preference that we will lose that. We are told we ought to give preference to the Colonies for the purpose of holding the Empire together, and for some of those general and undescribed benefits that are supposed to be connected with holding together, but all the while, under the terms of the case they are asking, we give up our advantages in order to give them an advantage, as a slight return for which we would get some preference from them. Our trade with the Colonies is much less than half our trade with the rest of the world, and we are asked in return for a preference from the Colonies, which even the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Mackinder) admits is a very illusory preference because the Colonies are determined to increase their manufactures, and do not expect to reduce them, in return for a very doubtful advantage of that kind we are asked to end the policy of the most-favoured-nation treatment in every other market in the world, that is, putting ourselves at a disadvantage in two-thirds of our trade in order to get a doubtful advantage for the remaining one-third. If I thought Colonial Statesmen, I should not, I believe, use the word "Colonial," which is objected to, but should use the word "Dominion," if I

  1479
  thought any Dominionist Statesman seriously made such a demand as that I should begin to think seriously upon the advantages of that kind of union that we are told is of such enormous importance. I do not understand that they do make any such demand, they make suggestion, and all of those suggestions have been met.
  To-day, when hon. Members opposite, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made this proposition, and when the plain question is asked "What do you propose to do in this matter, what particular arrangements do you propose to make?" First of all the hon. Member for Camlachie replies that it would not be prudent to say what you are going to do, or that it would not be advisable to give any details. So that you are to enter into this new bond and shake off your old fiscal system before you have made up your mind as to what you are going to do. Then he says you are giving dictation from Downing Street, because you do not discuss the question, although the hon. Member has himself refused to answer a question on the subject.
  No new aspect has been set upon this Colonial Preference question by anything that has been said to-day. It might be worth while in regard to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the preference given to the Canadian timber for instance in the old Protection days, to ask how that worked out for the good of the nation. We did at one time give a preference to Colonial timber. The result was that we made dear the building of ships in England at a time when we needed cheap timber in order to compete with the shipbuilders of the world, and in the first half of the nineteenth century we were beaten as shipbuilders in the matter of price in the Baltic. At that very period we gave a preference to Colonial timber which was precisely the timber we did not want for ship building, and we made dear the Baltic timber which was the kind we required for shipbuilding, by doing so we put in the very greatest jeopardy the shipbuilding trade which was then in a very bad position all round. That is the experience we have had in the past of Colonial Preference, and since hon. Members opposite will give us no details which will offer any light towards any practical discussion it is to the past we must turn.
  There is one point more in the arguments of the hon. Member for Camlachie
  1480
  as to which I should like to say a word. His argument, if I understood him aright—I use that phrase not without meaning, because it seems very difficult, indeed, on his objections to ascertain what he meant in any one of his arguments—but I understood him to say that Canada had succeeded in attracting population by her tariff policy, that Germany does the same thing, that the value of a tariff policy is proved by the rise of population, and—I suppose this is implied—that, inasmuch as population leaves this country in considerable numbers by emigration, the Free Trade policy is in that way impugned. I will point to one fact which at once counters the whole of that, line of argument. One of the heavily protected countries is Italy. Italy has tried a tariff policy in recent years as determinedly as any European country. Nevertheless the emigration from Italy is, on the average, in proportion to the population, about three times the emigration from this country. In one year we had an emigration of 250,000, but the emigration from Italy, with a tariff policy, was 750,000. What have the Tariff party to say to this? All that they say with regard to the increase of population in Canada is absolutely beside the mark. The tariff has nothing to do with it. What attracts population are the natural resources of Canada. What enables Germany to expand her trade and population is, at bottom, the enormous expansion of her natural resources, especially in respect of the making workable of her hematite iron in the past generation by modern methods. Before that, the iron resources of Germany were inferior to ours, but now that it is workable, on her own calculations Germany has twice the iron ore, as well as twice the amount of coal in her coalfields, that we possess. Under these conditions any country can go forward in population. Canada has gone forward in population not in the least because of her tariff. Is it seriously suggested that the increase of population in Canada is in the protected industries? The hon. Member for the Camlachie Division himself told us that the Canadians manufacture woollens only in one or two grades. It is not in the protected industries that the increase of population has taken place. It occurs in agriculture, where there is no protection. It occurs in agriculture in spite of protection. As regards the emigration from this country, it is a very strange thing that Members of the party opposite should not

  1481
  realise that so much of it goes to Canada. and is in that way building up that Empire beyond the seas to which they profess to look with such hope as regards the future. More and more British population is emigrating to Canada in preference to any other country.
  In these circumstances what becomes of the argument of Colonial Preference? Are we going to conciliate the lumbermen in Canada by putting a tariff on timber? Some Members on the Front Opposition Bench tell us apparently that we are to do so. That brings us once more to the worse than uncertainty of the proposals and promises made in connection with tariffs. As the hon. Member for the Camlachie Division reminded us, the conditions under which tariffs are made change very rapidly. Precisely so. If we had put 2s. a quarter on wheat seven years ago, we should have had at least 6s. per quarter to-day. The German tariff began at 2s., and is now 12s. The French tariff has undergone the same development. If this nation is ever so lost to a sense of its own vital interests as to begin with a tariff of 2s., it will probably progress to the higher figure as rapidly as other nations have done. Let hon. Members opposite remember this fact in connection with their tariff bargainings. Whatever may have been said by Colonial statesmen about their anxiety to give a preference to British trade, there have been the most bitter murmurs on the part of Canadian manufacturers against the preference that has actually been given to this country. This is surely a state of things which should be regarded with the gravest anxiety by British statesmen. If you have Canada or any of the Dominions giving us a preference nominally out of loyalty to the Mother Country, and the members of the trade affected by the preference in their own country complaining very angrily that they are suffering injuries through the connection with the Mother Country, are you not setting up conditions which will very dangerously indeed tend to a rupture between the Mother Country and the Colony? If you say we are setting up a danger of separation by refusing a general preferential policy, what are you doing when large industries within the Colonies are exasperated by our being given a preference which they declare is opposed to their
  interests? I read in one of the trade journals last year that Canadian woollen manufacturers who had been doing good business were obliged to shut up
  1482
  their woollen mills because there was no longer the trade to employ them. If you have at any time depression in trade in Canada in one or more industries, and they are able to point to the Mother Country as the cause of their depression, because of a preference having been given, you will have created a cause of rupture such as has never existed before.
  The only time that there has ever been a serious danger of separation between the Colonies and the Mother Country was precisely when money interests were involved. We gave that old preference with regard to timber, not I suppose in the least out of any concern for Canadian interests, but simply because British capital was engaged in the Colonial timber trade, a state of things which may be set up again in regard to the relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies. We gave a most injurious preference, which seriously injured our own shipbuilding trade. As soon as we took that preference away a new grievance was set up by taking it away, although the taking of it away was essential to the well-being of the Mother Country. The same thing would happen if you began a tariff on food and you were driven by force of circumstances to take it off, as might well happen. I could not hope to see it taken off until it had done a tremendous amount of harm; but when it was proposed to take it off, what would be the attitude of the people in the Dominion in regard to what they would say was an injury, directed against their vested interests? Hon. Members opposite, in proposing to conserve the well-being of the Empire and to look to its interests, are simply asking us to set up conditions of the utmost strife between the Mother Country and the Colonies where there is peace already—as there may well be, as they have no real grounds of grievance against us and we have none against them. Where there is peace and healthy and natural relations the Tariff party propose to set up artificial, changeable, arbitrary, and capricious relations, which, by their own admission, will have to change every few years, and they hope to retain the same healthy relations, the same healthy reciprocity between the Mother Country and the Dominions that existed before. That will not take place. The whole history of our dealings with the North American Colonies in the eighteenth century should surely be a warning against in any way staking the wellbeing of the Empire upon such financial

  1483
  relations. It was over an unintelligent and ill-judged interference with Colonial trade that we lost that great slice of the British Empire which is now the United States, and it is the same policy that would tamper with the relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies now.
  Captain GEORGE TRYON: I am glad to have an opportunity of replying to the last speaker, because if English history is quoted in this House it is essential that it should be quoted with accuracy. The hon. Member has told us that we lost our North American Colonies through some system of Colonial Preference.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: No.
  Captain TRYON: Through tariffs.
  Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON: I said that we lost the American Colonies through interference with the financial relations of the Mother Country and the Colonies. I did not say through Colonial Preference.
  Captain TRYON: If the hon. Member did not think that Tariff Reform or Colonial Preference lost us the American Colonies, I do not see that his observations had any bearing on our present discussion. But as this impression is largely set about the country it is well that I should endeavour to reply to it. When the Colonies were in a state of great tension, when it was a question whether we should not lose them, and when there was great friction existing, the representatives of the Colonies met together and in bringing their charges against Great Britain accepted the principle of Colonial Preference, and said that they wished to bring no charge whatever against that principle, although at the time on other matters great friction existed. I think there has been a most unfortunate misunderstanding both in this House and in the country with regard to Colonial opinion in this matter. I understood the Prime Minister just now to say that there had been no suggestion from the Colonies that we should alter our present system. That is a very serious thing to say, because it is a matter which affects the decision of the country, and carries great weight with the electors. So far from the statement being accurate, I find, on turning to the Blue Book published by the Government, that the Fourth Resolution of what is termed the Colonial Conference was as follows:—
  "That the Prime Ministers of the Colonies respectfully urge on His Majesty's Government the expe-
  1484
  piency of granting in the United Kingdom preferential treatment for the products and manufactures of the Colonies, either by exemption from or reduction of duties now or hereafter to be imposed."
  When the Leader of the Opposition earlier in the Debate stated that the Dominions were speaking with a single voice, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies shook his head. Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman which of the great Dominions is not in favour of Colonial Preference?
  Colonel SEELY: Perhaps it would be more convenient if I replied later on. I have an answer on the point.
  Captain TRYON: When you look at the history of these Conferences, taking the first Conference of 1887, and going through all the reports of the Conference since, you will see how unanimous and how persistent that offer has been. It has been something more than an offer. It has been a principle which has actually been carried into effect in every great self-governing Dominion. Therefore, when I find pamphlets and speakers on the platform suggesting to the people of this country that there is no Colonial offer, I say that those who make such a statement are misleading the people on a matter of the most urgent Imperial importance. A matter which has not been alluded to in this Debate is the extension of this principle of Colonial Preference. It is not merely a matter between us and Canada. It is a matter between all the great Colonies and each other. When we hear criticisms passed on this policy, we must remember that all the great Colonies are gradually developing this system among themselves, in order to develop each other's trade. I do not wish to go into all the details of the question, but I should like to reply to what has been said about the most-favoured-nation clause. We hear Members opposite suggesting that we still get the benefits of the most-favoured-nation clause, and I understand it is suggested that we have only to look on while other nations negotiate and we shall get the full benefit. If France negotiates with the United States, and gets lower duties for her claret, what possible good is that to anybody in this country? The idea that we are to stand aside and see other countries negotiate, and then expect to get the full benefit of the negotiations, is based on a neglect of the fact that the negotiations are in reference to tariffs affecting particular articles, and that by picking out special articles in which they are largely con-

  1485
  cerned, the negotiating countries are able to get concessions of the greatest value to themselves, but which are of absolutely no use to us. If the Germans get lower duties on their wine—say, hock—and the French get lower duties on claret, what advantage is that to us, who cannot produce these things? When the Prime Minister and other Members advance this policy, I would remind them that Mr. Cobden did not believe in it. When Mr. Cobden was negotiating with France he negotiated for lower duties on iron and things which we did produce.
  But it is as a wide Imperial issue I should like to approach the question. It seems to be certain, whatever hopes may have been held out in the Cobdenite period, in the early Victorian period, from which the present Government draw the inspiration of their policy, that the world is now going forward on a system based on what they would call Protection. Everywhere you see the great Powers drawing into the sphere of their commercial influence the outlying territories near to them, and their overseas possessions. You see the United States bringing into the network of its influence distant places like Porta Rica, the Philippines, and Honolulu. You see in other directions in the centre of Europe commercial treaties between neighbouring countries in the arrangement and framing of which we have absolutely no share. We see also what we believe to be a most admirable and a most hopeful thing, that the policy which this country has for the present rejected—I think not for long—the Dominions of this Empire are developing amongst themselves. We see, for instance, that they make arrangements which will make for closer intercourse and larger trade between them. We base our arguments—personally my chief concern in advocating this policy is on account of its ultimate political result—on this larger policy. Therefore, when we are told by the Prime Minister that all the Resolutions of the Conference have received attention, I cannot help remembering that there was a Resolution, the fourth Resolution, which said:—
  "That it is desirable to encourage British emigrants to proceed to British Colonies rather than to foreign countries."
  Colonel SEELY: The Prime Minister especially said that he excepted three.
  Captain TRYON: I understood the Prime Minister to mean the three resolutions with regard to Colonial Preference which are not what I read. This is the
  1486
  fourth resolution. But in any case, it is the principle that I would urge rather than make any point in regard to a detail. It is the principle that, if we choose, we can in our tariffs and in our arrangements for our trade with our Colonies develop a far larger Imperial trade than we have now. It is sometimes urged against this policy that it will be a thing that will injure our shipping trade. In the United States they have a great internal trade under their tariffs. That is a trade which naturally takes place on the railways, because the communications of the United States are railway communications. But if, with a system of commercial treaties and preferences with our Colonies, we largely increase the internal commerce of our Empire, that will be a commerce which will be carried in ships. As it grows so will grow the opportunity with it for employing the shipping trade.
  It is only a very small point in reply to the hon. Gentleman who addressed the House just before me, but he told us about the former preferential tariff with regard to timber. He told us how much better it would have been if in the old days we had got our timber from the Baltic. But there was a very important thing which he did not tell the House. That was that early in the last century we were engaged in almost constant war, and the reason we endeavoured to develop supplies of timber from our own Colonies westward was because of the great danger of the Baltic supplies of timber being cut off down the narrow waters of the Baltic, leaving us—having had for a short time, perhaps, rather cheaper timber—in a time of crisis without the essential supplies for the maintenance of our Fleet. That is an essential point bearing upon the controversy which might with very great advantage have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman when he raised the question of timber. To me this question of Colonial Preference and the development of the Empire is one of surpassing, absorbing interest. Sixty years ago we made the attempt to get universal Free Trade with our neighbours, but that experiment failed. Following on that we have seen the gradual reservation of markets, the central, great, protected markets of Europe and the great markets of the world. Going on beyond that we have seen a growing and a very serious danger in the gradual reservation of Colonial markets and of oversea Dependencies by our great rivals. You see, for instance, France reserving the trade of her over-

  1487
  sea possessions for her exclusive use. You see Japan instituting with her possessions, such as Formosa, privileges for her trade and disadvantages for our own. You see Germany carrying out the same policy. You see, as great territories pass under the influence of the United States, that they also are carrying out the same policy. I took the trouble once to go into the matter. I found that three nations—Russia, the United States, and France—had in this way reserved for their privileged trading about one-half of the world outside our Empire. When you remember that this reservation of protected markets is the universal practice for practically every country except ourselves, when you see that practice growing amongst our own Colonies, when you see all these areas being reserved, we can only conclude that it is no longer safe for us to rely upon the neutral markets. We believe that the time has come for us to turn back to what, after all, was our old traditional national policy, and use the whole powers of the State in mutual co-operation with those great, strong, self-governing Dominions across the seas—to hasten the development of our own Empire, for the employment of our people, for the strengthening of our defences, and also for an object to which I may briefly allude, the widening of the basis of our finances. When you see the rate at which other great empires are expanding, when you see the far greater growth of Germany and the United States, you will see that we cannot maintain our place among the nations unless we can build up a wider basis for our finances and for our defence. It appears to me that our policy of the greater exchange of products between ourselves and the Colonies will lead to closer and more frequent intercourse, to better knowledge of each other, to a gradual binding together of the Empire by bonds of closer intercourse and commercial union. We believe we shall by this in the future have the opportunity of widening the basis of our commerce and of our defences, and of maintaining for, I hope, generations to come the great civilising work in which the peoples of this Empire are engaged.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: Hon. Members speaking from the opposite benches would almost seem to leave out of consideration altogether what are the present trade relations between the Mother Country and her Colonies. Take the case of Canada. We give to Canada the only
  1488
  free market in the world for practically any quantity of produce that she cares to send us. She sends us produce to the extent of £26,000,000 sterling per year. On the other hand, we send to Canada £13,000,000 a year of British goods and produce. On that, notwithstanding the thirty-three and one-third rebate on her duties, she levies practically an average import duty of 20 per cent.—£2,600,000 per year. In addition to that she gives $1,500,000 bounties mainly to her iron and steel manufacturers, to enable them to produce in Canada what we would otherwise send them. In addition, too, to that, up to the present time the taxpayers of this country have borne the whole cost of Imperial and Naval defence. If the inhabitants of Canada contributed equally with the inhabitants of this country to our naval forces, contributed pro rata to the cost of Imperial defence, that would mean some millions additional yearly expenditure for Canada. All this—£2,600,000, the bounties, the absence of any reasonable and adequate payment for Imperial and naval defence—are, in other words, a preferential treatment of Canada in regard to our commercial relations. I ask how can there be any satisfactory and proper basis for the arrangement of a preferential tariff between a highly-protected Colony and the Free Trade Mother Country? If change there is to be, surely it ought not to be a change which would actually give the Canadian agriculturists a bounty on the grain they send into this country. That would be what a preferential tariff—and a duty on corn levied against foreign countries, but in a lesser degree, if at all, against our own Colonies—would mean. At present we get from Canada all the wheat supplies she can send us absolutely free from duty, and forsooth, on the Opposition side of the House, we are asked not only to do that, to ignore the heavy duties that she levies upon all goods we send to her, but to still further make the trade relations more and more one sided by actually giving to her a bounty on the wheat supplies she sends into this country! It seems to me that that cannot possibly be the basis of a satisfactory arrangement. We give all these advantages to our Colonies, for the same applies to South Africa, Australia and New Zealand—even to New Zealand and to Australia in a greater degree than to Canada, because their duties against British goods are higher. The fact is that of all fields of

  1489
  action open to us to increase and develop British trade, I believe the most unpromising to be that of carrying out the idea of attempting to set up a system of further Colonial Preference as between the Free Trade Mother Country and our great Protectionist Colonies. What we do need to develop the trade of this country in our Colonies is to increase the efficiency of our commercial representation by commercial agents and by Consular services. When I was last in Canada I went to a place where they were putting down some big new pumping machinery with lines of pipes stretching out for a mile or two to bring along the necessary water supply. I asked them: "I thought you would have got your machinery, your pipes and your plant necessary for this great undertaking in England, which is going to take the whole of your produce." The reply, somewhat jokingly, of course, given was: "Why, we did not even know that you made these things in the Mother Country." What was the fact? That they had had the representatives of over twenty manufacturing firms of this class of goods from the United States calling to secure the order, whereas English manufacturers did not send a single representative! In regard to Canada, too, while other foreign nations, including the United States, have there a number of efficient commercial representatives, or Consuls, to send home to their various countries particulars of opportunities for doing business, we the Mother Country, more interested in doing business there than any of them, had neither any commercial agent, nor a single Cons l representing the trade interests of this country.
  6.0 P.M.
  If we are to develop our trade with our Colonies let our commercial men at home send out a greater number of representatives to look after business. Let our Government develop and make more efficient our Consular Service and increase the number of commercial agencies representing the Mother Country in our self-governing Colonies. Those of us who stand by the Free Trade position in this country believe that what we need in order to combat the Protection fallacy and to save this country from the calamity of any return to a system of Protection is to be more decided and vigorous and active in extending British trade and promoting British commercial interests in the great free and neutral markets of the world.
  1490
  Personally I am not content with our share of the trade and great commerce of China which has been secured by this country. I even complain of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, inasmuch as that in my humble judgment we have allowed foreign nations to make their distinct arrangements and to make inroads upon British trade there. We made arrangements with Germany in which the Yangtsze Valley was to be considered an exclusive sphere of influence for this country in regard to railway construction. We made similar arrangements with Russia and with France, but unfortunately we see at the present moment that whereas we have undertaken no railway enterprise in the German sphere in China in the great province of Shantung, we find to-day that in the great Yangtsze Valley Railway Germany is to have one-fourth interest and is to supply one-fourth of the railway material, one-fourth of the line is with France, and the United States of America also comes in, and we, in that vast sphere of British influence, have only to have one-fourth of the construction of that railway which is to open up that great valley, the richest garden almost in the world.
  I consider also that in the railway of Aigun our representations have hardly been strong enough in supporting British commercial undertakings, and that in that way we are losing ground in China. Our proportion of the trade and commerce of China is going down, but let Protectionists remember that in China we have an open market with all the nations of the world, that we have no duties against us that are not against every other nation entering this great and rich empire, Nith its 300,000,000 of people crying out for development, with any amount of resources, and we ought to be more fearless in obtaining a greater share of the trade. I went to Turkey last autumn, and I landed at Salonica, and saw there on the wharves great piles of steel joists and girders, and I saw the same at Constantinople. When I went and examined the marks on these joists and girders I found that they came from Belgium or Germany. I went to the Consuls at these ports, and I saw the English Consuls. I learned how it was that England, the friend of the Young Turks—the nation which is not only a fair field and no favour, which is all we ever claim, but has a fair field and every favour, because the Turks would rather do business with us than with any other nation in the

  1491
  world—was not doing better business in Turkey. Our Consuls told me that no one was sent out from England to look after this business which was open to them of supplying these joists and girders. The English Consuls are ready and wishful to assist and promote and to open up British trade in these commodities throughout Turkey. But what happened? I took the trouble to write to the manufacturers of steel joists and girders on the north-east coast and on the sea-board, and what did I find? We are supposed to have the finest mercantile marine in the world, and we ought, therefore, to be able to transport joists and girders from our seaboard to Salonica and Constantinople as well as any other nation. I found a British firm of steamship owners was in a shipping combine carrying out these steel joists and girders from Antwerp and Rotterdam for 7s. 6d. a ton, these goods, but they demanded 12s. 6d. for carrying British steel joists and girders to the same places. In fact the shipping trust ought to be smashed for they are smashing British trade and commerce, and I think it is a disgrace to British shipowners that they should hamper British trade. In this open market of Turkey, without any hostile tariff against us whatsoever, we do literally nothing in regard to finding new openings for British trade and commerce.
  In regard to India we certainly hold our own, and if we hold our own in India today, where we give other nations an equal opportunity of competing upon equal terms, what can there be so wrong in the conditions of British trade and commerce? The fact is that what we need is not only that our manufacturers shall wake up and be as active in China and India in pushing their trade interests as the Germans and other great competitors are, but the necessity of increasing enormously our British Consular Service, and especially that we should cease to employ at so many places abroad foreign Consuls. To my mind it is the greatest absurdity in the world that in foreign ports the Consuls of this country should be foreigners, who are naturally much more interested in the trade and commerce of their own country than in promoting the trade and commerce of our country. Our expenditure on the Consular service is a mere bagatelle, and if we increased that expenditure tenfold I believe it would be the best spent money that we could put into the annual Budget of this country. I hope the House of Commons will realise that a Protection system,
  1492
  instead of advancing our trade and commerce, would enormously hinder it. If I believed that a return to Protection would really advance the interests of this country I would be the first to advocate it, but it is because I am profoundly convinced that, whether it be the iron and steel trade or the coal trade, we have much more to lose than we should gain by any system of import duties upon goods coming into this country. It could only have the effect of raising the prices and reducing the consumption, and if the consumption is reduced the quantity manufactured would be reduced and unemployment would be increased. The Debate so far has been entirely on Colonial Preference, but the aspects of Colonial Preference with which I have attempted to deal are such as must be realised by commercial men as worthy of the closest attention. Some action ought to be taken both to increase our commercial representatives abroad and to waken up British manufactures and to induce our Government to take some stronger line without being unduly aggressive in the maintenance of British commercial interests in every part of the world. To listen to some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite one would imagine that the trade and commerce of this country was going to the dogs. I believe, taking the imports and exports, the trade of this country within the first half of this year has shown that we enjoy an absolute record, and that we had a bigger oversea trade than in any six months in the history of our country before. Therefore I say it is idle for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that this industry is ruined and going away, and that other industries are going. I had a most extraordinary experience at the last General Election——
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not now arise. The only aspect of the question we are now discussing is Colonial Preference.
  Sir JOSEPH WALTON: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. It was my ignorance. I was under the impression that upon the Appropriation Bill practically everything affecting British trade and commerce could be discussed. I submit to your ruling at once, and I only say that on the question of Colonial Preference I hope His Majesty's Government will stand in stout opposition to it, as they always have done, believing, as I do, that any attempt to make arrangements in that connection will be injurious to British trade and to the trade of our Colonies, and will be against the best interests of the Empire.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: As I have been one of the pioneers for a great number of years of the movement in favour of Tariff Reform and Colonial Preference, and as I have also been challenged upon one point this afternoon by the Prime Minister, perhaps I may be allowed to interpose for a few moments. I think the non possumus speech of the Prime Minister this afternoon with regard to the possibility of establishing a policy of Colonial Preference between ourselves and our Colonies will be heard with the same universal regret by every one of those Colonies as I am certain it was by hon. Gentlemen who sit upon this side of the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated the case on behalf of Colonial Preference in a manner that could not be excelled, and he also called attention to what almost everyone must recognise, namely, the critical position in which that policy stands at the present moment in the eyes of those who desire to see it carried into effect. I will not dwell upon that part of the question for a single moment, but what I should like to impress upon the House is that one of our reasons for pressing this question—which has not been alluded to at all so far as I know up to the present—is what I should describe as the chronic curse of unemployment, which unhappily prevails at the present time in the United Kingdom, and has prevailed more or less for years in a greater degree than in any other great country in the world like our own. What is the meaning of the statement, so often alluded to which was made by the late Prime Minister that in this, which is still, I suppose, one of the greatest and richest countries in the world, it should be possible for a gentleman in his position to tell us that one-third of our population is constantly underfed and on the verge of hunger? One of the reasons for this state of things is to be found in the fact that in the great foreign markets, which we formerly enjoyed to any extent that we pleased, and which provided any amount of employment for the workers in this country, those markets year after year have become more and more closed to us in a variety of respects by hostile and sometimes by absolutely prohibitive tariffs. At the same time it must be obvious to everyone that if we are to remain a great and prosperous commercial country in the future, as we have been in the past, and if we really desire to see our workers in this country provided with the
  1494
  opportunity of constant and regular employment, as they sed to be at one time. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] Does anybody deny that it would have been absolutely impossible at any other period to say, as the late Prime Minister said, that one-third of the whole of our population was suffering from want of employment, was underfed, and was always on the verge of hunger? [An HON. MEMBER: "He never said that."] When could that have been said? [An HON. MEMBER: "Before the repeal of the Corn Laws."] Yes, I know all about that. If hon. Members will read the Reports of Committee after Committee and Commission after Commission, all of which they can find in this House, they will see that the root of all those troubles and difficulties was the result of cash payments and currency troubles. You have only to walk into the Library and take the trouble to study those Reports in order to learn for yourselves what caused a greater degree of distress than has ever been known before until we arrived at the period when the Prime Minister told us a few years ago the real position of affairs as regards one-third of our whole population, and if we are to see any real and genuine improvement in that position it is certain that other markets must be found in order to replace those markets, a large portion of which we have undoubtedly lost. Where should we look for those markets except it be to our Colonies and to our own relations and kinsmen across the sea? They are willing, ready, and anxious, and have been for years to make arrangements with us by which our position could be enormously improved, and by which they could also derive great advantage from us. In his reply to my right hon. Friend I do not think the Prime Minister attempted to answer the greater part of his speech at all. The Prime Minister seems to think that he has satisfied all requirements by saying that the Colonies at the last Conference never expressed any desire that we should change our fiscal system in this country against our own will. Our Colonies have always been careful to avoid pressing upon us anything which they have reason to believe would be entirely opposed to our own views. At the same time they have made their views perfectly clear not only at the last Conference but at the one before that, and I am going to ask the Prime Minister to give rue his attention to a paragraph which is to be found in the Blue Book of that Conference,

  1495
  which I daresay a great many hon. Members of this House and perhaps many people outside have either forgotten or were never aware of.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I was there.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: In the pages of that Blue Book will be found what is called the Memorandum of the Canadian Ministers, and this is what they say:—
  "If they could be assured that the Imperial Government would accept the principle of preferential trade generally, and particularly grant to the food products of Canada in the United Kingdom exemption from duties now levied or hereafter imposed, the Canadian Ministers would be prepared to go further into the subject and endeavour to give to the British manufacturer some increased advantage over his foreign competitors in the markets of Canada."
  There was as distinct and clear an offer as ever was made, and, remember, it was made at a time when the 1s. duty on corn was in force, they were already giving to us a preference of 25 per cent. over all other countries. "Yes," said the right hon. Gentleman, "but how are you going to get it? You are going to get it by British legislation which will be most injurious to the people of this country, inasmuch as it will make their food dearer." And then the right hon. Gentleman asked, "Are you going to put a duty on corn?" I thought it was known that that was to be part of the policy of Tariff Reform ever since its first introduction, as it is known to be the policy of Tariff Reform at the present time. But then the right hon. Gentleman said, "Is there to be a duty on Colonial corn?" The Prime Minister, I think, knows the answer to that question.
  Mr. ASQUITH: I do not.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I read the announcement when I was in Egypt. There were two policies submitted originally to this country on this question.
  Mr. ASQUITH: Only one originally.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: That is so; I ought to have said until quite a recent period. There was the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, which was to impose a 2s. duty on foreign corn, while Colonial corn was to come in free. The Tariff Commission Report proposed to go a little bit further and have a 1s. duty on all corn to begin with, and an additional 1s. duty on foreign corn; and personally I am still inclined to believe that it was an improvement upon the original scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
  1496
  But that policy was not approved of, and afterwards the policy of the party was announced by my right hon. Friend that the duty should be limited to foreign corn. The Prime Minister says, "If that is the case, where does the farmer come in?" I will tell the right hon. Gentleman. There were a great many other duties proposed by the Tariff Commission, and I understand they were accepted as the policy of the party. What is the objection to 2s. on foreign corn? The right hon. Gentleman says that it will raise the price of bread. Please remember that a duty on bread and a duty on corn is a very different thing. The right hon. Gentleman says such a duty will be injurious because it will increase the price of the food of the people. But would it? We have had a great deal of experience on that point, and if the Prime Minister will refer to the figures of the consumption of foreign and British grown corn in this country, he will find that the imports of foreign corn were at one time, and no doubt will become increasingly so in the future, less than one-half of the whole of our consumption. But a 2s. duty on the half is only the equivalent of a 1s. duty on the whole. The 1s. duty on corn never raised the price of bread by the fraction of a farthing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, it did."] If I am contradicted on that point I shall have to give a calculation which will prove my statement to demonstration. Here is a calculation made by two eminent gentlemen, one connected with the Master Bakers' Society and the other a leading miller in this country. I had the calculation made on the flour, because hon. Members will recollect that when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach introduced his duty upon corn he introduced a corresponding duty on flour, and the duty on flour was rather higher in proportion, and to be absolutely on the safe side I had the calculation made on the flour. Here are the figures: The duty on the flour was 5d. a cwt. A sack of flour contains 2½ cwts., and therefore the duty upon a sack would be 12½d. Every sack of flour will produce between ninety-five and 100 loaves according to the quality of the flour, and if you divide 12½d. into 100 loaves it comes out at half a farthing per loaf. But that is not all. You must allow something for the cost of manufacture, which does not depend upon the price of wheat at all. As a matter of fact, it comes out at something less than half a farthing on the quartern loaf. It is well known that if a baker tries to raise the price of bread more than he ought to

  1497
  do in order to get more than a fair profit, competition in the baking trade is so keen that he would be undersold by his competitors at once. I am sure my calculation will bear examination, and it is only necessary to consult the statistics of the price of wheat and the price of bread during that time to see that it is so. I defy anyone to show that I am wrong when I state that as a matter of fact it was common knowledge, except during one by-election, that the price of bread never varied and was not increased in the slightest degree by the duty.
  Mr. ASQUITH: That is like what happened in regard to beer.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I know nothing about what happened in regard to beer, but I do know this about corn: That during the by-election, which occurred very shortly after the 1s. duty was imposed upon corn, the price of the loaf was raised till the election was over—when it immediately fell to its former amount. Then the right hon. Gentleman says, "Where is the farmer coming in?" The farmer would come in in a variety of different ways. If I had my way I should like to see the produce of some of the duties devoted to the help and the assistance of the agricultural interests of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer himself has admitted the absolute necessity and the duty of the English Government to do something of this kind by his Development Bill, and I think something in that direction might be done by any Government which succeeded the Government of the right hon. Gentleman and was not afraid to deal with the question of Tariff Reform.
  Let us look at the other side of the question for a moment. Supposing Parliament has the courage to impose this duty upon corn, what are you going to get in return for it? Why, that which Canada has told you, and what Canada said in effect, two Conferences ago, was this: "We have got now to buy £50,000,000 worth of goods every year which we cannot produce ourselves. If you will only give us this preference and this small advantage we do not say we will admit your manufactures free against our own—we do not propose to do anything of the kind—but with regard to all the goods we are obliged to buy from other countries we are ready and prepared to put such duties on all other foreign countries as will give you the control of our
  1498
  market." I wonder if hon. Members have ever really considered not only what would be the value of the Canadian market today, but what that market may be worth to the workers of this country at no distant date. There is no question that Canada is rapidly becoming one of the great future countries of the world. There is no doubt as to its resources and as to the almost illimitable extent of the finest wheat land the world has ever known or ever seen. On this point I am really talking about something I know from my own experience. Many years ago I made an expedition, leaving Oxford for the purpose, and travelled across the Far West, nearly to the Rocky Mountains, and taking, curiously enough, the very line of what is now the Canadian and Pacific Railway. That was the day when the prairies were peopled with millions and millions of buffaloes, and everybody acquainted with agriculture knows perfectly well that the test of rich land and of the value of land is the condition of the beasts which feed upon it, and we never killed a buffalo for food which had not three or four inches of fat. You ask any farmer or anyone who feeds beast in this country what is the value of land which will enable him to get them fit for the butcher without artificial food, and he will tell you that a field, or a close, as many of them call them, which will feed a beast is worth £5 an acre even in these days. That will give some idea of the richness and fertility of the soil in that vast region in the West, and will show you one of the great resources of Canada. The right hon. Gentleman himself has mentioned the illimitable forests, and so they are. There is any amount of timber. I suppose it is impossible to estimate the value of it. It is also the case with iron and with coal, much of which is far nearer to the surface than it is in this country, and quite recently we have been told of enormous discoveries of the precious metals.
  Look how extraordinarily this country has changed even within my time, though I am not an absolute Methuselah, yet I can remember what is now the City of Winnipeg when I formed my camp there for my expedition. I arrived there in a canoe, which was the only means of progress open to me, and I found eight great wooden buildings and one stone house surrounded by a great wooden palisade. What is Winnipeg to-day? There are any number of railways to it, and any number of railways from it. It is a city of 130,000 or 140,000 inhabitants, I believe, and it is

  1499
  growing with the greatest rapidity. The whole of the country over which I travelled a thousand miles to the west is now growing corn. If all this change is possible in my time, what is not possible in the next fifteen or twenty years? I have often said, and I maintain, it is no exaggeration whatever to say that if Canada affords a market to the extent of £50,000,000 a year at present, there is no reason whatever that I know of why within the next fifteen or twenty years it might not be a market worth to our workers in this country £250,000,000 at least. All this we might have had at our disposal years ago if we had not been so inconceivably foolish as to reject their offers as we have done, and even yet the great part of it is still open to us. Nearly everyone admits that want of employment is the great curse of the country at the present time, and here we have a Prime Minister coming forward today and saying non possumus once more to all our Colonies with regard to Colonial Preference, and repeating, only in less offensive language, "The door is still banged, and barred and bolted against you."
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: It is a very great pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend expounding the earnest convictions of a convinced Protectionist. He has truly said he has not arrived at the age of Methuselah. He seems to me to bear more the appearance of a young Lycidas. I believe he will not only approach the age of Methuselah, but will have to go beyond it before he sees this crazy plan of Tariff Reform carried into effect. The omens are not very favourable. Scotland is against you, Ireland is against you. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They have never voted for you. Wales is against you, and, as long as you are for taxing food, Lancashire and Yorkshire will always be against you. The right hon. Gentleman's personality is all the more interesting because he is an illustration of the old method of keeping parties together. The old method of keeping parties together which was adopted by Lord Salisbury and his predecessors was to have a definite policy and to welcome all those who could more or less adopt that policy, but yet to have toleration for individual convictions or even heresies. It was upon that ground that the right hon. Gentleman, with the late Mr. James Lowther, was tolerated. The Party was
  1500
  not then Protectionist, but these two eminent Protectionists were not only tolerated, but they received posts in the Government. That is altogether altered. Instead if a definite doctrine with toleration, the doctrine at present is indefinite, and no toleration is extended to those who will not swallow the whole of it. That has made a very great difference in the composition of this House, and will, I think, make a great difference in future Parliaments.
  The right hon. Gentleman says there have been two policies of Tariff Reform. There have been many more than that. There was the Bacon and Maize Policy. That is abandoned. There was the what-you-will-lose-on-the-tea-you-will-gain-on-the-sugar Policy. That was abandoned. In fact, almost everything has either been abandoned or materially modified, the last modification having come from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). The fact is the policy becomes more uncertain the longer you go, and the party that professes Tariff Reform has had as many policies as the woman of Samaria had husbands. My right hon. Friend opposite advocates a shilling duty on corn, and he says that will hurt nobody but will benefit the farmer. He did not tell us exactly how it will benefit the farmer.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I did not say it would.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: He asked himself, "What will the farmer get out of it?" and what he replied was not what the farmer would get out of the duty on corn, but he suggested that when the duty on corn was imposed something in another way might be done for the farmer out of the revenue derived from it. He did not suggest any direct benefit would arise to the farmer from the duty, or from a preference to the Colonies, his suggestion, I presume, is that a further extension could be made to that system, under which the agricultural landlord now gets half of his rates paid for him by the taxpayers of this country at large——
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I never referred to the question of rates, nor had I it in my mind. I thought I had made myself clear. Nobody ever supposed that the trifling duties proposed in themselves could restore the agricultural industry to its former prosperity if you were to utilise a certain amount of the aggregate sum of those duties for the credit, help, and assistance

  1501
  of the agricultural interest. That would be an agricultural policy which, I believe, would be of real advantage and help.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has given a paraphrase of what I previously said, that it would be a dole of the character of the half-rates that are paid to agricultural landlords. What I wish to lay down is this: the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest there would be any direct advantage to the farmer from this duty on corn. He was content to look for the benefit to the farmer to indirect contributions from the general funds of the country, or from the proceeds, it may be, of the 1s. duty. But has he forgotten we have already tried the 1s. duty and that it was condemned as an injurious duty to the farmer by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London?
  Mr. BALFOUR: No. I suppose the hon. Gentleman is referring to a speech I made during the Debate initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. I do not quite accept his version.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, I foresaw there might be some little doubt on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and so I have brought the extract of the speech. On 15th May, 1903, the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I am the last person to minimise the fact that one of the hopes we entertained was that he had given some increased permanent breadth to the basis of our taxation and thereby lightened the task of future Chancellors of the Exchequer. But I think it is quite plain that those hopes were fallacious. I do not believe, in fact I cannot think that anyone present believes that this tax can be a permanent part of our fiscal system."
  And again in the same speech the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "The argument I felt most acutely was that this was not merely a trifling tax on corn, but a tax on the raw material which farmers use in their industry. That point was very anxiously considered in the Cabinet and it gave us very serious pause. The facts have turned out I am afraid precisely as might have been anticipated, but it has turned out that in fact the tax has operated as a great burden on the raw material used by the farmer."
  I suggest, therefore, that the 1s. duty has been already tried, and found not to be to the advantage of the farmer. It operated as a tax on the raw material of his business. It turned out, in fact, a great burden on the raw material used by the farmer. I will leave for a moment the question of the advantage to be derived directly by the fanner, and come to the question of Colonial Preference in general. An hon. Member who spoke earlier in this Debate said Colonial Preference was a
  1502
  mustard seed which we should plant, and that it would grow into a, great tree in time. Yes, but the mustard in it is a tax on food, and that is why I for one cannot entertain any project of Colonial Preference. We know without a tax on food you can have no Colonial Preference. That is common ground, and it is the reason I am against it. Indeed, I look back with some pride to the fact that I was, I believe, the first person in this House to use the term "free food." It was immediately after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham began his campaign. Free food is a citadel from which, unless you can expel us—even though you take all the outworks—you will never get a Protective system. You will never get it as long as we can keep free food, and that is why we apply ourselves to that rather than to Free Trade. Free Trade, I admit, is, perhaps, a term open to objection, or, rather, to cavil, because Free Trade—absolutely Free Trade—is a pious opinion; it is the doctrine of perfection; it is not free so long as you have high expenses and Chancellors of the Exchequer, but it is as near free as may be. It is freer here than in any other country in the world. It is our own system which we have adopted since 1846, which I designate as Free Trade, free enough for me, and quite free enough as long as you keep your food free. The doctrine of Tariff Reform is a new one—the old original feudal doctrine of Protection professed by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Wimbledon was frank and open. It avowed its object, but this Birmingham doctrine grafted on to it, the doctrine of Colonial Preference plus Protection is an entirely new doctrine. It is not the feudal doctrine of landlord and tenant standing together, the protection given to one—not only personal protection but fiscal protection—being extended to the other, it is an entirely new doctrine. It is the doctrine of the application of the principles of retail trade to the policy of a great Empire. The doctrine is: "If you will give something you will get something back." It is a kind of cross-commission You are to allow the Colonists something, and they are to allow you something. The right hon. Gentleman has drawn a glowing picture of the growing riches of Canada. I entirely agree with him. I agree that those riches are destined to increase; but the present position of Canada has been attained without any preference from this country. It has been gained under the

  1503
  principles of Free Trade. [CRIES of "No."] It has been mainly achieved since we withdrew from Canada the slight remnant of preference we once extended to her—a preference on wood, to which the Canadians themselves strongly objected, because, they said, it was calculated to keep Canada a lumber country, whereas she desired to become a manufacturing country. All this increased progress in Canada has been achieved, not through preference, but inspite of its absence. The last rag of preference was abandoned in 1860, and, therefore, as far as the prosperity of Canada goes, this argument tends, not in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's contention, but against it. The right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten what one of his former leaders said, and I propose to quote the words, because they should, in my opinion, be graven on the lintels of every Tory door. That great statesman, Lord Salisbury, in 1887, at Derby, said:—
  "My belief is that Protection means nothing else but civil war. Those who are interested in the land desire it, and those who are not interested in the land would repel it; and those who are not interested in the land are much more numerous than those who are interested in it."
  Some of the most remarkable utterances ever made are those which have been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. I have already quoted one in which he recognised that even a shilling duty would constitute a serious burden on the raw material of the farmer. He has made some progress since. He has become converted to the idea that there should be some duty on corn, and he believes it would be paid by the foreigners. He believes something still more marvellous, for, speaking at York, on 12th January, 1910, he said:—
  "It is nonsense to say that when the other country comes to its senses and sees that its open markets are being abused and in consequence of that conviction puts on duties, the whole or part of these duties will not in many cases be paid by the foreigner. They will be paid by the foreigner, and I do not believe that any competent economist will deny the truth of what I say."
  Well, I, as an incompetent economist, do flatly deny it. Then, said the right hon. Gentleman:—
  "I believe that a small duty on corn, with a preference to the Colonies, would tend to diminish rather than increase the cost of bread."
  If that is so it would be a pity to stop at bread. Are you going to diminish the cost of everything by putting a small duty upon it? That, I take it, is the right hon. Gentleman's doctrine.
  Mr. BALFOUR: It is not my doctrine.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: The words of the right hon. Gentleman are these: "I believe that a small duty on corn, with a preference for the Colonies, would tend to diminish rather than increase the cost of bread." Would it not equally tend to diminish the cost of wool or of any other raw material if you put this small duty on it, or is it the smallness of the duty the right hon. Gentleman has in his mind as tending to decrease rather than to increase the cost? If it is that, then if you make the duties still smaller prices will be still further reduced, and if you make the duty nothing at all you will get your raw material for nothing at all. I think, however, I know what was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I think he meant if you were to stimulate the growth of corn in the Colonies you might in the end by this preference system cause them to grow such an enormous amount of corn that they could afford to sell it to you much cheaper, and thus bring down the price of bread. If that be his view, surely every encouragement you give to the growth of corn in the Colonies is pro tanto a discouragement of the growth of corn in other countries, and, therefore, while you may get more corn from your Colonies, you may get less from other countries. That is a rather serious matter. Our great advantage now with regard to corn is that when one great corn-growing country fails another country comes to the rescue. If Russia ceases her supply in one winter you can get the corn from Argentina, and if Argentina fails India comes to the front, while if India fails then Canada sends supplies. There is too great a likelihood, I fear, of a very bad crop this year both in the United States and Canada, but there are excellent prospects of a good crop in India, and if it be true that you would encourage the growth of corn in your Colonies by a system of preference, and if, as I think it necessarily follows to that extent, you discourage its growth elsewhere, the effect will be to limit the number of your markets and to diminish the prospects of the deficiency in one market being made up by an abundance in another. Therefore I do not think that that is a very sound argument.
  7.0 P.M.
  At any rate, I am myself convinced that a duty, even a small duty, so far as it has any effect, must have the effect of raising the price of the article on which it is put. What is to be your real system of Colonial Preference? It was originally to involve

  1505
  the reduction of the duties on tea, sugar, and tobacco. This particular system of Tariff Reform is all one, and the cornerstone is that Colonial Preference which we are only to arrive at by a tax on corn. Do you still propose to diminish the duties on tea, sugar, and tobacco? Do you still propose that there shall be no tax on raw materials? I believe there is to be a tax on bacon and maize, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) has rejected the proposed exception of them. There is one other thing I should like to allude to. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), speaking at Hanley, I think it was, said two things. He said that if you consult any statesman you like among the representatives of the smaller Powers, they will all tell you with one accord that there is certainly going to be a conflict between this country and Germany; that they are of opinion that in that conflict we shall be worsted; and in that very same speech he told us that Germany would not allow us to have Tariff Reform.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I said that Germany would not allow us to have Tariff Reform?
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Yes, certainly, that is what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Did I ever suggest that Germany was going to war with us on the question of Tariff Reform?
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: No, the right hon. Gentleman did not say that, he only suggested it by the concatenation of the two statements, and in that way he certainly did suggest it. He certainly did suggest that there was a struggle imminent between this country and Germany, and that Germany would not allow us to have Tariff Reform because it would injure her, and the suggestion of those statements was that the system of Tariff Reform would bring about war with Germany in which we should be worsted. That is my version of the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not admit it.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: I will send for the speech to-morrow, and I have quoted it in this House before. I do look upon this as the last dying groan of this financial heresy. Do hon. Members, especially those of them who were in the last Parliament, remember that this was the cause
  1506
  of their losing two-thirds of the Conservative party? Do they remember that those Benches were positively empty at the first election after Tariff Reform was put forward? They may have improved their position now, and for my part I am glad to see it, because I do think that an Opposition should be strong. I think no Government is good enough to do without the criticism of a strong Opposition opposing them, and my own regret is that the Opposition from the public point of view is not stronger, more capable, and more united. But the adoption of this heresy has been the ruin of the party which has adopted it. Their continuance of this adoption will reduce its numbers even below the point at which they now are, and I venture to say that so long as you have as a principal point of policy the imposition of taxes on the food of your fellow citizens so long will you be kept out of the seats of power which lie on this side of the House.
  Mr. MACMASTER: The last speaker, who is always listened to with attention by the House, closed his remarks with reference to the evils of taxes on food, and made some strictures on my Friends on this side of the House by reason of their proposals with regard to flour and wheat. It is only a few evenings ago since I heard an hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House state that there was a sum of £10,000,000 sterling imposed now which was in the nature of taxation on food, and he said with great frankness to his friends that if they wished to carry the war into this side of the House they should first clear themselves of the reproach which existed against them in regard to taxation on food before they denounced the Opposition for their intentions in this matter. I have heard good deal in this Debate about Canada and its relationship to the subjects which are under consideration. Having lived there myself the greater part of my life, and having been a member of two legislative bodies in that country, I may, perhaps, humbly pretend to know something of what has happened there. I do not pretend to know everything about it, but I do pretend to have some knowledge and experience of what has gone on in that country in the last twenty-five years. Certain observations have been made here with reference to the general principles of Free Trade and Protection, and the Debate has taken a very wide range. I would

  1507
  like to call attention of the House to a fact which is within my own experience. It has been stated here that Canada is prosperous owing to her great natural resources, and to a certain extent that is true. It has also been said here that Canada has prospered under Free Trade in the past. That certainly is not true, nor is it by any means true to any considerable extent that it is by reason of the natural resources of Canada that her great prosperity of to-day prevails. These same resources existed twenty-five or thirty years ago, and they lay dormant in the country—unutilised. I can remember twenty-five or thirty years ago that Canada was in the most wretched conditicn—the people were fleeing from the country, there was little employment, the American competition had destroyed the industries, and the only refuge was for the people to leave the country and go to the United States, where they became hewers of wood and drawers of water, unless they could acquire some little property in land. The country was in a desperate condition. At that time there was a very low tariff in Canada.
  A great statesman arose whose name has been mentioned this evening—Sir John Macdonald, a Free Trader out and out, and Scotch by birth. He took into consideration the condition of the country, and he came to the conclusion that it required a tariff in order to stimulate employment. He therefore adopted what is called the National policy, which is primarily the imposition of a much greater tariff than existed at that day—namely an increase of the tariff from 15 to 25 or 30 per cent. At the very outset the same criticisms were made in regard to that proposal that have been made in this House. It was said that it would ruin the country, and would not create prosperity, and some went so far as to say that to raise payments from the country by means of a tariff would be nothing less than legalised robbery. Those were the observations and criticisms made upon it. The plan was, however, submitted to the people of the country, and the hopelessness of the existing condition was taken into account and considered relatively to the prosperity which prevailed in the United States under Protection, in comparison with the poverty in Canada. The people decided to give the policy proposed a trial, and they returned Sir John Macdonald to power with a large majority. People said he would never propose a
  1508
  tariff, but he did, and the results were not immediate. Everybody knows that in a case of this kind time must be allowed to get the results. The great corn does not come from the seed immediately, and that has been shown in this case. But in a very short time the good results of the tariff became obvious. People began to invest their money in industrial pursuits, because a country cannot live by agriculture alone, and that great exodus of the people from the country which had prevailed for many years before was arrested. People remained at home to a large extent, and after a while, when conditions of prosperity prevailed, the people who had left the country commenced to return and seek homes in their own country.
  That was the commencement of the restoration of prosperity in Canada. I can remember very well myself when I was at school the discussions which took place among the young men and the boys there as to the practical problem before them, and I say it with all seriousness in this House that the young man of my day, when I was comparatively a boy and approaching to manhood, had to face the very question of subsistence. Every man must do something in a new country, and the real problem was the problem of life before us. What were we to do for the maintenance of ordinary life? That was the problem before us. We should either have to leave the country or face great difficulties, and the prevention of the exodus of the great mass of the people from that country was brought about by the fiscal policy which is known as the national policy. I do not pretend to say that exactly the same results would take place here. I wish to state that in fairness and honesty, but what I want to do is to point out what was the condition there, and what was the condition that supervened. Surely, at all events if you can only look at it from an impartial point of view it cannot be said that the adoption of a protective policy in that country was followed by the disastrous results which are so often prophesied in this country. What happened in the lapse of time? Fourteen or fifteen years after this the Government of the day which introduced this policy went out of power. Their opponents who had condemned their policy in opposition all along, and said that when they came into power they would abolish the last shreds of it, what did they do? When they came

  1509
  into power, far from abolishing the policy which restored prosperity to the country and gave employment to the people, the party that had condemned it absolutely adopted it, and continued it in force, and they have continued it since they came into power during the last twelve or thirteen years; and now the Finance Minister of the country in his Budget speech of the year before last said that the people of the country were all, as far as the tariff was concerned, Proctectionists, and it was the settled policy of the country. So much for the experience of that one country.
  In regard to the question of the preference that was given by Canada to this country in 1896, and subsequently until it got to amount to a preference of about 33 1–3 per cent., it is within the knowledge of all that when that preference was given the German Government in order to punish Canada for having favoured the Mother Country denied her the most-favoured-nation treatment, and applied their highest tariff to Canada, whilst they extended a much lower tariff to the Mother country and the other Colonies. Canada in return imposed a surtax equal to about 33⅓ per cent., and that condition of things operated until about six or eight months ago, perhaps less. That preference gave a great advantage to those in this country who sent exports of any kind in the Canadian market, and the imposition of the surtax had an additional effect in that direction, because the Germans were becoming, after the Americans, the most formidable competitors in the Canadian markets with British exporters. Immediately after the imposition of the surtax by Canada the German importation commenced to decline, and a very considerable arrest took place in the importations from the United States on account of the Preference. The result of both the Preference and the surtax on the part of Canada was that British trade, which had been going down in Canada before 1896, while American and German trade was going up, immediately took an upward turn and continued to rise, outpacing the German trade completely, and holding its own fairly well with the American trade. Of course, it could not absolutely hold the field against the American trade, because, owing to the proximity of the two countries and the means of communication from one to the other, the American trade still held up fairly well. The 6 per cent. to which the Prime Minister referred must have been
  1510
  calculated with reference to the time when the German surtax was in operation. But I would ask the Prime Minister to wait and see and to make a calculation a year or two years from now, and I will prophesy that he will see a rapid increase in the German trade with Canada which will materially change the percentage he gave us to-day.
  There is one other point to which I wish to call attention. Canada made a treaty with France. Our Plenipotentiary, able and excellent Ambassador as he is, was only a bystander, and his instructions were practically to give effect to whatever the Canadian Minister arranged. The Canadian Minister made the treaty, and after a great deal of difficulty it was ultimately, with some modifications, confirmed in the Canadian Parliament and the French Legislature. It had hardly taken its place on the Statute Book when the Americans bestirred themselves in order to get the same advantages for themselves that the Canadians had granted to tile French, and which incidentally had been granted to some other nations. The Americans have two tariffs—one which they apply to nations which they consider discriminate unfairly against them and the other to nations which do not. The very moment that Canada gave this preference to France the Americans came down upon them with their big revolver—their maximum tariff—and they said to Canada, "Unless you will make a reduction in your tariff equal to what you have given to France we will apply our maximum tariff to you." If they applied their maximum tariff to Canada it would have a very serious effect on Canadian trade and Canadian employment. Consequently it became necessary for the Canadian Government to deal very warily with the proposition. Conferences took place, and the net result of what happened was that the Americans, without making a single concession whatever to Canada, secured a reduction of duties on thirteen groups of articles of Canadian importation, so that the net result of what happened was that all the advantage went to the Americans and all the disadvantage to the Canadians and also to the Britishers in respect of those products which are exported from this country, and which go into the Canadian market, and which come into contact there with articles exported from the United States. I mention that to show that there are times when it is an advantage to have a tariff, and the United States, by reason of the compelling force

  1511
  of a tariff, has given a practical demonstration of how to abstract an advantage from a neighbouring nation. With that example before us, is it possible to deny that as regards those countries which impose such heavy taxation against this country in the nature of tariffs which interfere with the exportation of our products to their market, while we admit their products free, if we had the power to impose tariffs, if not as a permanent creation on the Statute Book, at all events as a delegated power to the Government of the day, we might be in a position to say to certain foreign nations, "If you do not deal more reasonably with us we will put on a tariff, and you will suffer a very great disadvantage"?
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Does the hon. Member suggest that a Minister should do that without the authority of Parliament?
  Mr. MACMASTER: Such a thing would not be a legislative anomaly. It exists in certain Legislatures to-day. There is an express provision in that country which has been so much admired to-day—Canada, in the Customs Act—that the Executive of the day shall have the power to impose increased duties in respect of dumping into that country.
  Mr. GIBSON BOWLES: Do I understand the hon. Member really suggests that it would be for a Minister——
  Mr. SPEAKER: I stopped the hon. Member (Mr. Macmaster) when he interrupted the hon. Member.
  Mr. MACMASTER: The line of my argument was that where a foreign nation by reason of a statutory enactment of its own imposes a heavy duty upon exports from this country, which is immensely to the disadvantage of the trade of this country, as has been admitted all round, if we had an enactment from our Legislature which would enable the Government of the day to say to that country, "If you do not take down a portion of your duty we will impose the duties that we have the power to impose," it would be a very great advantage, and the absence of that power is a corresponding disadvantage. I wish to make a few remarks about the country generally. Though born in Canada, I am of British stock, and knowing the country well I have not quite got the fears of its being absorbed by the United States which have been expressed to-day. I think there is in Canada a firm determination,
  1512
  with your good co-operation I trust, to set up a great, strong, powerful nation in the North American Continent, and I believe that feeling is deep-seated in the hearts of the people, and not only those of British but those of French origin, who have been so fairly treated in Canada and in this country when they have conic here for the judicial decisions of the Privy Council.
  I believe the roads running east and west throughout Canada and connecting the manufacturing districts of the east with the great producing districts, the lumber country and the mining country of the west, are so well constructed now, and prospectively will be so much better constructed, that there will be no danger of this lateral pressure. But the surest guarantee against lateral pressure, if there is any prospect of it, and I do not deny entirely that there is some, is to lend all the encouragement we can, by a reasonable preference, if possible, to the settlement of these great outlying plains to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) referred. It is only a few days ago that I heard Lord Strathcona say that in fifty years there might he fifty millions of people settled on Canadian land. I think it is a reasonable prospect. I have seen its growth and its increased prosperity. Then should we not in time, while it is not too late, direct our intellects and our energies to see if possibly we cannot bring about better trade conditions with our Colonies which will confer mutual benefits on the Mother Country with these young and growing communities, which are ultimately bound to be great nations, with large markets? Should not we in time, and before too many treaties are made with foreign countries—the United States, France, Belgium, and Italy—take time by the forelock and endeavour to see that a proper foundation of political and states-manlike cement is made which will for ever guarantee to us that there shall be no separation between the Colonies and the Mother Country, no matter what inducement may be held out by foreign nations?
  Colonel SEELY: The Government has been attacked to-day by the Leader of the Opposition on three grounds, and he especially attacked the Department which I represent. We shall all agree with much that the hon. Member (Mr. Macmaster) said. We can all agree that we hope the day when there shall he any separation between this country and the Colonies will be a distant day. I shall endeavour to-

  1513
  show that, in the judgment of all on this side, the best way to avoid separation is to avoid taking the advice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that we are running a grave danger by not adopting a policy of preference with the Colonies, of several disasters following. First of all he told us that we are flouting the opinions of the statesmen in the Colonies, and, secondly, he told us that, as a consequence of our refusing to adopt this system of preference, the Colonies are driven into making treaties with foreign countries, and, as he put it, that is very near to independence. He quoted Lord Ripon's despatch, and he went on generally to point out that it will be to the interests of this country and the Colonies that we shall adopt a system of preference. To take the first two points, is there a vestige of foundation for the statement that by refusing to adopt a policy of preference we are flouting the wishes of the statesmen of the self-governing Dominions? He told us that all the statesmen of the Colonies speak with one voice, and the Mother Country alone stands in the way. Do they speak with one voice?
  Mr. BALFOUR: I did not say they did.
  Colonel SEELY: The right hon. Gentleman is very particular about words. I maintain that the words he used bear that interpretation, for he endeavoured to show, to the delight of his followers, that this was a system which would be very good for the Dominions and very good for us. They cheered that. He said that all Colonial statesmen were in favour of prefernce, and that we alone flouted it and stood in the way.
  Mr. BALFOUR: "Flouting" carries with it some idea of being contemptuous. I never suggested that. All I said was that they took one view, and that we stopped the way.
  Colonel SEELY: We are glad at least to have it admitted that there was no contemptuous rejection of preference, but it was stated on the other side that there was contemptuous rejection. You cannot have it both ways. The statement that we have contemptuously rejected these proposals either is or is not true. If it is not true, then at least we may claim that we rejected them with civility; but if it is true, what I have ventured to put forward as to what the right hon. Gentleman said is true.
  Mr. BALFOUR Mr. BALFOUR indicated dissent.
  Colonel SEELY: Then we will put it at once that we have stood in the way of a great and a desirable reform, which is endorsed by all the statesmen of the Colonies, who speak with one voice. But they do not speak with one voice. Quite the contrary. One of them speaks emphatically with one voice, but the others speak with very different voices. I will quote what two of them have said, and these not the least distinguished of Colonial statesmen. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:—
  "This is a matter which is altogether in the hands the British people, and they have to choose between one thing and the other; and if they think on the whole that their interests are better served by adhering to their present system than by yielding ever so little, it is a matter for the British electorate."
  Mr. MACMASTER: Did he not also say that his Government would be ready to make concession for concession?
  Colonel SEELY: Of course he did, and that is why this discussion arose. The electorate has spoken, and it has rejected the policy of preference. It has rejected it twice, and when we as the Government have rejected it, we are following out the advice given by Sir Wilfrid Laurier; but there is a stronger statement still by Sir Joseph Ward. The Leader of the Opposition said the Colonial statesmen spoke with one voice.
  Mr. BALFOUR Mr. BALFOUR indicated dissent.
  Colonel SEELY: The right hon. Gentleman went perilously near saying so. It is not sufficiently well known that the Colonial statesmen did protest against the view that they were trying to force the policy of preference upon us. No Colonial statesman would affect that by refusing to adopt the policy of preference, we are running the risk of offending the Colonies, and that if we do not draw closer together by this method, we must go farther apart. Any such suggestion is really destitute of foundation. Sir Joseph Ward said:—
  "I should like to say that if I were a public man resident in England, and with the general knowledge of economic conditions that I possess at the moment, I should be found on the side of those who are fighting for cheap food for the masses of the people. I believe that anything in the way of preference that the Colonies might suggest, if it were calculated to raise the price of food to the masses of the people, ought to be opposed, and rightly so, by the British people."
  I think we may conclude from these quotations that any suggestion that we are running the danger of offending the self-governing Dominions by refusing to adopt the policy of preference is without foundation.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I never said so, and I never suggested it.
  Colonel SEELY: If the right hon. Gentleman did not say so his followers have said it again and again, and it is for that reason we have been told that unless we adopt this policy the Dominions will drift apart. [Cheers.] It will be observed that that statement is cheered. But why should it be so if in point of fact the Prime Ministers of these great Dominions urge us to folow the advice of the electorate, and we are only following the advice which they themselves have given? What is wrong in that? What the right hon. Gentleman has got to do is to criticise the electors of this country for having by an overwhelming majority stuck to the principle which for so many years he held dear and which he so very recently abandoned. I very well remember a speech which the right hon. Gentleman made just before the fiscal controversy assumed its height under the advocacy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). It was to a speech he made to a meeting in Lancashire, and which was described by one of the greatest economists of the day as the pure milk of Free Trade. There was no speech which he apparently delivered with greater conviction. He will remember it was the speech in which he said that if by some stroke of a fairy wand you could increase the riches of one country and the riches of another, and so on. The right hon. Gentleman spoke with a zeal and energy which I am sure he could not have shown unless he believed in it most earnestly. I think he has forgotten that fine speech.
  Mr. BALFOUR: There are some amazing opinions being attributed to me. The right hon. Gentleman has not given a very accurate account of the speech I delivered this afternoon, and I do not admit his interpretation of the speech I made ten years ago. Can he quote one word I ever said indicating that I disliked Colonial Preference?
  Colonel SEELY: I never said that the right hon. Gentleman disliked Colonial Preference. I said he had great admiration for the principle of Free Trade, and I say so again. He had. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman has committed himself, and I presume his followers, to a tax upon corn. That at least he will not deny. I do not think it has ever been stated in
  1516
  so set terms before. However, there it is. Here a technical point arises, which I shall leave my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to deal with himself. The point raised by the right hon. Gentleman is that if we stick to our Free Trade system while the Dominions stick to a Protectionist system, as a consequence they will be forced to make their own commercial negotiations with other countries culminating in commercial treaties. But it is said that treaty-making power is a right of the Sovereign Power, and that in so far as you allow the Dominions to make commercial treaties, they are asserting a measure of independence which, in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, is undesirable.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I say that it is desirable and necessary.
  Colonel SEELY: What, that treaty should be made by the Colonies? The right hon. Gentleman quoted from a Blue Book——
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has listened to a word I said. I repeated over and over again with the utmost emphasis I could use that I thought the doctrine stated by Lord Ripon fourteen years ago was inapplicable, and that no statesman on either side of the House would ever think of acting on it.
  Colonel SEELY: I am in the recollection of the House, and I make bold to say that the version of his speech which the ight hon. Gentleman has given is a novel one. I know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to deceive anyone. No one who knows him would for a moment suggest that he would deceive. That is inconceivable. I listened carefully to every word he said, and I understood him to make the criticism that by allowing treaties to be made by the Dominions we were running the certain risk of disseverance. What is the objection?
  Mr. BALFOUR: The objection is exactly this. The Colonies in their present adult stage must have treaty-making power. If that treaty-making power is exercised by them while we hold aloof from all commercial relations, then the two things taken in combination do tend towards separation rather than to uniting the Empire.
  Colonel SEELY: I confess that I am more puzzled than ever. If it be a fact

  1517
  that there is no harm at all, and no disseverance involved in the treaty-making power being exercised by the Dominions irrespective of this country, what is the harm of our remaining a Free Trade country and the Dominions continuing Protectionist countries? How far is disseverance likely to take place? If the problem be examined I think it will be seen that there is no element of danger unless that element is the danger that we are not brought into the treaty. Where is the danger? If you wish the Colonies to make such fiscal arrangements as they please with other nations without interference, and if you do not wish us to interfere, what difference does it make that we do not adopt the same fiscal arrangements as they adopt? I am puzzled to know the right hon. Gentleman's position, because, looking around, I do not see the signs of those dangers which he fears. There is a certain tone of dolefulness and melancholy as to the future which the right hon. Gentleman now begins to adopt, following the example of some distinguished persons. I suppose, in the future, unless we do something quite different from what we are now doing, there is every sign that the Empire will fall to pieces. Now is the appointed day. Yes, we definitely decided many years ago—it may be as long ago as 1860—to abandon the system of Colonial Preference, though for one brief moment during the fair trade propaganda, it was again before the country as a proposition. It was decisively rejected by the people of this country, and I for one have seen no signs of our dying. Up to the present moment is there any sign of the dying either of our own industries or the industries of the Dominions, or, still more, is there any sign of that disseverance of which some profess to see a danger in the making of these treaties? As a matter of fact, the treaties have been made for a long time past, and during all these years the Colonies have stuck to one fiscal system and we to another. Surely the signs of disseverance would by this time have begun to appear, but exactly the opposite is true.
  For the first time we have signs of a keen, almost a passionate desire to do something of a practical character in the matter of naval defence. I do not wish to say that the great Dominions all along were not keen to assist. They were, but they are more keen now, and they have now taken practical steps to help us. It is a strange sign of the dangers of having Free Trade at the heart of the Empire and
  1518
  other systems of finance at its extremities, that those very extremities should for the first time join with us not only in naval defence but in military defence, coming here and discussing and pressing the matter forward on their own initiative. There is not a word of truth in the suggestion that if we do not do something different in our fiscal arrangements the Empire is in danger. I trust that that aspect of the case will not often be put forward seriously in this House again. Viewed from whatever point you look at it, I venture to say, and I defy contradiction, that the close bonds which unite us with the Dominions across the seas have drawn closer during every year that has passed for at least the past ten or fifteen years. The desire to help us has been shown to be greater, and the determination not to allow disseverance to occur is more largely in evidence to-day than in past times. Then why not let the system alone as it works so well? We have heard a great deal on the other side of the advantage of a system of Colonial Preference. It is said that if you adopt this system of preference you will have a market for the manufactures of this country. It is said that you will encourage the growth of food in the Empire, and that it will be better for us—whether in peace or war I do not know, and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not make it clear which they mean—but whether here or in the Dominions, I should have thought as far as that went, that there was a great element of risk in having all your eggs in one basket either in peace or in war. But that has been said to be an advantage.
  What are the dangers? There is an element of danger in the Dominions them-selves to which reference has been made earlier in the Debate, in the case where certain bodies of manufacturers are exceedingly angry because a protected system proposed would leave them out. You would have undoubtedly a great deal of bickering in the Dominions at any tariff arrangement made, which could not possibly benefit everybody, at least everybody except the devoted Tariff Reformer. I think everyone will admit that proposition. There is another great danger which I do not think is sufficiently dwelt on. It is said that by this system you will greatly stimulate the growing of corn. We are asked to observe the vision of the great North-West filled up with prosperous British and Canadian farmers. What will be the result at any time, if it should

  1519
  happen in the future as it has done in the past, when these particular countries with which we are joined would have a very short crop? I think it will be admitted it would be a great grievance to raise the price here, because we should be debarred, as far as the preference applied, from obtaining our corn from other places. That has ben used as an argument with regard to the dangers here. But I think there would be a great danger there also. It is quite true that if in consequence of any preferential system you raised the price of corn in a time of scarcity every poor man would hate the name of Empire. That is a great danger not only here but for the Colonies also, for just at the moment that the shortage of corn tended to increase the price in would come the Chancellor of the Exchequer here in answer to popular clamour, which he could not resist, and remove the preferential duty, and let the foreign corn in free. That would be just at the moment when the Canadian farmer wanted it most of all himself. He would have a very short crop. He would have very little to sell, but for what he did sell he would at least hope to get an enhanced price due to the preference but that is just the moment when he would lose. So we should have people on both sides, both in the Dominion and in this country, whenever you have a shortage of corn within the Empire, as has happened three times within the last fifteen years, you would have the people here cursing the system, and the people in Canada, a very short time afterwards when the preference was removed, cursing the system too.
  None of those things can happen under the present system. Again, I ask why not let it alone? Surely these are great dangers—dangers which no one denies. Just because we on this side do care about things, I hope as much as hon. Gentleman opposite, and just because we see these dangers, we are determined by every means in our power to go on opposing this system of preference, which we are convinced, far from cementing the Empire, might very likely break it to pieces. It has been said that this is necessary for the well-being of the country and for the wellbeing of the Dominion, and a picture has been drawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon of the marvellous growth of Canada. I am sure we are all glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman expounding views in which he, at any rate, has always believed, with so
  1520
  much zeal and energy. But the very great progress that has been made makes one wonder whether it is wise to run any risks for the sake of increasing the rate of growth within the Dominions. Since Parliament established the system of self-government throughout the Dominions there has been expansion in all cases. In many cases there has been great expansion, and in the case of Canada there has been marvellous expansion under the present system. I do not think it right to ask us to make so great a change for the sake of the prosperity of the Dominions. They do not ask it. We do not think that we should press it. With regard to fiscal arrangements, can it really be supposed that a system of preference is going, as was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, to solve all our difficulties? Has it solved them in any other country? We all know it has not. Then why should it do so here? The thing is devised in order to make it go down with the electorate here, who do not like high taxes on corn or anything else. The duties are so minute that, although they will involve all the evils of the system, the effect, at any rate for the moment, would be very small upon the revenue.
  No one pointed this out with greater force than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham some years ago, in a speech which is very familiar to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was at the time of a previous conference—I think in 1902—and he explained that the foreign trade of this country was so vast and the trade of the Dominions with us so small that he did not believe that the people of this country would ever take the step now proposed. And he added that the effect on the revenue he believed would be infinitesimal. Again, just on this point of pounds, shillings, and pence, and not upon the effect of the well-being of the Empire as a whole, I reiterate the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that the result of such a policy would be, as he put it, of infinitesimal importance. Again, in conclusion, I can only say we do adhere absolutely rigidly to the Free Trade doctrine. We do not do it with any desire to refuse to pay attention to the statesmen who will come here at the next Conference. Far from that; we know that they themselves would think little of us if we disregarded the wishes of the electorate in this country. For they have told us so themselves. We do not believe that a system of this kind

  1521
  would tend to cement the Empire, or would cure any of the difficulties, including the treaty making difficulty on which the right hon. Gentleman dwelt, and which have subsisted in the past. We at present are witnessing a very remarkable phenomenon, which so far as I know has never been seen on this globe before, of so widely scattered an Empire, of such a diverse character, on such extraordinarily good and cordial terms, and in which we find that the great heart and centre, where the greatest part of the population dwell, has lived under a Free Trade system for fifty or sixty years, while complete fiscal autonomy, has been given as soon as it possibly could be given to the outlying parts of the Dominion, they have adopted various systems, some largely in the nature of complete Protection, and some tending towards Free Trade, but all of them less Free Trade than our own, and after all these years we see this strange phenomenon of a united Empire, and some of us are beginning to wonder whether it may not be as a consequence that you see this strange and gratifying phenomenon. I for one believe that that is so. The grant of complete fiscal autonomy has removed every sense of grievance, and that most dangerous of grievances, the feeling that taxation is imposed not for the good of the people within the area, but for the good of some one outside. It appears to us that a system of preference would lead to these dangers again. For again it would be possible for objectors in the Dominions to say that "this tax is imposed not for the good of the people, but to fulfil your own engagements." We believe that the existing system is the best system, and we mean to stick to it, and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman said, and none of the things that have happened in the past, have made us alter our opinion one bit. We mean to stick to Free Trade, and by so doing we believe we shall help to cement the Empire.
  Dr. HILLIER: I venture to think that of all the many arguments that have been adduced on this subject to the House this afternoon the one which will leave the most permanent impression on the minds of Members of this House and of the people of this country is the fact, the very grave fact, that Canada, after waiting patiently for thirteen years for some reciprocal treatment in regard to those advantages which are acquired by British
  1522
  manufacturers and British workmen has finally in a sort of despair of ever obtaining reciprocity entered into a, series of treaties with France, Germany, and the United States, and indirectly with other countries, which, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, must have the effect of very seriously diminishing those advantages which have been acquired for this country by the action of Canada for years past in the matter of trade, the very advantages to which the Prime Minister bore testimony and the Chancellor of the Exchequer bore testimony at the last Colonial Conference. Now it is perfectly clear—it is not disputed—that these advantages will be whittled away and are rapidly disappearing under the existing system. It has been clearly demonstrated by speakers this afternoon that previous to 1897 our trade with Canada was declining, that after the adoption of the preferential policy for our people our trade improved, and that it has continued eminently satisfactory since then. It is not denied that the whittling away of this preference is the effect of the treaties recently made, and is undoubtedly a serious menace to our commercial position in that country.
  8.0 P.m.
  I will not enter into the question as to whether this does not constitute a danger to the Empire. Our opponents delight in overstating our case in this extravagant way. The position disclosed by the Leader of the Opposition in referring to these treaties, if it is not a danger to the Empire, is clearly and avowedly a very serious menace to our trade with that Colony in the future. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister spoke with some satisfaction of the preponderance of our trade with Canada in 1908–9 over that of every other Continental country. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what he anticipates will be the relative position when these new treaties have had time in the course of two or three years to operate. The Prime Minister did not in his remarks even attempt to deny that disadvantage had accrued to our trade relations by virtue of these new treaties. I have listened with great attention throughout this Debate to ascertain what remedy right hon. Gentlemen on that bench have to suggest for this state of things. What is it they propose to do to meet this growing menace to our trade? They have absolutely nothing to propose;

  1523
  they simply fold their hands, and they say, "Nothing is to be done." It is a more or less deplorable condition of things, but we are unable to do anything. Rather than discuss the adoption of some remedy for the prevention of this loss which must accrue in regard to our trade, they simply talk about what is the policy of Colonial Preference, as they describe it, and not as advocated by the leaders of the party to which I have the honour to belong. It seems to me that the Prime Minister almost treated with scorn any idea of Colonial Preference. He said that in order to give preference we must tax food and raw material. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can only tell hon. Members opposite who cheer that statement that we already under our existing Free Trade system tax both food and raw materials. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too much."] Too much, as the hon. Member opposite says; I quite agree. This policy of Colonial Preference, however, will not necessarily involve any absolutely new departure in our system of taxation. Hon. Members opposite admit that we already tax both food and raw material—tea, coffee, sugar, tobacco, and I may mention cocoa. Tobacco is very heavily taxed, and to all intents and purposes that article is practically a raw material. By a readjustment of taxes on food and articles of raw material a very considerable degree of preference might be given, but I entirely dissent from the view that the Colonies would be jealous one of the other, or that they would enter into these negotiations in a spirit of haggling controversy.
  They have shown in this matter the most gallant and disinterested motives in regard to this country. Without any direct commercial reciprocal advantage from this country, they have for years past accorded to the Mother Country very substantial advantages under their preferential system of tariffs. The view that it is impossible to readjust the various duties now existing so as to grant some preference to the Colonies, because the Colonies would be jealous one of the other, and that what would satisfy one would not satisfy another, is entirely falsified by the actual facts, of which we have already had experience. I think the opposition to our policy is not to be found in any real consideration of statesmanship, but is to be found in the last statement made by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies when he said that they would adhere
  1524
  absolutely and rigidly to the doctrine of Free Trade. I was wondering whether he was not reciting the Coronation Oath or something of that sort, because there seemed to me in his utterance to be something in the way of an antiquated religious formula. If this plan of adherence to the doctrine of Free Trade is to be the one guide for statecraft and administration in this country, I really think that, so far from our policy being on its last legs, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn was good enough to suggest, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government which is really in a parlous condition. They adhere to this doctrine of Free Trade as if it were the quintessence of all that science could demonstrate with regard to economics or political economy. [An HON. MEMBBR: "Hear, hear."] The hon. Member opposite says "Hear, hear," but I would remind him that every other civilised country on the face of the globe, including our own Colonies, have come to a different conclusion, and adopted the alternative fiscal policy. The hon. Member for King's Lynn, if I understood him rightly, said this controversy is not precisely a controversy between Protection and Free Trade. He recognised that Tariff Reform was an economic policy which had features of its own, and which could not fairly be described merely as a policy of protection. I quite agree with him. I think that this adoption by our opponents of mere catchwords and phrases accompanied with the assurance that the policy of His Majesty's Government is to be guided alone by rigid adherence to the doctrine of Free Trade, is not only puerile, but absolutely misstates the real position. Consider what the effect of this policy of Colonial Preference would be in regard to Free Trade. It is perfectly certain that it would not give all within the Empire absolutely free trade, but it is equally certain that it would give us freer trade as between the Mother Country and the Colonies than we possess at the present moment. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can deny that.
  Colonel SEELY: I am not so sure.
  Dr. HILLIER: I will endeavour to convince the right hon. Gentleman. The policy of preference means that the Colonies will reduce in our favour existing tariffs. It is perfectly obvious that so far as they reduce those tariffs to that extent do they render our trade with them freer than it is now. Therefore, this using of catchwords in reference to Free Trade, and bandying them about among the electors on every

  1525
  occasion, does not in the least meet the case. As a matter of fact, the policy of Colonial Preference is the policy which has been carried out with extreme advantage in the German Empire—the policy of the Zollverein, or Customs Union, under which the duties existing between the various States within that Empire were broken down so that there was Free Trade within that Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes; there is no doubt that was the policy of the Zollverein some years ago. Tariff Reformers propose a similar, but not an identical, policy with regard to the States and Colonies within the British Empire, which, as I have already pointed out, would at least give us freer trade within the Empire than we possess at the present time. I think the country will realise with some amazement that when there is brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government the fact that we are losing with one of our most important and most rapidly developing Colonies certain trade advantages which we have enjoyed in the past, His Majesty's Ministers have not one single suggestion or remedy to offer. The country will realise the fact, not only with astonishment but with profound regret, and with considerable distrust of the sagacity of His Majesty's present Ministers.
  Mr. DILLON: I must enter my protest against the action of the Government in withdrawing, for the first time in twenty years, the Foreign Office Vote from the consideration of the Committee of this House. I cannot recall any instance, as well as I can remember, within the past twenty years during which an opportunity has not been given to the House of Commons to discuss the Foreign Office Vote during the Session. As a matter of fact the general practice has been for the Vote to be set down more than once, and it has frequently been the practice, when there were matters of exceptional interest, to bring the Vote before the House. At the present time there are several matters of quite exceptional interest which we would have been glad to discuss had the Government afforded an opportunity. I do not know whether this new and novel procedure is part of the policy which we frequently hear spoken of—namely, that of withdrawing foreign policy altogether from party politics, but I desire at the earliest possible moment to protest against that policy if such be the intention of the Government. If ever there was a time at which the Vote of the Foreign Office should
  1526
  have been brought forward, and ample opportunity given for discussion, it is in the present year. There are important subjects which the House of Commons, if it had a true sense of its duty, would have discussed this year on the Vote. I think the House of Commons is exceedingly ill advised if they consent without a protest to this policy.
  And it being a Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS.

    PORT OF LONDON (PORT RATES ON GOODS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
    Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [18th July], "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Sir LUKE WHITE: This Bill is to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Port of London Act of 1908. Considering the discussion which took place upon this Bill the other night, and the great amount of interest taken in it throughout the country, I think it is right, as Chairman of the Committee, I should make a few observations with regard to the position of this Provisional Order Bill. Under the Act of 1908 it was recognised that the Port Authority would require very considerable additional income to carry out the powers with which they were entrusted, and it was provided that they should be entitled to levy port rates on goods imported from ports beyond the seas or coastwise into the Port of London, or exported to ports beyond the seas or coastwise from that port. The Act of 1908 required that the Port Authority should submit to the Board of Trade a schedule of maximum prices, or, rather, maximum rates, and that the Board of Trade should embody the schedule in a Provisional Order. Before any definite Order was made by the Board of Trade, Lord St. Aldwyn was appointed to conduct a public inquiry. That inquiry took place, and over two hundred different bodies appeared, either personally or by counsel, before his Lordship during that inquiry. It occupied thirteen days, and at the conclusion of that inquiry it was, on the Report of Lord St. Aldwyn that the

    1527
    Provisional Order was made. The Port of London Act of 1908 directed that goods imported for transhipment only, or which remained on board ship, for conveyance to another port, should be exempt from port rates, leaving it to be determined by Provisional Order what goods were to be treated as goods for transhipment only. There is no distinction in the Act of 1908 as to the terms coastwise or oversea goods. Under this Provisional Order it is provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1908, that no port rates shall be charged on transhipment goods or goods which remain on board a vessel for conveyance to another port.
    We have determined in the Provisional Order to confirm the opinion of Lord St. Aldwyn that "goods imported for transhipment only" shall mean goods imported from beyond the seas or coastwise for the purpose of being conveyed by sea only to any other port, whether beyond the seas or coastwise. It is this portion of the Order to which the Midland traders and the railway companies object. The Committee appointed to consider this Provisional Order Bill had before them a very large number of Petitions. We heard all the parties, and over twenty learned counsel appeared for those interested in the inquiry. Ultimately, with certain alterations, the Provisional Order is now before the House on Third Reading. We gave careful consideration to the case presented by the Midland traders and the railway companies. We were asked to decide that coastwise traffic should have no exemption. This involved in our opinion an alteration of the Act of 1908. We came to the conclusion that it would be necessary if such an alteration was determined upon, that that alteration must be effected by a Bill to amend the Act of 1908 and not under this Provisional Order. Before any such alteration of the Act could be made it would be necessary all parties interested in or affected by the provisions of the Act of 1908 would have to be heard. My opinion is borne out by the Report of Lord St. Aldwyn himself. When the inquiry took place the railway companies and certain traders in the Midlands appeared before that inquiry. Lord St. Aldwyn decided that, apart from the technical difficulty, that is the alteration of the Act of 1908, that coastwise traffic should not now be deprived of the exemption which was given to it by the Act of 1908. With regard to this Provisional Order, we
    1528
    as a Committee did not come to the conclusion to decide this case upon the merits of the Midland traders. We felt that the evidence which was given before us was of such a nature that if we had to hear all the parties it would involve an alteration of the Act of 1908, and under those circumstances we came to the conclusion that if any such alteration was to be made it could only be made in an amending Act of Parliament. that a Bill must be brought in to amend the Act of 1908. If that was done then not only would this House be enabled to hear all parties but the Committee would be entitled and would hear, not only the traders of the Midlands and the railway companies, but all those who are interested in and would be affected by the alteration or the Act of 1908 and those interested in coast traffic. It is only fair for me to say that that was our decision.] this matter is to be considered hereafter it should be by a Bill brought in to amend the Act of 1908. I do not think it could be done under the present Provisional Order. I hope the House will pass the Third Reading of this Provisional Order. The trade and commerce of London, nay the trade and commerce of the whole country, is looking forward to very great improvement in the Port of London. This Provisional Order would enable the authorities to bring about the alterations and improvements in the port which were set forth in the Act of 1908. Under those circumstances I trust that the House will pass the Provisional Order in its present terms.
    Mr. GEORGE THORNE: I understand, Sir, that, according to the Rules of the House, I am technically precluded from speaking again on the Third Reading; but as the adjournment of the Debate took place on Monday last, in the hope that some arrangement might be arrived at, I trust by your leave and the leave of the House I may be permitted simply to state what has taken place and the position at which we have arrived. In view of the adjournment which took place on Monday, a meeting was held upstairs of the representatives of the districts particularly affected, and a deputation was appointed to meet the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. We met him, and he, very courteously, stated that he thought that the case would be better met if we could also meet representatives of the Port of London Authority. Therefore, yesterday we had the opportunity,

    1529
    with the President of the Board of Trade, of meeting Lord Ritchie and other representatives of the Port of London Authority. We then discussed the whole position, and I am sorry to say at that moment I feared no arrangement could be arrived at, but to-day I have received a letter from the President of the Board of Trade covering a letter addressed to him by Lord Ritchie on behalf of the Port of London Authority. That letter we have very carefully considered at a largely-attended meeting, and, while regretting that what is offered is not what we desire, we recognise that what we desire could not be accomplished under existing conditions. The Chairman of the Committee (Sir L. White), who thoroughly understands the situation, has clearly indicated what we have been compelled to realise, that what we desire can only be achieved by an Amendment of the Act of 1908, and that it cannot be done by the present Bill. Recognising that, we have felt that the only way for us to approach the matter was from the standpoint of what is now possible under the Act of 1908. None of us desired to imperil the Bill itself. Our only anxiety was to make sure that the interests affected should be fully considered. We object altogether to the discrimination which exists, but we see that that cannot be avoided under the existing Act. What it is suggested that we should accept is set forth in the letter which I understand the President of the Board of Trade will read in full. The Port Authority recognise the apprehension that the Midland traders are under, and express their sincere desire to meet them as far as possible. They state that they will consider the matter with a view to seeing whether any and what modifications of, or, possibly, exemptions from, rates would he just and advisable, in the interests both of traders and of the Port Authority, which in this matter are practically identical. They say also that they are willing to do this at once, before the rates are imposed, as well as after, and to consider all such suggestions most sympathetically. Inasmuch as there might be a difficulty in carrying out this promise, it having been brought to their attention that there are certain limitations in the Act of 1908, they are willing to make a slight modification, I believe through the Committee in another place, which will give them the power of exemption which they desire to exercise if under the circumstances they think it wise to do so. This statement has been submitted to my colleagues. We are
    1530
    not at all satisfied, but we realise that under existing circumstances it is the best we can achieve. I am bound on their behalf to state distinctly that we accept this offer because of the conditions which now exist, but the right hon. Gentleman will admit that it does not commit us in the slightest degree in the, future. The traders and all concerned will be perfectly free in the future to take such steps as they think fit, if they consider that their interests are unfairly jeopardised. At present we do not desire to carry our opposition to the Bill any further, and I very gratefully acknowledge the courtesy that we have received, both from the President of the Board of Trade himself and from the representatives of the Port Authority.
    Mr. ERNEST POLLOCK: I am sure all Members of the House will join with the hon. Member for the Buckrose Division (Sir L. White) in his desire that the Port Authority should get the Bill which they desire as an important step in the progress of the Port of London itself. The Midland traders, for whom many of us have spoken, have not in any way desired to jeopardise the whole of the Bill. What they felt was that they had been overlooked; and it is one of the advantages of the various stages through which a Bill has to pass in this House that each stage gives the House an opportunity to reconsider any case which has been overlooked in the great complexity of the matters embodied in such a Bill as this. When the Bill was last before the House I supported the adjournment in order that the question might be gone into by the Port Authority. We fully recognise that the Port Authority are a public body to whom are entrusted wide and important duties, and that it is their desire to enhance the trade of the Port of London to the best of their ability. At the same time, they are a statutory authority whose powers are limited by the original Act and by the Bill now before the House. The Midland traders have felt that their case had been lost sight of. Through the courtesy of the President of the Board of Trade we have had an opportunity of meeting the representatives of the Port Authority. We fully recognise the difficulties of their task. It is by no means easy to adjust the rates of the various persons who will bring their goods into the Port of London, either for transhipment, or for import, or for export. All these various interests have to be considered. No doubt the Act of 1908

    1531
    imposes considerable limitations on what can be the sphere of activity of a Provisional Order. We fully recognise that the Port Authority are friendly towards all traders, and are anxious to improve the trade of the Port of London. But they would not be doing that if they adopted any scale of charges which would imperil the trade coming from the Midlands to the Port of London. Recognising that, we have had an opportunity of putting our case before them, in order to see whether or not they could, without in any way displacing the facilities given to other traders, embody equal facilities for the traders of the Midlands. We have received a letter, which I understand the right hon. Gentleman will read, in which the chairman of the Finance Committee of the Port Authority undertakes to deal with specific cases, should it be found that hardship is created, particularly in reference to the Midland traders.
    So far so good. But there is a difficulty which might arise in the Provisional Order itself. The Interpretation Clause appended to Clause 9 defines transhipment, and under Clause 10 of the Provisional Order certain further exemptions or rebates can be made by the Port Authority. It was pointed out that it was not easy to see that the powers there given were sufficient to grant exemptions in favour of Midland or other traders should the Port Authority desire to do so in the interests of the trade of the port. The Port Authority have therefore undertaken, when the Bill with the Provisional Order scheduled to it is in another place, to insert in Clause 10 words which will enable them to deal, not only with the trades specifically referred to in the Clause, but with any other trade. That will place in the hands of the Port Authority a wide discretion, enabling them to deal with the various trades which may be brought before them, and in respect of which some discrimination may be necessary. We quite appreciate that the Port Authority have their difficulties. They have got to start the business of the Port. The Schedule contains the maximum rates which they are entitled to charge, but no wise body would exact their maximum charges. We understand that they will have power to grant exemptions to Midland and other traders if need be, and to deal with some of the difficulties which have been put before the House. We are not completely satisfied. Very few persons are completely
    1532
    satisfied with a matter which must be dealt with on a basis of compromise. But although we are not satisfied, recognising that it is the Act of 1908 which places the difficulty in the way of the right hon. Gentleman and of the Port Authority, we feel that we have been met as far as the Port Authority can at present meet us. Therefore, while giving notice that when the proper occasion arises we shall ask for more, and recognising that we have got as much as it is fair to ask at the present moment when no Amendment of the Act of 1908 is possible, we are content to let the Third Reading of this Bill pass without further opposition; but when the opportunity offers we shall endeavour to alter the Act of 1908.
    One word more. Of course, you cannot realise what the effect of these rates are until they have been tried in working for a certain length of time. That is a difficulty no doubt. At the same time, I feel sure that the Port Authority will recognise that if they establish rates which are a deterrent to the Midland traders sending their goods down to the port, then they, by that means, do a hardship to the Midlands. They make it very difficult for trades to be started and carried on in the Midlands, and they hold out a sort of advertisement which is a deterrent to Midland traders, who are at the present time suffering under very severe burdens. What I desire to point out to them is this: that the easier the rates they offer to the public, the larger is the amount of trade they are likely to secure. Of course, as this is a business question, and as they are a business authority, a public body seeking to do their best for the interests of all parties, I feel quite sure that after the representations we made in this House they will endeavour to do their very best to meet the difficulties, which are sincerely felt in the Midlands. These are not a matter of railway companies' grievances, but are matters in which the traders of the Midlands feel they are suffering at the present time. On the undertaking which has already been given to us as to the alteration that is to be moved in another place, we feel that the interests of the Midlands have been safeguarded so far as it is possible. We intend to take every step in the future to improve our position, but we do not desire to prevent the Third Reading of this Bill being taken to-night.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENN: In view of the satisfactory termination of this matter, it

    1533
    would seem almost unnecessary to go into the merits of the case, but as a member of that authority whose life has been somewhat in jeopardy during the last few days, I would like to say a few words. Because if this House refuses the authority the means of carrying out the duties entrusted to it it would not continue in its present position. It seems to me that we have been face to face with rather a strange Parliamentary position. This position is due mostly to misconception and misunderstanding. I do not think that the true position of this matter is fully before the House. While I do not wish to enter into controversial matters now that the question has been temporarily settled, I do think it is very desirable that some answer should be given to the speech which was made on Monday by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. George Thorne). Otherwise it might be taken that there was no substantial answer to the very strong case he put forward. I may say as a new Member of this House that one of the things that surprises me is the oratorical powers of many of its Members. The speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton on Monday was calculated to deceive even the very elect! I know myself I was very sorry for the poor Midland manufacturer who was going to be so hardly hit. But the facts are very different from what we were led to suppose, or perhaps I should say what were put forward. The Midland manufacturer erects his works in the Midlands because he has good reason for doing it. He has many advantages which the manufacturer on the sea coast has not. He has cheap land, good labour, and many advantages that the sea-coast or London manufacturer cannot have.
    What, however, I want specially to point out is that the Midland manufacturer is put under no worse terms than is the London manufacturer in this matter. We were face to face as a public authority with an Act that debarred us from putting any dues upon the transhipment of goods. We could not, for that reason, put any dues upon goods coming from the Midlands, while the London manufacturer had to pay those dues on what he exported. We were quite debarred from considering the Midlands, apart from other of the great interests committed to our charge. That, however, does not prevent us from considering individual cases of hardship such as those put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. We are
    1534
    bound to consider each case put before us on its merits. The whole aim and object of the establishment of this Port Authority is to increase the facilities of the port and to increase the business of the port. It would therefore be quite impossible to suppose that a public authority which has no shareholders to consider, and which has only the interests of the port to consider, would hardly use any trade which was coming to the port. One of the cases cited as an instance of hardship of works moving from the Midlands to the coast did not seem to me to be a particularly happy one. I refer to the special instance of a manufacturer who moved from Wolverhampton to Newport. I happen to know the firm in question. It always had its head office, and also the larger part of Its works, at Bristol. The management acquired works some years ago at Wolverhampton, which subsequently they did not desire to carry on there. They therefore moved that part of the business to Newport, but though they manufacture part of their galvanised sheets at Newport they have to convey these sheets from Newport to Bristol to be finished. The export trade of that firm is carried on from Bristol, and not from Newport. Again, the manufacturer on the coast will, as far as possible, ship his goods direct from his manufactory to their ultimate destination. He does not come round by London unless he is absolutely obliged to do so. All these manufacturers who have gone to the coasts and to a port have gone where they could get a large part of their trade carried direct. But, Mr. Emmott, if it, is found, as has been stated in the letter which has been written to the President of the Board of Trade, that there are trades in the Midlands which require special consideration, the Port Authority will most certainly give consideration to those trades. I may mention that the Port Authority has already constituted a committee which is charged with the supervision and examination of trade. Month by month the import and export trade is examined in detail to see in what respect it can be increased or if there are hardships; and if particular charges weigh upon any whether they can be modified or altered in order to suit the trade and to increase the trade. I think, therefore, the Midland manufacturer may rest quite satisfied that their interests will be safeguarded as far as possible by the Port Authority. In fact, it is the business of the Port Authority to

    1535
    consider these questions most carefully, and I hope the assurances that have been given will be considered satisfactory by the House.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I hardly think it is necessary to follow the hon. Member who has just spoken except, perhaps, to say that our complaint is that the merits of our claim have not been considered in consequence of circumstances for which the House has no responsibility. The very fact that the Chairman of the Committees who has spoken said that his Committee was precluded from going into the merits of the case purely in consequence of the Act of 1908 should convince the House that the claims of the Midland traders are worthy of their serious attention. It will be generally recognised that the adjournment which took place the other night has been amply justified, because the Port of London Authority, which received the deputation of which I had the honour to be one, met us very frankly. Prior to that the Port Authority did not recognise there was so much in our claims as they did after they had met the deputation. The Midland traders were not considered when the 1908 Act was passed, not so much because they had not a case, but because of the wide additional power that was given in the Provisional Order. Then, when the Provisional Order came up for discussion we were told that it was too late to discuss our claims because they were governed by the Act of 1908. When the Third Reading came we were simply met with the plea, "Apart entirely from the merits of your case, this is the Third Reading, of the Bill, and, therefore, it is too late to consider the matter." The House will recognise, therefore, that so far as the Midland traders are concerned they never had a fair chance of stating their grievance.
    The hon. Member opposite has stated that the life of the Port Authority has been jeopardised. I frankly say, while I have never been hostile to the Bill, I should not have hesitated to vote against the Third Reading, but should have felt in the circumstances I was doing my duty to my Constituents. It is absurd to suggest we have no grievance. In my own Constituency at the present moment there is the possibility of a large factory being closed down and 600 men thrown out of work. That is a firm manufacturing iron girders, and I am assured that so keen is the competition that the margin in some
    1536
    cases is not more than a few pence per ton. Under the provision of this very Bill iron girders from Derby to London will be taxed 10d. additional per ton. That in itself clearly demonstrates the seriousness of this question to Midland manufacturers. We have never claimed a preference.
    Mr. HAMILTON BENN: The hon Member has spoken of an additional tax of 10d.; the extra rate is 5d.
    Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I was under the impression it was 10d., but, assuming that the hon. Member is correct, the additional tax of 5d. will make all the difference between Derby retaining the contract and losing it. The claim of the Midland manufacturers is not that the Port Authority should not have its dues, but that those who are favourably situated at the present time shall not have an additional preference against them. We do not object to contribute the dues necessary for the carrying on of the business of the port, but we do object strongly against any Act of Parliament that gives an undue preference as this does. It is only because we feel that some part of our claim has been met and because we accept the spirit of the letter of the Port of London Authority, and believe that they were satisfied yesterday that our claim was a legitimate claim, and that they will meet us in a frank, fair, and open way that we are willing not to divide against the Third Reading. At the same time, we desire to give a clear indication that this is only part of the concession, and does not at all meet our full claims.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: My only desire in connection with this Bill is to help it through. I am quite sure that hon. Members opposite will readily acquit me of being actuated by any special desire to make smooth the path for any Member of His Majesty's present Government. But I have always believed and acted upon the principle that questions like that we are discussing to-night, affecting the trade of the country, should not been used as pawns in the party game. I know quite well from the speeches made that there is no need whatever of my saying anything to support the view of the President of the Board of Trade. I am only going to say a few words, because I am perfectly satisfied that if the Bill is passed as the result of the letter we have listened to to-night, there will be an entirely false impression as to what the real position

    1537
    is. The impression would be that on the merits the case put by the Midland traders had been entirely justified, and that it is purely on technical ground that that case was not carried through. I am perfectly certain a greater mistake was never made upon any subject brought before the House. On questions of this kind a Government Department is always in a position of great difficulty. We who are Members of this House are very easily influenced by letters we receive from bodies in our Constituencies relating to subjects that we know nothing about. We get these letters, and we feel we must at least do what our Constituents demand. Everybody knows how easy it is to set an agitation of this kind going, however little backbone there may be in it. I am inclined to think that is what has happened here. Probably somebody in the Wolverhampton Chamber of Commerce comes down with very little to do and says to his fellow Members: "You see this Port of London Bill, it is going to make you pay dues which you have never paid before." Of course, nobody wants to pay duties if they can possibly help it, and consequently they say; "All right, try to stop that if you can." A resolution is passed unanimously, they get their local Member to pledge himself against it, and then they communicate with other chambers of commerce, inviting them to give their opposition to this Bill. Other chambers of commerce treat the question much in the same way. They say: "Our position is like Wolverhampton; they have considered this question, let us pass a similar resolution and write to our local Member." Consequently we hear Members debating this question in the "Mother of Parliaments"—new hands will probably already have pledged themselves—prejudiced in favour of a particular view without knowing that there is another side to the question.
    9.0 P.M.
    I should like to point out how this case stands, as I understand it. Supposing there is an evil, what is the magnitude of it? Let me take a typical case. Take the case of hardware goods, for which the maximum rate is 1s. per ton. Exports can only have a rate of 6d. per ton. Now what is the value of a ton of hardware? I am sure it is not less than £20. That means that for every £100 worth of hardware goods for which the shipper gets the use of the Port of London pays 2s. 6d. In these times of close competition, any charge, however small, I agree, ought not to be ignored. It is a question of proportion, and to suggest that this small maximum charge
    1538
    is going to drive men in Wolverhampton out of employment is more worthy of an election poster. What is the real point of this case? It is that additional revenue is required. I am sure the representatives of the Midlands will agree that those who use the port should bear their fair share of the expense. What is their case? They say: We are perfectly willing to pay our share, but we insist that rivals of ours, who send their goods to London by sea, should also pay their share, and there should not be any discrimination against us for transhipment. If that discrimination exists in reality as well as in theory, I should be the first to recognise it, and try to remove it. But the curious thing about this agitation, got up in the way I have described, is that this is not a grievance which affects exclusively or mainly the Midland manufacturers, but it affects to a greater extent the manufacturers in and around London. It does so for this reason: The Midland manufacturers have two or three strings to their bow, because they can ship from Liverpool as well as from London. The London manufacturer has only the one string, and therefore nothing can be more ludicrous than to treat this question as one affecting only the Midlands, because it affects more largely the manufacturers in and around London. I believe there is no discrimination at all of the kind suggested. In the first place, is it the case that the kind of goods that come from the Midlands by rail for export are of the same kind as those which come from other districts by sea? I do not believe it is to any extent, but I will assume that it is. Then the case against this claim from the Midlands becomes much stronger and absolutely untenable. What is the position? The Midland manufacturers do two kinds of trade—one for export from the Port of London and the other for sale locally in the districts in and around London. It is impossible for me to say what is the exact proportion of these two trades, but I am perfectly certain my hon. Friend behind me, who is himself in the trade, will admit that the sales in and around London are enormously greater than the amount for export from London to other places. I believe that for every pounds worth of Midland goods which come to London for shipment there are at least £9 worth which come to be sold in and around London alone. Now what is the fact in regard to this alleged discrimination? Supposing this rivalry between the two districts does exist. Any rival of the

    1539
    Midland trader who sends girders into London does not pay a penny dues in competition with the Midland manufacturer. After this Provisional Order has been passed, what will happen is that the rival of the Derby bridge builder has got to pay dues on every ton of girders brought to London for sale only. In other words, what it amounts to is this: In the case of one-tenth of their trade, the Midland manufacturer is put at a disadvantage, but in the case of nine-tenths of his trade he actually gains, as against his rival, by the Provisional Order, about which he makes so much noise. If I have succeeded in making this point clear—and there is not the slightest doubt about its reality—then the real result is that after all this agitation and fuss about the discrimination against the Midland manufacturers, the net result is that this Bill gives a discrimination in favour of the Midland manufacturer as against his rival who sends his goods to London.
    Mr. HENRY: But sea freight is cheaper than the railway carriage.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: But the cheap rate by sea transport is there now, and that will not be changed. When this Bill is passed the man who sends his goods by sea will have to pay dues, and the man who sends his goods by rail will not have to pay those dues; therefore, the discrimination is against the man who sends his goods by sea. It should be clearly understood that the whole of this agitation—which I admit is sincere and put forward, I am sure, with moderation—instead of being a discrimination against the Midlands, those manufacturers will, if anything, gain against their rivals by the provisions of this Bill. I should like to say a word or two about the transhipment trade. If that question is to be raised at all, it ought to be considered from a far broader standpoint than has been possible in the discussions we have had. I am speaking from recollection, hut, if my memory is not inaccurate, as the Government introduced their Bill of 1908 they left this question of transhipment to be settled by Provisional Order. The House of Commons at that time was so impressed with the importance of the entrepot trade of London that they were not willing to leave the matter to be decided by Provisional Order, but put pressure on the Government and insisted that there should be no dues on goods which are
    1540
    transhipped. The hon. Member, I think, for East Wolverhampton (Mr. George Thorne) resented very much the idea of this House being bound by a decision of the last House of Commons. I thoroughly sympathise with him in that. The present House of Commons is far from perfect, but at least it is a great improvement on the last, and I should be very sorry indeed as a general principle to say that because the last House of Commons decided something therefore we ought also to decide in the same way.
    The consideration which influenced the last House of Commons, however, applies just as strongly to this. What was that principle? It was that the entrepot trade has always been one of the special trades of London. It has been of immense advantage not only to the port but also to London as a whole. From the nature of the case and from causes which cannot be helped, the entrepot trade is relatively getting less and less, but everybody wishes to preserve it if they can, and we know that particular kind of trade is liable to severe competition with other great ports on the Continent, like Hamburg and Antwerp, which have facilities which are not now enjoyed by London. I am therefore perfectly certain that, if this House of Commons looked at this question from a broad point of view, it would say that whatever alterations may or may not be desirable it would be very unwise to do anything which could possibly interfere with the entrepot trade of London. This question of the freedom of transhipment goods is not one of discrimination in favour of one district as against another. It is simply a question of what is best in the interest of the Port of London. It is, of course, arguable that London would not have suffered if these transhipment goods had paid their share of the dues, but the question should be considered from the point of view of the necessity of the Port of London, and I am convinced there is no Member of the House who looks at it from that point of view who will doubt for a moment that the decision of the Act of 1908 was right, and that it would be a great mistake to depart from the principles of that Act.
    I think this question of discrimination is all a matter of imagination, but there is one aspect of this Bill with which I have a great deal more sympathy. The hon. Member, I think for the Tower Hamlets, moved an Amendment to give

    1541
    additional protection to those who use the rivers. I did not support his Amendment because I could not in that form, but I do think, and I have said the same thing in other stages of this Bill, that that body is really more entitled than anyone else to consideration in the framing of this Bill. More than half the trade is done in the river outside the docks; yet it so happens that the way in which the Port Authority is constituted is such that the interests which conduct their business in the docks will, if they choose to exercise it, have absolute authority over the port. I do not suggest for a moment that the Port Authority will act in an unfair way, but I can understand the waterside manufacturers feeling it is not fair to them that it should be left to a body which represents an interest which is not the same as theirs to decide in what way the expenses of the port are to be raised. I am sorry to raise this question—it may perhaps start it in the Committee of another place—but I would have been glad if Sub-section (5)—I think it is—which gives some protection to these users of the river could have been strengthened in some way, and if, for instance, it could have been made possible that in certain cases there would have been an appeal to the Board of Trade. I venture to suggest to the Deputy-Chairman of the Port Authority and to the other representatives of that authority that it might be wise for them to consider this question. There is a feeling that this great interest in the river will not be adequately represented on the new authority, and I am sure the Port Authority would lose nothing by giving the concession which may go a long way to remove that feeling of anxiety.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: As the only Member of the House present who sat on the Select Committee of the Bill of 1908, I think I ought to assure the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas) that the position of the Midland traders was not by any means lost sight of by that Committee. Not only did we have many persons before us who put the Midland case and that of the Midland traders, but the railway companies who are largely interested in the Midlands occupied a very large proportion of the time of the Committee in putting forward the case for the inland manufacturers. The point that is really of paramount importance in this whole matter is the value of the transhipment trade of
    1542
    the Port of London. The last speaker referred to the value of this trade, and, as a merchant, I should like to emphasise the great importance of freeing the transhipment trade from rates in the Port of London; otherwise I fear a great deal of the transhipment trade now done in London will pass to the Port of Antwerp, where there are no dues on goods transhipped. Take the case of a cargo from the Tyne to some foreign port. The Port of London does not provide enough cargo of itself to load a vessel; neither, perhaps, does the Port of Antwerp. It is a choice between loading in the one place or the other, and sending the goods from the Tyne either to London or Antwerp to be transhipped to a foreign port. If there is no charge in Antwerp on transhipped goods and if there is in London, I do not think the House needs to be told that the goods will go to Antwerp to be transhipped and not to London. You may say what does it matter to London whether they come here or not? It matters a great deal. Half of the cargo either in or out is either from London or destined for London, and the fact that the ship comes here means that the people get the goods that come in the ship cheaper than if they went to Antwerp and then came across. Consequently there is a great advantage to those in London having these ships loading or discharging with transhipped cargoes in London, and it can only be done if you assist the operation. Therefore the transhipment trade is of value to London, and the importance of that was before the Committee. I think the grievances of the Midland manufacturers have been very much exaggerated in this Debate. After all, these coastwise cargoes, these transhipment cargoes, do pay dues. Suppose goods come from the Tyne to London to be transhipped. Take the case of girders from Middlesbrough. They are brought to London by sea to be transhipped. Those sent from Wolverhampton are sent by rail. The Wolverhampton manufacturer complains that his goods have to pay export duties in London, whereas the manufacturers in Middlesbrough escapes that payment. But that is not the case. The manufacturer in Middlesbrough pays the dues there, and consequently the position is not so adverse to the Midland manufacturer as would be supposed.
    Another point which seems to have escaped attention is that the dues fixed by this Bill for exports and imports into London are on a very moderate scale indeed. Take various articles manufactured in the

    1543
    Midlands. Galvanised iron at Liverpool pays 1s. 6d. in and 9d. out. In London it pays 10d. in and 5d. out. Bar iron at Liverpool pays 1s. in and 8d. out. In London the charges are 10d. and 5d. respectively. Take, too, the case of hardware. At Liverpool it pays 2s. 3d. in as against 1s. in London, and 1s. 6d. out at Liverpool as against 6d. in London. The scale is indeed a very moderate one, and there is this further observation to be made that the figures mentioned in the Bill are the maximum scale, and, owing to the fact that you can only charge on one-thousandth part of the total value of goods in and out of London, the Port Authority will not be able to charge on the average more than two-thirds of the maximum rates as they appear in the Bill so long as the value of the exports and imports of London remain at their present figure. I think the grievances of the Midland traders have been very much exaggerated. They have altogether lost sight of the distinct advantage which they possess in supplying the demands for the consumption of London itself; and even if there were some drawbacks, if the trade were subjected to some little handicap by the charges, we must not forget that some charges must be made if we are going to improve the Port of London. If one set of traders escapes payment, others will have to provide the money; and the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, who rather spoke as if he favoured the Midland traders' case, might find his constituents called upon to pay more.
    Sir F. BANBURY: I do what I consider to be right in this House, and if my Constituents lose by my so doing what is right, I am sure they will support me.
    Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I know the hon. Baronet is always very philosophic and inclined to favour the case of his opponents, rather than that of his Friends. I do not think it is at all likely that this House will listen to any future Bill seeking to reverse the policy of freeing transhipments goods through the Port of London, a policy which has been deliberately adopted by this House after long and patient investigation.
    Mr. PARKES: As several speakers have attacked the contention put forward on behalf of the Midland manufacturers, I feel bound to say some words in support of their case, especially as I belong to
    1544
    one of the largest towns in the Midlands. We do not object to the Port of London getting their dues upon what we know as the transhipment trade, but we do think they are making a mistake by bringing themselves into competition with Antwerp. When this Bill was first brought in it simply dealt with transhipments through the Port of London from one country to another; it was only an afterthought that the coastwise trade in this country was exempted from these dues. I do not see how it can possibly be argued that there is any equality of treatment between the coastwise trader and in inland trader when the duties are imposed in the one case and not in the other. In that you find the whole crux of our argument, and I do not think that anything that has been said up to the present has tended to clear away the feeling that an unfair discrimination is exercised between the Midland trader and the coastwise trader. I was rather surprised to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law). I think they went to show that he was not thoroughly acquainted with the facts of the case. I admit there may be a certain amount of goods coming into London which are consumed in London, but I do not admit that the Midland trader, even in that case, has any advantage over the coastwise trader, because he is handicapped by the heavy railway rates which prevent him from putting his goods into London at the same price as the coastwise trader can place them there, even after paying the port dues. I believe it is the fact that a certain kind of steel goods coming from Middlesbrough and Hull to the Thames pay a duty of 6d. per ton, while on similar articles sent from the Midlands the charge ranges from 10s. to 15s. per ton. It will thus be seen that the Midland manufacturer stands at a great disadvantage in bringing his goods into London. But we are not talking so much about the goods brought into and sold in London, we are talking about transhipment goods.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: We are really talking about the Provisional Order, but incidentally I raised the question of the advantage gained by the Midland traders in connection with the trade they did in London itself.
    Mr. PARKES: Our case is not dependent so much on the goods sold in London itself. In many cases they do not go near the docks, they are sent by rail, and the

    1545
    docks can make no charge in respect of them. We are contending purely and simply for the transhipment goods, and we say there is an unfair discrimination exercised between transhipment goods sent from the Midlands and those sent by sea from ports on the north-east coast to London. It is said that the rates are only 1s. on £20 worth of goods, and that sounded a very plausible argument; but if the matter is so small that the Midland people should not take any notice of it, why should the coastwise people do so? and all that we contend for is equality or treatment between the two parties. The hon. Gentleman also said that Members were pledged on this subject, but I can say distinctly that no man was pledged before he came to the House of Commons on this question. It came up a short time ago, and I admit the Midland people were no wise enough to see the matter soon enough, but, at the same time, they ought not to be penalised because they did not rise up to the gravity of the case until it was almost too late. It is said the gentlemen belonging to chambers of commerce have nothing to do but to think of these matters, but I think such allegations ought not to be hurled at the chambers of commerce, because when they heard of it from the manufacturers they at once did all they could through their Members in this House to remedy this injustice, and we should not be discharging our duties to Midland traders and to our feelings of justice if we did not give expression to their views. As to the galvanising trade, the hon. Member made a very small matter of it, but said there were great advantages in the case of the Midlands. I have been in the Midlands all my life, and I do not see where the advantages come in.
    The trade of the Midlands is fading away, and many people are being driven from them to the coast. I do not think it is desirable to drive all the traders from the Midlands to the coast. The hon. Member said something about galvanised sheets being made in Wolverhampton, while they were partly made elsewhere, but I know that in that particular galvanised trade one of the largest firms in it have just removed their works from Wolverhampton to the coast in order that they may successfully compete with their rivals. I think we have made out a case which justifies us in taking up the position we do, and I think we ought to talk this matter over quietly, and if we did we should convince the Port of London Authority that we had a grievance. I think we did convince
    1546
    the Port of London Authority yesterday that we had a genuine case, and I believe the more our case is examined the more it will be seen that that is so. I should like to say this, in conclusion, that we in the Midlands recognise the spirit of conciliation which has been manifested by the Port Authority and the right hon. Gentleman, which has been of great advantage, and I hope it will continue. We do not want to fight this question, because there can be a great amount of opposition raised in the Midlands against this Order, but we want to settle the matter by peaceable means, and as far as that spirit of conciliation has been manifested by the Port of London we thank them, and believe that they will try to meet us. If they do not try to meet us we shall be very much surprised if we do not get fair play. We believe, however, that we have a good case, and that they will carry out their promise to us; but if not, we shall not relinquish this movement until we get justice.
    Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: The Members of the Port Authority were very pleased yesterday to have an opportunity of meeting the Midland Members, represented by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton and one of the hon. Members for Derby, and of hearing their case and considering it, and I can assure the hon. Members, on behalf of the Port Authority, that we appreciated the spirit in which they put their case before us, and also I can assure them that it will be the endeavour of the Port Authority to remedy any grievance that may be found when this Schedule is put into force and to do everything in their power to help forward and increase the trade of the Port of London, and not to do anything to damage any portion of the trade that comes to that port. I would also like to take this opportunity of expressing our indebtedness to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bonar Law) for the great assistance he has always rendered us, not only on the occasion of the Provisional Order, but on the Bill of 1908 and previous measures, to settle this Port of London difficulty on satisfactory grounds. We have had recently all sides of the House agreeing to vote large sums of money to protect the Empire from attack, and now we are simply asking for a moderate sum of money in order to enable us to ensure that the Port of London Authority will be able to maintain the position which the hon. Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) will, I know, be the first to welcome, when we can say that the Port of London is really not only the most

    1547
    important port in the world, but the one which has every modern convenience, and has every facility to help forward the trade of the country. I am sure I can only repeat that we will do everything that is possible to help not only the traders in the Midlands but in any other part of the country.
    Mr. W. PEARCE: I think the Midland Members have brought before the House the great importance of every part of this Provisional Order, and have shown that the rates need not be very heavy to make a very great difference to commercial interests. The hon. Gentleman opposite did show in one degree where this burden is heavier on the London than on the Midland manufacturers; he pointed out that London has no choice of port, but that the Midlands have the choice of two or three. London has only one port, and therefore the London manufacturer has to pay not only on his exports, but he has to pay also on his imports, and in this degree it is a very hard case, because London as a manufacturing centre has to submit to this very great disadvantage, that it has no natural raw material, and that the whole of the raw material of its industries have to be brought into London, so that the London manufacturer has to pay on his imports and on his exports. I should think, however, that the London case could be helped, because if I only had the power and enthusiasm of my hon. Friend behind me I could almost have defeated the Third Reading by expatiating upon the harder case of the London manufacturer than that of the manufacturer in the Midlands. But I want to try to elicit information before the Debate on this Bill closes. When the Port of London Bill was introduced into the House of Commons an estimate was given as to the amount the local authority were likely to have to pay, and we were given an estimate of £180,000. That was to provide new clock accommodation also, and I have not heard that the Port Authority have a scheme for providing this new accommodation. We were given to understand that, except as to the provision of new dock accommodation, the income and expenditure of the old dock companies would pretty nearly balance. I should like to know if this is the case. I want to know what is the kind of sum that the Port of London proposes to raise in the first year. If it is a small sum London will be very much relieved. If it is a large sum, and rumour
    1548
    had it a few weeks ago that it was intended to raise £300,000 or thereabouts, and on the schedule of maximum dues to raise £500,000, I want to point out how serious the position of London would become. If this large sum is required does it arise from deficiency? Again I should like information as to what was said of the maximum dues they are likely to charge on the trade. During the negotiations with Lord St. Aldwyn it was generally intimated that 50 per cent. of the maximum was likely to rule. I heard that understanding withdrawn before the Select Committee, and this is giving very grave concern to the whole of the London trade. If we are to have this very large burden on London I am quite sure it will most gravely affect the whole of the commercial possibilities of the London district. It must increase the cost of production of everything that is made in the London district. It must make the Port of London dearer rather than cheaper, and, with these two great disadvantages, I hope the House will begin to realise what a serious matter this Provisional Order and Schedule may become. If anything like the large sum I anticipate will be required it will be a matter of the very gravest concern to the whole of the London district.
    I am afraid I am rather a pessimist myself, and I almost anticipate the time when the Port Authority may have to come to Parliament for further powers still. I very much doubt whether the £330,000 which they are enabled to raise under the Provisional Order will suffice. When they do come I hope the House may remember, from the speeches they have heard from the Midland Members, what a great danger this kind of general tariff undoubtedly is to the whole commercial and trade possibilities of London. I feel most strongly that it would have been very much better to put a charge like this on the rates of the whole district rather than to burden a portion of the trade of London and stand the danger of swamping it altogether. The only piece of comfort I have derived from the Debates of the last two nights is the statement of the President that he agreed with me that if Parliament had realised what the situation was likely to be it might have been decided to raise this money from the rates rather than by a general schedule. I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman opposite for his words of sympathy with our waterside manufacturers. It is a hard case, which

    1549
    can hardly be remedied in the way he suggested. Better still, when the House takes the Bill into consideration again, it might be done by altering the franchise. The riverside people, who only pay a portion of this new duty, will stand a chance of very little representation when the franchise depends on the whole revenue of the Dock Company. That is something between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000. The new charge they are allowed to levy will be £300,000 under their present powers, and it goes without saying that the franchise of the riverside interests, depending on a fraction of £300,000, they are not likely to get a big membership on the Board when the whole franchise depends on a revenue roughly approaching £3,000,000. I hope the President may be able to allay some of my fears, and I am glad to have this opportunity of trying to impress upon the House the very serious position which the raising of a large sum of money like this must have on the whole commercial possibilities of the riverside of London.
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Sydney Buxton): I am glad it is only necessary for me to ask the House to pass the Third Reading without a Division, because I gather that, while some Members naturally have serious objections to certain provisions of the Bill, they are not prepared to take upon them the very serious responsibility of dividing against the Third Reading. In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Pearce), I think from the point of view of the Port Authority themselves it is only just to remind the House how we stand and why we stand in the present position. The Port Authority was created and had certain duties cast upon them, not only in reference to carrying on the docks they took over, but also to improve the waterway and to improve the dock accommodation. I am one of those who think that on the whole it would have been better if the additional charge required for this purpose had been cast on the rates of the whole county. That, however, was not the position at the time. The Moderate majority of the London County Council, in their discretion, did not desire to deal with it in that way. Therefore, it was quite obvious that, as funds must be raised in order to carry on the Port Authority and to improve the waterway and the docks, the only method in which that could be done would be by a charge on the shipping and on the goods
    1550
    imported and exported from the docks. Therefore I think the Port Authority must be acquitted of all blame when they have to present to the House of Commons a Bill of this description. The duty was cast upon them of raising the revenue. They have taken a very long time in drawing up their schedules of rates, but they have taken a very great deal of trouble indeed, and, as far as they possibly could, they have met the various interests concerned, and I congratulate them on the successful results of the efforts they have made.
    Some reference has been made to the Act of 1908 and the transhipment question, which is not really a matter involved in the bulk of the discussion we have had. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bonar Law) gave a correct description of what occurred when the Bill was first introduced. This question of what is transhipment, and whether transhipment should be exempt from rates or not, was left to be decided by the Provisional Order which we are now discussing. A very strong feeling was evoked from all quarters that not to have a definite exemption in the Act of Parliament exempting from all dues, inwards or outwards, transhipment goods might have a very serious effect indeed on the trade of the Port of London. Unfortunately, London dock accommodation as compared with Antwerp and other places had fallen into arrears. London was in this matter in severe competition with Continental and home ports, and it was thought, and wisely thought as far as the transhipment goods were concerned, that they ought to be free from all dues in order that London should not be deprived of that trade altogether. That conclusion was come to by the House of Commons after grave deliberation, and I agree that it would be very difficult indeed to alter the principle of that proposal, and, as at present advised at any rate, I certainly should not give my support to any proposal which would involve a charge of dues on any transhipment goods.
    The discussion has really turned on the case brought forward by the representatives of the Midland traders. I must not be held, because I have not gone into the merits of it, to admit the validity of the case they have presented against the Port Authority. In reference to the case which was brought before me I desired to do two things. I was very anxious that the Midland traders should have an opportunity of stating their case both in the House of Commons and before the Committee, because it was quite obvious that

    1551
    it was not until the eleventh hour that the particular grievance which they believed themselves to be suffering from was brought to their attention. I freely admit that they had not at the earlier stages of this question in 1908 or subsequently, or, at all events, they thought they had not, full opportunity of bringing forward their case. I was very anxious that they should have that opportunity, as being more or less responsible for the Bill jointly with the Port of London Authority. I was anxious, if there was a grievance of this description, that it should be as far as possible met on legitimate grounds by the Port Authority. I was anxious to see, if there was a real grievance, that it might be met. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. George Thorne) and others came to me on more than one occasion, and finally I made the suggestion that I thought it would be well that they should have an opportunity of meeting representatives of the Port Authority, in order to see, if they had a grievance, how far it might be met in the circumstances, and how far my hon. Friends, as representing the traders, and the representatives of the Port Authority might be able to come to an amicable arrangement on the matter, and so avoid opposition on the Third Reading of the Bill. I am sure my hon. Friends representing the Midland traders will admit that the Port Authority met them very fairly and frankly, and made very fair proposals to them in the circumstances of the case. I think it might be well that, with the leave of the House, and in order that there may be no misunderstanding in the matter, I should read the letter which Lord Ritchie, as representing the Parliamentary Committee of the Port Authority, wrote to me to-day. I will read the letter in order to have on record what the proposal of the Port Authority was in regard to this matter and the extent to which they have met the views of those representing the Midland traders. The letter is as follows:—
    "Port of London Authority.
    "109, Leadenhall Street, E.C.,
    "21st July, 1910.
    "My dear Buxton,
    "Confirming my statement made on behalf of the Port Authority at the interview yesterday, the Port Authority are unable to accept the proposal that the Act of 1908 should be so amended as to place a duty on the transhipment trade of London. To do so would result in largely diverting the trade from the Port of London to foreign ports, which would seriously injure one branch of the trade of London without benefiting any other Class of traders.
    "But they have had their attention drawn to the position of the Midland traders, and to the apprehension expressed that the proposed rates would materially Injure their trade.
    "They are prepared, as I stated at the interview—before the rates are actually imposed, and subsequently—to consider sympathetically any and all cases of alleged hardship which may be put before them. They would consider them with a view of seeing whether any, and what, modification of, or possibly exemption from, rates (the rates in the Confirming Bill are, it must be remembered, maximum rates only) would be just and advisable in the interests both of the traders and of the Port Authority, which in these matters are practically identical.
    "In order to make it clear that such action can be adopted, they would agree, before the House of Lords Committee, to add after the words 'entrepot trade.' on page 4, line 29, of the Bill confirming the Provisional Order, the words 'or any other trade.'
    "Yours faithfully,
    "(Signed) RITCHIE OF DUNE."
    That seems to me a very fair offer, and I think those representing the Midland traders are very well advised in accepting it and withdrawing their opposition to the Third Reading of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton said that he had not got all he wanted. I am bound to say that if he thinks in this workaday world he can always get all he wants he is a very sanguine man. I should have thought a man of his age would not have expected to get all he wants. I certainly have found in a considerable Parliamentary experience that I never get all I want, and very seldom indeed even a small portion of what I want. I think my hon. Friend ought to be satisfied in the circumstances with the arrangement made with the Port Authority. I am glad that we have been able to arrive at an amicable solution of this very difficult and very acute question, and that on the Third Reading of the Bill there will be no Division called.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Owing to the existence of the House of Lords.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not know what the hon. Baronet means by interrupting my peroration. I would really ask what he means, because I do not want any misunderstanding in regard to the matter. I ask him what he means by the interruption, because it may have a bearing on what I am about to say.
    Sir F. BANBURY: My interruption arose out of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there was to be no Division on the Third Reading of the Bill. I said that was owing to the fact that the House of Lords exists, and that what is wrong in the Bill here can be put right there.
    Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON: I do not want to enter into controversy with the hon.

    1553
    Baronet on that subject. It is not proposed to get rid of the Second Chamber altogether. Many of us think that one of the advantages of a Second Chamber is that you can use it as a revising Chamber. I am glad that the House of Commons has been able to come to an amicable agreement in reference to this matter, which will enable the Port Authority to carry out improvements in the port with great advantage to London and the country as a whole.
    Mr. MORTON: What will they do with this money when they get it?
    Sir CLIFFORD CORY: The whole of the speeches to-night have either been on behalf of the Midland traders or in opposition to their grievance. I think it is only fair that traders in other parts of the country should have their grievances brought forward as well as the Midland manufacturers. The Midland manufacturers have more attention paid to their case because they are rich, whereas the poorer traders, who have very few representatives, have not had their case stated. They are probably a very much larger class and, at the same time, very much poorer. In paragraph 4 of the Schedule of the Bill in the second paragraph it provides that no port rates shall be charged by the Authority on fish caught in the open sea and brought in fresh to the Port of London direct. There are fishermen who send their fish to London by rail or by coasters. I understand that it is the intention that all fish sent direct to the Port of London, whether for transhipment or not, should be free, otherwise there will be an unfair preference to one section of the industry as compared with others. There are some small fishing districts where it would be impossible for the fishermen to send direct from the fishing grounds to London. Now they send by rail or by coasters. If, as the Bill is now worded, they send by coasters, they will have to pay port rates. I think the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give a sympathetic hearing to an Amendment I put down on the Report stage on this matter, and which was proposed by the hon. Member for Yarmouth. I trust he will see his way when the Bill gets into Committee in another place to have this matter attended to. I am sure he will only be doing what is just and fair in accepting the Amendment, and he will be conferring a great boon on the very struggling men, who find it extremely difficult to make their living at the present time.
    Question, "That the Bill be now read the third time," put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.

    SITUATION IN EGYPT.
    10.0 P.M.
    Mr. DILLON: Many subjects have been discussed on the Foreign Office Vote this year, and the subject which I propose now to bring before the attention of the House is the present situation in Egypt, which I think has been made exceedingly acute—more acute than it has been for many years—by certain speeches delivered in this House and outside this House during the last few weeks. Some years ago Lord Cromer was criticised, and the character of his government in Egypt was criticised by Professor Dicey, who described the government of Lord Cromer in Egypt as the most despotic known to modern times. He did not say it was bad, but that it was the most unchecked despotism known to modern times. Lord Cromer's reply to this criticism was, "It is not true, because all my government of Egypt"—he did not deny the fact that he was absolute Governor of Egypt—"is subject to revision by Parliament in the British House of Commons." If that be all the check on the government of Egypt, it is a very poor check, for I do not think the Government have given an opportunity of discussing the government of Egypt in this House for nearly ten years—certainly not for several years. I do not propose to discuss the subject to-night, because really there is no possibility of any proper discussion of any matter on the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill; but I propose, briefly, to protest against the recent declaration of policy made by the Foreign Secretary in this House, and also to draw the attention of the House to some particular points in comments on the present situation in Egypt. First of all, I wish to say a word on the question of the Suez Canal and the proposed Convention which has been rejected by the Legislative Council in Egypt. The rejection of the Suez Canal Convention has been used over and over again by a large section of the Press in this country as the text for diatribes and abuse against

    1555
    the Egyptian Council and as a strong and unanswerable argument to prove that the people of Egypt are absolutely incapable of self-government. It has been said in many of the leading newspapers of London and of England that the Council of Egypt rejected the Suez Canal Convention without any reason whatever, and simply and solely out of spite against the British Government. I want to ask the Foreign Secretary, Was the British Government in favour of the Suez Canal Convention or was it not? Did the British Government exercise any influence to have it adopted, and if it did not is not it a monstrous thing that the Press of this country should join in apparently what is an organised conspiracy of abuse against the Council of Egypt, and say, because they exercised their right when the whole matter had been referred to them by the Home Government to reject that Convention, that therefore they showed themselves by that Act entirely incapable of self-government? I put a question the other day to the Foreign Secretary whether he would lay before the House any correspondence which passed between the Egyptian Government and the British Government or the Suez Canal Company and the British Government, and also the statement adopted by the Legislative Council of Egypt giving their reasons for the rejection of the Convention, and the Foreign Secretary made this extraordinary reply: that the British Government was not in possession of any correspondence with the Suez Canal Company or the Government of Egypt in reference to this proposed Convention, but that he would take into consideration the question of letting me see a translation of the reasons of the Council, because there was a considerable body of reason given by the Legislative Council, for rejecting the Convention. The reason I wanted to obtain all these papers was that I thought it only just to the Egyptian people in view of the attack made by the Press of this country upon them, that the reasons for rejecting the Convention should be made public, for the information of the public and of this House, and also that we should have on record in some authoritative Paper whether, as a matter of fact, in rejecting the Convention they had done it out of spite to the British Government or whether the British Government had sought to press the Convention on their
    acceptance. One thing to which I wish to call the attention of the House is
    1556
    the extraordinary character of the statement made by the Foreign Secretary. He said that the British Government were not in possession of any correspondence with the Suez Canal Company or the Government of Egypt in reference to this proposed Convention. The British Government is a large shareholder in the Suez Canal Company, and has two directors on the board. Is it conceivable that it was not consulted as to the proposal of the Suez Canal Company as regards this Convention? It is impossible and incredible because the British Government must have a controlling voice in any proposal made by the Suez Canal Company, and the Suez Canal Company were the originators, as I understand, of the proposed Convention. Did they or did they not press it with all their influence upon the Egyptian Government, and through them on the Council of Egypt? I thought it only fair that we should have an opportunity of reading the reasons given by the Legislative Council of Egypt for rejecting the Convention before we got this last opportunity of raising this question in the House, but it seems that owing to some difficulty not explained the Government have had to write to Egypt for another copy of these reasons. They have not been placed in the Library, and we have not been able to see them. I think it is most unfair that in the absence of any information, any official or authentic information, that the action of this Council should have been held up by the Press of this country as an instance of folly and perversity. This class of criticism is only typical of the way in which the Egyptian people have systematically been treated by the ignorant Jingo Press of this country. The other day in a number of newspapers, not insignificant papers, but leading newspapers like "The Times" and the "Daily Mail," it was stated, and the statement was made the text of abusive articles, that when the man who assassinated the Prime Minister of Egypt the other day was sentenced to death his sentence in accordance with Mahomedan law was referred to the Grand Mufti of Cairo for his opinion before the sentence was executed, and it was stated and published in the English Press that the Grand Mufti had issued a fetwah in reply to this reference stating that the sentence was not legal because the crime was committed by a Mahomedan upon a Christian, and therefore it was not murder. I strongly suspected that this was a pure, and I must really use the word diabolical

    1557
    invention, for the purpose of working up public opinion against the Egyptian people and their religion, as has been so often done in this country against ourselves.
    I put the question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and the result was a translation was given of this statement in reply to my question, and there was not one word to justify the charge. The Grand Mufti of Cairo returned the answer, which, according to my information from those well acquainted with the Mahomedans in Egypt, was the only answer he gave. It was according to the law of a Mahomedan country, which, of course, does not meet our Western ideas. The customs of the Mahomedan people are very different from the customs of the Western people. The answer had no reference whatever to the religion of the murderer Wardani. The statement of the Press in England, which went round the newspapers for weeks, and put forward as an instance of the barbarous conduct of the mass of the Egyptian people, is absolutely without any foundation in fact. I only give these two instances to show the way in which this system of circulating false reports defaming the character of the Egyptian people is carried on and the extent to which it is carried on. I desire to say a few words on the general situation. It has been for many years exceedingly grave, and I believe it is becoming increasingly grave, because I think the Government of this country are travelling a road which will carry them to a condition of things in Egypt far worse from many points of view than what it is to-day. You have got to deal in many respects with a very much more difficult problem in Egypt than before. The situation has become very much worse during these years. You have been in Egypt for nearly thirty years, and I want to impress upon the minds of every Member of this House that since the horrid incident of Denshawi all the troubles and various complications of Egypt have arisen. Before that you had no real violence among the Egyptian people; but these new phenomena, which are formidable in the highest possible degree, have caused an entire change to come over the Egyptian people since the atrocity of Denshawi.
    Two years ago, after the departure of Lord Cromer from Egypt, it was generally published abroad that a change of policy had been inaugurated, and it was the impression spread among the Liberal party and among the people of this country that the
    1558
    Government had turned over a new leaf, and were determined to extend the rights of self-government to Egypt, and to deal with problems which we had to meet when we first took possession of Egypt. Certain things were done, but very trifling steps were taken in the direction of self-government. There was no substantial, real, or organic change. There was some small trifling development of local government, to which I attach exceedingly little importance in a country like Egypt. The Legislative Council had really no right of legislation and no right to control the administration of the country. Having watched very closely with a sympathetic eye these first attempts to extend the rights of the Egyptian people, I say deliberately that I have come to the conclusion that there was no reality and no sincerity in these proceedings at all, and that any attempt that was made was really an attempt to bring about the defeat of the National party in Egypt by sowing discord and jealousy. All these alleged extensions of self-government were accompanied by an extension of coercion, a system to which we have been very much accustomed in Ireland. You have had two severe coercion Acts within the last year, including a severe Press law, which led to a serious riot in Cairo only about a year ago, when the troops had to be called out. Although Lord Cromer pursued through-out his career in Egypt a policy of despotism, he always defended himself in regard to his policy of liberty of the Press. He never interfered with the Press when he was criticised in unbridled language. In his book he defends his Press policy, and states that, though he was frequently criticised, he believed that the liberty of the Press allowed free vent to the feelings of the people.
    I think that was a very wise policy, perhaps partly a wise policy, because he could not see his way to get legislation to suppress the liberty. But a new policy was adopted with regard to the Press after Lord Cromer came home, and a fresh law was passed which left no liberty whatever to the Press. The Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when questioned on the point, said the whole Press was perfectly free, unless they used language which was intolerable and incited to crime. That is always the statement where you interfere with the freedom of the Press. That is what is said in Russia. A Minister in Russia always says the Press is perfectly free as long as it behaves with decency, and does not attack

    1559
    the Government. That is what is now said in regard to the Press in Egypt. The fact is, you have had during the last year two stringent coercion Acts, despite the protests of the people, and the Press laws generally are calculated to create the greatest possible discontent. Let me come to the event which was the cause, or partly the cause, of the present condition of things, namely, the disastrous speech delivered by the Foreign Secretary in this House four weeks ago in regard to the assassination of the late Prime Minister of Egypt. That event, I am afraid, marks the opening of a new era throughout the whole of your rule in Egypt. For years before that Egypt was a crimeless country compared with what it is now. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I assert that on Lord Cromer's own statements in his book on Egypt and in his reports. Anybody who knows anything about Egypt will not attempt to traverse that statement. As regards political crimes and assassinations there was no such thing known in Egypt until after Denshawi. Let us consider for a moment calmly the whole business of the assassination. The Ministers in Egypt are really the nominees of the Foreign Secretary in England. Egypt has no more to say in the appointment of the Prime Minister than I have. Egypt has absolutely no voice in the selection. He is the nominee of England.
    What do you do in Egypt? And I ask hon. Members to try and put themselves in a sympathetic frame of mind in considering this matter. There are in Egypt, substantially, two races. You have the Mahomedan people of Egypt, who are solidly one race, with one religion, and a people devoted to their religion. I have seen those people myself, and I never was more struck by anything than to see the fervour of the religion of the poor people of Egypt. They are an intensely religious people, and they are strong in their religion, although I do not think they are an intolerant people, except under great incitement. I do not think they are half as intolerant as the people of Liverpool—I really do not. I never was more struck than by a scene, that has never passed from my memory, and that I witnessed when I first visited Egypt, as I saw those poor peasants toiling all day in that broiling sun—and they are a most industrious people—and the, moment the sun touched the horizon they all dropped their implements of labour and fell upon their knees
    1560
    with their faces towards Mecca, and you saw them striking their bodies against the ground. It is natural to them; it is what they all do. What do you do? You go to Egypt and you put as Minister over this Mahomedan race a Coptic Christian, in whose appointment they have no voice. You who in this House are going to spend next week in disputing over a Bill to declare to what section of the Christian faith your Monarch shall belong—you who are going to pass through a Bill to say that you will pull the King off his Throne if he does not belong to one particular section of Christians, think it strange that the Mahomedans of Egypt should be enraged because a Christian is put to govern over them, and a Christian slave of a Christian Minister. You have no spirit of toleration, no understanding of it, and, unless that thing was done for the purpose of creating mischief, I say that no man who understands the Mahomedan people would put a Christian, and that Christian a member of a conquered race, to rule over them. You, who would not tolerate one of your own blood and race if he belonged to our Church to rule over you. you will endeavour to sit in judgment on the people of Egypt because they resent a man who is not of their own blood and race, and who is only put to rule over them because he was known to be the willing and able slave of the English garrison. That is the way in which you are creating disturbance in Cairo over the murderer, if you will, but I prefer to call him assassin. because everybody knows his motive was not that of ordinary murder, and you have so acted you have made him a martyr to the eyes of the Egyptians.
    I saw the other day an incident in Cairo which to my mind is full of sinister significance. The police searched a house of one of the young poets because he had published a volume of verses in Arabic, in which he held up Wandani as a martyr. That kind of thing is a very sinister sign of the results of your government. When I hear men in this House holding up holy hands of horror at that assassination and condemning it in unmitigated terms of horror, I cannot banish from my memory the fact that Russian assassins in this capital were entertained by the proudest nobles of your land, men whose hands were red with the blood of their Sovereign. I do not express any opinion on that, but it is true, and nobody in this House can deny it. What right have you, who have honoured

    1561
    the Russian assassins who fled from Russia and found asylum in this country, to turn up your eyes in horror at a poor misguided Arab in Egypt, who, under the influence of indignation and religious rage at seeing this man put to rule over him as the servant of British Ministers, did this deed of violence? In my opinion you are travelling a very evil road. You are treating Egypt as a conquered country. You tell the people of Egypt and of Europe that you are holding Egypt mainly for her benefit. It is not true. I am glad to see that Professor Dicey, in his interesting and instructive book on Egypt, says that that theory is ridiculous, and that the English people ought to be honest enough to admit it. I honour him for that. He has always been an advocate of annexation, but he says that that admission, which ought to be made in all honesty, places upon the people of this country a great duty towards Egypt, and makes it very necessary for them to be very careful in what they do. In any discussion which has taken place it has always been assumed that when Egypt was taken over by England it was in a state of semi-barbarism, that it had been proved for centuries to be absolutely incapable of governing itself, and that you have showered benefits upon her. That is not true. It is absolutely untrue. It is perfectly true that at the time she was taken over by England Egypt had been suffering for nearly twenty years under one of the worst governments that ever cursed a people, and the country was reduced to a state of poverty. That was under Ismail Pasha, an unmitigated scoundrel, who plundered and robbed his country. But have hon. Members ever studied the history of the matter? Who tempted Ismail Pasha? Who forced loans upon him? Who profited by millions out of that nefarious transaction? It was the great European bankers, who fattened on Egypt, and by lending her about £30,000,000, planted upon the people a debt of £100,000,000. A more nefarious transaction has never taken place. Ismail Pasha had no more right to pledge his people for those loans than I should have to pledge the credit of this country. Such a thing is unknown in any Eastern empire. No Eastern king or potentate has a right to put a public debt on the people. All the custom of Egypt was against the imposition of this public debt. What is the fact about Ismail Pasha? When under the temptation of French and English bankers who forced these loans upon him
    1562
    at enormous interest, Ismail Pasha commenced his career of extravagance, the Porte, the suzerain Power, protested, and m as going to stop him, as it had power to, do, from contracting these loans; but the representatives of the other Powers remonstrated and stopped the interference of the Porte, with the result that Ismail Pasha was hopelessly bankrupt, and robbed the unfortunate people to pay the European bankers. England did not go to Egypt as a conqueror. England went to Egypt nominally and under the pretence of restoring self-government to the country. England restored the Khedive, and went to Egypt to restore his legitimate authority and the country to him. Subsequently, year after year, in this House and in all the Chancellories of Europe England repeatedly pledged her honour that her stay in Egypt would be short: that she would evacuate Egypt as soon as ever it was possible to do so. The Egyptian people accepted the pledge as an honourable pledge that England would redeem. A declaration was made the other day in this House by the Foreign Secretary which I was horrified and amazed to read. The right hon. Gentleman declared that the Government were now going to turn over a new leaf, and that in future there would be no more discussion on the extension of self-government in Egypt until the Egyptians had abandoned their opposition to the English occupation. A more astounding statement I have never heard. What right have the Government, consistent with English honour, to ask the Egyptians to abandon their resistance and opposition to the English occupation? You have pledged your honour over and over again that it was only a temporary occupation, one having for its object the enabling of the Egyptian Government to stand on its own legs and govern its own people. Now you tell the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian people that until they abandon all objection to the British occupation that they must abandon all idea of even the gradual extension of self-government. That declaration is a dishonourable one. It is a disgrace to the Government of this country, and I hope they do not intend to stand by it. By doing so they would be repudiating the pledge given by Lord Cromer himself and by the Government of this country, and repeated again and again to the nations of Europe, and to the people of Egypt. To this I attach great importance. It was, "That their object in Egypt was to instruct in the art of self-government"

    1563
    —a task I never saw the British people successfully achieve in regard to any people except their own—"and as soon as ever the people of Egypt were fit and able to govern themselves, in the opinion of the English people, they undertook to evacuate that country, and leave it to them." You have no right to occupy that country permanently against the will of the people.
    The Government base their claims to remain in Egypt on the ground that that country has improved in prosperity. It undoubtedly has. I frankly admit it. Lord Cromer's government of Egypt has greatly improved the condition of the people, as compared with what it was when he went there. This I would say, and it is a most, remarkable fact, and I think it is a fact that ought to sink deep into the minds of every Member of this House on both sides, that while it is unquestionably true that you have in many respects improved the condition of the people of Egypt since the English Government took possession of it, you never were so unpopular as at the present day. It certainly ought to make the people of this country examine their consciences in that respect. It is indeed, in my opinion, à fortiori, in spite of the fact that the people are better off than when you first took over the country, that the occupation is unpopular, and that the declaration of the Foreign Secretary is a sentence that they must abandon all idea of this extension of liberty for ever, because I do not believe you will ever convert them to accept your occupation of their country permanently. On the contrary, I believe it is becoming more unpopular as each year goes by. I think, therefore, we ought to have some declaration from the Government that they do not adopt the policy announced the other day. For my part I shall insist as far as I can on claiming year by year some opportunity for discussion in this House so long as Egypt is governed in all its details, as the Foreign Secretary admitted the other day it was to be governed, by a British Minister. I shall press each year that at least this House may be allowed to discuss the Government and these people if we are to be responsible for it. I have taken this very insufficient opportunity of protesting against the conduct of the Government in Egypt, and I hope they will change their line of action, because, unless they do so, whatever may be the
    1564
    material results of their occupation, year by year they will increase the discontent of the people.
    Mr. G. J. SANDYS: After listening to the speech of the hon. Member who has just addressed the House I am sure there is no one who will question in any way the absolute sincerity with which he brings forward his case, and although I agree with one or two of the statements he made, I am totally at variance with his general conclusions. One or two of the facts he brought forward in support of his case are not, I think, accurate. One of these was what the hon. Member called the dominating influence of the British Government in regard to the Suez Canal. We do not possess a dominating influence, and the second inaccurate fact he brought forward was his statement of the influence of the Legislative Council in regard to the concession to the Canal Company. The Foreign Secretary, in answer to a question a month or two ago, definitely stated the Legislative Council would have nothing to do with it, and that it would be referred to the General Assembly, which is quite a different body. The hon. Member also said he considered it was a very unfortunate thing that no discussion had taken place in this House with reference to the proposed extension of the concession to the Suez Canal Company. So far I am very much inclined to agree with him. And in this connection it is not without interest in view of the great importance of this question to this country and to Egypt to compare the attitude which the Consul-General adopted towards the Egyptian General Assembly with the attitude His Majesty's Government adopted towards the House of Commons.
    On 4th November a question was asked of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs With reference to the negotiations which were then taking place with regard to the concession to the Canal Company, and an answer was given to the effect that the General Assembly would be convoked, that three official representatives of His Majesty's Government would be appointed, that the General Assembly would be asked to give the expression of their opinion, and that it was not advisable that any discussion should take place in the House of Commons. On 25th November a further question was addressed to the Foreign Secretary, and his answer again was that there would be no opportunity for discussing this question in the House

    1565
    of Commons. On 7th March, in answer to a further question upon the subject, the Secretary of State used these words:—
    "I cannot undertake to lay Papers until the matter has reached its last stage; and as it is not one. which is under the control of His Majesty's Government, I cannot promise that the House will have any opportunity for discussing it before it is finally settled." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1910, col. 498.]
    This was the general attitude of His Majesty's Government towards those who were anxious to discuss the question to find out what was really going on with regard to this important subject of the Suez Canal. The position may be summed up in these words—that the House of Commons was to have no opportunity of discussing the matter before it was officially settled. I would like to draw a parallel and compare that with the attitude of His Majesty's Consul-General in Egypt, representing the Government, towards the Egyptian General Assembly. I am quoting from the third page of the Consul General's Report:—
    "After much discussion and a thorough consideration of the various points involved the Ministers unanimously arrived at the conclusion that if certain amendments, which did not alter the main lines of the project were accepted, the proposed arrangement was undoubtedly advantageous to Egypt. At the same time they decided, in my opinion quite rightly, that although the question was not one upon which the Government were pledged by the terms of the organic law to consult the General Assembly, they would not, in view of the exceptional importance to present and future generations of Egyptians, come to a definite conclusion without ascertaining whether the General Assembly were favourable to the extension of this concession."
    If it was thought necessary, "in view of the exceptional importance to present and future generations of Egyptians," that these very important proposals should be gratuitously—because it was unnecessary under the organic law—submitted to discussion by the General Assembly of Egypt before a definite decision was come to, surely it was equally necessary, at any rate, that those proposals should have been submitted to a discussion by the House of Commons in view of the exceptional importance of this question to present and future generations of British subjects and the British Empire generally. It cannot be said that this policy of repression was altogether a success, because, as has already been pointed out, these proposals, which were the result, in the words of the Consul- General's Report, of long and laborious negotiations, did not as a matter of fact when they were submitted to the General Assembly receive that impartial and dignified consideration which we might have expected from a body of people to whose opinion so
    1566
    much weight was attached. I am inclined to think that if a discussion on this question had taken place in the House of Commons there is no reason to suppose that the tone of the Debate would have compared unfavourably with the proceedings which occurred in the Egyptian General Assembly. As a matter of fact, the General Assembly, to whose decision quite unnecessarily these proposals had been submitted on 7th April, rejected them by sixty-six votes to one, and the whole project fell to the ground. Although there has been no discussion of these proposals in the House of Commons, a considerable number of questions have from time to time been put to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and after reading them through very carefully, I have come to the conclusion that there was rather a tendency, from the tone of the answers given, to treat this matter as if it was one which concerned Egypt alone, and in which, as a matter of fact, the people of this country were not deeply interested. Supposing this extension and concession of the Canal Company was favourable to the ultimate interests of this country, and I conclude it must have been, or it would not have been backed up by the Government and the Consul-General in Egypt. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Mayo, we want more definite information than is given us in the very brief paragraph devoted to this very important subject in this Report. If it was backed by His Majesty's Government, and without information to the contrary I think we may assume it was, and if it was generally favourable to the future interests of this country as well as of Egypt, it does seem to me that if a stronger line had been taken up when the negotiations were in progress there is every probability they would have been brought to a successful conclusion. It is somewhat unfortunate that a matter which was considered to be of such a delicate nature that it was undesirable to discuss it here and a matter upon which such very vital and important interests depended should have been submitted for its ultimate decision to such an irresponsible body as the General Assembly of Egypt proved itself to be.
    It ought to be quite superfluous for anyone to mention it, but, in view of the attitude which I think I am justified in saying has been adopted by the Government during the course of these proceedings, it seems to be necessary we should

    1567
    insist on what is actually the fact: that the Suez Canal is of great national importance to us as well as to Egypt. After all, it affords us the quickest means of communication between this country and India, the East, and our Australasian Dominions. Three-quarters of the ships that pass through the Canal sail under the British flag, and we own a very large proportion of the shares of the company—43 per cent., to be accurate. Under these circumstances, surely anything that affects the future of the Suez Canal must be of the greatest importance from every point of view to this country and to the Empire. The terms of the proposed extension of the concession are very briefly referred to on page 3 of the Consul-General's Report, and, in view of the very great importance of the question, I really do think we are entitled to a more detailed account of the actual proposals which were made. After all, our holding in the company at the present time is estimated to be worth something like £25,000,000, to look at the matter merely from the financial point of view. It is not necessary for me to remind the House of the dramatic circumstances under which these shares were acquired in 1875, but what we paid rather less than £4,000,000 for is to-day worth £25,000,000, so it was altogether a thoroughly satisfactory bargain. In addition to that, during the last ten years we have received about £1,050,000 from the investment, and it has gone to relieve the taxpayers of this country. Therefore, I think the proposals so briefly referred to in the Consul-General's Report are of the very greatest importance to this country from every point of view. As everyone knows, the original concession to the company expires under present conditions in 1968, and the proposal, had this convention actually been carried into effect, was that under certain conditions the concession to the company should be extended to the year 2008. This, as the Consul-General states in his Report, was "a satisfactory bargain from the Egyptian point of view." But there are two questions of British interest not referred to in that Report, and they are of special interest in view of the possibility of these negotiations being revived. The first is the question of representation on the board of directors. The shares we own in the Suez Canal Company were acquired under exceptional circumstances. They were those allotted on the formation
    1568
    of the company to Said Pasha, and under the terms of the agreement they were not entitled to participate in the profits till 1894. When they were sold to the British Government the Khedive agreed to pay us 5 per cent. on the purchase price until 1894. The British Government originally purchased, I believe, 176,702 shares. By 23rd January, 1904, 7,179 of the shares had been redeemed, and our holding is now, I think, about 160,000 shares. But in spite of the fact that we own 43 per cent. of the whole of the shares we have only ten votes on the board of directors—the same number as any individual holding 250 shares is entitled to. There is no indication in the Report of the Consul-General of any intention to endeavour to remedy this unsatisfactory position in the negotiations for the extension of the company's concession, and that requires some attention, I think.
    The other point is one of great importance to this country, and in particular to British shipowners, and that is the question of the Canal dues. At a meeting of the Chamber of Shipping in London in February, Mr. Edward Hain, in his presidential address, drew attention to this matter, and referred to the conference held in 1883 between M. de Lesseps and the representatives of the shipowners, at which a definite promise was made, on behalf of the Canal Company, that, when the dividend paid by the company exceeded 25 per cent., the additional profits above 25 per cent. should be devoted to a reduction of the shipping dues until they were reduced to five francs per ton. The complaint of the shipowners is that this agreement has not been kept. At the time of this meeting in London the dividend was 28 per cent. But there has been no reduction in the dues since the year 1906, when there was one of 75 centimes, although a reduction was promised at a meeting of the Canal Company held last month of another 50 centimes—to 7 francs 25 centimes, as and from 1st January. 1911. This concession has only just been made. There seems no disputing the facts that the general terms of the 1883 Agreement have not been carried out by the Canal Company, and the shipowners are naturally anxious to know if these concessions are renewed whether their position is going to be made more satisfactory. These are two points which, I think, will be acknowledged to be of very great importance, indeed, about which there is no reference whatever in the Consul-General's Report, and about which we are entitled,

    1569
    I think, to ask for further information. I think very special and great interest attaches to those two points in view of the possibility of these negotiations being renewed. In the event of their being renewed, I do earnestly submit this point, that in view of the supreme importance of the Suez Canal, both to this country and the British Empire generally, if at some later day further negotiations take place affecting the future of the Canal, that whenever they are under consideration, the facilities for discussion confined on this occasion to the Egyptian Assembly will be equally extended to the House of Commons.
    Earl WINTERTON: I desire to put a question on a subject to which there has been important reference made in debates in this House, and in regard to which the Foreign Secretary has lately received a deputation, and upon which there is a strong feeling in many parts of the House, and that is the conditions of labour on the cocoa plantations at St. Thomé and Angola in Portuguese West Africa. It is unnecessary to go into the whole of the conditions of labour, and I will only say that it was known for very many years that in this West African Portuguese colony they were such as to cast a slur on the whole of Western civilization Attention was first drawn to the state of affairs in these islands by a book written by Lord Mayo in 1881, and subsequent to that, and a few years later, the late Mr. Stanley, in an account of that part of Africa, contained in a hook which he wrote in describing the conditions of labour in these islands said it was impossible to describe them otherwise than as slavery. Many Consular reports have been published from the British Consul in which he referred to the conditions of labour in these islands, in which there was a system of forced labour, and he mentioned that a good healthy man or woman cost about £50 in San Thomé and Angola, but the most scandalous description of all in regard to the condition of labour in San Thomé was supplied by a gentleman who was not biassed by any feelings or prejudices against the Portuguese, namely Mr. William Addington Cadbury. Mr. Cadbury wrote a book on the results of the investigations he made on a visit to San Thomé and Portuguese West Africa, and he stated that the condition of the islands were about as bad as it could be. Subsequently, under cross-examination
    1570
    in a certain trial, he said in the witness box, that the system by which labourers were obtained in Angola was a system of atrocious slavery.
    There have been many other testimonies of the same kind. A Mr. Levissohn who went out to Portuguese West Africa said much the same thing, and our questioner, Mr. Burt, who was sent out by the Aborigines' Protection Society, testified in very strong terms to the conditions which prevailed. It is not disputed on either side of the House that there exists in the Portuguese Colonies of San Thomé and Angola a system of slavery as bad as any which has existed in the world's history. I wish to review the attitude of the relations of the present and late Governments towards this question, and to press the Foreign Secretary very strongly to take more drastic action than he has hitherto done with regard to this question. There are many hon. Gentlemen opposite who hold, and constantly urge, the view that it is the duty of the British Government to interfere in cases where other Governments are ill-treating subject races. We have frequently had debates in which hon. Members have even suggested that, if necessary, we should intervene by force to prevent injustice to subject races. The hon. Member (Mr. Keir Hardie) has been among the most prominent whenever there has been a real or fancied case of ill-usage. They have generally been cases in which his own country is concerned, but I imagine he is sufficiently convinced of the need of such interference that he will be willing to use his influence when cases of ill-treatment are brought home to foreign countries. While we on this side of the House cannot hold the view that it is always either possible or desirable for the Government to interfere between other Powers and their subjects, we hold the view that in certain cases it is not only desirable but absolutely necessary that the British Government should not merely protest but, if necessary, should be prepared to back up that protest by force. That is particularly necessary in the case of Africa, because we are the Power above all others which has a standing and an influence in Africa. We have by far a larger number of black subjects in Africa than any other Power, and it is undoubtedly the fact that the treatment of natives by white men in Africa cannot be considered alone in the case of one country.

    1571
    If the treatment by the French of their native subjects in the Soudan was bad it would certainly react very considerably upon our position in the Soudan, and it is well known that there has been for many years a considerable agitation on the question of the treatment by the Congo Free State of the native population of the Congo. It is to my mind a rather curious fact that, through all the years the present Government have been in office, when we have had so many humanitarians opposite on the Front Bench and above and below the Gangway, until my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend raised the question in February in this House, we have not had a single Radical voice raised against the scandalous treatment of natives in Angola and San Thomé. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes, there was."] The hon. Member opposite seems to dissent. Can he point to any occasion on which a Radical voice was raised in last Parliament against these conditions? [An HON. MEMBER: "There was a deputation."] There was a deputation, but nothing was said in this House. I remember no occasion when the question was raised. There have been half-a-dozen debates on the treatment of natives in Egypt, India, the Colonies, and other places. The case of Angola may have been incidentally referred to by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the Forest of Dean (Sir C. Dilke), but I cannot recollect at the moment. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why do you not raise it?"] We have raised it constantly in the Press during the past year. The point is that we have not for the last few years professed to be protectors of the black races throughout the world. If I may say so, the role adopted by certain Members of the House is that of protectors-in-chief of the black races throughout the world. The only reason we have raised the question this evening is because there has been considerable inconsistency in this matter. I think hon. Gentlemen who have devoted so much valuable time to laying bare scandals in India and Egypt might, with even greater reason, have occupied their time in dealing with the scandals in Angola. The object I have in initiating this Debate is not so much to refer to anything that has taken place in the past as to urge on the Government the need for action in the future. I commenced by saying that I think we have on general grounds a considerable right of interference in respect of the treatment of
    1572
    native races in Africa by Powers other than ourselves. Does anyone dispute that?
    Sir J. D. REES: I do.
    Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member disputes that. His views do not always coincide with those of his own party, but they generally, though not always, coincide with the views of those who sit on this side of the House. If that is the case on general grounds, we have a much stronger case on particular grounds. We have had for a hundred years various treaties and understandings with Portugal which was throughout last century, and particularly the first part of it, a Power of considerable influence in Africa. We have a very distinct understanding on this subject, and as long ago as 1832 we had a Treaty with Portugal which gave to His Britannic Majesty's Government considerable power in regard to the slave traffic in Africa. We had a further Treaty in 1842, by which the two high contracting Powers, Portugal and Great Britain, mutually declared themselves in favour of strictly prohibiting slavery in every part of their respective dominions.
    I say most emphatically that Portugal has by her action during the last ten years broken that treaty, and in addition to that there was proposed at the Brussels Convention in 1892 a further clause dealing with the same question, in which it was stated that any person who it was ascertained had been carried off by force from any part of Africa shall be liberated. We have had other treaties and understandings with Portugal during the last 100 years. Undoubtedly if we were to stand by our strict rights in the matter of treaties we should have an undoubted right to interfere in the case of Angola and San Thomé. From the year 1902 onwards representations have been made to the Foreign Secretary for the time being as to the grave state of affairs in San Thomé. In 1901 a deputation waited upon the Foreign Secretary, which included no less a person than the present First Lord of the Admiralty. Representations were made to the Foreign Secretary asking him to send at once a Note to the Portuguese Government calling attention to the state of affairs in San Thormé, and to ask that the system by which those persons who had been taken compulsorily from their homes across the sea to San Thomé should stop, and that the persons so taken should be, liberated. The time that this deputa-

    1573
    tion waited on the then Foreign Secretary was at the close of the South African War, and there were many reasons which made it difficult, if not impossible, for this country to interfere with the question at that time; but representations were made, and soon after that there was some alleviation of the conditions of the slaves in San Thomé. But very soon, when the question died down, things became as bad as ever.
    Then the present Government came into Power, and another deputation waited on them from the same society—the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines Protection Society in 1907, calling attention to the fact that very little had been done. That has been supported by no less a personage than Mr. Cadbury, who stated last year that although the Portuguese Government promised a great deal, and made various new regulations, nothing whatever had been done really to alleviate the condition of the slaves. Finally a deputation waited on the right hon. Gentleman the other day from this society, which, oddly enough, was very quiet last year at a time when considerable attention was given to the way in which cocoa was raised in San Thomé with more than one newspaper, and was the subject of comment on various platforms. But this year, as some of us think, as a result of a certain amount of pressure put upon the same society, there was a deputation consisting of a number of distinguished persons. I only regret that neither Mr. George Cadbury nor Mr. Joseph Rowntree was able to be present. The deputation pointed out with considerable force that nothing had been done during these seven years to lead to any real alleviation of the position of these people; the right hon. Gentleman made a speech in reply, which he commenced by saying that the root of the evil was with recruiting itself on the mainland, and that what laid this open to the charge of slavery was that the people were captured by force.
    That is a very mild way of stating the case. We know that slavery generally means that people are captured and forced to do what they do not want to do, and if this system of obtaining labour is not slavery I do not know what is. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was convinced that if the facts were brought to the notice of the Portuguese Government stringent action would be taken to change the state of affairs, and that new regulations had been established in the Province of
    1574
    Angola. All that is very interesting, but it does not strike in the least at the root of the evil. These men are compelled against their will to serve in San Thomé and Principé, where the death-rate is twenty per 1000, and where these people never have any chance of repatriation, but are compelled to spend the rest of their lives there.
    The first thing which His Majesty's Government should impress upon the Portuguese Government is that it is necessary something should be done in reference to obtaining this labour. I agree that it is almost impossible to get natives to work without having indentured labour. But there is a great deal of difference between having indentured labour, where that labour is given voluntarily under indenture for two, five or ten years, and the system under which natives are seized by the local Portuguese governor and compelled to enter into an indenture to work for ten, fifteen, or twenty years in a far-off country, from which they have not the slightest prospect of returning. That is the system of indentured labour which exists in these Portuguese islands, and I say that His Majesty's Government should urge on the Portuguese Government that men should not be compelled against their will to become indentured labourers. It is essential that the Consuls of the Great Powers should have the right to inspect the conditions under which these men are indentured, and also to search the vessels in which they are brought from Angola to San Thomé and Principé. In this country during the past ten years we have made inquiry into, and, if necessary, entered protests against the conditions of labour in different parts of the world which we believed to be a reproach to the State. We have made ourselves very unpopular on the Continent in many ways by our protests against the system of forced labour, and we should be written down as humbugs and hypocrites if we did not protest against the system of labour which exists in San Thomé and Principé. I appeal particularly—
    Mr. JOYCE: What about Chinese labour in British ships?
    Earl WINTERTON: The Chinamen went to South Africa entirely of their own free will. Not a single Chinaman entered into a contract except by his own free will. Does any hon. Member deny that?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Does the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil——
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: The means adopted to induce the Chinese to go to South Africa were so——
    Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a question for the Foreign Office.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIE: I was only replying to the hon. Member.
    Earl WINTERTON: In reply to the interruption from below the Gangway on this side, I say that not a single Chinaman went to work in the mines of South Africa by any other method except his own free will. I say that in the cocoa plantations of San Thome and Principé, in which several hon. Gentlemen opposite have a very real interest, not a single labourer went to work except by force and by compulsion of a kind which, in the old days of the Liberal party, would have produced protests from every Nonconformist pulpit, and from every Liberal platform in England. We have travelled far since those days. In those days the Liberal party was composed of many classes and many interests. It was not dependent, as it is to-day, on a small class, and one big interest for funds to carry on its election campaigns in the country. The result is we do not have those protests to-day, and a great many people in America and Europe consider that we have reached such a pitch of hyprocrisy that, although we are ready to protest against the conditions of labour in the Congo and places like that, we are not ready to protest against equal or worse conditions in the Portuguese islands, because we have, or did have, big trade relations with them. I wish to impute no motives to the Foreign Secretary, but I do say that if he wishes to remove the suspicion that undoubtedly exists at the present time, he can only do it by addressing to Portugal a protest against the conditions that exist, and by informing them that unless those conditions are improved at the end of a few months that this country will avail herself of her undoubted rights under many treaties with Portugal, and do as she would have done forty or fifty years ago—that is, use the power of her Navy to end a condition of affairs which I have not the slightest hesitation in saying is a slur to the whole civilized world.
    Mr. HARWOOD: My reason for rising is that I represent a constituency which has materially more interest in Egypt than any other constituency in the country. I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend
    1576
    (Mr. Dillon) into the high politics that he spoke of, but to look at this matter from another point of view. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking about treaties, said that they had a bad side, and I think what he meant by that was that they had an £ s. d. or money side which some people consider bad. I do not. I think that bread and butter is the basis of everything. What is the use of having armies and navies and empires if your people at home have not the means of living? There fore we have to look at this from this point of view, nor will I follow the hon. Member into the history of our position. All that he says may be quite true. We may have gone there for one reason or another; but the question we have to consider is, What shall we do in the future? Are we to remain there? We must make up our minds about that. We had better be frank about it, and tell the world what we mean to do, and readjust our relations to other Powers from that point of view. Do we mean to quit Egypt, or to stay there? I am speaking from my own point of view and that of my people. Personally I have been in touch with Egypt for many years, and know something about the country from certain points of view. We are not there for the good of Egypt primarily; therefore I leave that out entirely. But I say we are bound to remain there.
    You may say that we in Lancashire are selfish. But we have got to look after our business; and any Government, however much we might agree with it on other questions, we should do our utmost to throw out if it wavered on this matter. There are two reasons for this. One concerns India and our eastern possessions generally. We have been told to-day that we have lost certain markets, and everybody knows that our largest markets and our chief possibilities lie in the East. Egypt is the last place we pass towards the East, and as far as in us lies we should never allow any Power to block our way there. We should fight rather than consent to what we consider would he the strangulation of our trade. It would mean the stoppage of the employment of our people; it would be the greatest possible disaster, and Lancashire would not for one moment listen to it. The second point is our relationship to Egypt and our dependence upon it. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) spoke quite lightly about the state of rule in Egypt before we went there. I would like to remind him,

    1577
    when he speaks with horror about our going to countries which do not belong to us, that these Mahomedans, about whose religious observances he gave us such a picturesque account, are themselves interlopers, and that the people of whom he spoke rather slightingly are really the descendants of the original possessors. That is, roughly speaking, the truth of the matter.
    I speak, I hope, as a practical man. I want this thing to be looked at from a practical point of view. There is no doubt that the hon. Member for East Mayo is quite right when he says that there has been a great wave of disaffection in Egypt. My own opinion completely confirms that. I believe that one of the causes of that is that there has also been growing in Egypt for the last two or three years a feeling that we were likely to go: that there was some uncertainty in the House of Commons and in English opinion, and there were hopes that we should abandon the country if we were pressed enough. I believe that the cure for the disaffection is not to give way to that feeling, but to make it quite clear to the people of Egypt that we do not mean to go, and that they must accept that as an axiom of the position. There is no reason, however, why we should not give to them a large measure of self-government, but it must be based upon the recognition of our abiding predominance in the country. That is the view that we take in my part of the country—[HON MEMBERS: "No, no!"]—and any Government that ventures to go against that view will have a very bad time in Lancashire. And when the opportunity arises, as it may, we should have with Turkey, France and the other Powers concerned a rearrangement of our understanding on the subject. The present position is extremely hampering to financial arrangements, and it makes Government exceedingly difficult. We should try and do "a deal" with the countries concerned, frankly stating our position in the words, j'y suis, j'y reste.
    The other matter I wish to mention is the development of the country for the good of this country. It is with regard to the cotton trade that I desire to plead with the Foreign Secretary. It is of great importance to the national welfare. The raw material of the cotton trade is brought 3,000 or 4,000 miles across the ocean, and after its manufacture in these little islands the goods are carried 3,000 or 4,000 miles perhaps back again to the land from
    1578
    which the raw material came. We depend entirely upon foreign countries for our raw material. We, at present, are suffering from causes which, I fear, are not temporary—causes which those of us who have looked at this matter seriously feel extremely anxious about. This is a most serious matter. The shortness of supply of the raw material promises to be an increasing difficulty. It will not be mitigated, or at any rate it will not be done away with, by the next crop or the one after that. If you take the figures of consumption in the United States and watch the development of manufacture going on there, you will find that in twenty years the United States, which is now our chief source of supply for raw material, will not send us any at all. I saw in to-day's "Times" that that was likely to be the case in regard to wheat; it will certainly be the case in regard to cotton. What are we going to do at home with this great trade and this great organisation of thousand upon thousands of workpeople in that event? What is going to happen?
    Where is the raw material to come from to replace that upon which we are depending so long? I look about with great anxiety, and I have come to the conclusion that the likeliest country is the Soudan. I do not know what may be done by Nigeria or Uganda or any of those countries which we are trying to develop, but the physical conditions of all these countries are such that they do not promise a supply that will replace that of America, and the only country whose conditions are such as to give promise of the necessary supplies—moderately flat and a good water supply—is the Soudan. It happens that this country is under our control and is now a waste. I put a question to the Foreign Secretary about this matter as to whether something could not be done with the co-operation of the Government. I do not come here ad misericordiam for my own trade, but I want to point out to the Government that this disaster should be anticipated and provided against. I got what I might call a frigid answer in the shape of a quotation from Sir Eldon Gorst, that this must be done by private enterprise. Does anyone who knows anything of the Soudan believe that any adequate development of that country could be made by private enterprise? Much depends upon irrigation, and when you touch the question of irrigation you begin to touch problems of water supply and the Nile. All these matters

    1579
    require the co-operation of the State. I quite acknowledge there nave been small attempts at irrigation.
    Mr. DILLON: Would you make Egypt pay for it?
    Mr. HARWOOD: Not only would we not make Egypt pay but we would make a profit. I am not asking that the Government should put a money loss on the Egyptians. I never had that for one moment in my mind, but I plead most earnestly with the Foreign Secretary to be a little more sympathetic in the way he approaches this matter. We cannot do it by private enterprise. There is a British Cotton Association struggling to raise a little money. If we had an adequate scheme for giving us what we require the money would be found. But we must have an adequate scheme, and we cannot have that without the systematic co-operation of the Government. Therefore I ask the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the great cotton trade with which the welfare of the nation is so much bound up, to consult with Sir Eldon Gorst and see if something cannot be done by the co-operation of all concerned to make the Soudan what it was originally—the great source of supply. It is the original home of the cotton plant. Sir Eldon Gorst's report admits it is a most fertile country if it only gets a proper supply of water. Another thing where co-operation comes in is the lack of labour, and that can only be met by combined action with the Government. Therefore, on behalf of the trade in which I am interested, and the people I represent, I ask the Government to give a most sympathetic consideration to this matter.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): Perhaps I had better deal with the first question raised in the Debate, that of the Suez Canal. It was raised in such a way that it will be difficult for me to disentangle it in view of the way it was handled by the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. Member for Wells. The hon. Member for East Mayo looked at it from the point of view of Egypt. The hon. Member for Wells began speaking of it as if he were taking it up in the same spirit, but he really, though apparently sometimes speaking from the point of view of Egypt, was speaking on behalf of British interests. I must take these two aspects of the question separately. In the first place the hon. Member
    1580
    for East Mayo spoke of the correspondence between the Suez Canal Company and the Government of Egypt. I have not seen the correspondence. I regard it as the business of the Government of Egypt to have a free hand in dealing with the Suez Canal Company, and to make its own terms from the point of view of Egyptian interests, and it should have a free chance to make the best bargain it can in the interests of Egypt. I did not follow the correspondence between the Suez Canal Company and the Egyptian Government. I did not see it. Even if I had I do not think it would have been possible to lay it on the Table, and I imagine that every bargain of that kind between a great Company of the standing of the Suez Canal Company and another Government must be exceedingly difficult at almost every stage of its negotiations. When that result had been arrived at between the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal Company I was informed of it by Sir Eldon Gorst. We had to look at it here for the purpose of discussion from the point of view of the Egyptian interests.
    Mr. DILLON: Did the English Government give no instruction to its representatives on the Board of the Suez Canal Company, and were they not kept informed as to the nature of the negotiations?
    Sir E. GREY: I said I would discuss this question in two parts—first, the Egyptian interests, then the British interests. The position of the British directors on the Suez Canal Company is to look after British interests, and that is separate from the question of the Egyptian interests. The Egyptian Government have to look after Egyptian interests. They made a bargain with the Suez Canal Company. We were informed of the terms here. They were reviewed by us to see whether, looking at them impartially, it was in our opinion a good bargain or not in the interests of Egypt. If it had seemed to us here that it was a bad bargain in the interests of Egypt, that oversights had been made, and that the Egyptian Government had had the worst of it, then I think we should have been bound to step in, point out the mistakes made, and advise the Egyptian Government to disregard the decision of the General Assembly. But if it had seemed to us that the Egyptian Government had been a good judge of what the interests of Egypt were, then I think I was bound to let the Egyptian Government proceed and keep the matter of British interests for

    1581
    separate consideration. That was the action I took. It seemed to me that the bargain the Egyptian Government made, and believed to be a good bargain in Egyptian interests, was in fact a good bargain, but it was not essential to Egypt that the concession should be renewed. No great disaster would happen in Egypt and no disturbance be caused if it were not renewed, and I do not therefore think it was a question we ought to force upon the Egyptian Government or people, but was one on which they ought to be left free to decide themselves, whether they would close the bargain that had been made or not. That was the attitude we took.
    The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) regretted that there had been so many false reports, and said something about the Fetva of the Grand Mufti. I am glad I published the text which disposed of that particular report. But there were other false reports. False reports were published that we, the British Government, were pressing upon Egypt what was a bad bargain in the Egyptian interests, because we were shareholders in the Suez Canal Company. Reports were also put about that the Khedive was a large shareholder in the Suez Canal Company. I knew nothing, whether he was or not, and I answered a question to that effect. I have been informed since that he had no shares. All these reports entirely prejudiced the question in Egypt, and they were absolutely untrue. It is quite true we have to think of our own interests and not only of Egyptian interests; but I think it would have been most unfair for us to step in between the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal Company and say the Egyptian Government, when it had the opportunity of doing a fair and a good piece of business in the interests of Egypt, was to be estopped and prevented by us from doing it because we wished to use Egypt as a lever to further our own ends. That would have been most unfair, and that position I never took up. I left the Egyptian Government free to go on with the thing; but in view of the fact that Egyptian opinion became very excited about it, I think Sir Eldon Gorst was quite right in consenting that it should be submitted to the General Assembly and in leaving the Egyptian Government free to take its own course after the General Assembly had considered it, and therefore the prolongation of the concession was not proceeded with.
    1582
    We have to look at any question of the extension of the Suez Canal Concession also from the point of view of British interests. That, I think, we ought to reserve, and we did partly reserve discussion between the British directors and their colleagues on the Board of Directors. That was the natural place for us to bring forward our interests, and, as a matter of fact, considerable discussion took place. First of all, there is the point of view of the shareholders, which is the Treasury point of view, and then there is the point of view of the shipowners, which the Board of Trade had carefully to consider. We had to consider these great interests, and they were very carefully considered by the Treasury and the Board of Trade, as well as by the Foreign Office, in conjunction with those two Departments, and in consultation, too, with the official directors of the Suez Canal Company. Our directors on the Board of the Company are, and always have been, on terms of the utmost cordiality with their colleagues on the Board, and the discussions which took place between them would, I believe, have resulted in such conclusions with regard to the future administration of the Company, that the prolongation of the Concession might well have been recommended to this country from the point of view of British interests. But a good deal more had to be discussed. There was the question of representation on the Suez Canal Board which has been under discussion here for many years. It has been carefully considered by the Board of Trade. Considerable difficulties attaches to it.
    Then, again, there is the question of the reduction of the Canal dues. These are matters of the utmost importance, and had the negotiations proceeded undoubtedly the prolongation of the Suez Canal Concession would have been discussed and criticised from both those points in this House. But in my opinion these are matters to be considered by the Treasury and the Board of Trade when the question of the extension of the Concession again comes up both from the point of view of the reduction of the dues and that of representation on the Board. Undoubtedly, if the negotiations are resumed and reach a conclusion, the question will be discussed in this House, and the Government of the day will have to put before the House the considerations which guided them in instructing the official directors as to the vote they may give either for or against the prolongation

    1583
    of the concession. From the point of view of British interests I think it is our duty to put these matters before the Company through our official directors, although, of course, in any future action the Government of the day will be responsible for the instructions given to and votes given by the official directors. I trust I have made this complicated question somewhat clearer than it was when the Debate first began. It is extremely difficult for any one in my position to deal with this question, having both points of view to consider; I have endeavoured to steer a perfectly straight course and to be fair to the interests of Egypt, while giving due consideration at the same time to British interests.
    Mr. DILLON: Did the British Government leave the Egyptian Assembly perfectly free, and bring no pressure to bear on the Egyptian Government?
    Sir E. GREY: My instructions were that no pressure was to be brought to bear on them. The Egyptian Government, of course, brought forward its own arguments. We brought no pressure to bear on the Assembly. We were, of course, party to the matter being referred to the Assembly, and I take the responsibility for that it could have said it should not be referred, but in view of the importance of the matter to Egypt, and in view of the fact it was not essential and necessary to Egypt that the bargain should be concluded, and seeing that the prolongation of the Concession was not a matter of vital importance to Egypt—had it been otherwise we might have refused to let it go before the Assembly, or have advised the Egyptian Government to disregard the decision of the Assembly should it be in a certain direction—we decided, I think rightly, that it should be referred to the Assembly, which should be allowed to give its opinion freely, and that the Egyptian Government if it so desired should agree to abide by that decision. That is the course we took. I must pass to the more general criticism of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon). I do not complain of his having raised the question of the Suez Canal Concession at all, because I know it is a complicated matter and requires to be elucidated. I do not complain of his having raised the question of Egypt, but I regret exceedingly a great deal of what he said. He belittled in every possible way the policy which he
    1584
    said we had followed, or professed to follow, of encouraging the development of self government in Egypt. He did worse than that He did not give us credit for honest motives in doing it. He said in fact it was a Machiavellian policy calculated to sow dissension between the Kopts and the Mussulmans. I point out in answer to that that when the policy was announced in Egypt it produced some very strong criticism from some quarters of a very different kind. They thought that the policy had gone too far. But if that sort of thing is to be said—that it is a Michiavellian policy, is intended to sow dissension and so forth—it is a very poor encouragement to prosecute such attempts of the kind. It was precisely because such efforts as we did make met with no response from the bulk of the Nationalist opinion in Egypt, because instead of being responded to by increased interest in the development of the Government of Egypt and the efficiency of it—instead of producing anything of that kind—it resulted in a barren and futile agitation against British occupation—it was precisely because of that I made the speech I did the other day. When the hon. Gentleman spoke of what happened under Lord Cromer with regard to Press law and so forth, if I remember aright—I have had no opportunity of referring—Lord Cromer, since his return to England, only made one speech. The Press law has not been used in any extreme sense in Egypt, and it is in the opinion of the authorities there, and in my opinion, absolutely essential that there should be Some law of that kind, and it should be used if it were necessary to keep order.
    I regret exceedingly the remarks which the hon. Member for Mayo made on the subject of the late Prime Minister who was assassinated, Boutros Pasha. The late Prime Minister was a man of great experience, and one who had shown great capacity and efficiency in administration. The hon. Member for Mayo regards his appointment as being a deliberate provocation of the Mussulmans and the Kopts. There was no outcry on his appointment. The hon. Member spoke as if no such thing had ever happened before. I have not thought much as to the religious denominations to which former Prime Ministers belonged, but surely there have been Christian Prime Ministers in Egypt before. Nubar Pasha was Prime Minister for many years, and no accusation of this

    1585
    kind was made against the Government of the day who appointed him, that that was the motive of his appointment—and if that is so, why should this be said to-day, and especially about a man who has been assassinated, really because he had been an efficient administrator, and really looked at the questions from the point of view of the general interests of the people of Egypt. I regret the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. Dillon), because remarks of that kind are bound to have some effect if they are reported in Egypt in increasing the tendency to intolerance and fanaticism. If intolerance and fanaticism are increased I am sure it is not due to anything which we have done, but it may be due to comments of that kind with regard to such a man as Boutros Pasha. The hon. Member who accused us of these motives in having secured the appointment of Boutros Pasha as Prime Minister, passed over entirely in silence the fact that when his successor was appointed immediately after the assassination, we were attacked and criticised in other quarters for having appointed a man of too pronounced Nationalist tendencies—a criticism which I have seen again and again. Why he should attack us on one of these things and not think it fair to defend us from the other, or not take notice of the other as a reason why he should have discarded the criticism which he pronounced on the first, I cannot reconcile with fair discussion of the real problems of Egypt.
    12.0 M.
    With reference to the cultivation of cotton in Egypt I quite agree that there are British interests to be considered, and that occasions may arise when it is difficult on some particular questions to reconcile British and Egyptian interests. In such a case as that the British Government must be exceedingly careful to hold the balance fair, and to remember that it has other interests to consider than Egyptian interests, and that British interests must not be pushed to the extent of sacrificing Egyptian interests. But on the particular point of the growth of cotton no conflict of that kind need arise. The hon. Member (Mr. Harwood) said I was wanting in sympathy in what I have said about this question. I think he has mistaken caution for want of sympathy. I have been intending to do exactly what he advised me to do, and go carefully into this question of developing cotton cultivation. I know quite well how very important it is. Pending my having an opportunity of doing that I
    1586
    have perhaps been a little jejune in the answers I have given. If so I am glad to have an opportunity of explaining the matter as far as I can. I know this question of the supply of cotton is a matter of the very greatest importance, and we ought to neglect no opportunity of urging in Egypt the cultivation of cotton if it can he supplied of the quality which is needed on an economical basis, and there is no conflict between British and Egyptian interests. In that case, if what the hon. Member says about the Soudan and Egypt is true, it is clear that there may be great developments in the growth of cotton which may not merely be a benefit to Lancashire but a great mutual benefit to the farmer as well as to the user. But we have to remember that Egypt at present pays for the deficit of the Soudan, and it would be most unfair that irrigation should be carried to a point in the Soudan which would oblige Egypt to pay for the deficit, and at the same time deprive her of water which is necessary for Egypt. Therefore, that has to be very carefully looked after. The hon. Gentleman said this could not be entirely left to private enterprise. I can only speak my own personal opinion on this point. I quite agree that the matter is of such importance that, provided private enterprise is not sufficient to take advantage of what are real opportunities of averting the great dangers of a shortage of cotton, it would be a case for any British Government very carefully to consider whether State action should not come to the rescue. But, as I have said, I can only express a personal opinion on this point, because it is far more than a departmental question. I do not think it would be right in such a case that we should, in the interests of cotton growing, expect Egypt to provide the money, and if it is a question for the British Government to embark on the expenditure of money to increase the production of cotton, that is a question which no department could answer. It would have to be considered very carefully by the Government as a whole. It would have to be considered notably in consultation with the Colonial Office, for instance. First of all they would have to decide the principle whether this was such a case that it would be desirable that Government action should be taken, and in the next place they would have to consider carefully in what part of the world it would be desirable that such efforts should he made. I can therefore make no promise

    1587
    of any kind on that, but I wish to impress on the hon. Member that I do know the importance of this question, and that, as far as increasing the amount of cotton grown in Egypt and the Soudan is concerned, I am sure Sir Eldon Gorst and Sir Reginald Wingate are equally alive to its importance. It will be discussed most carefully with them in order to see what it is in the power of the Egyptian Government to do in the production of cotton. But that like everything else in which the prosperity of Egypt is bound up, depends upon there being no doubt as to our staying there. The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) in his speech, if he was logically right, if it were brought to a logical conclusion—I do not know whether he meant it—meant that we should evacuate that country.
    Mr. DILLON: Yes; according to your own promise.
    Sir E. GREY: I fully admit that in the history of the British occupation of Egypt there has not been logic, and there has not been foresight. We have drifted into the occupation of the country, but we have been there a long time, and we have now to deal not with logic, but with facts and consequences. These are what we have to deal with at the present time. One fact is that Egypt has grown in material prosperity. The Government has been enormously improved, gross evils which previously existed in Egypt, the koorbash, and the corvée, have disappeared. The hon. Member spoke of Egypt as having been comparatively crimeless—crimeless as regards the population—but what were the conditions and methods of government? Even if there is comparatively little record of crime on the part of the population I am sure it is because statistics are not available, and the chief crimes were on the part of the Government and the officials under the methods of Government in the old days before the occupation.
    We have produced prosperity and order. I cannot imagine anything more unsettling, more disastrous, more certain to provoke disorder and destroy confidence and impair the whole state of affairs in Egypt than that I should unsay one single word of what I said the other day. On the contrary, I reaffirm everything I said the other day with regard to our general policy in Egypt. Much mischief has been caused without any reason or justification by
    1588
    doubts being disseminated as to whether we were firm in our intention to retain our responsibility in Egypt. The moment I realised that that was the case I thought it the first duty of any British Government to take the opportunity of putting an end to these doubts. I believe what I said the other day has had that effect, and I am exceedingly glad it has had that effect. If I am challenged on the subject I must only repeat it every time I am challenged. I believe it is absolutely essential. Many of those who refer to this subject have very little conception of the evil, the mischief which would result if by any chance the British Government today left any uncertainty in people's minds as to whether they intended to retain the occupation of Egypt.
    The last point was raised by the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) opposite, as to the Portuguese labour system in the islands of San Thomé and Principé, and the way in which that labour is obtained on the mainland. We always assume in this House that when questions of this kind are raised, whether it be in connection with the Congo or in connection with such a question as was raised this afternoon, the real motive, the sole and only motive in raising the question at all is a real and deep sympathy with the interests of the natives. Sometimes that sympathy is disguised by the speeches which are made on the subject being diverted into attacks on third persons. I do not say that to-night is the first occasion on which I have known that to happen, and I do not say it always happens on one side of the House. The Noble Lord spoke strongly, no doubt, of the Portuguese Government and the state of things which existed in the Portuguese colony, of which he expressed the poorest opinion. But it seemed to me, listening to the speech, that there were some, a great many, of his own fellow countrymen who in he disliked much more than the Portuguese. The Noble Lord gave us a history of the question. With a great deal of his history as to what occurred in past times I do not wish to find fault. He said that this state of affairs first became known in 1881, and that there was a report made in 1901, and that the facts have been known now for a long time. I do not wish to find fault with that. But if any credit is to be taken for having brought the facts to light with the object of a remedy being found for the state of affairs, I think that on this side of the House, speaking as the Liberal party, we

    1589
    stand quite well as to share in that which has been done to bring the facts to light and to publicity. In 1901, the Noble Lord says, the Government of the party to which he belongs, was first asked to make representations to the Portuguese Government. He showed a generosity and ingenuity in apologising for their action which he did not extend to us when he came to criticise ours. He said 1901 was not a convenient time, being just after the South African War, but the Government remained in office, and did not go out of office until four years after 1901. He said nothing about what the Government had done in those succeeding four years, or whether what they had done was satisfactory to him or not. I have no reason to reflect upon our predecessors on this question. I am quite sure that Lord Lansdowne was quite as much in earnest as we ourselves have been, and therefore I do not reflect in the least on anything which was done or omitted to be done by the last Conservative Government. But I do say to the Noble Lord, if he thinks the present Government has been lacking in dealing with this question, that if he compares the action which we have taken in the four years we have been in office with the action which his own Government took during the four years after 1901, we have no fear that our energy and zeal will suffer by the comparison. I do not in the least complain of the Noble Lord saying how bad the state of things has been. That has been said in many quarters. But what I do think was not right in his speech—and I am the more surprised at it when he quoted a speech of mine made the other day—was that he did not recognise that the Portuguese Government have within the last year done what has completely changed the whole state of affairs. The Noble Lord read what I said that first of the evil was recruiting on the main land in the colony of Angola. People were there recruited indiscriminately and by force, and brought down to the coast by by force, with no means of escape, and they were taken to these islands by force. But we have been urgent in bringing all the information brought to us to the notice of the Portuguese Government from time to time in order to convince them that the state of things was such as to require a remedy. It is very difficult, speaking on a matter of this kind, for any one in the position of a Member of the Government to say all we have done in the matter. We are not dealing with our own
    1590
    territory. The Noble Lord advocated a right of general interference and the use of force. But what does the use of force mean? Is force a remedy? It is only a remedy if we are ready to take the thing in hand ourselves. That is not what we are going to do, for various reasons, in any of these matters. As long as the territory belongs to another country it has to be done with the Government of the other country, to which you must look for a remedy of the state of affairs. If you are continually boasting of the representations which you have made to the other Government you make it not easy but difficult for that Government to take action in its own country, because you excite its own public opinion against it, and there is resentment on the ground of the interference of a foreign power. I only say that we have lost no opportunity of bringing the facts to the notice of the Portuguese Government, believing that if they were convinced of the facts they would see that the state of things was such that they would see that an end must be put to them. We have succeeded in convincing them of the state of the case. Last year they stopped recruiting on the mainland altogether, and got the labour, not from Angola at all, but from Mozambique on the east coast, where there has been recruiting for years. They stopped recruiting altogether. They have now resumed recruiting under certain regulations, as the Noble Lord said. He read out the regulations, but I am not sure that he read them all or that they were all reported fully.
    Earl WINTERTON: I do not think so.
    Sir E. GREY: I have not read the report, but from memory they are quite correct as far as they go. Even as far as they went surely they made it clear that if those are carried out there can be no recruiting of natives against their will. They are only to be recruited in certain districts where there is an administration and where the facts can be known, and the indentures are to be voluntary engagements.
    Earl WINTERTON: Nothing in that speech would lead one to believe that those regulations were framed for voluntary indentures.
    Sir E. GREY: That is precisely why they were framed. The whole object was that the recruitment should be voluntary, and that no batch of natives should leave from the coast for those islands without

    1591
    its being ascertained that they understood the contract into which they are entering, and entered into it voluntarily. If those regulations which have been communicated to us are carried out efficiently, they must make it certain that no man will be recruited against his will in those Portuguese islands. I said that the Portuguese Government are convinced of the fact that a remedy was needed, and they have issued regulations which, if they are efficiently carried out, will provide ample remedy. They first of all stopped recruiting altogether until these regulations were enforced; and they have now resumed under regulations which, if they are carried out properly, must prevent people being recruited against their will. I think it is right that the Portuguese Government, after all that has happened in past years, should be open and fair in giving the public the opportunity of judging whether the regulations are in fact producing those results, which I am sure they are intended to produce, and the Portuguese Government agreed that the engagement of the natives would be public, that anybody may attend and see how the thing is done, and satisfy himself that the natives are voluntarily engaged and understand what they are doing. After he has served his time of three years he is to be repatriated at the expense of the employers, and if he decides to re-engage that re-engagement also is to be made public, so that it is quite clear that he understands what he is doing, and is re engaging voluntarily.
    I propose to take advantage of that, and I have already sent instructions, as I explained to the deputation, that our Consuls should take full advantage of the publicity to watch how the regulations work, and they are instructed to report on them here. We have appointed a Vice-Consul on the island that he may take advantage of that publicity and make reports as to what happens on the islands. I maintain that, considering that this country is not our territory, and considering that the Treaty rights involved are not nearly so strong as the Noble Lord makes out—and I have carefully examined them—we have been securing by bringing the facts to the knowledge of the Portuguese first the suspension of recruiting, and that it shall be resumed, and only resumed, under these careful conditions, and then by the fact that there is publicity of what is done, and if we follow them up, as
    1592
    I have already instructed our Consuls to follow them up by making reports on the subject, I think we shall have done all that could honourably and fairly be asked of us in a matter which is exceedingly delicate, and one in which, as it was so grave, some of the delicacies of diplomacy might not always be observed.
    Mr. C. E. PRICE: Is it not a fact that some of the Consuls have been managers for firms who have employed these people, and are consequently not wholly disinterested?
    Sir E. GREY: Oh, no; that is not so. I cannot speak certainly about the Vice-Consul recently appointed on the islands, but people like Consul Nightingale are paid Consuls in the Consular service. The Consul I have instructed to report is a paid Consul in the British service; he is not a trader at all.
    Mr. PRICE: That is not my point. I understand that a man has been employed as Vice-Consul who was formerly manager for one of these firms who engaged natives. It would have been better to have engaged men who had not been so employed.
    Sir E. GREY: If the hon. Member will give me the name I will inquire into it. That is certainly not the case with the head Consul. He has no interest in any of these matters, and is just as impartial and just as capable of reporting on these things fairly and honourably as any of our Consuls in the Congo. That is what is intended. That is the case certainly with those that I know about. If there is any case I do not know about, if the hon. Member will give me the name I will inquire into it. It is very discouraging when, as the result of the communications with the Portuguese Government, this very considerable advance has been made, there should be such a speech as that of the Noble Lord, as though there had been no alteration and no improvement whatever.
    Earl WINTERTON: Mr. Cadbury himself stated last year that the regulations were no better.
    Sir E. GREY: If that is so, I can only say I do not agree with him. I went over the whole case very carefully with the deputation the other day, and the regulations are as I have stated to the House. If they do not work out as expected no doubt there will be grave

    1593
    dissatisfaction and very great disappointment, and there will be further reference to treaty rights and so forth. But no negotiations, I am sure, could secure more on paper than these have done, if we follow them up by taking advantage of the publicity to ensure that they are working, and have full reports of how the regulations actually work. It is in the interest of the Portuguese nation that there should be publicity; it is not in their interest that such speeches as that of the Noble Lord should continue to be made. I know perfectly well that apprehension on this question will not be allayed until we have proof not merely what the regulations are, but how they are working, and the Portuguese Government ought to recognise that fact. But I maintain that the Portuguese Government having done what they have done, which is something quite different from anything which has taken place before, show that they do recognise what the facts have been; and I believe they are sincerely anxious to remedy those facts. I believe they know perfectly well it is in their interest, and the offer of publicity is evidence that they really have a desire to put people like our Consuls in a position—which alone will bring an end to apprehension on this question—to report that they have actually seen that the regulations are working satisfactorily, and that such a system of things is not merely in theory but in practice put in force in the Portuguese colonies, that no one can be made to labour in the islands unless he is engaged voluntarily.

    MEDITERRANEAN COMMAND.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I should like to bring before the House some points connected with the recent Memorandum relative to the new appointment of General Officer Commanding in the Mediterranean, and also holding the position of inspector of the over-seas troops. The subject is worthy the serious attention of the House. It is connected with our organisation for war, and other matters which hinge on it. Everybody knows the origin of the appointment. First a Royal Duke was appointed. He, to his lasting credit, when he found he was getting a large sum of money with no work to do, threw up the appointment. Then a very distinguished Field Marshal was appointed. He, however, respectfully declined to take up the position. A third officer was appointed—also a very
    1594
    distinguished soldier. And here I take great exception to the case which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, made out, or endeavoured to make out, the other day in relation to this officer. This officer is under totally different conditions to the two Field Marshals. The two Field Marshals have risen to the summit of their career. This officer is rather a junior general—well, he is not a very senior officer. Anyway, he is not a Field Marshal. He has not arrived at the summit of his career, and he could no more refuse the order, which it must have been, to take up that command, if he wanted to become a Field Marshal, than the captain of a ship, or a rear-admiral, could refuse to obey a like instruction if he wanted to go forward for further promotion. The right hon. Gentleman's theory that the three officers are similar is altogether wrong. Two are Field Marshals and the other is merely a General.
    Again, I must find fault with the right hon. Gentleman for the action he took, I think it was on the 14th when he came down to the House very late and read out the statement he did, without first of all having been chivalrous enough to give my hon. and gallant Friend warning that he would do so. I must tell him that I do not think he behaved with the usual courtesy and chivalrous action which he always shows. I do not think he had any right to read that statement without notice. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge the justice of what I say. [Mr. Haldane demurred.] If the right hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge it then he ought to. Another point is that besides many Members wanted to speak on points connected with the Army and Navy, and by the right hon. Gentleman's action were hindered from taking part in the Debate at all. I do not know how late the Debate was kept up. Personally, I went to bed at two o'clock. Another point. I see in the Memorandum there is a question connected with strategy, and the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief has got to conduct this question of strategy with the War Office. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman what possible strategy is there in forts in Malta or Gibraltar? There is no word mentioned in the Memorandum of the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief having anything to say to the Commander-in-Chief of the station. What can the General Officer do in a fortress? He

    1595
    can march the troops down to the water's edge, and they then come under naval control, which must be the predominating factor with those who look after the transit and transport of the troops. You cannot have strategy in a fortress, and this General Officer Commanding is commanding over the two fortresses we have in the Mediterranean. The right hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that when anything in the nature of warlike operations occurs, the strategy then must be dominated by the Naval Officer Commanding-in-Chief. I find fault with the principle of sending a Commander-in-Chief to the station. It is altogether wrong. I represented again and again that there can be only one Commander-in-Chief. Personally, when I came under the command of an Admiral I immediately hoisted a flag that I was no longer Commander-in-Chief to avoid that friction that otherwise must arise. The Admiralty were never so foolish as to make a General Officer Commander-in-Chief who was junior to the people who he is to command. They never have been so extraordinary foolish as that. I find that the new General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in the Mediterranean, attained his seniority in 1907, and one of the officers over whom he is to rule attained his seniority in 1905, and is therefore two years his senior. Supposing this Inspector of the oversea troops happened to be at Gibraltar when warlike operations occurred, is he to take command of the Commander-in-Chief which is two years his senior?
    Mr. HALDANE: If necessary.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: That is the point, and I say that is the way to promote friction. This is a question of commanding a fortress, and he cannot get out unless the Admiral sends for him. He will remain in the fortress until the war is over, and he will be junior to the Commander-in-Chief in charge of the fort. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but if he will consult his own Army List he will see that the General Officer Commanding in the Mediterranean is two years junior to the Commander-in-Chief at Gibraltar. I say this appointment was a mistake from the beginning, and instead of coming out in a manly way and admitting the mistake the War Office is trying to bolster the matter up, and are making it much worse than before. They
    1596
    are giving an appointment and £5,000, and I do not know how many more thousands for travelling expenses, to cover up what was originally a mistake. It might be very wise to send to the over-sea forces and to the Dominions to inspect the forces there, but I cannot see why the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean should inspect the other Commanders-in-Chief there. This officer is going out to inspect such places as Hong-Kong with an authority which I cannot for the life of me make out. The same officer has other important duties to perform. He has to be a member of the Selection Committee and also a member of the Defence Committee. The Board of Selection meets every month, and the Prime Minister has informed us that the Defence Committee has eight different questions to settle. How in the name of fortune can this general officer undertake all those duties? It is impossible for him to do them all. Is he to be in command in the Mediterranean? If so, supposing he is inspecting in New Zealand and war breaks out in Europe? It will take this officer six weeks to get back. These things show how ludicrous the appointment is. This appointment from beginning to end was a mistake, and why do the Government not come down to the House and say so, instead of telling us that this officer can do all these different things and be in two places at once? May I ask why Lord Kitchener was offered the appointment? Is the Government not aware of the merits Lord Kitchener possesses? At any rate the country knows Lord Kitchener's merits. If the Government keep on calling our attention to his merits why do they not use them? The Territorial system seems to be a very good one if only you had more money, more officers, and more men. Who could you have better than Lord Kitchener to organise that force? What we would like to know is, who is responsible for Lord Kitchener not being employed? It is admitted that his abilities are second to none for administration and executive duties. You rarely find a man who can administer and carry out executive duties as well. In this respect Lord Kitchener is unrivalled, and he has been successful in everything he has undertaken. Why should he not be employed in some position in the Territorial Army, which the right hon. Gentleman must admit is now in a state of transition? Personally T believe the scheme is a good one, but it will want very great organisation and

    1597
    administration to make it perfect. Lord Kitchener has every qualification for taking up some command to look after the Territorial Forces. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself would say if Lord Kitchener was put on the Committee of Defence he would surely strengthen that Committee, and be useful to the right hon. Gentleman. He would certainly be trusted by the public. With regard to the Committee of Defence, my humble opinion is that it wants thoroughly overhauling. It seems incredible that Lord Kitchener is not employed on that Committee. We have on it another Noble Lord with enormous power and tremendous interest and influence, though goodness knows where he got it, devoid of all responsibility. It is somewhat curious that this Noble Lord—I refer to Lord Esher—who has had no practical part in the Army, and who can know nothing whatever about it, should be on the Committee of Defence, and that Lord Kitchener, who knows everything and has proved himself to be one of the best officers we have ever had in this country, is outside it. In both services from the country generally there is a good deal of uneasiness as to the position that Lord Esher holds on that Committee. What is he doing? He is responsible to nobody, and I say it is unconstitutional he should be on the Committee. I consider it is very much to the detriment of both services to have a man on the Committee of Defence of no responsibility, and no knowledge whatever, whilst there is a man outside whom the whole country respects, and in whom they put their trust, because he has proved himself a good man, not only in administrative capabilities, but also in practical capabilities in time of war.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Haldane): The Noble and gallant Admiral criticised the appointment of Sir Ian Hamilton to the Mediterranean Command, and charged the Government with not having employed Lord Kitchener. I would suggest to him that before he brings that topic up again he should have a little conversation with both those distinguished soldiers. Then he says the Committee of Defence wants overhauling. It has been lately overhauled. It is not an official body, and it is not a body whose proceedings ought to be discussed very much in public. It is not to the public advantage. The Noble Lord said the Memorandum
    1598
    which defined the Mediterranean Command was quite contrary to common sense, and I think the law of the Army. He said that General Hunter, the new Commander-in-Chief at Gibraltar, was senior to Sir Ian Hamilton, and, therefore, the latter could not command in the event of war. The Noble and gallant Admiral is excellent in many things but not in the study of the King's Regulations. I do not believe they ever interested him at any time in his life. To me, who am neither soldier nor sailor, those regulations are intensely interesting, and if the Noble Lord will do me the kindness to look at Regulation No. 218 he will find that a General Officer appointed to take command of any body of troops takes precedence and exercises command over any General Officer of the same rank even if senior to himself, who commands only part of that body of troops. That disposes of that particular point made by the Noble Lord. Then he asked what was this officer to do, was he to move about from fort to fort at the will of the Admiralty. There are other things in the Mediterranean besides walking up and down with a telescope looking for ships. There is the whole question of strategy and defence; there is the question of reliefs and the organisation and movement of the troops in that great highway along which so much of our commerce passes. The Noble and gallant Admiral does not think that these things require much strategy or thinking about. We think the contrary, and it is that want of thinking that has brought things to such confusion in the past. Therefore we thought it worth while to appoint an Inspector-General over the seas to deal with these strategical problems in the Mediterranean. It is not intended to bring in amateurs to interfere with the work of the fortresses. It is a question of strategy and higher training which it will be his special business to see to. The Noble Lord made another point. He said there are so many Commanders-in-Chief. I suppose he referred to the naval Commander-in-Chief, who he feared might be interfered with by the military Commander-in-Chief, and he added that the Navy must be supreme. As a soldier I take off my hat to a sailor. But there is a well-established precedent in the Service that the military Commander-in-Chief shall not interfere with the naval Commander-in-Chief. There again, I may refer the Noble and gallant Admiral to the King's Regulations. I love those Regulations. If he will read No. 1762

    1599
    —I fear he has never read so far—he will find it provided that in naval or military matters no naval or military Commander-in-Chief is ever to exercise control over the forces of the other arm of the service except by direction of the Government of the day.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: I have read these Regulations. I know them all perfectly well. I read them—I will not say long before the right hon. Gentleman was born, but long before he had anything to do with the War Office. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman not to put words into my mouth which I never used. I said nothing about the military Commander-in-Chief interfering with the Navy. I simply observed that when questions of strategy came to be effective they would have to be conducted by the fleet.
    Mr. HALDANE: That was the impression made on my mind when the Noble Lord exclaimed—"What is the use of having so many Commanders-in-Chief?" If I misunderstood him I apologise and withdraw my criticism. I venture to think the more one studies the Memorandum, the more one studies this command the more he will see that the proper and natural course is to combine the offices of the Commander-in-Chief in the Mediterranean and of Inspector-General.
    Mr. CLOUGH Mr. CLOUGH rose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker declined then to put that Question.
    Lord BALCARRES: The right hon. Gentleman has not explained how this officer is to do the work allotted to him, which was one of the principal questions of the Noble Lord.
    Mr. HALDANE: I dealt with that the other day.
    Lord BALCARRES: I heard every word the right hon. Gentleman said the other day, and with great respect he did not say how he was to do the work. He has, in the Mediterranean, to watch over the interests of the canal, supervise the troops, and deal with strategy. He has to inspect the troops of every one of our Crown Colonies in every part of the world and in every self-governing Colony where he is invited, and I think we may presume that he will be invited in every case. In addition to that he has to be the active
    1600
    fighting Commander in the Mediterranean, to be a member of the Defence Committee, which has eight questions before sub-committees to-day, and then he is to be a member of the Board of Selection which meets once a month in London. How is it possible for him to perform all these duties. He may be in Canada or in New Zealand or on the high seas, and he has got to get back to fulfil the duties of his Executive Commandership to Malta or the canal, or at any rate within the zone of his Command. I say it is impossible for him to deal with all this work. Another point which the right hon. Gentleman has omitted is why Lord Esher should be appointed on the Committee of Defence and Lord Kitchener should not?
    Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for to-morrow (Friday).

    MERCHANDISE MARKS (No. 2) BILL.
    Read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House.
    LONDON ELECTRIC SUPPLY (RE-COMMITTED) BILL.
    Considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read the third time, and passed.

    LICENSING (CONSOLIDATION) BILL.
    As amended, considered, and read the third time, and passed.
    And, it being after half-past Eleven of the clock on Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Three minutes before One a.m., Friday, 22nd July.

  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Motor Spirit Duty.
  Motor Spirit Duty.
  Irish Guaranteed Land Stock.
  Irish Guaranteed Land Stock.
  Income Tax (Loan and Investment Societies).
  Income Tax (Loan and Investment Societies).
  Evicted Tenants Applications (Ireland).
  Evicted Tenants Applications (Ireland).
  Technical Instruction (Ireland).
  Technical Instruction (Ireland).
  Butter-Making Competitions (Pupils' Travelling Expenses).
  Butter-Making Competitions (Pupils' Travelling Expenses).
  Lands at Adamstown, Templemore.
  Lands at Adamstown, Templemore.
  Naval Manœuvres (Complete Crews).
  Naval Manœuvres (Complete Crews).
  Chatham Yard Workmen.
  Chatham Yard Workmen.
  Woolwich Arsenal (Boys).
  Woolwich Arsenal (Boys).
  Territorial Force.
  Territorial Force.
  Army Selection Board.
  Army Selection Board.
  Militia Ballot Act.
  Militia Ballot Act.
  Opium Traffic.
  Opium Traffic.
  Indian Political Department.
  Indian Political Department.
  Alien Lunatics (Southampton Union).
  Alien Lunatics (Southampton Union).
  Detection of Crime (Foreign Police Communications).
  Detection of Crime (Foreign Police Communications).
  General Election, 1910 (Charges Made to Candidates).
  General Election, 1910 (Charges Made to Candidates).
  Piræus (Harbour and Light Dues).
  Piræus (Harbour and Light Dues).
  Meat Inspection.
  Meat Inspection.
  National Telephone Company (Walsall Exchange Area).
  National Telephone Company (Walsall Exchange Area).

BARON SOUTHWARK.
The Right Honourable Richard Knight Causton having been created Baron Southwark of Southwark, in the county of London—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 8).

Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 14).

Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15).

Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Port of London (Registration of Craft) Provisional Order.

Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 2).

And also the Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have been complied with:
Middleton Corporation.
The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
(Ardrossan, Saltcoats and District Electric Lighting Order, and Cambuslang Electric Lighting (Extension) Order.)
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
(Unopposed Orders.)
Reported, without amendment.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
  FYLDE WATER BOARD BILL.
    EASTBOURNE CORPORATION BILL.
    Reported, with Amendments.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
(Merthyr Tydfil Order.)
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the London County Council (Tramways and improvements) Bill and another Bill, do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5) Bill (Merthyr Tydfil Order); read, and agreed to: All Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.

LITTLE HULTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 5) BILL.
  (Merthyr Tydfil Order.)
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Morley be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Langford; read, and agreed to.

CHILDREN ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
  COMPANIES (CONVERTED SOCIETIES) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons.
CHILDREN ACT (1908) AMENDMENT BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Stanley of Alderley (L. Sheffield).) (No. 123.)
COMPANIES (CONVERTED SOCIETIES) BILL.
Read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Monday next (The Lord Hamilton of Dalzell.) (No. 124.)
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to order): The Amendments proposed by the Committee made: The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BELL.
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.

SMALL HOLDINGS (No. 3) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Earl Carrington.)
Loan BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, before your Lordships lose control of this Bill altogether, 1 should like, with your Lordships' permission, to make a short reference to what occurred during the passage of the Bill through Committee while was occupying the Chair. An Amendment was moved, and upon that Amendment privilege was pleaded as a bar to this House entertaining the Amendment. In the first instance, I should like, quite briefly, to recall the facts. The Amendment proposed was in the second clause, and was the substitution of the one word "November" for the word "September," thereby increasing by two months the length of time given to applicants or claimants for compensation in which to prefer their claims. There are, of course, questions on the merits as to whether that extension of time should be given. Into that aspect of the matter I do not propose to enter, or upon it to say a single word.
But the noble Earl the President of the Board of Agriculture, who is in charge of
378
the Bill, met this proposal to increase the time by two months, not by any argument on the merits, but by a simple statement that it would be a breach of privilege. I venture to say that that placed the Committee in rather a difficult position, because if this House accepts, even upon the word of a. Cabinet Minister, that a certain Amendment is a breach of privilege, the House or the Committee may thereby be afterwards committed to the abandonment of its privilege without knowing what it is doing. That does not seem to me a safe position for this House to take. I am perfectly certain that if any member of the Government or any member of this House thinks that a course proposed by a noble Lord is a breach of privilege, he is not only within his duty but is almost bound to point out to the House his opinion. But it is not only reasonable and courteous, but absolutely necessary, that the grounds on which the statement that a particular proposal is a breach of privilege is made should be put before the House; for this reason, that each House is the guardian of its own privileges. Supposing we make an Amendment in a Bill here and it goes down to another place and the authority there says that that particular Amendment is a breach of privilege, that is conclusive so far as the other House of Parliament is concerned. We may accept it or not, or record our opinion. But it is impossible for us to express any intelligent opinion as to whether an Amendment is or is not a breach of privilege until we know the reasons upon which that statement is founded.
It is difficult for me, I am bound to say, to see how this Amendment can possibly be regarded as a breach of privilege. I listened to the arguments while I was in the Chair; and the point which seems to me to be conclusive against its being a breach of privilege is this, that the Amendment does not give one single individual who had not a right to make a claim under the Bill as it formerly stood any right to make a claim. It cannot, therefore, be said with any justice that it places any extra charge on the Exchequer. If a man fails to make a claim by September 1, as the Bill stood he loses his right; but the extension of the time does not give to a single individual who had no right up to September 1 any right to make a claim up to November 1. I think the argument of the Lord Chief Justice on that was conclusive. The request which I want to make to those in authority here or else-

379
where is this. If, as seems to be foreshadowed, a claim is made elsewhere that this is a breach of privilege, I hope that when that comes up it will be accompanied by a distinct and concrete statement as to wherein consists the breach of privilege of which this House is supposed to be guilty.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL CARRINGTON): My Lords: I hope your Lordships will excuse me from entering into a Homeric contest with my noble friend as to what is or what is not a breach of privilege, or what. is safe or what is unsafe for your Lordships to do. Your Lordships are the guardians of your own honour, and in your Lordships' hands that honour may well be left. I therefore hope my noble friend will excuse me from following him with regard to that. I submit very respectfully that it is not my duty in any way to raise a question of privilege; still less is it my duty to state grounds upon which such a question may be raised in another place. I believe that the question is absolutely certain to be raised in the House of Commons in this instance. I may be wrong, but I did think that I would be wanting in courtesy to your Lordships had I not stated my belief when the Amendment was moved by Lord Dunmore.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

DUKE OF YORK'S SCHOOL (CHAPEL) BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL BEAUCHAMP): My Lords, the object of this Bill is to vest in the Commissioners of Works, freed from ecclesiastical uses, the chapel comprised in the buildings situate in the metropolitan borough of Chelsea, formerly occupied by the Duke of York's Royal Military School. Your Lordships will see on examining the Bill that it deals only with the chapel, and not with the whole question of disposing of the site. This is, no doubt, a cumbrous way of dealing with a portion of the site, but there were no means of doing so other than by an Act of Parliament. In these circumstances I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Beauchamp.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DEN1VIAN: My Lords, this is one of those Bills which make an annual appearance at this time of the year. Its object is to put the Public Works Loan Commissioners and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland in funds for the exercise of their various lending powers for the present financial year. There is no unusual feature in the Bill, so I trust your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denman.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday next.

TERRITORIAL FORCE AMBULANCE.
VISCOUNT GALWAY VISCOUNT GALWAY rose to call attention to the recent scheme issued by the Order of St. John of Jerusalem as lately published, and to ask what scheme is now proposed by the War Office for the efficient nursing of the Territorial Force.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I know that your Lordships are anxious, as all connected with County Associations are, that the scheme for the nursing of the Territorial Force should be on a sound footing, and as, unfortunately, some doubt and misunderstanding have arisen concerning the subject, I venture to call attention to it to-day. Last year a scheme was propounded for the thorough nursing of the Territorial Force. That was left to the Territorial Associations, and the general principle was that., whatever body found the organisation and enrolled the detachments, the whole question of examination and the granting of certificates was to be in the hands of the St. John Ambulance Association. The result was that the St. John Association formed a special branch for Territorial ambulance. A great work has been done

381
by this Association ineducating people in the giving of first aid, and the fact that there are over 300 centres in England alone working for this purpose shows how keenly the St. John Ambulance Association have taken up the work.
Unfortunately, some disputes have arisen, into which I do not propose to enter, which have produced. a certain uncertainty which is seriously handicapping the work of the Territorial Associations. One case has come to my knowledge in which members of the St. John Brigades have felt themselves compelled to leave the detachments already formed. I cannot help feeling that this must be entirely owing to some misunderstanding, which no doubt will shortly be put right. But I quote it to show that this, among other things, is very discouraging to the Territorial organisation throughout time country. But the question I specially wish to bring before the attention of the War Office to-day is that of certificates of efficiency. I hope it is not the intention of the War Office in any way to lower the efficiency standard. There is one large county detachment which I know intimately, the members of which all possess the certificates of the St. John Association, and those people, while proud of belonging to the Territorial Force, are equally proud of their St. John certificates, and they would be very averse to any persons joining that detachment who did not possess a certificate of equal value and of an equally high standard. It has been suggested in some cases that lectures might be given by nurses to women candidates for certificates; but I hope that, if a limited number of such lectures are so given, the remaining lectures of a course will be delivered and the examinations for final certificates conducted by medical men.
I have seen it stated in the Press that the War Office at one time contemplated that nurses might not only give lectures but also give certificates. That would be bringing the whole thing to such a farce that I cannot believe it was ever seriously contemplated by the War Office. A really qualified nurse might, perhaps, give women one or two lectures out of a course, but, as I have said, the remainder should be given by qualified medical men. One point on which I hope to get a satisfactory answer is that the War Office will insist on the certificate being given by an independent medical man. On the question of medical
382
men there is one other point I should like to bring to the notice of the War Office. A large number of patriotic medical men have given their services gratuitously in the teaching of classes in their districts, but I understand that the Medical Association is endeavouring to put pressure on medical men to charge certain fees for these classes. I hope that will not be carried to any great extent, because if the Medical Association insisted on medical men demanding large fees for their lectures, it would render the classes practically prohibitive. I hope the War Office will take that matter into consideration.
This whole subject will come before the Territorial Associations at their meetings shortly, and it would be a great advantage if we could he assured with regard to the standard of the certificates. These voluntary aid detachments were only begun last autumn; great progress has been made, and I am sure, if it is clearly understood throughout the country that the whole system of nursing for the Territorial Force in time of war is really meant seriously, that during the coming winter numerous classes will be formed all over the country, and that by this time next year we shall have a thorough organisation. But if we are to have this scheme complete in time of war the whole of the arrangements must be made in time of peace. If, unfortunately, the standard is lowered, the scheme will fail from want of support, and deservedly so. I hope the noble Lord the Under-Secretary will be able to give a satisfactory answer on the points I have put before him, and an answer which will remove the doubts which at present exist.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD LUCAS): My Lords, I am sure I can echo what fell from the noble Viscount with regard to the very valuable work that has been done by the St. John Ambulance Association. We know that they did form what I believe they called a Territorial branch to meet the great calls that were being made upon them in connection with the Territorial Force, the holding of their certificate being ft necessary preliminary to any man or woman becoming a member of a voluntary aid detachment. They have done valuable work in that way, and thanks to what they have done the Red Cross Society has been enabled by much hard work to organise a considerable number

383
of voluntary aid detachments. I need not go more than the noble Viscount did into certain differences of opinion that arose; but one good thing certainly has come out of this—that is that we have recently formed an advisory council which sits at the War Office and has upon it representatives of both the Red Cross Society and County Associations. Recommendations made by that advisory council have recently been submitted to the Army Council, but we have not yet come to any actual decision upon them. I can assure the noble Viscount, however, that we have no intention whatever of lowering the standard of efficiency of persons entering the voluntary aid detachments of the Territorial Force.
In the first place, it is a necessary preliminary before anybody can go into a voluntary aid detachment that he or she should hold a certificate. I would qualify my statement that everybody who goes into these detachments is required to hold a certificate, by saying that we propose to make one or two exceptions for the benefit of specialists, such as people who have already been in the Regular, the Special Reserve, or the Territorial Army Medical Corps—pharmacists and people of that kind; but everyone who joins for general duty will be required to possess a certificate. With regard to the nature of the certificate, there is no doubt that, though good work has been clone by the St. John Ambulance Association, there is a great demand that the granting of certificates should be facilitated. In a number of places there has been a. general desire to raise voluntary aid detachments, but for one reason or another the people who had intended to join have not been able to get the first aid certificate. We are, therefore, considering the acceptance of certificates other than that of the St. John Ambulance Association. The nature of those certificates we have not yet settled, but we do not intend that the certificate should be any lower than that of the well-known standard maintained by the St. John Association.
As to whether classes should be trained by nurses or medical men, the noble Viscount has there touched upon what is undoubtedly a very vexed question. There are a large number of people who consider that nursing should be taught by qualified medical practitioners, and there is another
384
large section who hold the opinion that the best persons to teach nursing are nurses. We have to reconcile those warring factions and arrive at a conclusion which, while enlisting both parties in our support, will not in any way let down the standard. This matter is being considered at the present moment by the advisory council. We are issuing one letter to County Associations on the question, and we shall be issuing more. We are also issuing a letter to General Officers commanding setting out, and asking them to communicate to the County Associations, the attitude we propose to take up with regard to these detachments. We regard the County Association as the authority which should recognise the voluntary aid detachments, and we do not propose ourselves to recognise any voluntary aid detachments which are not recognised by the County Associations. To such voluntary aid detachments as are recognised by the County Associations we shall, of course, afford formal recognition; and we propose to publish from time to time in Army Orders the lists of recognised voluntary aid detachments forwarded to us by the County Associations.
VISCOUNT KNUTSFORD: My Lords, as a former director of the ambulance department of the Order of St. John and a member of the British Red Cross Society, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words on this occasion, especially as I desire to clear up one or two points that have arisen and which I have seen noticed in the newspapers. In the first place, I am glad that the noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State for War has been good enough to recognise, and with great courtesy, the work that the ambulance department of the Order of St. John has done under the original arrangement of 1909. A territorial branch of the ambulance department was at once formed, and at considerable labour and expense a staff and county sections were started in most of the counties to facilitate persons coming up for instruction and receiving certificates. Then difficulties arose. I do not, however, desire to accentuate them, or to dwell upon them.
I will deal first with the point raised by the noble Viscount, which is one of great importance, and upon which there has been considerable misapprehension. The ambulance department have granted certificates

385
during the last year to something like 30,000 men and women, every one of whom is free to join the voluntary aid detachments. It has been said that there has been a brigade order of the ambulance department of the Order of St. john which prevented members of the brigade from joining voluntary aid detachments, but I am informed that there is no such order. In one county—Devonshire—a letter was shown stating that was the case that since the department had separated from the agreement with the War Office members of the brigade would not be allowed to join voluntary aid detachments. That was a pure mistake, and it arose in the office during t he absence of Sir Richard Temple, the assistant director of the. St. John Ambulance Association, whose work has been most excellent and consistent throughout in helping forward these great objects. Directly the matter came to his notice Sir Richard made a speech at Gosport in which he stated distinctly the position of the ambulance department. He said—
"Join voluntary aid detachments if you wish, or join the St. John Ambulance companies if you wish. It is nothing to the St. John Ambulance Association which you join, as long as you do join one or the other and learn first-aid and nursing. Choose in your own neighbourhood the One which best suits you."
To prevent difficulty arising in the future or any doubt that those who obtain the St. John certificate are at liberty to join any body, it has been arranged that the substance of the speech of the assistant director shall be embodied in a circular, which will be sent out as soon as possible. I hope that statement will satisfy the noble Viscount on that important point.
To return to the difficulties and friction that arose: The original agreement provided that all persons who joined voluntary aid detachments should have the certificate of the ambulance department of the Order of St. John, and it was feared that if certificates were accepted of other societies, or if certificates were given on an inferior course of training and examination, it would tend to lessen the value of the certificates of the St. John Ambulance Association. I need hardly say that it would be fatal to our work and to the work of ambulance altogether if in any way the value of those certificates were diminished. Not only would that be the case
386
in this country. It would be a fatal blow in India, where we have done magnificent work, helped by Lord Curzon, Lord Minto, Lord Kitchener, and, amongst others, by Lieut.-Colonel A. Yate, who did very good service in promoting that work; and also in almost every Colony (those with responsible government as well as Crown Colonies), where we have active working centres in close touch with the ambulance department here. Therefore to lessen the value of the certificate would he a dangerous thing, and I am glad that Lord Lucas recognises that. I need hardly point out, moreover, that the decision to allow an inferior certificate was a direct breach of the agreement that was entered into between us, the British Red Cross Society, and the War Office. Therefore after very careful consideration by what I may call the experts in this work—the director of the ambulance department., the assistant director, and the executive committee—it was decided that we could do better and help the War Office more easily and without friction if we acted independently; and to show that we were desirous in every way of continuing the work two resolutions were passed, one giving the reason why we separated from the War Office arrangement, and the other stating that the ambulance department —
"will continue to carry on the work of instruction it has already inaugurated on a large scale, and will in such other ways as are open to the St. John Ambulance Association render assistance to those who desire to qualify themselves to give aid to the sick and wounded of the Territorial Force in time of war."
Turning to the actual scheme now put forward of having St. John Ambulance county companies, I may explain that it was felt to be necessary to give greater facilities to people who wished to undergo instruction and obtain certificates. Therefore these companies have been established in the counties, but every member who obtains the St. John certificate can join any body he pleases—a voluntary aid detachment, or the brigade, or the ambulance association. I may add that every man arid woman who obtains the certificate of the St. John Ambulance Association and joins at any time one of these St. John county companies is bound to make a declaration to serve with the Territorial Force whenever it is mobilised in the event of war. Therefore under this

387
system there will be thousands and thousands of trained men and women at the disposal of the County Associations and British Red Cross Society if they are wanted. Experience has shown that there is a different feeling in different counties. In Lancashire, for instance, as I am informed, there is a very small feeling in favour of the British Red Cross Society but a very strong feeling in favour of the work of the ambulance department of the Order of St.. John, and I think probably in that case most of the men and women who get certificates will prefer to join the St. John ambulance company. In sonic other counties—Gloucestershire, I am told, and Devonshire, for instance—the feeling is the other way. But, at all events, every man and woman who obtains our certificate is free to join whatever organisation lie or she prefers. I hope I have shown that we have in no way separated from the scheme of the War Office through any dislike of the work or any intention not to carry it on. It is quite the contrary. We hope to do the work more effectively in the future than we have been able to do it hitherto considering the differences of opinion that arose under the original agreement; and the result is that the War Office will have in time of war an enormous number of men and women all ready and bound to join the Territorial Force,
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a word or two on this subject as I raised the question the other day. I was under the impression that the noble Lord the Under-Secretary was going shortly to provide the County Associations with fresh instructions. I do not know whether it is desirable, certainly not so far as we are concerned, to wait until the advisory council have made up their mind on the matter. What I wish to specially emphasise to-night is that the County Associations who have had instructions to do this work are at a standstill because the foundation on which they were originally instructed to build has broken down. The scheme as represented by the diagram is admirable. You have at the head the War Office; following that you have the British Red Cross central office; then you get the County Associations all working in unison, the county branches of the Red Cross Society, the county directors appointed by those branches, and, finally, the voluntary
388
aid detachments. But those voluntary detachments are in the chrysalis state.
In the first instructions the County Associations were made responsible for ambulance services for the Territorial Army. They were allowed, however, to delegate their powers to the Red Cross Society, and to that society alone; but in the original scheme, paragraph 22, County Associations in England were told that all persons wishing to join voluntary aid detachments should be in possession of the first aid and nursing certificates of the St. John Ambulance Association. And here I should like to add my meed of praise to the St. John Association for the admirable work they have done. It was, as I have said, originally contemplated that every man and woman before joining the voluntary aid detachments should be in possession of the St. John Ambulance certificate. I do not propose to deal with the differences of opinion that have unfortunately arisen, but I should like to say a word with regard to the county companies of the St. John Ambulance Association, which were also referred to by the noble Viscount who has just sat down. In most counties, although we may not have our voluntary aid detachments absolutely complete, we have the framework for them, and counties which have delegated their powers, as most have, to the Red Cross Society will be placed in a position of great difficulty if they have to compete with the county companies of the St. John Ambulance Association. Gloucestershire has already got forty-three voluntary aid detachments in full work, and they are very apprehensive of the difficulty which may arise.
As to the question of certificates, I think we understood from what fell from the noble Lord that these certificates would be given by independent medical men. That, I take it, the St. John Association is very anxious to insist upon, and also that there should be no lowering of the present standard. The noble Viscount who initiated this discussion raised the question of instruction by nurses. To the ordinary mind instruction in home nursing given by a certified nurse is a very natural and desirable thing; but I believe the great difficulty in introducing the question of home nursing lies in the fact that the British Medical Union will have nothing to do with it. That Union is a very powerful body, and if that point is lost sight

389
of we may again find ourselves in considerable difficulty with those medical men who are in the British Medical Union. I believe a great number of the most responsible medical men belong to that Union, and it is quite possible, unless we are very careful in this matter, that we may find ourselves in the difficulty of not having the necessary medical men to give the instruction and the help required. While we have up to now in many cases been able to depend on the generous assistance of the medical profession in giving instruction free, I understand that in certain parts of the country medical men have been instructed that they must be paid for the work they do. That, of course, would add very largely to our expenditure. I refer to these points because if we are to have a satisfactory solution they will have to be carefully considered.
There were one or two other points raised in a discussion at a meeting of the Council of Territorial Associations, and I undertook that these points should be put before the noble Lord. As an impression has got about that members of voluntary aid detachments in time of war will receive ls. a day and rations, I should like to ask the definite question whether that is right or not, and whether any payments in money or kind will be given to Members of voluntary aid detachments. The other question which was raised, and which I undertook should be brought before the noble Lord's attention, was that of the county companies of the St. John Ambulance Association. If they are formed and officially recognised, will they in case of war be protected under the Geneva Convention? That is a point worthy of consideration, because it may make a considerable difference when the choice is offered to those interested whether they will join the voluntary aid detachments or the county companies of the St. John Association. We hear a good deal at one time and another about a free hand being given. I gather from what the noble Lord the Under-Secretary has said that County Associations are to be given a free hand in this direction; but where we have already formed voluntary aid detachments under the original scheme of the War Office, we shall be in a considerable difficulty. I would therefore urge that definite instructions should be given to County Associations at the earliest possible date.

INJURED TERRITORIALS.
EARL STANHOPE*EARL STANHOPE rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War whether any application had been made that pensions and allowances should be paid to the men of the 4th London (Howitzer) Brigade injured by a motor-van on August 12 last, and if so, what action His Majesty's Government proposed to take in the matter.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Question I have put on the Paper refers to an accident that happened on August 12 last year on Salisbury Plain. Your Lordships may, perhaps, remember that the 4th London (Howitzer) Brigade was returning to camp, I think after doing its annual firing, when a newspaper motor-van dashed into the rear of the column, hurling the men in all directions. Five of the men were so seriously injured that they were unable to return to their ordinary vocations for a considerable period, and two others were injured to such an extent that there is great doubt whether they will ever completely recover. I am informed that the owners of the motor-van, the Daily Chronicle, have behaved with considerable liberality, but the men have not yet really received proper compensation. I believe I am correct in stating that there is no legal liability on the War Office to make any payment at all; but were these men employed by private individuals they would receive compensation under the Act, or if they were members of the Regular Forces they would receive the usual pensions and allowances. I think your Lordships will agree, therefore, that there is considerable moral obligation that some payment should be made to them. Perhaps it is going rather far to state that if the War Office behaved with generosity and promptitude in this case it would be an incitement to people to join the Territorial Force and be run over by a motor-van; but I think the noble Lord will agree that if a grievance, either real or imaginary, is allowed to continue in such cases, it will at any rate be a grave deterrent to recruiting, I therefore trust that the noble Lord will be able to assure the House that the claims of these men will be met in a satisfactory manner.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, one of the men injured in this unfortunate accident last year died; nine were treated in the

391
military hospital, two of whom were removed in November to St. Bartholomew's Hospital; and six men were treated in camp. I take it that the noble Earl's Question refers more particularly to the two men who were very seriously injured. They have just recently, 1 understand, left the civil hospital to which they went, and have, I very much regret to say, been discharged from the Territorial Force as being medically unfit to perform their duties. We deal with Territorials in such cases as this on exactly the same lines as we deal with Regulars. A man who has to be discharged from the Army as being unfit to perform his duties has a claim for a pension, and we have done with regard to these men what we should have done with regard to Regulars. We have forwarded their case to the Chelsea Commissioners, who are at the present moment considering whether they can give pensions in this case. As your Lordships know, the rules with regard to the granting of pensions are laid down, and they are rules from which we can never depart in any circumstances whatever. They are carefully drawn up and extremely fair. But I can assure your Lordships that the case of these men will receive the fullest consideration, and that they will be treated in every way exactly as if they were men of the Regular Army who had been injured. With regard to the other men whose injuries were not of what may be called a permanent character, we have a special method of treating such injured persons. Whilst they are in hospital or under medical treatment they draw for every day they are there a certain rate of pay, usually 3s. 6d. a day. I am sorry to say I have not been able to get accurate information as to whether those men have received the pay to which they are entitled, but 1 have no doubt they have. If the noble Earl has any information to the effect that they have not, I hope he will communicate with me, and. I will see that the money is paid, though I have every reason to believe it has been.
LORD HAVERSHAM: My Lords, I think it would be satisfactory to your Lordships if my noble friend could give some assurance that if these pensions are not granted by the Commissioners and cannot come within the terms of the Army regulations, the greatest possible
392
pressure will be used by the War Office to obtain pensions from those who caused the injuries. If I recollect aright, it was the most disgraceful case of racing in the early morning that I ever heard of. The men in this motor-van, in the rush to sell their newspapers, drove right into this Brigade. There was a dense fog at the time, and when the motor-van was in the midst of the men the driver drove on and injured more. I never heard of a worse case, and it will be a national disgrace if these men do not receive pensions from some source.

THE SUPER-TAX.
LORD MONK BRETTON LORD MONK BRETTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the notice and form to be served on persons required to make a return of their total income from all sources for the purposes of assessment to Super-Tax, and attached to the Regulations made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section 72 (8) of the Finance Act, 1910, and laid upon the Table of this House, are regarded by His Majesty's Government as part of the Regulations, and whether, in the event of the Commissioners altering the form at any future time, any revised form will be laid before Parliament as a Regulation under the Act.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question which I have on the Paper is of some importance considering what has been said in another place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the reconsideration which the Regulations for the Super-Tax may require. Under Section 93 of the Finance Act the Super-Tax Regulations have to lie on the Table of your Lordships' House for forty days. I take it that the object of Parliament was to ensure that the questions which were asked by the Treasury officials should be reasonable questions, and that the period within which those questions should be answered should give adequate time for getting the answers. The Question I ask is, Arc this return and this form regarded as part of the Regulations? If not, it is open to the Treasury officials as soon as the forty days expire to tear up this paper, to issue a totally new set of questions some of which it may be impossible to answer, to fine people for not answering them, and to change the period of time within

393
which they have to be answered. The last sentence of the first paragraph of these Regulations runs—
"Such notice shill be in the form hereto attached or in such amended form as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall approve."
Section 93 of the Act says that all Regulations shall be laid on the Table, but what I want to make sure of is whether this Regulation which enables the Treasury to make other Regulations absolves them from laving those other Regulations on fie Table of the House. If so, it would leave the matter in the same position as if these forms were merely schedules and not part of the Regulations. I merely want an assurance that these questions arc not to be changed for totally different questions at the will and pleasure of the Treasury without being laid before Parliament, as was undoubtedly the intention of Parliament when the Finance Act was made law.
LORD DENMAN: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question is in the affirmative. The notice and form are part of the Super-Tax Regulations. As to the second part of the Question—namely, whether in the event of the Commissioners altering the form at any future time any revised form will be laid before Parliament as a Regulation under the Act—I am advised that any subsequent alteration of the form will not necessitate its being laid before Parliament. That is the legal position of the Treasury in the matter. But I should think it would be very unlikely that alterations of importance would be made off-hand by the Treasury without Parliament being aware of the fact; and, of course, it is always open to any member of either House of Parliament to criticise the Regulations which have been made. The noble Lord appears to think the Treasury capable of altering the Regulations merely for the purpose of having the pleasure of finding or punishing people who do not make a correct return. I must remind the noble Lord that all the Treasury want is to get the necessary information with the least possible trouble to the individual, and they are certainly not likely to take a course which will necessitate the making of further returns than are absolutely necessary.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I cannot quite understand the noble
394
Lord's answer. He began by telling me that both of these papers are part of the Regulations. Under the Act the Regulations have to be laid before Parliament. Consequently I presume, if there is any alteration in any part of this form, including the questions which have to be answered, that, being part of the Regulations, it would have to be laid before Parliament for forty days under Section 93 of the Act. But the second part of the noble Lord's answer contradicted that. The noble Lord said that if the Commissioners alter this form it would not be laid before Parliament. But if this form is a part of the Regulations it would be a breach of Section 93 not to lay it before Parliament. In those circumstances I do not understand the answer of the noble Lord.
LORD DENMAN: I am afraid I am unable to explain the legal ground on which the Treasury have given me this information, but I have no doubt that their legal position in the matter is perfectly sound. I really do not think there is a contradiction in terms, as the noble Lord suggests, and it is obvious that it must be necessary for a Department to have this power. Very often the alteration made would be of a minor character, and it would be rather superfluous for the Department to have to lay a Paper before Parliament in every case.
THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, this is an important matter. I do not think any Department of the Government ought to have the power of really going contrary to the wish of Parliament owing to a technicality. The wish of Parliament evidently is that these matters should be laid on the Table of the House and be considered, but apparently it is in the power of the Treasury to get round the Act. That is, I think, a matter which the House ought very seriously to consider.

ARMY HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War what arrangements are made at Whittington Barracks (Lichfield) for providing accommodation for nurses and hospitals for the women and children in the barracks.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have given the noble Lord notice of this Question,

395
but if he is not in a position to answer the particular point raised I have no doubt he will be able to inform me what is the usual practice and what system does exist in garrison towns for providing nurses and hospital accommodation. My attention has been called to the want of this accommodation in the case of Whittington Barracks, which are situated within three miles of Lichfield. It is a large garrison, and there are connected with it 242 women and 509 children. I am told that there is no sort of hospital accommodation for the women or any provision as to nurses. The local Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association has for the last few years provided a nurse to look after these women and children, but she is now on leave. She had to go away because there was considerable danger of her health breaking down, and the cause of that was the impossibility of procuring suitable lodgings in the neighbourhood of the barracks. That we hope, in course of time, to overcome; but as a matter of fact the nurse has had to go on leave, and there is no one to look after the women and children connected with this garrison. Whatever is done by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association is, of course, private effort, and does not absolve the Government from responsibility in this respect. It has been suggested to me that there ought to be some form of women's hospital, or at any rate some military nursing sisters, to look after the women and children in these big garrison towns. By the July Army List I see that there are attached to the garrison of York five of these nursing sisters. I believe Lichfield has a larger garrison than York, and I am told that Lichfield has none of these nurses allotted to it. I hope that the noble Lord will undertake that full inquiry shall be made, and that he will find out the actual state of the case at Lichfield.
LORD LUCAS: My Lords, the noble Earl was kind enough to send me notice of this Question, but I have not had time to inquire into the specific case. I can, however, tell your Lordships what is our general policy in matters of this kind. In certain of our larger garrisons we do maintain military hospitals. We also maintain them for some of the smaller garrisons if a civil hospital is nowhere within reach. We do not, however, maintain hospitals in what may be considered the smaller garrison towns. But where we have these
396
military hospitals, if there are more than 100 beds for soldiers we also maintain a certain number of beds and cots for women and children. We do not, however, recognise any actual responsibility with regard to that. In Lichfield we have not got a military hospital, and I am afraid we do not propose to maintain anything there in the nature of a hospital for women and children. We quite recognise and arc grateful for the work done by the organisation of which I think the noble Earl is the head in that county-, which maintains a nurse there. These women and children when they require special treatment can be admitted to the civil hospital, and if they do not require that they receive medical attendance in their own quarters. That is our general rule with regard to places such as Lichfield, and I am afraid it would be useless for me to hold out any hope to the noble Earl of our being able to modify that.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Will the noble Lord make inquiry into this particular case.
LORD LUCAS: I will certainly.

PLACES OF WORSHIP (ENFRANCHISE- MENT) BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to authorise the enfranchisement of the sites of places of worship held under lease—Was presented by the Lord President (E. Beauchamp); read la; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Tuesday next. (No. 125.)
WEMYSS AND DISTRICT WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Wemyss and District Water—Was presented by the Lord Pentland (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, Sections 8 and 9); read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 126.)
MILITARY LANDS PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Secretary of State under the Military Lands Act, 1892—Was presented by the Lord Lucas; read 1a; to be printed; and ref erred to the Examiners. (No. 127.)

FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE
LORD SITUTTLEWORTH: My Lords, before the House adjourns I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to put a Question to my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture. information has reached me that there has been an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Can the noble Earl state whether that is true or not?
EARL CARRINGTON: My Lords, I regret to say that the information which has reached my noble friend is correct. Just before coming down to the House I received the following—
"A report of suspected foot and mouth disease on the premises of William Richmond, at Northclose Farm, Kirkby Malzeard, near Ripon, Yorks (West Riding), was received by the Board from the police yesterday afternoon. Mr. W. W. Smart, the Board's Superintending Veterinary Inspector, proceeded at once to the spot and to-day reports that seven or eight animals on the farm are affected with foot and mouth disease. Further particulars to follow.
"Instructions have been given for the issue of an order prohibiting the movement of all animals over a wide area around the
398
seat of the outbreak, which order will be issued to-night. Local authorities throughout Great Britain have been warned by telegram of the fact that foot and mouth disease has reappeared in this country.
"The Board's chief veterinary officer is proceeding to Yorkshire to advise as to the steps to be taken in connection with the outbreak, and will report by telegram."
[The sitting was suspended at twenty minutes before six o'clock, and resumed at a quarter past eleven, o'clock.]
The Lord HERSCHELL—Chosen Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Commissioners.

PORT OF LONDON (PORT RATES ON GOODS) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No 128.)
House adjourned at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.