Sitting of 22 February 1912

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Bognor Gas Light and Coke Company (Electricity) Bill.

Dunstable Gas and Water Bill.

Metropolitan Railway Bill.

Annfield Plain and District Gas Bill.

London Electric Railway Bill.

Metropolitan District Railway Bill.

Edgware and Hampstead Railway Bill.

Newry, Keady, and Tynan Railway Bill.

Metropolitan Electric Tramways Bill.

Collooney, Ballina, and Belmullet Railways and Piers Bill.

Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.

Bedwellty Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Belfast Water Bill (by Order),

Dover Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
"To confirm a Provisional Order made by one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State under The Metropolitan Police Act, 1886." Presented by Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH; supported by Mr. McKenna; read the first time; to be referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

BRITISH MUSEUM.
Sir WILLIAM ANSON, on behalf of the Trustees of the British Museum, presented a petition asking for a Grant of public money to enable them to carry out their trust.
Account ordered "of the income and expenditure of the British Museum (Special Trust Funds) for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1912, and Return of the persons admitted to visit the Museum and the British Museum (Natural History) in each year from 1906 to 1911, both years inclusive, together with a Statement of the progress made in the arrangement and description of the collections, and an account of objects added to them in 1911."—[Sir W. Anson.]

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Ordered, That Mr. William Abraham (Dublin Harbour), Sir Frederick Cawley, Mr. Fenwick, Sir Daniel Goddard, Mr. Laurence Hardy, Colonel Lockwood, Sir John Lonsdale, Sir Walter Menzies, Mr. George Roberts, Sir Herbert Roberts, and Mr. Samuel Roberts be Members of the Committee of Selection.—[Sir Daniel Goddard.]
PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
Address for return "showing, with regard to each Parliamentary Constituency in the United Kingdom, the total number and, as far as possible, the number in each class of electors on the register now in force; and also showing the Population in each Constituency (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 69, of Session 1911)."—[Major Morrison-Bell.]
NATIONAL INSURANCE (JOINT COMMITTEE) REGULATIONS.
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 21st February, 1912, made by the Treasury under Section 83 of the National Insurance Act, 1911 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
FORESTRY (SCOTLAND) (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
Copy presented of Report of the Departmental Committee on Forestry in Scotland, with Appendices and Evidence [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Tripoli (Prohibited Red Crescent Expedition).
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on what grounds the Italian Government withdrew the permission given by them last autumn to a Red Crescent expedition to proceed by sea from Egypt to Tripoli; whether it is at present possible for supplies or personnel connected with Red Crescent societies to go from Egypt to Tripoli; and, if not, whether the British Government will request the Italian Government to withdraw their prohibition?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey): I have been informed that the objections of the Italian Government to the dispatch of the Red Crescent Mission by sea were based on a report from General Caneva contending that the landing of such a mission at the time would be regarded by the local population as a reaffirmation of Turkish influence in Tripoli. The Italian Government further argued that, as other missions organised by the Red Crescent had entered Tripoli from Tunis, the Turkish forces were already amply provided in this respect. They also entertained apprehensions that, though the character of the doctors attached to the mission could be established, it would be impossible to apply a similar test to the other members of the mission and thus guard against the presence among them of disguised officers. There is no prohibition against the dispatch of such missions from Egypt to Tripoli by land.

  Turkish and Arab Prisoners of War.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has any official information as to the condition of the Turkish and Arab prisoners who have been deported by the Italians to the islands of Tremiti and Ustica; and whether, in view of the fact that out of nearly 2,000 prisoners nearly 300 have already died of lung troubles due to the prevailing cold, he will make representations to the Italian Government with a view to improving their condition?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information on this subject.

  Belgian Congo (Shooting of American Subject).
  Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether any report has reached him of the alleged shooting by Soudanese soldiers, part of his escort, of the American subject, James Wood Rogers, in the territory of the Belgian Congo on the 3rd October, 1911; and whether he will ascertain what the facts are?
  Sir E. GREY: I have received a report on this case from His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Cairo. In July last the Soudanese authorities learned that Rogers was shooting in Soudan territory, and had infringed the provisions of the Sleeping Sickness Proclamation. A British officer, with some Soudanese police, were sent in pursuit; the police arrived first, but Rogers attacked and endeavoured to disarm them, and they retired to await the arrival of their officer. When the latter came up he found that Rogers was lying wounded, and he ascertained from the evidence of the police, and by inspection of the bullet which he helped to extract, that the wound must have been inflicted by a native and not by the police. Rogers died four days later. The officer subsequently discovered that he had inadvertently crossed into Congo territory.

  Africa (British and Portuguese Territory).
  Mr. BENNETT - GOLDNEYasked whether the Foreign Office has taken part in any pourparlers or negotiations for the possible cession either of Walfisch Bay or Zanzibar, or both, to any other European Power?
  Sir E. GREY: For many years past at various times possible exchanges of British territory have been considered informally by British Governments. Some of them have been found possible, others have been discussed and dropped. His Majesty's Government must always remain free to discuss possibilities without any public statement, but in the case of any cession of territory which was more than a frontier rectification the assent of the House would be asked under the conditions laid down by His Majesty's Government in the Debate of July, 1890, nor would any cession of territory belonging to a self-governing Dominion be made without the consent of that Government. I can make no further statement in answer to any questions of this kind than this, but if the hon. Member wishes to avoid

  717
  error he must not assume that the cession of Walfisch Bay and Zanzibar is in contemplation.
  Mr. JOHN WARD: Is the precedent to which the right hon. Gentleman refers the case of the cession of Heligoland?
  Sir E. GREY: It was on that occasion that the Government laid down, with the consent of the House, the principle I have alluded to.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was the Irish Nationalist party which objected to the cession?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not read the whole of the Debate, and without further reference to it I cannot say.
  Mr. BENNETT - GOLDNEYasked whether the Foreign Office are aware of any preliminary negotiations having been commenced between any of the European Powers as to the future control of Fernao Veloso Bay or of the Portuguese Kacongo territory north of the Congo; and, if not, whether any negotiations are contemplated between Great Britain and any other country with regard to those places?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. KINGasked whether a secret Anglo-German treaty relating to possible future changes in Africa was concluded in 1898; if so, whether it is still in force; if it is not in force, when was it denounced or superseded; and whether the terms of this treaty can now be published?
  Sir E. GREY: It must, I think, be clear to the hon. Member that if I were to answer questions of this kind with regard to alleged secret treaties such treaties would cease to be secret.

  Treaties with Portugal.
  Mr. BENNETT-GOLDNEYasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office is aware of any treaty or arrangement affecting the interests of the Republic of Portugal which has been concluded, or is about to be concluded, between Germany and Spain since the spring of 1911; whether, if such is the case, they are aware of the terms of such treaty and of the date when it was concluded; whether the British Foreign Office was consulted as to its provisions either by Germany or Spain, or both, during the negotiation of such treaty; and, if any such treaty or arrangement has been concluded or prepared to be concluded, if he will
  718
  inform the House whether its provisions are known to the French Government, and when they will be made known to Parliament?
  Sir E. GREY: I have no information of any kind on this matter.

  Persia.
  Mr. DILLONasked the Secretary for Foreign. Affairs whether he will immediately lay upon the Table the joint Note presented to the Persian Government by the Governments of Russia and Great Britain, and the reply of the Persian Government as soon as it is received?
  Sir E. GREY: The two documents will be laid on the Table simultaneously when the texts are received.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that the Estates Commissioners have acquired some untenanted land, known as Inisfea, at Templenoe, county Kerry; and whether, with a view to completing negotiations for the purchase of the Colomb estate in that district, the two Gaines, evicted tenants, will be either restored to their holdings on the Colomb estate or will be provided with new holdings at Inisfea, which is in the same district?
  The VICE-PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Ireland) (Mr. T. W. Russell): The Estates Commissioners received applications from John Gaine and James Gaine for reinstatement in holdings formerly occupied by them on the Colomb estate, county Kerry, and, after inquiry and consideration, decided to take no action in the matter. It is not the Commissioners' intention to provide holdings for the Gaines in lieu of the holdings formerly occupied by them on the Colomb estate.
  Mr. BOLAND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the negotiations for the sale of this estate would be completed if these evicted tenants could be reinstated?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I am not aware of any of the particulars.
  Mr. BOLAND: Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiry?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Commissioners say that they do not intend to provide holdings for the Gaines in lieu of those occupied by them on the Colomb estate.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked (1) whether the Estates Commissioners have yet decided upon reinstating in her former holding in Rossbeg, county Fermanagh, Jane O'Connor, widow of the late John O'Connor, who was evicted (on the Bloomfield estate) in the year 1892; whether the untenanted land on this estate is now being striped by the Commissioners for distribution; and when a decision upon Mrs. O'Connor's application for reinstatement may be expected; and (2) what decision the Estates Commissioners have come to on the applications for reinstatement under the Evicted Tenants Act made by James M'Gauran and Michael M'Gauran, who were evicted from their holdings on the estate of the Life Association of Scotland, situate in county Fermanagh?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners have approved of a scheme for the distribution of the Castlecaldwell demesne on the estate of the Life Association of Scotland, in county Fermanagh, which has been purchased by the Commissioners, and in the scheme it is proposed to provide parcels for Mrs. O'Connor and one of her sons, and for Michael M'Gauran.
  Mr. DORISasked what steps, if any, have been taken by the Congested Districts Board to acquire the several landed estates in the parish of Achill, county Mayo; and whether, having regard to the congested condition of the people of this parish, the Board will consider the advisability of proceeding at an early date to acquire such estates compulsorily if the landlords do not offer to sell them voluntarily?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Congested Districts Board have communicated with the agents or owners of the several estates in the parish of Achill. The Board do not propose, at present, to take any steps to acquire these estates compulsorily.
  Mr. DORIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the compulsory powers of the Congested Districts Board will be put in operation?
  Mr. RUSSELL: I cannot make any statement of that kind.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he is aware that James Gardiner, of Drumlone, Newtownbutler, county Fermanagh, a small farmer, applied in the month of September last for an old
  720
  age pension; that the pension officer, after inspecting his farm, reported to the pension committee that he was entitled to 2s. a week pension; that the committee approved of that report, and allowed a pension at that rate; that the claimant appealed on the grounds that he was entitled to a higher pension; and that the Local Government Board decided that the yearly value of his farm exceeded £31 10s., and that he was not entitled to any pension, and disqualified him; and whether he will state on what grounds the Board came to that decision, and whether, before arriving at it, the Board had an inspection and valuation made of Gardiner's farm, stock, and crop?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The facts generally are as stated in the question. The decision of the Local Government Board was arrived at from a consideration of the stock and crops on the farm. No inspection was made on behalf of the Board, as none appeared necessary. The pension officer, in reporting that the claimant was entitled to 2s. a week may have treated this as a case of maintenance in view of the fact that claimant assigned his farm to his son in December, 1911; but as this son was unmarried the Board regarded the assignment as coming within the terms of Section 4, Sub-section (3), of the Old Age Pensions Act of 1908.

  Reinstatement of Evicted Tenants (Ireland).
  Mr. DORISasked if he can state whether the Estates Commissioners have yet come to a decision on the application of the Widow Sammon, of Carrickennedy, Westport, county Mayo, under the Evicted Tenants Act, for reinstatement in the holding on the estate of the Marquess of Sligo from which she and her family were evicted, or for a new holding in lieu of it; and, if not, when such decision may be expected?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member's question on this subject on the 24th July last.

  Primary Schools (Ireland).
  Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the total income of the primary schools in Ireland for the last available year; and what were the principal sources of and the amounts composing this total?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The expenditure on the schools and the payments to the teaching staffs in the case of Irish national schools for the year 1910–11 amounted to £1,688,832 2s. 10d., made up as follows:—From State Grants, Vote for Primary Education, Ireland, £1,468,057 3s. 7d.; Vote for Board of Public Works, Ireland, £78,241 3s. 6d.; from local sources £142,533 15s. 9d.

  County Longford Commission of the Peace.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked the Chief Secretary whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has recently received a resolution passed by the Longford Urban District Council requesting that the three past chairmen of the council might, having regard to the fact that there is only one nominated magistrate in the township of Longford, be appointed to the commission of the peace for the county of Longford; whether he is aware that a copy of this resolution was sent to the Lord Lieutenant of the county, who has replied refusing to accede to the wishes of the council; and whether, in view of this attitude of the Lord Lieutenant the Lord Chancellor will exercise the right vested in him and make the appointments after due inquiry as to the status and ability of the gentlemen named?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Lord Chancellor received a copy of the resolution referred to, but no information is available as to whether the Lieutenant of the county was also sent a copy, nor as to what is his attitude in the matter. The names of the three gentlemen mentioned in the resolution will be duly considered by the Lord Chancellor.
  Mr. J. P. FARRELLasked whether three vacancies exist on the magisterial bench of Edgworthstown, two on Granard, and one on Ballinalee, county Longford; whether over six months ago the names of several respectable and eligible gentlemen, landholders, and merchants were submitted to the Lord Chancellor for appointment; whether these appointments have been vetoed by the Lord Lieutenant of county Longford; and, if so, what action the Government propose to take to give effect to feeling in this matter?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Three magistrates entitled to adjudicate in the petty sessions districts referred to have recently died. The names of certain gentlemen submitted in connection with those districts are under consideration by the Lord Chan-
  722
  cellor who is in correspondence with the Lieutenant of the county on the subject.
  Mr. FARRELL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lieutenant of the county in this case is a rabid Tory?
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the present Lieutenant succeeded his father?

  Prosecution of Mr. Patrick T. Daly.
  Mr. FIELDasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention has been directed to the case of Mr. Patrick T. Daly, who stands charged with the offence of inciting certain unknown persons in Wexford to illegal acts, and who is now, in default of giving bail, confined to Waterford Gaol to await his trial at the next assizes; whether he is aware that language calculated to lead to violent action has recently been used by other persons in another part of Ireland with entire impunity; and whether, now that the strike in Wexford in connection with which Mr. Daly is alleged to have spoken the words complained of is at an end, the Government will consider the expediency of dropping the prosecution of Mr. Daly in the interests of peace?
  Mr. RUSSELL: The Attorney-General informs me that he does not see his way to dropping the prosecution of Mr. P. T. Daly. I am absolutely precluded from going into the merits of the prosecution, as Mr. Daly is now awaiting his trial.

  Mr. Churchill's Visit to Belfast (Employment of Military).
  Viscount WOLMERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain why, in view of the fact that he refused to send any troops to Dublin during the disturbances there last summer, he decided to send five battalions of Infantry, a squadron of Cavalry, and half a company of Royal Engineers to Belfast on 8th February?
  Mr. RUSSELL: There was no necessity to send troops to Dublin during the strikes last summer, as the large garrison quartered there was available if required. Troops were sent to Belfast on the occasion referred to at the request of the Lord Mayor of that city, in view of possible disturbances.

  British Guiana (Executive Council).
  Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the names of the present unofficial members of the

  723
  British Guiana Executive Council; when they were appointed and reappointed for their current term; and in what issue of the "London Gazette" were such appointments and reappointments gazetted?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): My right hon. Friend has asked one to answer this question. The present unofficial members of the Executive Council of British Guiana are Mr. D. M. Hutson, Mr. G. Garnett, and Mr. C. G. A. Wyatt. Mr. Hutson's reappointment dates from September, 1911. Mr. Garnett's appointment dates from August, 1910. Mr. Wyatt's appointment dates from December, 1911. The reappointment of Mr. Hutson, and the appointments of Messrs. Garnett and Wyatt, were notified in the issue of the "London Gazette," dated 15th December, 1911.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    ANNUAL CLOTHING ALLOWANCE.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the increased cost of living, he can see his way to grant the petty officers, men, and boys of the Royal Navy an annual clothing allowance or annual free issue of kit, as is now the case of the Royal Marine Forces and His Majesty's Army?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): I am afraid I cannot profitably add anything to the detailed communication made to the Noble Lord on this subject on 18th March last.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is there any chance of this important matter being taken in hand by the Admiralty?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot say there is. The Noble Lord is aware, of course, that we have not completed a comparison between the soldier and sailor if you confine yourself to kit? There is the question of pay, and there is the question of the greater proportion of higher ratings as compared with the non-commissioned ranks in the Army. All these things have to be taken into account if you are going to make a complete comparison between the soldier and sailor.

    Keyham Dockyard.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has received a petition from the workmen employed at the Boat House, North Yard, Keyham, asking permission to use what
    724
    is known as St. John's Gate, situated a little beyond the naval barracks, in order to catch a train at Keyham Station, the present arrangement requiring them to use North Gate, which is sixteen minutes distance from their work and necessitates a long walk to the train at Dockyard Halt; and, if the petition has been received, when an answer may be expected?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: We have received a petition from dockyard employés in the sense indicated in the question. We have replied to it to the effect that the cost of providing the proposed new means of entrance to and exit from the yard would be greater than the circumstances would seem to justify under present conditions.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when that reply was sent?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; if my memory serves me, it was sent in January.

    Board of Admiralty (Sir Francis Hopwood's Position).
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the exact title of the post at the Admiralty to which he has appointed Sir Francis Hopwood, and what are the scope and extent of its duties; whether these duties conflict with or in any way duplicate the function of the present Civil Lord; and whether he has considered, is considering, or will consider the possibility of abolishing the latter post, and thus saving the salary to the nation?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): The Civil Lord is primarily responsible for Vote 10, which covers the whole of the important field of naval works, and comprises many of the most difficult and complicated questions of Admiralty administration. Except at certain occasional points, the functions of the Additional Civil Lord, as Sir Francis Hopwood has, according to precedent, been styled, will not touch the duties which have been most carefully discharged during the last six years by my hon. Friend the Civil Lord. The general scope and character of the duties assigned to the Additional Civil Lord, as was explained by the Minute which was published at the time of the appointment, are the supervision of the work of the various Departments connected with contracts and purchasing, and the conduct of the business and commercial transactions of the Admiralty with the

    725
    great contracting firms. The arrangements now in force, although in some respects tentative, are working well, and are of great assistance to the Board of Admiralty; but it may be some months before I shall be able to issue, as I intend to do, the revised table of distribution of business, which will show in precise detail the functions of the various officers.
    Mr. J. WARD: Was there any competitive examination prior to the appointment?

    Crombie Magazines.
    Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the date upon which the work for the Crombie magazines is to be completed and handed over to his Department; and whether he is satisfied that those works will be completed within the time specified?
    The CIVIL LORD to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Lambert): We have no reason to anticipate that the date for completion of the existing contract for magazines, workshops, etc., at Crombie, namely, 22nd August, 1913, will be exceeded.

    Rosyth Dockyard (Fatal Accidents).
    Mr. J. WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, (1) whether he has received any report as to the death by accident of George Prout, a workman employed upon the Rosyth new dock works, on Monday, 12th February, and whether his Department was represented at the inquest; and (2) whether his attention has been called to the death, on 16th February, of Colin Duncan, a workman employed at Rosyth new dock works, by accident; whether he Las asked for a report upon the cause and circumstances of the accident; and what action he proposes to take to prevent such accidents in the future?
    Mr. LAMBERT: I regret that two fatal accidents have been reported to the Admiralty. They will be investigated by the court of inquiry in due process of law. These men were employed by the contractor, who will be represented at the inquiry. Any recommendations made by the court will receive every consideration.
    Mr. J. WARD: Do I understand the answer of the hon. Gentleman is that his Department does not think it necessary to be represented at the inquiry?
    Mr. LAMBERT: No, Sir. There is no necessity for the Admiralty to be repre-
    726
    sented there. The Lord Advocate will be represented by the Procurator Fiscal.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many fatal accidents have taken place on these works since the commencement?
    Mr. LAMBERT: Yes; the number is eight, which is a good deal less than the average on other works of a similar character.

    Unemployment.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the President of the Local Government Board if he can say whether the Government intends to introduce any further legislation this Session to deal with the problem of unemployment?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): The answer is in the negative.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether any and, if so, what sums of money authorised for the purposes of the Central Unemployed Authority have been withheld from expenditure by that body during each of the last three years?
    Mr. BURNS: All the sums advanced to the Central Unemployed Body for London during the last three years have, I understand, been expended. There have no doubt been unexpended balances in the hands of the Central Body from time to time, but these have been utilised as occasion arose.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: How many applications have been made to the right hon. Gentleman, and how many Grants has he had the opportunity of refusing?
    Mr. BURNS: I have received a large number of applications, and have refused very few indeed.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked whether any, and, if so, what schemes of work submitted by the Central Unemployed Authority during the last three years have been refused sanction by the Local Government Board; and the reason for such refusal?
    Mr. BURNS: Under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905, the Central Unemployed Body for London are empowered in any case of an unemployed person referred to them by a distress committee to assist that person by providing or contributing to the provision of temporary work, and no sanction on the part of the Board

    727
    is necessary to the exercise of these powers. It has not, of course, been possible for me to aid out of the Parliamentary Grant all the schemes submitted to me by the Central Unemployed Body, but I have endeavoured generally to assist those schemes which will provide the maximum of work for the largest number of persons, without displacing the regular worker.

    Emigration (Boards of Guardians).
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked to what extent the boards of guardians in Great Britain have availed themselves of their permissive powers in regard to emigration in each of the last five years?
    Mr. BURNS: The number of emigrants, whose emigration by boards of guardians in England and Wales has been authorised by the Local Government Board, in each of the last five years, is as follows:—

    1907

    1,264

    1908

    587

    1909

    635

    1910

    790

    1911

    1,021

    Total for last five years

    4,297

    The total amount of expenditure authorised by the Local Government Board in respect of this emigration was £49,804.
    Sir H. CARLILE: Are the figures for Scotland available in the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
    Mr. BURNSNo; the hon. Member will have to apply to the Secretary for Scotland and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If he will allow me to do it I will do my best to secure the information.
    Sir C. KINLOCH - COOKE: Have these figures risen since the Unemployed Workmen's Act came into force in 1905?
    Mr. BURNS: The hon. Member will see by the figures I have given that they have risen in the last few years. The total amount of money spent is not to be compared with what the distress committees have spent in the last five or six years in emigrating some 20,000 people.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: In the figures the right hon. Gentleman has given how many are adults and how many children?
    Mr. BURNS: These are nearly all children.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand me. I asked him a question with regard to boards of guardians, and not with regard to distress committees.
    Mr. BURNS: I can best answer the hon. Member's meticulous question by reading the figures. In 1909 it was 635, and in 1911 it was 1,021, so he will see there has been a very considerable increase in the last three years.

    Milk Bill.
    Mr. EDWARD WOODasked on what date it is proposed to introduce the Milk Bill?
    Mr. BURNS: I am not yet able to fix a date for the introduction of the Bill, but I hope it may not be long deferred.

    School Meals (Outdoor Relief).
    Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that at a meeting of the Hammersmith Board of Guardians, held on 17th January, a report from the out-relief committee was unanimously adopted stating that they had had under consideration the Board's reference of a letter received from the education department of the London County Council, stating that the council was anxious to lessen the amount of overlapping of Poor Law relief and meals to school children which now exists, and recommended that a reply be sent to the effect that when school children's parents were in receipt of outdoor relief that fact should, in general, be taken as an indication that such children should be benefited by school meals, and not as an indication that they are adequately fed, since, as a matter of fact, outdoor relief is seldom or never adequate; and whether he will take steps to secure that the children in the Hammersmith union whose parents are in receipt of outdoor relief shall be adequately fed?
    Mr. BURNS: The resolution of the Hammersmith guardians had not been brought to my notice. I am communicating with that body.

    Financial Relations (Great Britain and Ireland).
    Earl WINTERTONasked the Prime Minister if he can state upon what Estimate the cost in connection with the holding of the Committee of Financial Relations between Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom will fall?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman) (for the Prime Minister): The cost falls upon the Vote for Temporary Commissions for the current year.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Prime Minister (1) whether the attention of the Special Committee appointed by the Government on Irish finance received evidence on the alleged understatement in the Financial Relations White Papers of the contribution of Income Tax by Ireland; and whether the Committee reached any, and, if so, what, conclusions on this subject; and (2) whether the attention of the Special Committee appointed by the Government on Irish finance was drawn to the discrepancy in the consumption of tea in Ireland, as shown in the Irish Import and Export Returns and in the annual White Papers; and whether they reached any, and, if so, what, conclusion as to the reliability of either set of figures?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna) (for the Prime Minister): For reasons already given, I cannot at this stage make public the proceedings of the Committee either in whole or in part.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the Government in possession of information showing the unreliability of the published White Papers?
    Mr. McKENNA: Will the hon. Member kindly give notice of that?
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: How many Members of this House have had access to this Report other than the Members of the Cabinet?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware, myself, of any. Will the hon. Member kindly put his question on the Paper?

    Justices of the Peace (Lanark).
    Mr. DUNCAN MILLARasked the Prime Minister whether the three advisory committees in connection with the appointment of justices of the peace which, in answer to a question on 5th December, 1911, he indicated were about to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor for the county of Lanark, have yet been constituted; and, if not, when the members of these committees will be appointed?
    The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure) (for the Prime Minister): These committees have not yet been appointed, but it is
    730
    expected that the arrangements will be completed very soon.

    Poor Law Commission.
    Mr. PIKE PEASEasked whether any legislation will be introduced this Session to carry out the findings of the recent Poor Law Commission?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot undertake to promise such legislation this Session. I have already stated that the Government intend to introduce a Bill dealing with the problem of the feeble-minded.
    Mr. COOPER: Do the Government really believe that the Poor Law Commission's Report is of less urgency to the working classes of this country than Home Rule?

    Labour Exchanges.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state what sum has been expended on Labour Exchanges in connection with the hire and purchase of buildings up to 31st December, 1911, and what was the number of officials attached to the Labour Exchanges at the same date; what was the total sum paid in salaries; and how many of these officials passed a Civil Service examination?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson): The total sum expended on the hire of Labour Exchange buildings up to 31st December, 1911, was £41,649. The sum expended on the purchase of buildings during the same period was £9,537. The total number of officers appointed under the Labour Exchanges Act up to that date was 1,287: and the total sum paid in salaries during the twenty-seven months October, 1909, to 31st December, 1911, was £205,493 17s. 9d. It was not possible to appoint these officers at the outset by the ordinary Civil Service examination, though a limited number were transferred from other posts, to which they had been appointed after such examination. Most of the officers appointed to the more responsible posts were, however, selected on the recommendation of an independent committee, presided over by the First Civil Service Commissioner. A system of appointment, on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commissioners, has now been put into force.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: What is the limited number transferred?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I have not got the number. I will make inquiry if the hon. Gentleman desires it.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what was the number of applications remaining on the Labour Exchange registers at the end of December, 1911, and what was the number at the end of January, 1912; for how many of these persons were positions found during the month of January and what proportion of those positions were given to persons registering in January; how many of the posts filled during January were for one week's engagement or less; and how many persons during that month were sent to situations in Government undertakings?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The number of applications remaining on the Labour Exchange registers (general and casual) at 29th December, 1911, was 64,016, and at 26th January, 1912, was 97,175. The number on the register at the end of December is seriously affected both by the Christmas holidays and by the engagement of men for temporary Christmas work. The number of vacancies filled from the general register during the four weeks ended 26th January, 1912, was 53,420, of which 12,065 were for engagements of less than a week's employment. In addition, 10,254 jobs were found for applicants on the casual register. The total number of vacancies filled in Government undertakings during the same four weeks was 1,666. It is not possible to give the number of vacancies filled by applicants registering in January.
    Mr. HAROLD SMITH: What proportion of the applicants got jobs?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The proportion can be worked out from these figures. If the hon. Member will put any specific question I will get the calculation made.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Would it be possible to get the ages of the men and women remaining on the register for whom no situations were found?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The number on the register on 29th December was 64,000. If I recollect rightly, 46,000 were men, 8,000 odd women, and the remainder boys and girls.
    Mr. LANSBURY: It was the ages I was inquiring about.
    Mr. ROBERTSON: I will inquire.

    Imports and Exports (Returns).
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department has considered the possibility, in the issue of the Returns of Imports and Exports, of setting forth, in addition to the aggregate values, the details as to character and amounts of the various commodities?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The hon. Member will find the information he desires in the "Monthly Accounts Relating to Trade and Navigation," and, in greater detail, in the "Annual Statement of the Trade of the United Kingdom."

    Portable Rocket Apparatus.
    Mr. CROOKSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any sea-going vessels are compelled by regulaton to carry as part of the life-saving apparatus any form of portable rocket apparatus; and, if not, whether he will consider the advisability of providing that all British ships shall in future be obliged to carry-some such life-saving gear?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: There is no regulation requiring such an apparatus as that to which my hon. Friend refers to be carried on board ship, nor is there power to make such a regulation under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The matter was considered by the Board of Trade Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee in 1908, and their report was published as a Parliamentary Paper (Cd. 4552) in 1909, when the recommendations of the Committee were commended by the Board of Trade to the attention of those concerned by the issue of a special notice. As at present advised, the Board do not propose to take any further steps in the matter, but it will be further considered in connection with the pending inquiry into the recent loss of the "Delhi."

    Price of Wheat (1911).
    Mr. KELLAWAYasked what was the average price of wheat during 1911 in London, Paris, and Berlin?
    Mr. ROBERTSON: The "Gazette" average price of British wheat in London in 1911 was 32s. 10d. per imperial quarter, and the average price of wheat imported into London was 33s. 9d. In Paris and Berlin the average official prices of wheat—quoted irrespective of origin—were 45s. 5d. and 43s. 8d. respectively.

    Post Office Employés.
    Mr. STEPHEN COLLINSasked the Postmaster-General whether employment as male typists was considered by the Standing Committee appointed to inquire into boy labour in the Post Office as likely to afford additional avenues into permanent employment; whether the substitution of male typists by female typists in the Central Telegraph Office will reduce the avenues of employment at present available for the boys; and whether he can state the reason for the change?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): Employment as male typists was not considered by the Boy Labour Committee as likely to afford an additional avenue into permanent employment, because the male typists in the Post Office are boy clerks who have to leave at the age of eighteen. The change the hon. Member refers to was made for the purpose of substituting permanent employment for temporary.
    Mr. NANNETTIasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of several auxiliary postmen who have been employed for many years in a temporary manner in the Irish post offices and their places subsequently filled by ex-soldiers and pensioners; whether he will give instructions to have this practice stopped; and whether he can see his way to make permanent servants men so employed for years?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: In the absence of particulars, I cannot identify the cases referred to by the hon. Member. Auxiliary postmen, who work and are paid only for a part of the day, are engaged on the understanding that they are not entitled to succeed to established or pensionable appointments. I shall be happy to inquire into any case in which hardship appears to be involved in the dismissal of an auxiliary postman.
    Mr. MOORE: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has noticed that this campaign against soldiers and pensioners has been organised by the gentlemen who cheered the Boers?
    Mr. NANNETTI: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if men who are acting in a temporary capacity as auxiliary postmen have not a right to some consideration, and to be appointed to permanent appointments when these become vacant? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the
    734
    hardships to which I have alluded are not allowed to occur in future?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If these auxiliary postmen were given permanent appointments there would not be places for the boy messengers. I am anxious to find permanent appointments for the boy messengers instead of dismissing them in large numbers. An arrangement made by a previous Government provided that half of the appointments as postmen should be given to ex-soldiers and ex-sailors. They also have a claim upon the country, and really a greater claim than these auxiliary postmen, who are only engaged for a few hours a day, and are distinctly told when, they accept employment that it is on the understanding that they cannot be given permanent employment.
    Mr. NANNETTI: Are the men who are working in the Post Office and expecting promotion not to receive the same consideration as other men? Why should these men who have been working in the Post Office for years be deprived of employment for the purpose of finding employment for ex-soldiers when they leave the Army?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I can add nothing to what I have said.
    Mr. FLAVIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that among the cases of appointments given to ex-soldiers there has been a great deal of inefficiency and disgrace? I will give the right hon. Gentleman a specific case. Let the Postmaster-General inquire at Tralee in regard to the disgraceful services of two or three ex-soldiers.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put his question on the Paper.
    Mr. NANNETTIasked whether the practice which has long prevailed in the postal service of open competition for appointments has been abolished in Ireland; and, if so, whether any examination is in future to be set for candidates for entrance to these positions, or in what way are applicants for positions in the Post Office to be appointed?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The hon. Member refers doubtless to the abolition of open competition for appointments as sorting clerks and telegraphists, which I recently authorised with the object of rendering more appointments available for telegraph messengers and so avoiding their dismissal at the age of sixteen.

    735
    Competitive examination is however maintained, though restricted to messengers, postmen, and others already serving the Post Office, and I may add that the educational standard required is the same as before.
    Mr. NANNETTI: I have nothing to say in the way of objection to the giving of employment to the boy messengers. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in apportioning these appointments he will not only give consideration to young men, not messengers, who are expecting promotion, but also whether consideration will be given by a limited competition or otherwise to the other applicants for appointments in the Post Office?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: No, Sir. If I am to find places for the boy messengers—and I think the House generally desires me to do so—it is obvious that I cannot to that extent take in other people from outside. The policy at present is to find employment for the boy messengers in the Post Office service, and it is for that reason that I cannot act on the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. NANNETTI: Is no consideration to be given to efficient service? When these boys come in without competitive examination, and when places are filled by ex-soldiers, what guarantee have the public in Ireland that the service of the Post Office will be carried on in an efficient manner?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: It will be the same as elsewhere. It does not affect the ex-soldiers at all. It affects only the boy messengers on the one hand and the public on the other. The educational standard will be maintained as high as it has ever been in the past.
    Mr. BRADYasked the Postmaster-General whether he can state how many Army pensioners are employed in Ireland in his Department as postmen, porters, etc.?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The number is eighty-five.
    Mr. BRADYasked the Postmaster-General whether the office of auxiliary postman is one of temporary character; whether a large number of auxiliary postmen, working four and five hours daily and employed for ten and fifteen years and upwards, have, according to the rules of the Post Office Department, no prospect
    736
    of being appointed to permanent established positions; and whether, seeing the hardships which must often be caused to such men, he will take steps to ensure that a larger proportion of the positions for established postmen are in future given to deserving auxiliaries?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As the work of the Post Office is much heavier during certain hours than during the rest of the day, the employment of some auxiliary part-time labour is inevitable. Auxiliary postmen, engaged for such duties, are clearly warned in writing on first employment that they have no title to succeed to established posts. Any such posts conferred on them would be withdrawn from telegraph messengers, and I am not prepared to do this save in cases where special considerations arise.
    Mr. BRADY: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider this a special case: that of a man who discharges his duties as an auxiliary postman for ten, twelve, or fifteen years, and then at a moment's notice is dismissed in order to give a position to a soldier? I do not in any way reflect on His Majesty's Army, but I think His Majesty's postmen are equally deserving of consideration.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: If an auxiliary postman has been working a considerable number of years in the Post Office and his duties gradually get so big that it becomes almost a full-time appointment, then when it can be converted into a fulltime appointment it is the custom of the Government to appoint the man previously doing the work to that position.
    Mr. BRADY: Is it not the fact that frequently auxiliary postmen such as I have described are dismissed, and are not promoted to positions on the staff?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That occurs as a rule, where they have been working for two or three hours a day, perhaps for a considerable number of years, and it has been possible to combine two or three auxiliary into an established full-time post, a course the Department is always anxious to take, because it much prefers a full-time man to a half-time man. In those cases it happens frequently that none of these men are regarded as having a strong claim.
    Mr. BRADY: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to say that men working five or six hours a day for ten or twelve years have not been dismissed?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I think that those cases are very rare. If the hon. Member calls my attention to any I shall be most happy to give consideration to them.
    Mr. MOORE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no objection whatever would have been taken to the fact of these people being dismissed if their successors were not men who had served in the Army?

    Parcels Post (Articles Smashed in Transit).
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General, if a record is kept of the number of complaints received in respect of articles smashed in the post; and, if so, can he state the number of complaints received during the months of December, 1911, and January, 1912?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I called recently for some figures upon this subject, and found that no complete and trustworthy return could be made without much labour and communication with every head office in the United Kingdom. So far as I was able to judge from the figures ready to hand, which related to the complaints received at the chief office in London, no higher estimate of complaints could possibly be made than one for every 3,000 parcels sent; and as I stated in reply to a recent question, there is no sign of any noticeable increase in the number of complaints.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General if, for the better protection of the goods of the public and with a view to diminishing occasions of reasonable complaint that articles are smashed in the post, he will consider the use of a special or excess stamp which, when added to the ordinary postage, will secure careful treatment and better prospects of safe delivery of fragile packages, thus enabling the sender to determine whether an article sent is to be specially handled and diminishing the difficulties of dispatching officers?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Not only has this suggestion been made and considered recently, but it was made and considered, I believe, before the Parcel Post was begun in 1883, and on many occasions since. There are serious objections to the imposition of a fee as payment for special treatment in respect of any parcel deemed by the Post Office to be fragile, or to the acceptance of a fee in respect of any parcel deemed by the sender to be fragile. I do not think that the public would approve an
    738
    arrangement which would be considered to imply that special care would not be taken of fragile parcels unless the sender was willing to pay an addition to the postage charge.

    Post Office Money Order Department.
    Mr. TOUCHEasked the Postmaster-General how many women are employed in the money order department, Manor Gardens, Holloway; and if he can give any forecast of the number of positions at present occupied by women clerks which will be replaced ultimately by the new grade of assistant women clerks at a lower rate of pay.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The answer to the first part of the question will be circulated with the Votes. In answer to the second part of the question I have to state that I am not in a position to give any forecast of the kind suggested, but I may say that I do not propose, pending the investigations of the promised Select Committee of this House, to effect any general replacement by female assistant clerks of the second class women clerks now engaged on elementary work. The replacement will be gradual only, as vacancies occur. [See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he purposes adding any more assistant women clerks before the Committee has considered the matter and reported upon it?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: That is the question I have just answered.

    Harrogate Postal Delivery.
    Mr. EDWARD WOODasked the Postmaster-General whether complaints have been received of considerable inconvenience caused to residents in Dragon Road, Harrogate, by the late delivery of the first morning's post; and what steps he proposes to take to effect a more speedy and regular delivery?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am having inquiry made into the matter and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Telephone Service.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he can now give particulars of the investigation arising out of the many recent complaints of the London telephone service?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Certain difficulties were incidental to a transaction of

    739
    such magnitude as the transfer of the National Telephone Company's undertaking to the State. These were experienced more particularly in connection with the transfer to new exchanges of the 5,150 subscribers and 1,950 junction circuits connected with the old Westminster and Avenue exchanges of the company. Those exchanges had to be vacated as their equipment was not of a modern type and as the leases of the premises were about to expire. I greatly regret that inconvenience should have been caused to subscribers, but I believe that during the last three weeks great improvement has been made, and active steps are being taken to effect further improvement.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: What was the occasion for the great hurry in transferring these two exchanges before the arrangements were completed?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The engineers were of opinion that the arrangements had been perfected. The old premises of the company had to be vacated because the leases were coming to an end.
    Mr. LEE: Were not complaints almost as frequent before the transfer took place, and what steps have been taken to meet the general complaints from the public, quite apart from this transfer?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: The London telephone service, like the telephone service of other places, has always been the subject of complaint, and the complaints are by no means new. But I think that there has been cause for additional complaint, I must admit, in connection with these two exchanges since the transfer. The controller of the London postal service and the exchange managers are in conference, and the superintendents also, with the view of carrying out various improvements, which are too detailed to discuss here, many of which have been already carried out.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to fully meet the requirements of the public by giving telephonic connection to new subscribers in the districts served by the Victoria, Gerrard, and Mayfair Telephone Exchanges?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: At present there is adequate accommodation at the Victoria and Mayfair Exchanges, and large extensions are in hand at the Gerrard Exchange to provide for future growth.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Is it not a fact that there is a large number of applications which have not been attended to, and what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do to meet the demand? Will he establish similar exchanges?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I have been told that there is still room in these three exchanges. Gerrard is very nearly full. The engineers have now in hand a large temporary extension. We are also giving three new exchanges to serve the future growth of telephone business in that part of London.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Is it not a fact that a large number of applicants are still waiting, and have been waiting for a considerable time, for telephones?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I do not think it is because the exchanges are full.
    Mr. GOLDMANasked the Postmaster-General whether the royalty under the licence to the National Telephone Company, hitherto paid by the telephone subscribers, will be remitted, or will it be continued for the purpose of raising revenue for the State?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, I have undertaken to revise telephone rates as soon as the purchase price of the National Telephone Company's undertaking has been settled, and to arrange for an inquiry by a Committee into the proposed new rates, if there is any general desire for the adoption of that course. The whole of the revenue of the Post Office from the telephone exchange system will naturally be taken into account as telephone revenue in the determination of the rates.
    Mr. GOLDMAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to keep the telephone system independent of the telegraph system in the accounts?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: They are already separately kept and are published in separate form.
    Mr. FELLasked if any compensation or allowance will be made to subscribers to the telephone system for the interruption and irregularity of the service which is-being experienced?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: So far as I am aware such interruptions as have occurred have been of a temporary nature, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with details of any cases where exchange

    741
    lines have been out of use for any considerable period, I am willing to consider applications for some allowance in respect of the time of interruption.

    Press Telegrams (India and South Africa)
    Mr. FERENSasked the Postmaster-General whether he can make any announcement in regard to a reduction in press telegraph rates to India and South Africa corresponding to those already granted to other parts of the Empire?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I am glad to be able to say that the Eastern Telegraph Company have arranged to reduce the rate for Press telegrams of a non-urgent character to Cape Town and Durban from 9d. to 3½d. a word, with an additional charge of a farthing a word for other places in South Africa. This reduction will come into force on 1st March. I hope that a reduction in the rate for Press telegrams to India will also shortly be effected.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Will that rate be reciprocal? Will it be the same from South Africa?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me notice. I think that that will be the case.
    Earl WINTERTON: Does the arrangement extend to Rhodesia as well as to the Union?
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I shall be glad to have notice.

    Improper Literature.
    Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he proposes to introduce this Session his Bill for dealing with improper literature; and whether time will be allotted to it in the Government programme?
    Mr. McKENNA: I propose to introduce this Bill, and I hope that time may be found to pass it.
    Mr. WEDGWOOD: Do the Government propose to set up a censorship of books as well as of plays?
    Mr. McKENNA: No. It is not proposed to censor anything.
    Mr. KING: Would it be desirable to restrict improper language of all kinds?

    Workmen's Compensation Act.
    Mr. ALBERT SMITHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department
    742
    when the committee of inquiry into the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as promised by his predecessor, will be appointed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my predecessor gave to a question on this subject on 21st March last. The present Act has only been in force for a little over four and a half years, and I think it is still too early to bring it under review.
    Mr. A. SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last year the Home Secretary stated explicitly that a committee of inquiry would be appointed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I have not had an opportunity so far of inquiring into that, but will do so.

    Shop Hours Act.
    Sir HOWELL DAVIESasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if in the administration of the Shop Hours Act, 1911, he would recognise that an employer was conforming with the conditions of the Act by allowing a full day once a fortnight to his shop employés instead of the half day required each week?
    Mr. McKENNA: The local authority, and not the Home Office, is charged with the duty of enforcing the Act; but neither the local authority nor the Home Office has any power to modify or dispense from the requirement of the Act in the manner suggested in the question.

    Case of Mr. Ball (Insanity).
    Mr. LANSBURYasked if the prison doctor or any other doctor who examined Mr. Ball before, during, and after his becoming insane have formed any opinion as to the causes which led up to his becoming insane; and whether, up to the present, any traces of insanity have been traced in his family?
    Mr. McKENNA: While Mr. Ball was in prison the medical officer who was sent from the Home Office to visit him reported that his insanity was not due to his prison treatment. In response to the request made to me, I have made further inquiry, and the medical officer now reports that he has formed the opinion that the prisoner's mental balance was upset by his mind, apparently never a strong one, dwelling continually on the questions of "Votes for Women" and "political prisoners." I have not yet obtained any information as to Mr. Ball's family history.

    Hyde Park.
    Mr. LANSBURYasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the scenes of immorality taking place in and about Hyde Park at night; whether the police authorities have declared their inability to deal with this condition of affairs owing to the state of the law; and if he proposes to take any steps for dealing with this state of affairs in the near future?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been drawn to the matters in question, which could be prevented only by closing the Park at dusk and keeping it closed all night. The returns made by the police show that they have been more viligant in 1911 than in preceding years in dealing with this class of offence. The police have not reported to me that any change in the law is required to give them greater control.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the parks under the London County Council are closed after dusk?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes; but this does not apply to Hyde Park.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is there any reason why this should not be closed?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is a public thoroughfare.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. tleman aware that the London County-Council parks are also public thoroughfares, and that a considerable distance is saved by going through them instead of round by another way? And if it is the fact that these scenes of revolting immorality that are going on in the park cannot be put an end to in any other way than by closing the park, should they not be put an end to by closing it?
    Mr. McKENNA: A number of facts have to be taken into consideration. I will, however, bear the subject in mind.

    Suffragette Meeting (Inflammatory Speech).
    Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked whether the Home Secretary's attention has been drawn to a speech made by Mrs. Pank-hurst at the Connaught Rooms, Kingsway, last Friday night, openly and emphatically inciting her hearers to violent outrage and the destruction of property, and threatening the use of firearms if stones did not prove sufficiently effective; and what steps
    744
    he proposes to take to protect society against this outbreak of lawlessness?
    Mr. McKENNA: My attention has been called to the inflammatory speech to which my hon. Friend refers. It would not be desirable in the public interest to say more than this at present.
    Mr. FERENS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the fact of these speeches is not due to the example of some Privy Councillors?
    Sir W. BYLES: In considering what steps to take, will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the fact that, at the cost of £2,700, protection was furnished in the city of Belfast against similar incitement by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Down and to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College?
    Mr. SPEAKER: If I had thought this question simply raised the case of Belfast, it would not have appeared on the Paper. I thought it was a general question.
    Mr. LANSBURY: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statement made by his right hon. colleague the Chancellor of the Duchy, and may I ask whether he considers that the statement would incite people to take violent measures, the statement being that they had not had in the case of the Suffragette demands the kind of sentimental and popular uprising which accounted for Nottingham Castle in 1832 and for the Hyde Park railings in 1867? Is that statement not an incitement to women to go and do likewise?
    Mr. McKENNA: My right hon. Friend asks me to criticise the speech of my colleague, but I am bound to say, the question being put to me, that I do not see the slightest resemblance between the two.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    LECTURERS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will state the names, addresses, and usual occupations of the official lecturers appointed by the English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh Insurance Commissioners; and whether he can state by whom each was recommended for his appointment?
    Sir JOHN LONSDALEasked the names, addresses, and qualifications and

    745
    salaries of the organisers and instructors appointed to date by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and if any applicants for posts under these Commissioners have been disqualified in accordance with the rule prohibiting the exercise of political influence in regard to these appointments?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: As I informed the House yesterday, I propose to include in a White Paper, to be laid upon the Table, names of all persons appointed to temporary or permanent positions (other than clerical) by the Insurance Commissioners, with their occupations at the date of appointment. I do not propose to print the private addresses of these gentlemen, but any communications will find them addressed to the Office of the Commissions under which they are working. The answer to the last part of the question of the hon. Member for Mid-Armagh is in the negative, as the Irish Commissioners are not aware of any infringement of the rule referred to.
    Captain CRAIG: May I ask whether any of these lecturers who are paid for out of public funds are lecturing on Sundays?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I have no information on the point. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me notice.
    Captain CRAIG(producing a printed poster): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Ireland, in the Nationalist parts of the country, these lecturers, sent round by the Government, and paid for out of public funds, are announced to attend these meetings to explain the Act, on the Sabbath afternoons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: To judge from the document produced, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is endeavouring to make me aware of the fact.
    Captain CRAIG: Will the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, say whether these gentlemen, paid for out of public funds, will be permitted to give these lectures on Sunday afternoons?
    Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like to find out all the facts before giving an answer.
    Captain CRAIG: May I take the opportunity of passing this [the printed poster] over to the hon. Gentleman?

    Portsmouth Harbour (Tide Races).
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked whether, owing to constant dredging, the
    746
    tide races in and out of Portsmouth Harbour in an alarming way; and whether the Admiralty are taking any steps to widen the entrance to the harbour?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the answer to both questions is in the negative.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the course of business will be for next week?
Mr. McKENNA: According to the arrangements, we hope to conclude the Debate on the Address to-morrow.
On Monday we shall take Supplementary Estimates, and the discussion of those Estimates will be continued on Tuesday.
We hope on Wednesday to get the Report of the Supplementary Estimates.
As to the business of Thursday, the Prime Minister will make an announcement on Monday.
Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Supplementary Estimates have not yet been printed and circulated among Members?
Mr. McKENNA: They will be found in the Vote Office to-morrow morning.
Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Does the right hon. Gentleman know the Departments to which the Estimates belong?
Mr. MASTERMAN: They include the Stationery Office, the Irish Local Government Board, the Treasury Chest, the Board of Trade, the Insurance Commissioners, and a few smaller items.
Mr. CASSEL: May I ask whether we are to have the Metropolitan Police (Rating) Bill at an early date?
Mr. McKENNA: The announcement which the Prime Minister will make will include that item.

SUBMARINE SHIPS (MINE LAYERS).
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: According to the question as printed on the Paper, I am made to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can state how many "submarine salvage ships" there are in the British Navy. What I ask is, how many submarine ships are fitted as mine layers?
Mr. CHURCHILL: I had prepared an answer which I thought would meet any contingency. It was to refer the Noble Lord to the full reply I gave on this subject last Tuesday, but I find it does not include the matter to which he refers, and I must ask him to put his question down and let me have another opportunity.

BILLS PRESENTED.
The following Bills were presented:—
BILLS PRESENTED.
  CALENDAR REFORM BILL.
  "To reform the Calendar, fix Easter, and other and more bank holidays; and for other purposes in relation thereto." Presented by Mr. ROBERT PEARCE; supported by Sir William Bull, Mr. Robert Harcourt, and Sir Albert Spicer; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 5th March, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
  DAYLIGHT SAVING BILL.
  "To promote the earlier use of Daylight in certain months yearly; and for other purposes relating thereto." Presented by Mr. ROBERT PEARCE; supported by Sir Edward Sassoon, Sir William Bull, Sir Henry Norman, Sir William Priestley, Mr. Stephen Collins, and Mr. Pirie; to be read a second time upon Tuesday, 5th March, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATION'S (QUALIFICATION OF CLERGYMEN) BILL.
  "To remove the disqualification of Clerks in Holy Orders and other Ministers of Religion as Municipal Councillors." Presented by Mr. LANSBURY; supported by Mr. Goldstone, Mr. Remnant, Mr. Silvester Home, Mr. John Taylor, Mr. Albert Smith, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Alden, Mr. Edmund Harvey, Mr. Goulding, and Mr. Leach; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS SPEECH.
Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question, proposed [14th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
Most Gracious Sovereign,
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the
748
gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Sir Harry Verney.]
Question again proposed.
Debate resumed.

HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS SPEECH.

  FISCAL REFORM.
  Captain TRYON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Address, at the end, to add the words:—
  But this House humbly expresses its regret that the persistent refusal of Your Majesty's Government to modify the fiscal system of the country is imperilling the advantages at present derived by British commerce from the preference granted by Your Majesty's Dominions overseas, has deferred the closer commercial union of the Empire, has deprived the country of the most effective method of inducing foreign countries to grant fair treatment to British manufactures, and is adversely affecting labour conditions of the country.
  I understand that there has been some kind of comment in the House that we have not previously been speaking on the subject of Tariff Reform. The explanation is that we were waiting until the Amendment which deals with it came before the House, but if we have not been speaking about Tariff Reform we cannot say that of the Labour party. I noticed that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Mac-donald) introduced Tariff Reform frequently into his speech. I would further say that we are indebted to the Labour party for the very interesting information that at the end of a further period of trial of six years of Free Trade under the Liberal Government that food is dearer, that the rich are getting richer and that the poor are getting poorer. We think, therefore, that we are fully justified in again debating this subject and considering how far our policy of Tariff Reform can fee applied to the great industrial problems of this country. We may as well take some sort of national stocktaking. There are, for instance, the trade returns, about which the Liberal party appear to be keen, since they show an increase. I notice, however, that there is a larger increase in German trade. Those are not the only figures that affect this question. We have, for instance, the exports of capital. There are, of course, some who preach at street corners and who looking capital as the enemy. If capital is the enemy, we certainly have a number of

  749
  politicians who are calculated to drive the enemy out of our country. We find that the "enemy," capital, is leaving in large quantities, and simultaneously labour is leaving too, to go to those countries which our capital, leaving our shores, is helping to develop. We are very glad that so much of that capital is going to our own Empire. We are very glad to see that a large proportion of the emigration is going to our own Empire, but before there are any Liberal rejoicings over the proportion of our unemployed we ought to take into account the fact that the pressure on the labour market has been enormously relieved by the fact that about 260,000 persons left this country last year, of whom a very large proportion naturally are workers.
  We are at this moment, according to general belief, at the top of a wave of large trade returns, and it is as well to examine our position, not only in moments of depression, but also in those moments when, I suppose, Free Trade is doing as much for us as it is ever likely to do. It has undoubtedly broken down in this respect—that after six years the position of the workers of this country is worse than it was before. I wonder whether any of those who talk of the conflict between labour and capital—the Labour party, for instance—ever note what strange allies they have on their own side of the House? Capital is not all on one side of the House. There are some, and I am not making any personal attack, of great wealth in the Liberal party making very large fortunes, and sometimes their denunciation of the House of Lords is so successful that they get peerages. They are men who, by their eloquence on the platform, and by their votes in this House, are denying to the industrial classes of this country that protection from foreign competition which, by the formation of combines and corners and trusts, they successfully achieve for themselves. Those are strange allies for the Labour party. I suppose we shall be told that the trust flourishes in the protected country. We have a good many of them here, but under tariffs there is no monopoly whatever for the man who has a factory in this country or for the capitalist, as, under the Patents Act, foreign manufacturers came over and put up their works, and so, under tariffs, there is absolute freedom for foreign manufacturers to come over here, put up their works, develop their industries, and compete with other capitalists and other
  750
  manufacturers in giving employment to British labour.
  I think that when the Labour party say that combines are unable to raise prices under Free Trade they must be thinking of the operations of trade unions, which are themselves a great combination, and which are, as we see, unable effectively to raise the price of labour. I should like, however, to deal at once with their remedy. I think the vast majority of the House will agree that our present industrial position is not satisfactory. Certainly labour is not satisfied with it. The Liberal party have, I believe, no remedy. The Labour party have suggested a proposal which I have listened to and read with very great attention. It is a proposal for the abandonment of Free Trade principles and for the introduction of the very crude form of Protection in the form of a minimum wage. I would like to answer this proposal from the mouth of the Government itself. The proposal has been answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade about a year ago, and I only discuss this question of a minimum wage in so far as it affects the tariff issue. He said, speaking a year ago, and expressing the views of the Liberal Government, that:—
  "Any considerable or sudden increase in the rate of wages must increase the cost of production. If you raise your cost of production unduly you invite foreign competition."
  And he ended with the inspiring remark that "low wages are most undesirable"—we agree with that—and that "no wages at all may be even worse." The Liberal Publication Department are very happy in coining phrases for use on their posters at election times, but I do not think if they had "Vote for Free Trade and low wages or no wages," that that would be a very effective poster, although it has this advantage, that it combines, in one happy sentence, the whole "allied forces of progress," because it represents what the Liberal party expect from the Labour party's programme, and what the Labour party declare we have got under the Liberal party. We have got a new advocate of moderation in this country and quite a new champion in the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Replying to the Leader of the Opposition when he said the workmen of the country wanted higher wages: "I wonder," said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "whether he realised what he was doing? He was dropping a match? into a prairie scorched by a long drought."

  751
  4.0 P.M.
  I do not know what the word "long" referred to, whether it is sixty years of Free Trade or whether it is six years of Liberal government, or whether it is two years of "The People's Budget." At all events we know that the prairie is parched. I remember the word "parched" in some other speeches of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think there were the "parched lips" of the multitude, and I think they were going to be benefited by that fruit of the "People's Budget" which, although not particularly "refreshing" can at all events be accurately described as "rare." When he talks of this prairie as being parched, there are two sides to that question. There is the natural unrest among the working classes because their conditions have got worse, a natural unrest with which we sympathise. There is another and a much more dangerous element, and that is that this prairie has become much more inflammable owing to the class hatred engendered and put forward in the campaign against the House of Lords, and used to forward "The People's Budget." I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer who looked forward in his speech to the day when poverty shall be "as rare as the wolves" that once "infested our forests" need not talk in terms of reproach about those who are honestly putting forward a policy which they believe to be in the interests of the country. After all, we believe that you cannot found social reform on class hatred. We believe that you cannot deal with the problems of social reform except upon the basis of an increased demand for British labour. We consider that, just as the Patents Act brought factories over here by threatening manufacturers with the cancelling of their patents unless they put up their works in this country, so we should endeavour to attract enterprise here by duties on the importation of foreign-manufactured goods, and that we should also do our best to perpetuate and develop that principle of Colonial preference which means so much to us, of whose merits both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have spoken in terms of acknowledgment, and which necessarily means that our great and growing Dominions will purchase from us rather than from our foreign competitors. On both grounds we hold that our policy will create an additional demand for British
  752
  labour, and we claim that we have every right to put it forward.
  I am going into a delicate matter, but I shall not go into it from the international point of view. When we put forward these remedies at the end of last Session the Liberal Member for Blackburn (Sir H. Norman) told us:—
  "Our protectionists are wise to be conscriptionists also, for a system of preferential tariffs throughout the British Empire would be more likely than anything else to cause Germany to draw the sword."
  I should look upon a war between this country and Germany, whatever its result, as an appalling disaster to both countries. There are retorts which might be made, but which I shall not make, because from the international point of view they are better not made. I will not discuss this new proposed Liberal veto; but I will discuss the question merely from the point of view of the sincerity of certain arguments put forward by the Liberal party. We were told that if we had Tariff Reform our financial position as the centre of the world's banking would be lost. We were told, without any argument, that we should lose our shipping trade. We were also told, and this is the point I particularly wish to emphasise, that we should lose our power to compete against our rivals in neutral markets. What can be thought of a party which threatens us with the intervention of a foreign Power to prevent our committing suicide? I have often heard of people, frequently a gallant policeman, jumping into the river to rescue some would-be suicide, but I never heard of anybody killing a man to prevent his committing suicide. I am beginning to be doubtful as to how far some Liberal speakers believe all the arguments they put forward. I noticed the other day that there was a meeting at Ebbw Vale, and the chairman of that meeting said:—
  "At Ebbw Vale they had received a nasty knock and had been obliged to close down for six months, He need not say that the cause of the recent stoppage was the depressed condition of the steel trade and the heavy importation of steel bars from foreign works."
  I should like to have some solution from the Labour party as to how far they would work their plan of a minimum wage in the case of works which are closed by foreign competition. At this same meeting a gentleman, who was a Member of this House until 1910, and sat for a Welsh constituency for, I believe, eleven years, said that if Protection came it would probably mean a happy and prosperous time for Ebbw Vale at any rate. Why did we not hear that before when he was a Liberal Member of Parliament? Why did he not

  753
  say it in this House? He has given us the explanation. He said:—
  "now he was out of Parliament he was free to express himself. He really believed that they were going to have Protection, and he would tell them why. They were approaching budgets of £200,000,000."
  I hope that when there is another General Election many Liberal Members of Parliament will be in that position which will enable them to express with greater freedom their views on the fiscal question.
  As to negotiation with foreign countries, I will take only three cases very briefly, because I believe the seconder of this Amendment is going to allude to that part of the question. I will take cases from three periods: first, the period when we had a tariff; secondly, the period now, when we have not one; and, thirdly, a future time when we hope we shall have a tariff once more. The first case was when Sir Robert Peel retained certain duties as "instruments of negotiation," to use his words, and Mr. Cobden, finding that other countries were not adopting his views as rapidly as he had expected, went over to France and, working with these particular duties, negotiated with France and achieved a great lowering of the French tariff, which brought about a large increase in the trade between the two countries. That was the last time we had a tariff with which to bargain. My next case is in connection with Canada, when the United States not merely offered to lower their tariff to Canada, but, on the admission of the Prime Minister, they were prepared to give lower terms to Canada than they gave to us, showing that in this particular case a tariff country got better terms than a Free Trade country. Then we come to the future. The other day the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said that Tariff Reform was heavily mortgaged. He did not go far enough into the question, because if he had told his audience that he was the first man to raise a mortgage on Tariff Reform he would have given further information which would have been valuable. In the case of our Treaty with Japan, when Japan brought out a scheme of much higher duties, they agreed to lower them under a commercial arrangement made by this country, in which we made certain concessions in our future tariff to the people of Japan. That is the first mortgage, and it was put on by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I wonder whether, when that bargain was made he explained to the Japanese people that in the opinion of the Liberal party Tariff
  754
  Reform was dead. Apparently the Japanese people do not think so. I am told that all this is stopped because of a rule that you must put on taxation for revenue purposes only. That is not a claim which can be made with justice by the party that put on the Undeveloped Land Tax. Judging by the results, one hopes that that tax was not put on for revenue.
  I turn now to the Imperial side of the question. It has been argued that we lost the United States through interference of this kind. There is no foundation whatever for the assertion, except a statement by the Under-Secretary of State for War on the eve of a by-election at Bootle. When the Colonies themselves met at the time and framed their charges against this country, they particularly stated that they did not object to the preferential arrangement in existence at that time. The West Indian question is very interesting in this connection. Canada gave a preference to West Indian sugar. A Commission was sent out, including several prominent Free Traders in this country, and it reported that there was great danger that the West Indies might lose this very beneficial preference unless they gave something in return. The West Indies is not the only country that is liable to lose a preference if they give nothing in return. I return to Canada and the reciprocity treaty. I wish to make it perfectly clear that we in no way blame Canada for anything that has been done. If you bang the door in anybody's face you cannot blame him for going elsewhere, but you blame the people who banged the door. There is no doubt that in this reciprocity question there has prevailed an unpleasant sympathy between Westminster and Washington. A year ago Westminster and Washington were, in the words of the Prime Minister, "preparing to celebrate the obsequies of what used to be called Imperial preference." The obsequies have been postponed, owing to the very interesting fact that the Liberal party in Canada allowed the people of Canada to have a vote on the question after they had seen the proposal—an example which I commend to the attention of the present Government in another connection. Perhaps if the Liberal party of Canada had had a Parliament Act they might have got their reciprocity treaty.
  I have brought up this question of Canada because we believe that anybody wishing to wreck our policy of Imperial preference could not do it better than by

  755
  striking a blow at the heart of the movement. It was in Canada that the first preference was given to us. It was Canada that did her duty by the Empire and gave a preference to the West Indies. It is Canada that is now developing a proposal for preference with Australia. Therefore anything which upset the movement in Canada would be almost fatal to the whole movement. That is why the Liberal party were rejoicing so much a year ago at the prospect of a reciprocity treaty. The House may think that this matter is settled, that the reciprocity treaty is dead, and that the question need not be discussed. That is not the view that the Liberal party can take, because shortly after the elections in Canada their principal evening paper brought out an article headed "The First Round in Canada," showing that in their opinion the reciprocity question was by no means settled. In any case, the danger that we ran there is a danger that we must run in other places. Canada is not the only Dominion likely to receive offers of closer commercial relations from foreign Powers. Therefore I should like to discuss the question from the point of view stated by our opponents. I believe that when this question was under discussion a year ago some of the Liberal party said that they were cheering Free Trade. It has also been stated that the reciprocity treaty is only an extension of the wholesome movement towards Continental Free Trade. That means Free Trade between the United States and Canada, from which we are excluded. How anybody can describe that as wholesome to us I do not know. It may be wholesome to the United States; but one man's meat is another man's poison. What would it mean commercially? It would mean that, instead of preferential advantages in the Canadian tariff, or of equal treatment, we should find ourselves faced by a high tariff, from which the goods of our competitors in the United States would be absolutely free. It would mean the destruction of millions of pounds' worth of our present trade in the year. What would it mean politically? It would mean the absorption of Canada within the commercial system of the United States. It is not the triumph of Free Trade; it is the absorption of Canada into the protectionist system of the United States.
  The other day the Financial Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. J. Robertson) protested very vigorously against any
  756
  suggestion that Ireland should be allowed to frame her own tariff. It was a very natural protest. I am not attacking him for it. It was natural for two reasons: first, because, after all, Free Trade has never in the long run survived the grant of self-government to any of our great self-governing dominions; and secondly, because—this is, I think, the grounds upon which he put it—a common fiscal system is a great bond of union. He thought we might lose Ireland if we had not the same fiscal system. If a common fiscal system is a bond of union between us and Ireland, what would be the effect of a common protectionist system which included the United States and Canada in one common bond? It is an unfortunate thing that the Prime Minister last year should have described this great policy, advocated and enforced alike by the Labour party of Australia, by the Liberal party in Canada, by Dutch and English in South Africa, as "one of the greatest and most disastrous political impostures of modern times." I venture to say that I prefer the description of the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, speaking on Australian preference, told us of "the spirit of comradeship, I may say the spirit of affection, which has inspired this new policy."
  The Government seem to have two views on the subject, and if I am to have a vote in the matter, I shall vote for the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We believe that on political grounds we cannot look on and see these commercial treaties being made between foreign countries and our Colonies without endeavouring ourselves to approach them and meet them with concession for concession. After all, we have been distinctly urged by our Colonies to change our policy. I do not know whether anyone disputes that? We believe that if evil should come the responsibility lies, not on the Colonies—we do not blame them—but on the Government, which deliberately refuses to change our policy in the face of the present situation. We believe that our policy is necessary in order to increase a demand for British labour as a foundation for social reform. We believe it is necessary in order to negotiate with foreign countries for a fairer exchange of products, and I hope a larger exchange between ourselves and our neighbours. We believe it is necessary in order to complete the commercial union of Empire in that spirit of comradeship of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke.
  Mr. MILDMAY: I beg to second the Amendment. I am, I know, tackling a very big subject, a subject on which I am by no means well qualified to speak. I am quite sure the House will agree with me that my difficulties have been increased a hundredfold by the admirable way in which the Mover has dealt with the subject. I can only assure the House that I am very conscious of my own deficiencies compared with my hon. Friend. One thing I do regret, and that is that any Amendment to the Address must of necessity be debated from a party point of view. I mean that it must be voted upon apart from the merits of the question. The "Outs," of course, must support it, and the "Ins" must vote against it. I am sorry that this should be so, because I wish to put my arguments from a non-party point of view, as moderately as I can, and with a real desire to carry hon. Gentlemen opposite with me, as far as possible, in my direction. Perhaps I may individually claim their toleration as one who entered this House as a supporter of Mr. Gladstone and his fiscal system. I am not sure, but I rather think that I was at one time subjected to the suspicion of that mysterious body of members entitled "The Confederates." However that may be, my conclusions I have come to honestly and arrived at after a great deal of thought. I will put them before the House for what they are worth.
  I stated that it is my wish to carry hon. Members opposite so far along my road as possible. I presume that we shall not part company when I refuse to characterise our present trading conditions as "Free Trade," for the very obvious reason that there is no single commercial nation in the world with which we trade freely. Hon. Members opposite will agree that we are merely "Free importers." Neither will hon. Members in any part of the House, I think, be disposed to dispute the assertion that our foreign trade is a double process, the exchange of goods for goods. This being undoubtedly so, if the foreigner raises a high wall of protective duties against us, if he interposes every possible obstacle when we wish to pay for the goods he sends with our goods, we cannot be said to be trading freely. Free Trade means free circulation of trade, and such a system cannot be one-sided. It means freedom, not only to buy goods from the foreigner, but freedom also to pay for those goods with goods of English manufacture. So we have got to recognise that the high protective duties imposed by many foreign nations at their frontiers on
  758
  our goods are just as serious an interference with the free circulation of our trade as would be high protective duties imposed at our ports on foreign imports. I think those are almost exactly the words of Lord Morley, than whom hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree there is no more staunch upholder of Cobden's theories.
  Lord Morley, in his "Life of Cobden," has denounced as erroneous the pet dictum of hon. Gentlemen opposite:—
  "Take care of your imports, and your exports will take care of themselves."
  He has brushed aside this theory as fallacious, and has said:—
  "It is not so much Free Trade between any two countries which should be our real aim, but rather to remove obstacles in the stream of free exchange of commodities; in this circulating system every tariff is an obstruction, and the free circulation of trade is in the long run as much impeded by an obstruction at one frontier as at another."
  This being so, I am prepared to subscribe to the doctrine that in cases of obviously unfair treatment by the foreigner we should endeavour by negotiations, by commercial treaties, by the temporary use, if needs be, of retaliatory duties, to compel foreign nations to desist from unfair action and to moderate these high protective duties. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, to moderate their high protective duties. Surely the hon. Member will agree with me it is desirable to do that; to moderate these high protective duties which prevent us from enjoying all the advantages which would come to us from freedom of trade. Many, like the hon. Gentleman opposite, may doubt the success of that policy, but it does seem to me that we have in the fact of the absolute necessity of the English market to the foreign producer a most effective means of applying pressure. Is it futile to imagine that we can bring about a condition of trade more favourable to ourselves by the means suggested in the Amendment? I do not like to dogmatise on this complicated subject. I do not trust my own opinion. But I am emboldened to believe in this possibility by the utterances of those recognised by hon. Gentlemen opposite as authorities. Lord Morley has said:—
  "We cannot experience all the benefits of our trading policy unless foreign nations reduce their protective duties."
  Further, he has added:—
  "In order to bring this about we must negotiate commercial treaties."
  But surely if Lord Morley contemplates negotiations of this nature to bring about

  759
  commercial treaties, he, of course, has realised that the use of the term "negotiation" implies that we have something to withhold, and conversely something to offer, in exchange for the benefits which we seek from the foreigner. If that something is not access to our markets, I am at a loss to know what it can be. Therefore it seems to me that Lord Morley was of opinion, as I am of opinion, that we should use the necessity of the English market to the foreign producer as a lever in our negotiations to bring about more advantageous conditions of trade. Further, I think that Lord Morley must have recognised that to preface our negotiations with the declaration that under no circumstances would the access of the foreigner to the English market be interfered with would be to invite failure. Recognising that, I do not see how his Lordship could have done otherwise than contemplate some degree of so-called retaliatory action. Let me give another who will be accepted as a great authority. I refer to the late Duke of Devonshire. In the same connection he said:—
  "The Government should be supported in proposing to Parliament Tariff legislation for the purpose of negotiations of commercial treaties, and mitigation of hostile tariffs."
  There was Lord Rosebery. He seems to me to have the same thing in his mind when, at the very beginning of this Tariff Reform controversy, he said:
  "That Cobden's theories must not be considered as having all the weight of the Sermon on the Mount."
  That cryptic utterance has never been explained to us, but it seems to me it follows in the same direction. A more recent convert to this view was the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who, I remember some time surprised his party in the House by saying "that there were some cases in which we should have recourse to retaliation." The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, tackled at once, but he stuck to his words. I do not quote them for the purpose of scoring off the right hon. Gentleman, but for the purpose of claiming him as a witness on my side, because it seems to me that he stated the whole case. We all know that the Radical doctrine is that we should submit to anything and everything the foreigner does, and under no circumstances ought we to think of retaliation. I remember well that the First Lord's words caused a great deal of consternation on the opposite side of the House, and attempts were made to explain them away, and to
  760
  tell us that he did not mean what we mean. But that hon Members opposite very fully realised that the case had been given away was plain from the irritation which was expressed in the Government newspapers next day.
  I agree that we must be very careful in using this weapon. Speaking for myself, I believe that retaliation ought not to be used in an extreme protective sense; to bolster up home industries against legitimate competition. So used, it would act as a premium on inefficiency. [HON MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I quite agree that to so use it would be to act as a premium upon inefficiency, and hon. Members opposite will agree that it would retard our industrial progress. I maintain that retaliation should be directed against that distinctly unfair action of the foreigner of which we have constant cause of complaint. Frankly, I tell the House I do not believe in looking on with folded arms at the desperate, and indeed, successful efforts which are being made to exclude us from foreign markets. I am convinced that such a passive altitude will in the end be our undoing. I am quite sure that that is the view of the country. May I for one moment point out how closely our fiscal position resembles our naval position. Hon. Gentlemen opposite very frequently say how monstrous it is that so much money should be spent on warlike weapons. We all agree. We all have a horror of war. We all know the untold suffering caused by war, not only on the field of battle, but the long-drawn out suffering in the homes of the poor.
  The mere possibility of war in these days of civilisation is scandalous. We have done our best as a nation to give effect to that view. I think it was Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman who first approached Germany and asked whether it might not be possible to come to an agreement as to naval expenditure. We offered to take the first step if Germany would conform, and we did take a long step at one moment in the direction of reducing our shipbuilding Vote, but Germany, for reasons, the validity of which I do not wish to question, absolutely refused to listen to us, and our duty became plain. We must make our Fleet so strong as to be equal to any combination that should be brought against us. The point which I wish to make is that the way of disarmament was barred to us. That is where our naval position resembled our fiscal position. As regards munitions of war, universal disarmament

  761
  was our ideal, but we could not get it, and therefore we must put ourselves in a position to guard against aggressive, injurious, and unfair action by the foreigner. We are all agreed as to this. The fiscal situation is exactly the same. Universal Free Trade has long been our ideal as a nation—universal disarmament as far as trading conditions are concerned. By force of example we have tried to get foreign nations to disarm, and cast aside the heavy duties with which they warred against British trade, but we have not been successful, so we must guard ourselves against unfair action by the foreigner unless we are to go to the wall.
  What do I mean by unfair action? The way in which, with free access to our markets, the foreigner is trying to exclude us from his markets in an ever-increasing degree. If it continues it is bound, in the end, to mean ever-increasing unemployment. We do not object to legitimate competition, which is a stimulus to efficiency; we do not mind fair competition, but are the conditions under which we trade and compete, fair conditions? Most distinctly, No. The interests of the consumer are important; but we can not entirely ignore the producer, as our opponents would have us do. To a great producing nation like ourselves, access to foreign markets is as the breath of life. Without that access our prosperity goes, and that access is becoming year by year more difficult. Let me give another instance of the necessity for "fair treatment," to use the words of the Amendment, and this time in the home market. Our manufacturers have serious cause to complain in that they do not compete on equal terms with the foreigner, even in the home market. The advocates of our Free Trade system, adopted in 1846, claimed to have established a system of trading under which England was to give to the commerce and manufactures of all other nations an equal chance with our own in the home market, but it has so happened that the system has not carried out that desire, for the system granted to the foreigner terms of access to the English markets more favourable than those enjoyed by the home producer of the same article.
  Before our great producers, our great manufacturers, can use the home market they are heavily taxed and heavily rated for the upkeep of the same. It is not denied that these rates and taxes add 12 per cent. to the expense of production. Then why should not the foreigner, to whom the
  762
  market is so important, be taxed in the same degree, and contribute in the same degree towards its upkeep? By taxing the home producer to the extent of 12 per cent. before he can use the market, and allowing the foreigner to use it free of all such taxation, we are to the extent of 12 per cent. actually protecting the foreigner in the home market; we are to the extent of 12 per cent. handicapping the English producer in his difficult competition with the foreigner. Is it outrageous, in return for the use of the market, to require the foreigner to pay his fair share of upkeep? I know what the hon. Gentleman opposite will say, "Yes, but such taxation would increase the foreign manufacturer's expenses of production, and possibly the price of the foreign goods to the English consumer will also be increased." Without admitting this, I would ask whether this was a valid reason for absolving the foreigner from contributing his fair share; for, if it is a valid reason, it is no less valid a reason for exempting the home manufacturer from all taxation which adds to his expenses of production, and this is obviously an absurd proposition. I hold that it is the very first duty of any English Government to insist that its industrial population compete on equal terms, and certainly not at a disadvantage, with the foreigner—at any rate in the home market.
  I feel that I must not weary the House, so I have used no figures or statistics. There is an old saying in this connection that figures could be found to prove anything. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would doubtless point to the figures of the trade returns as proof of their ever-increasing prosperity under present conditions; but let us not forget that the trade returns figures of our chief rival, with a very different fiscal system to our own, are just as remarkable, and even more remarkable. I am very willing to admit that in the past very shaky arguments have been based from this side of the House upon the increased trade of foreign nations as shown in percentages of increase, but it is no longer a question of percentages. Let us remember that the increase of German trade bulks much larger than our own, which is a disquieting fact. Hitherto you have always found fault with the argument in that connection because you said the figures were based upon percentages. You can no longer depend upon that argument. It is really to be lamented that a question so important as fiscal reform

  763
  should so often, in a desire to get party advantage, be debated upon false premises. Hon. Gentlemen opposite delight in representing us as being desirous of adopting the heavy protective duties of the United States. Nothing can be further from the truth, and if I might venture to say so, they know it. Speaking for myself, it is against unfair conditions that I want to guard our trade. I do not wish to foster by heavy protective duties industries for which we have no natural aptitude, for such a course would obviously mean waste of our productive powers.
  I am not touching upon the Colonial point of view, nor will I at any length, but I do want to say something in this connection. Let me say only this. I believe that our attitude at the last Colonial Conference in refusing to hear what the Colonies had to say with regard to Preference was a most short-sighted action. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that no "offer" had been made worthy of a return: they contended that the Colonies did not "mean business." I do not think that this view can be persisted in, after what took place at the recent Canadian elections. The Canadian people have made it clear that they are ready to sacrifice immediate pecuniary advantage in their desire to associate themselves more closely with the Home Country. But let it be granted, for the sake of argument, that no offer of a substantial nature had been made, at least let us not refuse to hear what they wished to say upon the subject. Let us encourage the Colonies to speak frankly to us, it cannot hurt us. I want that threshed out in the light of day. We like to look on the Colonies as the children of the Mother Country; let us, as does a mother to her children, invite their confidence. If they asked too much, more than could be given them, we could explain to the Colonies why they could not have it, as a mother to her children. That is the way to treat the Colonies, and that is treatment they would understand. Speaking for myself, I place implicit confidence in the reiterated utterances of Colonial Prime Ministers, to the effect that the poorer classes of England should not be expected to make sacrifices for the cause of Preference. Sir Joseph Ward said, "I believe that anything in the way of Preference which the Colonies might suggest, if it was calculated to increase the price of food to the masses of the people, ought to be opposed, and rightly
  764
  so, by the British people." Sir William Lyne spoke in the same sense, and Dr. Jameson said, "We have no idea of imposing any burden upon the poorer people of this country."
  Let me say, finally, that I make no claim to great wisdom in these matters, but am simply a learner, and I think it would be a good thing if a great many others so regarded themselves. It seems to me there are so many unseen, complicated, and unrealised influences at work where international trade is concerned, that the confident predictions which are made from both sides as to the immediate result of this or that action are scarcely justifiable. We find ourselves confronted by two fiscal policies. The advocates of the one maintain that we should allow the foreigner to do whatever he likes to us, that we should submit to whatever treatment he chooses to mete out to us, even though such treatment might mean serious injury to English industries and grievous distress to English working men and their families. The advocates of the other policy repudiate any such doctrine as that, and hold that it is the first duty of an English Government to insist, so far as they can insist, upon fair play and equal conditions of competition for English producers and English working men all the world over.
  I have considered these two policies from the point of view of one who has upheld universal Free Trade as an ideal for years. But Free Trade does not begin and end with free imports. Free Trade, as I have been taught it, means a free exchange of goods at natural prices, prices determined by the laws of supply and demand, unhampered by duties at this frontier or that. Are we anywhere near that? No. We are drifting further and further away from true freedom of trade, and I am convinced that it is only by the methods indicated in the Amendment that we can bring about a condition of trading less unfair to English labour.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Let me congratulate the Mover and the Seconder upon the way in which they have performed their task. For the last three years this Tariff Reform Amendment has been presented to us with all the pomp and circumstance of a Front Bench Motion. It has, if I may say so, in the past been put right in the middle of the front of the window, but now we find it is relegated to the lees conspicuous second row.

  765
  I will say, however, in regard to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, that it has not lost any of its importance by the treatment it has received at their hands. The fact, however, remains that it is in the second row, and that fact is significant, in my opinion, of a very great deal, because I think it reflects the position of the movement in the country. I confidently expect to see it even taken out of the second row and labelled, "Slightly soiled, must be disposed of, no reasonable offer declined." I congratulate the Mover and Seconder upon their speeches, because to preach Tariff Reform in bad times is simple enough. At such a time all sorts and conditions of men will listen to you, and if you have got nothing else in the window but Tariff Reform you will always have a crowd around all day long. You may even make a good many people shake their heads and begin to doubt whether, after all, Free Trade is not an anachronism which has outlived its usefulness, its day and generation. Certainly you may make a lot of the very poor people, overwhelmed with cares and anxieties of the moment, say, "Well, things could not be much worse than they are; let us give this thing a chance." That is where you got your votes in January, 1910. But it is a very different thing having to preach Tariff Reform in good times. We are all Free Traders in good times. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, except some of the very specially faithful. Even this Motion is not what it used to be. I do not complain of that, but I merely mention the fact. Let me read to the House the 1909 edition of this Motion, which was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain). This is how it ran, and I call particular attention to its terms:—
  "But humbly represent to Your Majesty that this House views with anxiety the state of trade and employment in this country and the failure of Tour Majesty's Ministers to recognise the nature and gravity of the situation, and regrets that there is no mention in Your Majesty's Gracious Speech of any proposals for enlarging the market for British and Irish produce and increasing the demand for labour by a reform of our fiscal system, which would promote the growth and stability of our Home trade, provide means for negotiating for the mitigation of foreign tariffs, and develop our oversea trade through the establishment of a system of mutual preference between the different portions of the Empire."
  The 1910 edition was in precisely similar terms, but I ask the House to observe that we were asked to "view with anxiety the state of trade and employment." We were reproved, or to be reproved, for not having recognised the gravity of the situa-
  766
  tion by proposing the reform of our fiscal system. Very good, but we have not made any change in our fiscal system. Why, then, does this Motion not now persist in its anxiety about the state of trade and employment. Why are we not now reproved for our failure to recognise the gravity of the situation? Simply because you cannot put your case against Free Trade on the same ground as you put it in. 1909–10. The fiscal system is the same. Free Trade is as much or as little responsible as ever it was, but, happily, trade and employment have greatly improved, and you are not justified in charging against Free Trade the condition of things which you seized hold of to hang the earlier editions of this Motion upon. Let me come to last year's Debate, when a Motion was moved, again by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire. I will repeat his Amendment to the House:—
  "This House humbly expresses its regret that the persistent refusal of Your Majesty's Government to modify the fiscal system of the country is imperilling the advantages at present derived by British commerce from the preference granted by Your Majesty's Dominions overseas, has deferred the closer commercial union of the Empire, and has deprived the country of of the most effective method of inducing foreign countries to grant fair treatment to British manufacturers."
  [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the same."] No, it is not the same. There is another phrase added. I have taken careful note of the form of this Motion. I observe, in the first place, that any reference to Irish produce has disappeared from this Motion. The point may have no significance whatever. This year's addition is in precisely similar terms except that there is added at the close these words:—
  "and is adversely affecting labour conditions of the country."
  That is an addition to the Motion now before us as compared with last year's Motion. That addition to me, is a very characteristic touch. You look around to see if there is anything wrong anywhere, and then you put it into the Tariff Reform prospectus and guarantee to remedy it. The faith healers are the quintessence of hard, unimaginative matters of fact alongside the Tariff Reformers. There never was such a magnificent fanaticism as that of the Tariff Reform. If the farmer wants protection for home produce against foreign-grown produce, the remedy is Tariff Reform. If the cost of living for the artisan in the great towns is to be reduced—Tariff Reform. Does the artisan and the labourer want higher wages—Tariff Reform. Is 3d. a

  767
  week from the employer in connection with the Insurance Act a ruinous tax on industry—Tariff Reform. Do you want to let the foreigner in, tax him, and thereby make him help to meet the demand for additional revenue—Tariff Reform. Do you want to keep the foreigner out, and by that means give work to the man out of a job—Tariff Reform. And then people go about pretending that the age of miracles is over.
  I am bound to admit that Tariff Reformers, to my mind, have been the most successful failures up to date. You cannot beat them in the art of getting out attractive prospectuses. Like all the great artists, they know the value of a well-placed topical allusion. The Leader of the Opposition tells us that he believes that Tariff Reform will tend to raise wages. Please observe that we are asked to believe in one breath that Tariff Reform will raise wages and in the very next breath—not by the Leader of the Opposition, I think, but by some of the advocates of his cause—complaint is made against us of the unfair competition of underpaid Continental labour. Those two propositions are not consistent. Tariff Reform, it is said, will tend to raise wages, and yet the complaint is made of unfair competition by underpaid Continental labour. The latest virtue alleged for Tariff Reform by the Mover of this Amendment is its potency to cure labour unrest. I suppose that is why this new phrase has been added. That was the claim made for it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire when he spoke at Yardley on 29th January. For a country situated as we are I think we shall enter upon a very dangerous course indeed if we ever attempt to cure labour unrest by the application of Tariff Reform. On this matter I will be perfectly frank with the hon. Gentleman opposite, and I will say that I am under no apprehension that we ever shall apply that remedy. I am not a doctrinaire, and I do not think there is anything particularly sacrosanct about any fiscal system. I could sum up a whole library of works upon economics in the simple phrase, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." If hon. Gentlemen opposite can prove to me that their proposals for a reform of our fiscal system will advance permanently the well-being and prosperity of this realm they can write
  768
  5.0 P.M.
  me down under their banner at once. But mere promises will not do, because the matter is far too vital for that. You will have to prove it, and the more seductive and glittering you make your promises the more closely I shall examine your guarantees. Here we are in this country, numbering, I suppose, some forty-five million people. Our cupboards and tables day by day vitally depend upon duty-free importations of foreign foodstuffs. Our mills, factories and workshops depend day by day upon duty-free importations of foreign raw material. I am irresistibly driven to the conclusion that whilst this fiscal system may suit this country, and that fiscal system may suit that country, our sheet anchor is Free Trade. That conclusion is enforced by an examination of the course of events since that time, sixty years ago, to which the Mover of the Amendment referred, when Gladstone and Peel, Bright and Cobden struck aside the cramping and restrictive fetters of Protection. What do I see as the result? I see we have gone right ahead, until to-day we are at the head of the world in shipping, in commerce, in our great industrial enterprises, and, despite social shortcomings—and they are there, and Heaven forbid I should minimise them—in the measure of solid comfort enjoyed by our artisan population. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Keir Hardie) is not the man to praise existing social conditions without good cause. He is not precisely lavish in eulogy at most times. A year or two ago he went on an extended tour round the world, and he made a statement, reported in the "Daily News" of 25th March, 1908, and from that statement I take the following, which struck me as rather remarkable:—
  "I come back also with this opinion, that for solid comfort there is no part of the world to compare with this old country of ours."
  That is a remarkable testimonial. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil is not the easiest man in the world to satisfy, certainly not in regard to social conditions. Let me just add a very slight sidelight upon the condition of our artisan classes. I will not carry it far. I do not think it proves much, but it is worth noting on this problem. On Saturday afternoon, 13th January, the first round of the English Football Association Cup Tie was fought out. Half-a-million people, many of them of the artisan classes, paid just under £17,000 to watch thirty-two matches. On 3rd February the second round of the

  769
  English Football Association Cup Tie was fought out, and something like a quarter-of-a-million of people paid £10,000 to watch fourteen matches. I want to ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite if they will tell me where the artisans of the protected Continental countries, or, at any rate, a great many of them, were on those self-same Saturday afternoons? [HON. MEMBERS: "At work."] I am not asking my hon. Friends below the Gangway; I directed my inquiry to the other side of the House. The conclusion that Free Trade is our sheet anchor is still further enforced by the staggering refutation which has befallen the Tariff Reformers' every doleful prediction and every dismal jeremiad. It is now eight years ago since the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain)—and I join with everybody in expressing regret that he is no longer among us—opened what I may call the first chapter of the new "Book of Lamentations." We were heading straight for the rocks, and nothing could save us except the prompt application of protective duties. We did not put them on, we have not put them on, and we shall not put them on. Now observe this. The total value of our over-sea trade in 1903 was £903,000,000, and in 1911 it was £1,237,500,000. Let me recall, if I may, that awful prediction which faced us at our breakfast on the morning of 8th October, 1903:—
  "Agriculture as the greatest of all trades and industries of this country has been practically destroyed, sugar has gone, silk has gone, iron is threatened—"
  HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."
  "wool is threatened—"
  HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."
  "cotton will come! How long are you going to stand it? At the present moment these industries, and the working men who depend upon them are like sheep in a field. One by one they allow themselves to be led out to slaughter, and there is no combination, no apparent prevision of what is in store for the rest of them Do you think, if you belong at the present time to a prosperous industry, that your industry will be allowed to continue?"
  I observe one hon. Member cheers this prophetic statement. Let us see. The value of the exports of silk and manufactures of silk in 1903 was £1,693,000, and in 1911, £2,388,000. "Silk has gone."
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: If the right hon. Gentleman is alluding to me he is totally mistaken in thinking I cheered the statement at all, and I am sure he will withdraw the suggestion. May I ask him, however, if he is in a position to divide those exports between our Colonies and protective countries?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I rather gathered the hon. Gentleman did cheer the statement that "iron is threatened, wool is threatened, and cotton will come." The value of the exports of iron and steel and the manufactures of iron and steel in 1903 was £30,400,000, and in 1911 £43,800,000. "Iron is threatened." Well, threatened industries, like threatened men, live long and apparently prosper. "Wool is threatened." The value of the exports of woollen yarns and manufactures in 1903, was £24,600,000, and in 1911 £37,300,000. "Wool is threatened." The last of these quotations was "cotton, will come." The value of the exports of cotton, yarns, and manufactures in 1903, was £73,600,000, and in 1911, £120,100,000. Let hon. Gentlemen opposite take the deplorable fate which has befallen all four of those industries. The total of the value of the exports in 1903, of the four of them, was £130,250,000, and last year, not £130,250,000, but £203,500,000. Yet, they were being led out to slaughter, and Free Trade was to be their undoing. That is the foundation, if you please, upon which this demand for a change in our fiscal system has been reared. But, gloomy as was the prediction of eight years ago, what shall be said of the trouble in store for us as the result of the passage of the Budget of 1909–10. The value of the over-sea trade for January, 1909, was £89,000,000; for January, 1910, £90,000,000; January, 1911, £109,000,000; and January, 1912, £117,000,000. I quite admit the Board of Trade returns from the point of view of Tariff Reformers are most annoying. They keep on predicting dirty weather, and every time they tap the glass it steadily rises. It is rather provoking for them. I want to deal with their gloomy prediction with regard to unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin), moved a resolution at the meeting of the National Union of Conservative Associations at Manchester, on the 17th November, 1909, and in that resolution this phrase occurred. He spoke of
  "the ever-increasing want of employment under our present Fiscal system."
  "Ever-increasing," as all those who fought in the poorer parts of our great industrial centres in the dark days of January, 1910, know, was the battle cry of the campaign. At the close of November, 1909, the month when this resolution was moved, of 696,415 trade unionists making returns to the Board of Trade, 45,569, or 6.5 per cent., were unemployed. I am sorry to mention

  771
  percentages, because I understand Tariff Reformers are going to give up percentages; I must apologise for mentioning them at all. I think they have arrived at a very happy conclusion. In January, 1912, of 820,874 trade unionists making returns, 22,485, or 2.7 per cent. were unemployed. The mean percentage of unemployment for 1911, 3 per cent., is the lowest since 1900. That is the ever-increasing unemployment on which right hon. Gentlemen opposite laid such stress in the campaign of the General Election of January, 1910. Poverty was to be increased if we stuck to this fatuous anachronism, Free Trade. I remember the working classes going to work through a glittering avenue of catch-phrases, "Workshops, not work-houses." I take that to mean if you stuck to Free Trade there would be more work-houses, but if you took to Tariff Reform there would be more workshops. But what are the facts. Take the statistics with regard to pauperism. In England and Wales at the end of December, 1909, if I specially omit persons in fever and smallpox hospitals, persons in receipt of medical out-relief, casuals, and lunatics—these are special classes which are left out from the Local Government Board returns of pauperism issued month by month—if I leave them out, at the end of December, 1909, there were 820,493 persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales, and two years after, at the end of December, 1911, the number was 670,894—a reduction in two years of 149,599 on an estimated increase of population of nearly three-quarters of a million, our fiscal system remaining the same.
  Mr. CROFT: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect of old age pensions?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Really I am getting on as fast as I can. I was going to explain to what I attributed this decrease in two years of 149,599 persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales. But what about the workshops and the work-houses? We were told that if we stuck to Free Trade we would want more workhouses. That was the proposition a moment ago. Yet here we have this big reduction of 149,599 paupers in two years. I really shall have to give the Tariff Reformer up. I admit at once that the decrease is partly due to the improvement in our trade, and that it is mainly due to our system of old age pensions, which was made possible by Free Trade finance; also
  772
  it is specially due to the striking away, as from the 1st January, 1911, of what was known as the pauper disqualification. If the course of affairs at home does not help the Tariff Reformer, what is to be said of the course of affairs abroad? I say quite frankly that the course of events in this country has made the Tariff Reformer at home look extremely silly in the light of his dismal predictions. But take the state of affairs abroad. There he sees the working people protesting against high food prices, made higher by tariff walls.
  Mr. CROFT: Are they not protesting here?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The prices here are not made higher by tariff walls. Yet at such a moment as this we are reproved for not having proposed to alter our fiscal system in a Protectionist direction. Those who reprove us might be better employed. As the Mover and Seconder said, and as the Tariff Reformer may say, "All that is very fine, although we all rejoice at finding trade improved, unemployment decreased, and pauperism decreased, although all these things falsify our predictions, never mind, we take great joy in the better prosperity of the land and of the realm." I wish he would do it a little more cheerfully. He may say it is all very fine, but other countries—and one country in particular which has been mentioned—is forging ahead faster than we are. That was the proposition—
  Mr. MILDMAY: I did not say forging ahead.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, that was ray way of putting it. I do not wish to make the hon. Gentleman responsible for my phraseology. But supposing that were true to-day it does not necessarily follow that you are entitled to lay all the blame upon your fiscal system. Yet that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite invariably do. In enterprise, in alertness, in adaptability, in commercial methods, in education, and in plans for pushing for new trade while retaining the old, one has need to be always watchful in order to keep pace with other countries. Let me say a word on the matter of Colonial preference. My hon. Friend and colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will speak on that matter later in the day, and will speak with greater authority and ability than I can. But let me just remark, I think it is a pity that the course taken

  773
  by any British Dominion in the dispensation of her domestic affairs, whatever that course may be, should be laid hold of for partisan purposes here at home. A good deal has been said recently about the Canadian elections. There were references to them this afternoon. I make no complaint of the way in which they were treated, but the Canadian elections are a matter for the Canadian people, and it does not become us to utilise them as pawns in our party warfare. We shall, all of us, whatever part of the House we sit in, watch the great enterprise and splendid development of the old Dominion with an eye of the keenest regard and keenest sympathy, and some of us, like the Leader of the Opposition, and myself, and others in this House who hail Canada as our birthplace, will do so, if that is possible, with oven deeper feelings of affection. We are all sure that time, and whatever time may bring with it, can only strengthen the ties of affection, regard, and good will between the old Dominion and the Old Country.
  Let me say this in conclusion. I have listened to these fiscal debates many times during the eleven years I have had the honour of being a Member of this House. I have never before taken part in them, but I have constantly had my mind filled with two thoughts. The first is this: If this change in our fiscal system would secure half that which its most ardent advocates claim for it, who would be moving this Motion to-day? It surely would be moved by the Labour Members. There they sit. They spring from the people. They know the hopes, the fears, the anxiety and the aspirations of the people. But they do not move. All the glib assurances of more work and higher wages and better time all round leave these Members cold. [An HON. MEMBER: "Absolutely."] You must think them singularly unmindful of the block from which they were hewn. You have piped unto them and they have not danced; you have mourned with them and they will not weep. Why? Because they do not believe in your remedy: because they know it is very much too good to be true. And they are right. The other thought is this. I have often felt if all the time and money and labour involved in this eight years of discussion as between Free Trade and Tariff Reform, as applicable to our particular case, had been spent in perfecting our methods of commercialism, in improving our system of education, in removing
  774
  social shortcomings, which are quite improperly attributed to our fiscal system and which have nothing whatever to do with it, how much more profitably it would have been employed.
  My last word is to my hon. Friends on this side. Our duty is to defend Free Trade as the only possible fiscal policy for a country situated as we are. To Free Trade we stand irrevocably committed. But there is something more than that. All the time the Tariff Reformer is attacking Free Trade he is in effect calling attention to our social shortcomings, and, in many cases, there is little or nothing of economics in the discussion. He can appeal to sorrow, distress, and unemployment, and he can promise a remedy for, or a mitigation of it, but there is little or nothing of economics in it. These social shortcomings the Tariff Reformer attributes to Free Trade, and he assures those whom he seeks to convert that he can remove or mitigate them. In that, I say, he is doubly wrong. These shortcomings are there in spite of, and not because of, Free Trade, and I say, further, that, situated as we are, Tariff Reform would accentuate rather than mitigate those shortcomings. But there they are. Those who desire to come forward in defence of Free Trade will best serve that purpose by going forward to attack and, as far as possible, remove those social shortcomings which, though they are not in any way attributable to our fiscal system, will always be the best weapon in the armoury of its opponents.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken commenced his observations by expressing great satisfaction that Tariff Reform had now been put back to the second row of goods in the shop-window display, and that it came under the description of "slightly soiled." He told us that in bad times it was easy enough to support Tariff Reform, but that it was most difficult in good times. The times are good at present—so good, indeed, that he suggested that it has no chance whatever. But for whom is it a good time? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that this is a good time for the workers of the country? Is that his contention?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Tariff Reform would make it worse.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: That is not the point. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was that we could do nothing with Tariff Reform because the times were now so good,

  775
  and when I appealed to him to say for whom they are good, and whether they are good for the workers of this country, he is absolutely silent. He has no reply whatever. He suggested that Tariff Reform, which he described in his most ornamental rhetoric as the most magnificent fanaticism and the most successful failure that had ever been known—this successful failure he declared would never raise wages, and he maintained that it was an absurd contention on our part. But is it so very unreasonable? If Tariff Reform lessens foreign competition—and does he deny that that must be its tendency—if fewer manufactured goods are imported into this country, surely that must result in a greater demand for employment in this country, and does not that mean an increase of wages? The right hon. Gentleman appeared to ignore all these considerations, which are amongst the most elementary we have to consider in dealing with the question which is now before us. The right hon. Gentleman fell back upon the old figures of our over-seas trade, and he was especially severe upon me for an observation I made, I think, some three years ago, of which I have no precise recollection at this moment, but it was because, I understand, that I described unemployment as ever increasing.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That was in the resolution you moved.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: How could I describe it more effectively?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I only wish to refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory that it was at the meeting of the National Union of Conservative Associations.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: I had forgotten the fact. It is a long time ago, and it is the misfortune of gentlemen in my position to make a great many speeches and to move a great many resolutions in the course of the year. The right hon. Gentleman fell back upon Mr. Chamberlain's figures. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I am not much concerned with the figures he put before us to-night, and when he taunts me with saying that unemployment in this country three years ago was ever increasing, I should like to observe in the first place that his figures in no way whatever relate to the whole employment of this country. I understand they are taken from the trade union figures alone.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Board of Trade figures.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: The figures given by the Board of Trade. They do not include anything like the whole employment of the country, and I affirm, notwithstanding all that the right hon. Gentleman has said to-night, that, on the balance, for a great number of years unemployment has been steadily increasing, until it is not denied that it has at last become chronic in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman deny that?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I do.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: You do?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, I do deny that statement.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: Then what on earth is the meaning, if unemployment is such a happy condition, of that great Bill upon which the Government have been spending so many months, one part of which is devoted expressly to providing for the unemployment that is so rife in the country, and which made it absolutely necessary to introduce that measure.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Hear, hear.
  Mr. CHAPLIN: It is all very well to nod your head and say "Hear, hear," but that is what we should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman. What I am really concerned with in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman are certain figures of his own that he adduced in regard to the iron and steel trade. He gave them with an air of triumph which rather surprised me, considering that I have the latest figures with regard to the progress of the iron and steel trade in this country, which I will give to the House. The right hon. Gentleman must know that the admitted test, according to the statements of the Board of Trade itself, of the progress in any country of the iron and steel industry is the consumption and the production of pig iron. That is a well-known fact, which is denied by no one. What are the facts with regard to the relative progress of the United Kingdom under a Free Trade system and of Germany and the United States of America under a protective system? What is the history of the iron and steel trade in this country for the last thirty years? The figures given to me are the latest by which you can compare the relative progress of these countries. They are

  777
  something almost appalling. Although the right hon. Gentleman congratulated himself upon the figures he gave us with regard to the iron and steel trade, I wonder what he will say when I compare them with the figures of Germany and the United States. I have taken the date when Prince Bismarck abandoned Free Trade in Germany and took to Protection. What was the production of pig iron at that time? In Great Britain it was 6,000,000 tons; in Germany it was 2,200,000 tons, and in the United States it was 2,700,000 tons. That is to say, that during the years from 1879 down to the present time, during the time that we remained a Free Trade country and Germany and the United States took to Protection, according to this test, admitted by the Board of Trade itself as the best test of the progress of any country in that particular industry, we increased 4,000,000 tons—from 6,000,000 to 10,000,000. Germany increased 12,000,000 tons—from 2,000,000 to 14,000,000 tons; and the United States increased from 2,700,000 tons to 24,700,000 tons. That is to say, Germany increased more than three times the increase that we made, and the United States increased six times more than our increase in that particular period.
  That is a most remarkable and extraordinary state of things, and there must be some good reason for it. What is the reason? I am going, with permission of the House, to give a reason. It is not my own reason, but it is given to me by great manufacturers in the country, who have told it to me over and over again. I make this affirmation in spite of all that the right hon. Gentleman has said to-night, that in the case of some of our great industries in this country in which we were formerly unapproached, and in which we stood alone without any foreign rival in the world, it is the positive fact that by more than one of these foreign countries we have been absolutely beaten, and in one of them in particular we have been outdistanced in the race, and that is the particular trade of which I am speaking at this moment. What is the reason that I have been given? It is this: that the secret of commercial competition in these days is cheap production, and the whole secret of cheap production is large production. Every manufacturer in the country will tell you that the more largely he can produce, the more cheaply he can produce. The very first essential for cheap production is that you should always have the
  778
  largest possible markets perfectly free and open to you. How do we compare in that respect with our foreign rivals? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to consider this impartially and for himself. They can produce as largely and therefore as cheaply as they please, because they have always two markets open to them. They have their own market on the one hand, which they take very good care to keep entirely for themselves by the heavy protective duties they impose on goods coming into their country; and when that market is satisfied, and after they have made a good profit out of it, they then send the surplus that they have to dispose of straight into this country. They are good men of business, no doubt, and they get the best price they can, but they also know that they must take whatever price they can get, with this result, that their goods in these circumstances are very often sold for less than their cost. That is where our old friend dumping comes in, which has done such an infinitude of mischief to industries of our own in days gone by, and when a trade boom comes again will do still more, if we continue to adhere to our foolish, worn-out, and antiquated system.
  What is our position? We have only one market—or, rather, only that part of one market which the foreigners are kind enough to leave us. Our manufacturers cannot manufacture as largely as they please because they are always afraid of having a surplus of which they cannot dispose. There is no getting away from these facts. I have put this case occasionally before Free Traders in different parts of the country, and never once have I been able to obtain from any single one of them anything in the semblance of an answer. We have found ourselves in greater trouble in regard to unemployment and duration of bad times than the countries with whom we have to compete in these circumstances. I have given one particular instance of this trade. I give that particular instance because the trade is so important that it always used to be called the keystone of all our national industries, because it is so much mixed up with a number of other trades. If that is the case, what is to be the remedy? There is only one possible remedy, in my opinion, and that is the acquisition of better and larger markets than we have at present. I say it is the remedy, because larger markets mean more orders to the manufacturers, and, consequently, more employment and better wages for the men.

  779
  Where are they to be found? They are to be found, of course, in the markets of our Colonies beyond the seas, and in our own markets here at home. Having read many years ago one of the late Sir Robert Giffen's essays on this, particular subject, and having discussed it with him afterwards, I learnt from him—and there was no higher authority—that, in his opinion, the value of the home market by itself, if left to us, would be worth, I think he said—it sounded like exaggeration, but he convinced me that he was right—eight times as much as all the foreign markets put together. Again, of course, they could be got in the Colonies beyond the seas, and, if it had not been for the incredible folly of this country, we should have had a most beneficial and advantageous share in the Colonial markets long ago. For remember Canada's offers to us, not at the last Conference, nor the Conference before, but at a Conference still further back.
  What Canada really offered us came practically to this: not that she would admit our manufactures, which would have injured, and possibly destroyed, her own, perfectly free, but that with regard to all those articles which she could not make for herself she was perfectly ready and willing so to arrange her tariff in the future as to give us practically the control of that part of her markets for ourselves. These things are all recorded in the Blue Book. There is the offer made, and what was the price to be paid for it? Nothing but a wretched single 1s. duty on corn, of which she was to have a preference in return for the possession of these priceless markets, which would have been the greatest boon which could possibly have been conferred upon the working classes of this country. All this splendid market has been at our disposal over and over again for years, and would have been ours at the present time if it had not been for the folly and the prejudice of our present rulers. They did their best to lose all chance of it, and to this country and to our working classes for ever. But thank God they were prevented by the patriotism and the affection of Canada for this country. Now once more we have the chance, which I put before the House from my own personal knowledge of Canada. I have travelled through those wide districts and can give a description of the natural resources and wealth of that country, which are really sometimes to me almost inconceivable. It is because I have been for years convinced of the surpassing importance of friendly
  780
  action in this direction towards our great dependencies, and because I know what the loss of it will mean to the workers of this country, that I long ago determined to devote whatever was left to me of health and strength to the prosecution of what, I believe, would be the most beneficial work ever carried out in the industrial interests of the United Kingdom. This Amendment lays it down that the action of the Government has imperilled the Imperial preference which has been for so long at our disposal. It has deferred the closer commercial union of the Empire, it has deprived us of the chance and the power of retaliation with foreign countries when we are unfairly treated by them, and, above all, it is because it lays down that it is most injurious to the labour conditions of the workers in this country that I give my hon. Friend the heartiest support I can offer.
  Mr. POINTER: The Mover of the Amendment, in the course of a very interesting and able speech, made a remark which struck me rather forcibly. He said it was with considerable difficulty that he could persuade himself that we, upon this side of the House, who are opponents of any and all forms of Tariff Reform, Protection, Preference, and so on, were really in earnest. That is curious, because it happens to be exactly the position and exactly the difficulty that I am in in regard to them. I have not yet been able to persuade myself that they really mean it. I am not yet convinced that they are so blind as to what is going on around them, that they are so unaware of the experience that is theirs to be had if they like to seek it, as to continue asserting as they do the benefits of Protection. I noticed, however, that the moderate tone of both Mover and Seconder was most marked. It is certainly a very great departure from what I may call, if it is a Parliamentary word, the cockiness which has characterised our Debate upon this subject in previous years. There has been no confidence such as we had exhibited before, no strong statements as to what Tariff Reform will do, barring the suggestion that here and there it might do something. Of course, I recognise quite well that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) has been a consistent advocate of this policy for many years past. Along with the late Sir Howard Vincent he was preaching it in season and out of season. But so far as its modern history is concerned there has come a great change. In

  781
  the first few days after the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) had startled the country by his remarkable proposal, we had all sorts of extravagant statements as to what Tariff Reform was going to do. It was going, in the first instance, to find two jobs for every man. Then it dawned upon someone's mind that it might only be one job and fifteen-sixteenths of another. So it dwindled down and down until I well remember the time—I had only been in the House a few days—when the late Leader of the Opposition very gravely warned his followers not to put their demands too high and not to make their promises too lavish. From that day to this those promises have been getting staler and staler. I, like the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara), cannot help feeling a little sorry for the conditions under which the Opposition have to move their Amendment. Certainly it is rather difficult to make out a good case when exports and imports are booming, and when the trade of the country has so very much improved.
  There was one remark that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) made in which I very largely sympathised with him. He was rather combating the statement made by the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty that unemployment had not increased, and that there was not a tendency for it to increase. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If you take a long term of years that certainly is true. We can look as we like, and we cannot blind ourselves to the fact. Twenty, twenty-five, and thirty years ago unemployment was bad at periods and then recovered, and during the process of recovery every able-bodied and willing worker could find work. Unfortunately, that is not the case to-day. Unemployment has increased to this extent, that even during the best of times there is a big margin of unemployment. But I am afraid I must join issue with the right hon. Gentleman here. I do not think Tariff Reform would help us in the slightest degree, but would rather aggravate the symptoms and not cure them. After all, what is the position? Why has unemployment increased? Is it not because of the marvellous increase in the power of production? Is it not because of the introduction of machinery? We have increased our capacity to produce during the last fifty years by twenty times. Of course we are not making use of them to that extent. We are only making use of
  782
  them to the extent of twice. Does the right hon. Gentleman expect when the workers of this country are not receiving that return for that labour which, if they were receiving it, would make a bigger demand, and that demand in itself would stimulate trade—that under these circumstances it is likely that we may really expect that unemployment should not grow worse? We may look at the question from whatever standpoint we like. To me Tariff Reform, Protection, Preference, by whatever name you like to call it, is not only economically unsound, but at the same time all the experience that we can gain from other countries and from the past history of our own country, will teach us the same thing, that under Protection these things are likely to grow worse and not to grow better.
  6.0 P.M.
  I am always interested when I hear Members of the Opposition interesting themselves in the welfare of the workers. I am not going to suggest that they do not mean all they say, but those of us who sit upon these benches, every one of whom has worked amongst the workers, lived their life, and knows something of the things they have to endure, knows the conditions of employment and all the rest of it, should at least have some little knowledge of the subject so far as we think it would affect us, and consequently we are more than likely to have studied foreign conditions to see how it affects the workers. I want to emphasise very strongly, not only on my own behalf, but on behalf of every single man of the Labour party, this statement made by the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara), namely, that if any man or any body of men can convince us that Tariff Reform is for the benefit of the workers, we will be Tariff Reformers at once. Of course, they may believe it is possible to do it. I have looked around and analysed the arguments, and I have found them singularly unconvincing. I want for a moment to look at the experience of other countries. I have been reading to-day a book which, I am sorry to say, I had not the opportunity of getting hold of before, because I think, if I had had time to go through it, I could possibly have-swept away every one of the arguments likely to be used in regard to the steel trade as it affects this country and our relations with foreign countries. I must content myself with one or two extracts which may indicate the line of argument, and the wealth of material for argument,

  783
  in foreign countries in regard to such matters. In the first place, I would like to suggest that America is the country in which possibly the most scientific compilation of tariffs has yet been made, and if there is anything in Protection that country gives us rather a curious spectacle. If we were to accept the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, we would expect that the people in protected countries were all as well as they could be, that there were harmonious relations between employer and employed, that employment was steady, that poverty was unknown, and that wages were high and getting higher. On none of these points does America bear out that position. On every one of these points it has an opposite verdict to give. Poverty there is not getting less, but it is increasing.
  Take the case of the Pittsburg works. What are the facts there? There are about 43 per cent. of the workers in that huge concern who are not getting more than five dollars per day. You may think that a large wage, but I wish to point out that, while that is true, there are 60 per cent. not getting more than two dollars per day. Again, you may say that is a large wage. But if you want to draw a comparison, let me point out that before the Trust achieved the power it has, before it spread its tentacles over the United States, and before it crushed trade unionism, as it has done since, those people who are getting five dollars were getting ten to twelve dollars per day. I invite the attention of the House to that particular fact. I do not say that is the natural outcome of Protection, but I do suggest that whatever may be assigned as the real cause, Protection does not, as its advocates declare it will, prevent falls or lead to increases in wages in any way. As a matter of fact, wages have decreased rather than increased. And so it is in regard to a great many other industries Things are so bad in America that they are starting investigation pretty much as we have done in this country. I hold in my hand a copy of a weekly paper called "The Survey." It is published by the Charity Organisation Society of the City of New York. I know that charity organisation appeals to some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and unless they believe that there is some strange difference between charity organisation in that country and in this, they will be disposed to listen to the evidence of this particular journal.
  784
  That organisation is conducted by men who have no particular axe to grind. I do not know that they represent any particular party. They are men who are anxious to know the causes of social distress in the United States, and to suggest remedies if they possibly can. One investigation that has been carried out is in regard to women's labour. I find that they examined a considerable number of women—17,000 or 18,000 altogether—and they state that 41 per cent. of the candy workers, 10.2 per cent. of the saleswomen, 16.1 per cent. of the laundry workers, and 23 per cent. of the cotton workers earn less than five dollars per week, and that, respectively, 65.2 per cent., 29.5 per cent., 40.7 per cent., and 37.6 per cent. of them earn less than six dollars per week. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that in New York?"] That does not refer to New York. It refers to some part of Massachusetts. It applies indeed to the whole State so far as I can see. If I were to make many quotations from the book, I think it would be found that there is a great deal of this kind of thing going on.
  There is another point infinitely more important, and that is in regard to the efforts to be made, or the suggestions to be made, to overcome these grave social evils, and to bring some little betterment to bear on the conditions of these people. A number of very celebrated men in social economics in the United States are putting their intellects together and endeavouring to see if they cannot make some practical proposal, and this, after all, is, in my opinion, the most important suggestion that has yet been made as to the cause of unemployment, poverty, and the like. I invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to recognise that these men have come to the conclusion that it is no good for any nation to endeavour to find out the causes of social unrest, poverty, or unemployment so long as they confine their investigations to their own country. Professor Irving Fisher, a member of the American Economic Association, tells us that prices have risen during the last fifteen years 50 per cent. in the United States, 30 per cent. in Germany, and 20 per cent. in this country. I may say that it is an infinitely difficult matter to arrive at any reliable information on this point. I was reading the other day similar figures given by a celebrated man who read a paper before the Economic Society of this country, which was highly appreciated. Although he gave different figures from

  785
  those I have quoted, the strange thing is that the proportions were pretty much the same as in this particular pronouncement. Professor Kemmerer, of Cornell, believes it was an open question whether, in spite of the seeming prosperity of most of the period since 1896, the labouring classes are not worse off than they were fifteen years ago.
  I wish the House to see the trend of my argument. I am not suggesting that things are any worse in Tariff Reform and Protectionist America. What I am going to prove is that, although they have all the safeguards which hon. Members opposite are asking us to adopt in this country, things are going from bad to worse in America, as they are here. We have not many conditions so bad as those that are to be found in America. We have never yet seen a drop in wages equivalent to a drop of from ten or twelve dollars to five dollars. I do not think you can point to any industry where in fifteen or twenty years wages in a particular trade or industry have been reduced by that amount.
  Mr. GOULDING: You have never had such high wages in this country.
  Mr. POINTER: I can see that our Friends opposite are abandoning the argument as to percentage. We have not had such high wages, but hon. Gentlemen opposite know quite well, without confusing the issue, that there is no comparison between wages in this country and wages in America. The comparison must be between American wages and the cost of living there, and English wages and the cost of living here Unless you can prove that the American worker is able, out of his wages, to maintain a better and more decent existence than the worker can do out of the wages he receives in this country, it cannot be said that the American worker is in a better position. I do not believe there is a man in the House or out of it who can prove that. I think all the facts go to prove that it is the other way about. There is a Year Book published by one of the agencies in America dealing with wages, the conditions of labour, and other matters. It points out that so far as the average wage in the United States is concerned it is manifestly impossible for the bulk of the people to live in decency and comfort. It gives the number of dollars per week necessary to maintain decent existence, and afterwards it gives the average wages. So far as America is concerned Professor Chapin,
  786
  who is regarded as the most thorough investigator in regard to social phenomena, makes this statement:—
  "It is not possible, except for a single man, to live a decent existence in the United States with a wage under from ten to twelve dollars per week."
  If that is so, then it is a most remarkable fact that that is not nearly the average wage calculated in America. As a matter of fact, American wages are not ten to twelve dollars, but six dollars per week, or four dollars less than what is laid down as the absolute minimum on which a married man can carry out the decencies of existence. I have pointed out that wages at Pittsburg declined severely. The Steel Corporation has spread its influence far and wide, and has almost succeeded in getting the whole of the steel industry of the United States within its grasp, but fortunately it has not quite succeeded. There are others which have had subsequent rises which have not come within the influence of the Steel Corporation.
  Mr. CROFT: Would the hon. Member state what his authority is for saying that the Steel Corporation had secured all the trade in the United States?
  Mr. POINTER: What I said I thought was that it had spread its influence and almost succeeded in getting all the trade in its grasp, and then I went on to show that there are others that are not yet included, and this is one of them. Conditions are bad in Pittsburg, but they are a little worse, so far as actual wages are concerned, in the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company. I was rather amazed when I read the conditions of the workers of this particular firm. Sixty-five per cent. of them are receiving wages of 17 cents an hour and working twelve hours a day, and 30 per cent. of them are working a seven-day week. I suggest that that is food for thought on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are always telling us that they want Tariff Reform to improve conditions, but here is this particular firm, which is only different from the rest in being rather worse. That is to say, the conditions for employés in the United States are very bad indeed. The social conditions are bad, the housing conditions, the number of hours of labour, and so on, are all bad from top to bottom and from start to finish, and the only way that the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company differs from others is that they seem almost to have touched rock-bottom. I wonder whether, after all, hon. Gentlemen opposite would like to see in this country what

  787
  there is to be seen there? I have heard them profess friendship for trade unionism. I wonder would they at the same time like the condition to obtain here which obtains in this particular film? Trade unions in this firm have been totally annihilated with the exception of one trade union, which has been able to keep together.
  I naturally look at this question from that particular standpoint. I am not so much interested about imports and exports, and I know that, after all, they are not a final test as to prosperity or otherwise. So far as the workers are concerned, you can have exports going up and imports going up, and you can have all the outward and visible signs of prosperity, and at the same time have the workers poor, miserably paid, hard-working, and gradually being driven to despair. But when I see these despairing conditions across the Atlantic, where all the safeguards you want to give to us have had plenty of scope for operation, and have resulted in making conditions worse than anything we know of here, then you must prove to us that the application of your principles in this country is going to have a different effect from what it had abroad before we can listen to the story which you have to tell us. Even the 17 cents per hour is not quite so big as it may appear, even without taking into consideration the ordinary cost of living, for the workmen are not allowed to do what they like with their own money. They are paid fortnightly, and in the meantime they have to trade at the store, which is the property of the firm, and pay prices very much in excess of the cost of living to ordinary American working men. That is to say, they have to endure the truck system in its most unadulterated form. Although they have an eight-hour day in force, so far as the law in Colorado is concerned, this trust is so powerful that it can snap its fingers at the legislature and the administration and say, "Make what laws you like: we are going to make our men work twelve hours a day"; and by no other possibility than a growth of trade unionism in that particular district will they get hold of an eight-hour day which will be of some worth.
  Not only that, but the law in Colorado instructs those who are responsible for running mills and so forth that they must fence machinery and must protect the life of the worker against accident. But that
  788
  is flagrantly ignored. All these conditions are of very great importance—at least, from our particular standpoint. We do not want to return to the time when our fellow workers were chopped and mauled by machinery, with no protection for them either from law or from anywhere else. We do not want to see a return to the twelve-hour day or the seven-day week, but we do suggest that our friends the Protectionists should try to see if it might be possible after all to apply those provisions to this country without these things being likely to follow in their track. The Mover of the Resolution spoke of the minimum wage which we are trying to secure as Protection of a kind. I quite admit that it is Protection of a kind, but the saving words of course are "of a kind." It is not Protection in the sense that the hon. Gentleman opposite advocates as protection for industry. I mean this. The obvious result of the establishment of a minimum wage would be to place the possessors of that minimum wage in possession of an adequate, or at least a more adequate, command than they have now of the purchase of the good things of life. Therefore it would rather tend to raise the standard of life than otherwise. But you cannot say that of the protection which adds to the cost of commodities which have to be bought. That would rather reduce the workers power of purchasing those things. Where the Protectionist always gets astray is that he assumes that because you are going to change the process of imports being paid for by exports or other things, and you are going, he says, to have those things that were imported made at home in addition to the things that are exported, and therefore that you are going to increase the demand. I am not at all sure that is going to follow. If by your tariff you raise the cost of goods and raise the selling price in this country—it may very easily happen, in many cases it would happen, you do nothing of the sort—you would not increase the demand, but restrict the demand because of the increase in price, and any advantage you might hope to gain from such a thing would be more than counterbalanced by the added price you would have, not only for the imported articles, but for all the rest of the articles that are manufactured here of the same industry.
  Therefore it is altogether a different matter speaking about the protection of industries in the sense in which Tariff

  789
  Reformers mean it and the protection that we in our efforts to secure a minimum wage are anxious to obtain. There is one thing that I have never been able yet to understand. It is quite true that when the preference was given by Canada to this country, our trade with that country increased. But it is also true that the trade with America, which did not have a preference, increased in a tremendously greater ratio even than ours did. But I am rather surprised that it increased at all. During the Election of January, 1910, a friend of mine came home from Canada and told me of a conversation which he had had with a responsible member of the Toronto Chamber of Commerce. My friend asked, "Is it correct that agricultural implements on the Canadian market are selling at the same price, whether they happen to come from England or Germany or are home-made Canadian products?" "Yes," was the reply, "it is true that these things are all selling at the same price." My friend said, "How does that tome about? The Canadian product has paid no tax; your English product has paid a preference tax, and the German product has paid a big tax." "Well," was the reply, "do you not see that we have got to keep a market for our grain, and if we allow the tax to operate in the natural, ordinary way what would happen would be that we would not be able to conduct the exchange of our wheat with foreign countries with that case and facility that we can do when we leave open our market for their goods." "Therefore," said my friend, "if those be the facts, the whole force of the preference is utterly lost. After all, do you think that is fair to the farmers out West who are paying more for their agricultural implements than they otherwise would be? How would you justify such procedure? Surely the real thing would be to allow them to buy the Canadian article in the cheapest form and not artificially inflate it in order to bring it up to the level of the other goods which have paid the tax?" "Oh," said the chamber of commerce representative, "business is business, and that is all that is to be said about it."
  If business is business it is all right, so long as we understand exactly what the business is. We have heard something today about dumping. What is the remedy for it I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Mr. S. Roberts) is not in his place, because I am going to use
  790
  certain figures which he used a little while ago in the columns of the Sheffield Conservative Press. I think it is nearly two years now since there was a great outcry in the country about an order for steel axles going to Krupps of Germany. I think the amount of the order was £65,000, but the figures are immaterial. A great outcry was made against dumping, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall said that the cost of producing those axles in this country is £17 per ton, and the cost of producing them in Germany at Krupps is £16 per ton. But they were being dumped here at £11, and he advocated Protection as a remedy.
  I do not want to push the argument too far. It is quite possible for certain gentlemen to be united on a principle, and yet be divided as to the methods of teaching. That I can quite understand; and we find some in favour of a 10 per cent. tax, some of a larger tax, while others are in favour of varying the tax according to circumstances. I quite agree that it is not always easy to get uniformity, but at least this can be said, and it is an important point, that for a tax to have any relative value whatever it could not be done for a 10 per cent. tax, and you could not do it in this case under a 64 per cent. tax. The question is, therefore, are you prepared, where the circumstances warrant it, to put a tax of 64 per cent. upon any foreign article coming into this country, with a view to keeping it out? If so, then I think we ought to know it. If not, all I have to say is that dumping will continue, notwithstanding your 10 per cent. or 25 per cent. tax; and no tax will be sufficient which falls short of such an amount as will at least level up the cost of production. Another steel manufacturer in Sheffield came along with a remedy, and it is interesting to note that the right hon. Gentleman opposite hinted at it, although he did not dwell long upon the point—namely, that the reason that Krupps and others in Germany can do this is because they do a tremendous amount of business, and because of the grand scale upon which they work. The further point is made that it pays them to get rid of what they produce at any price rather than have it upon their hands. I accept that, if you like, as a possible explanation. I want to know if manufacturers in this country are so behind in business foresight as not to be fully alive to the value of conducting their industries upon a grand scale; they know something about the saving that can be

  791
  made. They understand that to let things go at cost price is sometimes in the long run a saving. Why does not the manufacturer here adopt the same methods as the German members of the steel trade are so fond of doing?
  Mr. CHAPLIN: He has not the same market.
  Mr. POINTER: The right hon. Gentleman said he has not the same market. I am not quite sure that he is correct in saying that. I believe, after all, that the secret of the German success is the application of technical education, science, and business principles, so that he gets his goods on to the market cheaper, and it is he who has made the market and not the market which has made him. In the "Daily Mail" of the day before yesterday there was a rather significant statement by Sir Robert Hadfield, a man of high authority in the steel trade. His position in the metallurgical world is entitled to the greatest respect. He is the man who discovered the point of temperature at which steel and manganese would amalgamate, and he laid the foundation of at least an increased fortune by that means. His position is that of second to none in this country in his particular line. Sir Robert Hadfield said that it was in the laboratories of Essen, Berlin and Gross-Lichterfelde that the German victories were being won; it was the brains of the German universities and technical schools, and not Protection. I know it may be suggested that Sir Robert is a Liberal, and all the rest of it. I think he is a Liberal, but, as a matter of fact, though I worked for him during some time, I always regarded him as my opponent, whether Liberal or Tory. Though he is a Liberal yet he is not prompted by sentiment simply, but he weighs every circumstance before coming to a decision, and if he thought Protection or Tariff Reform was going to be to his advantage sentimental objections would not stand in his way. He is a successful man in more than one sense. For many years his particular firm paid 25 per cent., then it dropped to 22½, but never within recent years at least has it paid less than 17½. per cent. He is endeavouring to do in this country what he says the Germans are doing in theirs. He has won his victories by applying technical education and scientfic knowledge to the advance of his business.
  792
  I say that, speaking as a man born in Sheffield—I have never worked in the cutlery trade but I have always done my best to try and understand it—the cutlery trade of Sheffield is infinitely poorer than it would be if conducted on proper lines. Take the German cutlery trade, at Solingen, for example. It is, as with other industries in that country, carefully organised. In this country a firm gets an order for 3,000 or 4,000 of a certain kind of goods—it may be an order for knives, and in the Sheffield trade they have what is called the "little master," to whom part of the work is given out. One little master is given so much steel to deal with, and this little master sub-divides his work between others. One workman forges the blades, another does work on some other portion of the knife, and all this work is subdivided among a number. Each workman returns his finished work, and gets further work, which he takes away with him, and so the process goes on; there is this travelling backwards and forwards to the central place for work and material, and these skilled men, instead of being kept to skilled work, are performing errands which could be discharged by boys of fourteen years of age, or, since I am in favour of a higher standard, boys of sixteen years of age. Under the system existing here, we have this waste of the time of skilled workmen on mere errands to and fro—men who are the most skilled workmen in the world in their own particular industry. All that is going on, instead of our having an up-to-date system, where skilled men would be employed upon skilled work, and not upon work that can be done by boys. As an illustration of the high organisation of the cutlery industry in Germany, I may mention the fact that the number of rivets for an ordinary penknife are already provided to the hand of the workmen, so that he has to waste no time whatever, and he has to put his skill to the very best use. Could Tariff Reform make any alteration in that? Could any Tariff Reform whatever, no matter how scientifically arranged, make any alteration here in view of this highly trained industry abroad?
  I know that there are well-organised cutlery manufactories in Sheffield, but those from whom the howl is going up are those men who conduct their business upon the lines of a hundered years ago. They say, "My father did it, and my grandfather did it, and surely it is good

  793
  enough for me." You read in sixpenny illustrated magazines about the magnificent Sheffield workers, and about the marvellous touch and skill of those workers, whose, forefathers had been engaged from generation to generation in this particular type of work. But why do they not put that marvellous skill to the very best use, instead of wasting the time of skilled men upon going errands which could as well be discharged by boys? In my opinion we are rather too greedy in this country. Let me give a simple illustration. A Derbyshire firm not long ago tendered to the Lincoln Corporation for the supply of pipes for certain works which that body was carrying out. Their tender was for £62,000. A German firm tendered for £50,000. The Lincoln Corporation did not like the idea of the work going out of the country, and they sent the tender back to the Derbyshire firm asking what they were going to do about it. The Derbyshire firm withdrew their first tender and tendered a second time for £49,000—£1,000 under the German tender. I have not heard that the firm has gone into the bankruptcy court yet; as a matter of fact, it is still paying a huge dividend. If we are going to stand in our own light, and if we are going to keep up these antiquated methods in regard to production, or in regard to a big turnover in the shape of profits, instead of being content with smaller profits to tide over a difficulty, then, so far as I am concerned, I rather think that Tariff Reform, even if it could do the things hon. Gentlemen opposite claim, would be a disaster rather than a help to us.
  We do not want anything that is going to encourage the incompetent or the idle—I do not care whether they are among the workers or among the manufacturers. I believe, with Sir Robert Hadfield, that the whole secret of successful industry is to be found in the laboratory, and in the advantage which is taken of technical education, which would cause the steel industry to prosper and flourish like the green bay tree. For my part, I am not going to say that things in this country are satisfactory. I know the poverty, the unemployment, and the despair which exist here. I know there is misery, but I am quite convinced that in the struggle which is going on there can be no alteration on the lines of Tariff Reform. The only alteration which can be effected is that which can come from an equitable sharing of the wealth of
  794
  the country, and that is one of the reasons why we advocate a minimum wage, why we advocate an eight-hour day, and why we urge the nationalisation of monopolies, which, we hold, should be under national and democratic control, and conducted on principles which would permit of the workers sharing in the profits. I believe that on no other lines can we secure that blessing, and that we must recognise, quite frankly, that the worker is entitled to a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. Unless we are prepared to give them a minimum wage on which to exist, we cannot expect to keep up a sufficient supply of efficient labour to maintain us in the forefront of the industrial world, any more than hon. Gentlemen opposite could hope to build up an Army and Navy to protect our industries—if that be necessary—with inefficient and ill-paid labour.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: My advocacy of the cause to which I and my hon. Friends behind me are so much attached, I must honestly say for myself, is not in the least affected by the somewhat long, though interesting, speech which has just been delivered from the Labour benches. The hon. Member who has just spoken lacks nothing in ability, nothing in experience; what he lacks is a case. I am perfectly satisfied that, having heard what I take is the case of the Labour party against the proposal of Tariff Reformers, the cause which we advocate is a cause which cannot be resisted, because the representatives of labour are unable to present anything like a case in defence of Free Trade principles. The hon. Member talked to us about the position of the American workers. He told us that if it could be shown that the American worker was in a better position than the English worker owing to the adoption of that system that we ask for, that he would be satisfied that there was something in the case for Tariff Reform. I naturally cannot provide at the moment sufficient in the way of statistics to perhaps convince the hon. Member, but I am quite sure that during the course of this Debate he will hear, if he really desires to hear, the information, and wishes to be convinced. My hon. Friend presented a good many arguments to the effect that the American worker is infinitely more prosperous than the English worker; and to show that that prosperity is due, and due only, to the fact that they have the good sense to protect their own industries, and to look after their own working classes. I have in my hand something which I will venture to bring to the

  795
  attention of the hon. Member. It is the forty-first annual report of the statistics of labour, issued from the Bureau of Statistics of the State of Massachusetts. It is an official report, and in it I find that the American bricklayer gets 110s. per week. Can the hon. Member point out to me any English bricklayer who gets half that. I find that the American painter in the State of Massachusetts—
  Mr. W. CROOKS: Is bricklaying protected?
  Another HON. MEMBER: None of those are protected.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I could not quite catch the interruption of the two hon. Members, but I am speaking about a protected State and about wages in a protected State, and wages, as the hon. Members must surely know, is a question of comparison. The painter gets 83s. 5d. per week; the plasterer, 119s. 4d. per week, and the plumber 100s. 10d. per week. Hon. Members opposite who talk to us about working men in America know perfectly well that they cannot point to anything approaching those wages. We know that the hon. Member has not produced a single argument to show that the English working man, when you compare the cost of living with the wages which he earns, by comparison is not infinitely worse off than the American working man. I have one other quotation which is not an official report. It is a report from an article in the "Manchester Guardian" of 29th December. I am sure the hon. Member will not accuse that journal of trying to favour the case for Tariff Reform. That paragraph states that
  "among the passengers on the 'Lusitania' a few days ago there were a party of bricklayers returning to their homes in Lancashire. It is their custom to spend nine months working in the United States and to return home for three months rest."
  And well may they do it on a wage of 110s. per week. Do any of the hon. Members friends happen to be bricklayers, or those with whom he is acquainted, and does he happen to know of any English bricklayer who takes three weeks, let alone three months holiday. Those men come home to spend in Free Trade England the money they have earned in Protected America. I am not going to attempt to argue with the hon. Member who spoke last as to the enormously increased brain capacity of the German manufacturers. If he asks the House to accept the case that he gave of
  796
  the Sheffield cutlery manufacture as a fair sample of British manufacturers, then I can only say he has got a very unworthy and a very undeserved opinion of—
  Mr. POINTERmade an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Then my criticism is more justified, and I repeat that he takes a very unworthy and a very improper, if I may say so, opinion of British manufacturers. I invite him, if he suggests that the case of Sheffield is anything like a fair test, to my Constituency in Lancashire which has known as "the-town-of-all-trades." I would cheerfully spend with him as many days as he likes, and he can go about amongst the various manufacturers in my Constituency who make all classes of articles, and I invite his assistance if he can show those manufacturers how to do their business better than they are doing it. It is an odd thing that an hon. Member who claims to speak for the Labour party in this House should have so poor a case to present to the House, and it is truly an odd coincidence that the German brain is so great, according to the hon. Member, that it has been able to overcome the vast and tremendous trade difficulties which, according to the hon. Member's party, are to be found in any country which adopts a system of protective tariffs.
  I am pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in his place, because I listened to the very long and, if I may say so with great respect, not very convincing apologia from him on the subject we are debating. I realise that this country depends very largely for its existence and commerce and trade on its ships. I would respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he has of late years been applying so much of his mind to the ships that he has entirely forgotten what he may have known at one time as to the commerce of the country. There is one comment I have to make on his speech. I do not complain in the least of him comparing the trade of 1903 with the trade of last year, but what I have to say of that is that the right hon. Gentleman compared a bad year with an exceedingly good year. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh. Do they dispute what I say? He compared, I repeat, a very bad year with an exceptionally good year, and he asks the House to believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was totally wrong when he told us that certain

  797
  trades had been threatened and were being threatened. My right hon. Friend in the prophecies which he made, and most of which have been justified, never suggested that if there was a general trade boom throughout the world that this country would not take part in it. We have, of course, shared in the great trade boom which the whole civilised world has experienced during the last year, but we have not shared in it with that success, or to anything like the same extent, that our trade rivals have.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in criticising the speech of the right hon. Member for East Worcestershire, took certain trades—silk, cotton, iron, steel, and wool. He compared, if I remember aright, the exports of those trades in the year 1903 with the exports in the year 1911. I have not any corroboration of those figures. I am quite sure no corroboration is necessary, as the right hon. Gentleman would not quote them unless they had been very carefully considered, but they prove nothing. I feel that I am perfectly justified, without having made any examination of these figures, in saying that if you examine them in closer detail I am convinced that you will find that the increase is to a considerable extent to our Colonies, and not to the protected countries. [HON. MEMBERS.: "NO, no."] I submit—and I think I am right—that the increased trade is trade largely with those who have given us a preference, and not with those who have not given us a preference. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to further consider some of those trades. I would ask whoever speaks subsequently on behalf of the Government to say whether he is satisfied, taking the silk trade, that for every pound's worth of silk that we export to foreign countries that we should import £8 10s. worth. Thus we say to the manufacturers of foreign countries, in effect, "Send to us every yard or every pound of manufactured goods which you can, and the more you send us the more happy we shall be, and the more prosperous our working classes." Let me just ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he is talking about my right hon. Friend's prophecy as to the silk trade being threatened, does he remember not very long ago the proposal in France to further increase the tariff against our silk manufacturers? That was a threat, and a very serious threat, the result of which would have driven some more of our working classes out of employment.
  798
  7.0 P.M.
  Again, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the cotton trade. While we are undoubtedly, and I think are likely to be for many years to come, the premier manufacturing cotton producers of the world, that is due to two great reasons. It is due to the fact that we started first, and due very largely to the fact that there is in Lancashire a climate which is particularly suitable to the manufacture of cotton, and which you do not find in other countries or other counties in England. Owing to the particularly damp atmosphere of Lancashire, we have a natural protection which has been given to us without the necessity of that other protection to which hon. Gentlemen opposite object; but even in Lancashire we import from Germany two and a half times as much finished cotton goods as we export to Germany. Is that satisfactory? The hon. Member opposite, who was so pleased with the fact that we are now the premier manufacturing country in the world as regards cotton, surely cannot be satisfied with that position. As regards France, we import from that country more than we send to it; and as regards Belgium, the imports about balance the exports. What have you to say about the East? Hon. Members may say that because our trade is good to-day it is sure to be good for all time. Go to the county of Lancashire and you will find that the working classes there depend enormously to a very great extent on finding a free and ready market in the East for our cotton goods. What is the position of Japan? A few years ago nobody ever dreamt of Japan competing with our cotton exports in the East, but she is to-day a competitor, and promises, it is well known to those interested in the cotton trade, to be a very serious competitor, and with wages which we cannot touch here at all. How can hon. Members opposite view that state of affairs without a considerable amount of alarm, and without realising that whenever Japan increases her output of cotton goods in the East she is by so doing depriving our Lancashire working men of wages which they hitherto had, and which, I believe, in many ways maintain if you gave them the opportunity of protecting their labour which other countries have.
  The right hon. Gentleman dealt further with iron and steel. He is really an incurable optimist and the most ardent Free Trader I have ever come across if he

  799
  can be satisfied, as he is, with the position of this country as regards iron and steel. Not many years ago we led the world. Having flung aside Protection and the necessity, as we thought, for Protection, we went abroad for a time and led the world, and the Free Traders of those days thought of the iron and steel trade as hon. Members opposite think of the cotton trade. They thought there was no competition which could deprive them of that proud position. What is the result? Everybody knows that we have now taken third place in the production of iron and steel [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I will deal with that interruption later. Incidentally I may say that by an odd coincidence Free Traders attribute every decline in trade and every regrettable circumstance in our social life to all sorts of reasons, but to the question of the tariff. As regards iron and steel we have heard to-day from the Mover of this Amendment what Mr. Thomas has said. Occupying as he does a high position in that great industry in South Wales, and having sat for some twelve years as a Liberal Member in this House, he has told us that in the iron and steel trade we are going to have Protection, and that while he is opposed to Protection on principle, he is bound to say that such protection would be of enormous benefit to this trade in his district. That is one remark to which I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman who apparently glories in our position in the iron and steel trade. Let me quote another equally reliable authority. As it is a very long report I will give a summary of what was said in his Presidential Address by Mr. Walter Dixon, President of the West of Scotland Iron and Steel Institute No one will doubt his authority. He said that many of our blast furnaces have lately had to be blown out; that some of our steel works are closed and others partially closed; that many of our iron works are running on short time; that many of our workers, both skilled and unskilled, are out of employment; and that no adequate or reasonable profit is being earned. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the date?"] It is last year's Presidential Address; I have not the month, but I can give it to any hon. Member who comes to me afterwards. How can hon. Members opposite be satisfied with the condition of the iron and steel trade, having regard to the fact that we have dropped to the third position as producers, and to these expressions of
  800
  opinion from such high authorities as Mr. Thomas and Mr. Dixon. Here again we import twice as much iron and steel manufactured goods from Germany as we export to her, and we import from the United States, Belgium and France more finished manufactured iron and steel goods than we export to them. The right hon. Gentleman, in his rather one-sided presentation of this case, refrained, perhaps not unnaturally, certainly very discreetly, from giving us these facts. I submit that as regards these three trades the satisfaction of the right hon. Gentleman is far from being justified.
  I turn now to the woollen trade, which at one time I had occasion to study. Not many years ago the biggest customer we had for that wonderful woollen cloth produced in the West Riding of Yorkshire was the United States. I had an opportunity of considering this industry, because I fought unsuccessfully an election at Huddersfield. Just outside the station at Huddersfield there is an enormous square, surrounding which are large well constructed buildings, now let for all sorts of purposes, except for the purpose for which they were erected. They were erected for those who had a trade as woollen merchants, in order to cope with the enormous export trade of woollen cloth to America. Our trade with America has gone. We have now practically no export trade with America. America buys from us only that wonderful, perfected cloth which she cannot yet make herself, because she has not the advantages or experience that we have; and whereas she used to be one of our biggest customers, to-day she has practically ceased to buy finished manufactured cloth from us. We still export to America, but it is not woollen cloth; we are exporting raw wool. In the year in which I stood as a candidate for Huddersfield there appeared for the first time in the Board of Trade Returns the item of raw wool, or what is classed as raw or semi-raw wool, exported to America. An hon. Member asks me how much. In the year 1910, the last year for which complete figures are available, we exported to the United States of America £3,627,000 worth of either raw wool or wool which has just gone through the stages in which there is least labour, and we exported £1,827,000 worth of finished cloth. How can anybody say, having regard to the great export trade in finished cloth that we used to have with America, that that

  801
  is anything but a most unsatisfactory state of affairs?
  I cheered the right hon. Gentleman when he quoted the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, to the effect that wool was threatened. I believe that although the woollen trade is prosperous to-day, there is no trade in England which stands to lose so much by maintaining our present fiscal policy or about which you can more justly say that it is a threatened trade. I will tell you why. We have had the experience of our woollen export trade to America. In the West Hiding of Yorkshire there are two classes of woollen trade. One is the trade in which they make the best woollens—the kind of cloth which I am sure most hon. Members opposite, and certainly the Members of the Labour party, wear. The second trade is locally called the "shoddy" trade, or working men's tweed. The largest foreign customer that we have at present for our woollen trade is Germany. America was, but we have lost her trade. Germany is taking less than she did, and we had reason to believe, not very long ago, that there was a strong agitation in Germany further to raise her tariff against our woollen goods. If Germany does what America has done, and we lose that enormous trade, we shall certainly drive thousands of Yorkshire working men out of employment. With regard to the tweed trade, our biggest customers are the Colonies. That is an increasing trade, a fact largely due to the preference which these Colonies have given us. But that preference is threatened; it cannot go on for ever. It was threatened last year; it will be threatened again. In view of the fact that one of these two trades is very largely dependent upon the German market, and the other upon the Colonial market, does the right hon. Gentleman say that these two trades are not threatened? I firmly believe that in the woollen trade we have a trade which is seriously threatened, a trade which is now prosperous, but which will be anything but prosperous if, as I anticipate, before many years, Germany raises her tariff against us, or our Colonies make reciprocal arrangements with some country which has greater common sense and more business acumen than we possess.
  Let me say, in conclusion, that while the right hon. Gentleman and the representative of the Labour party (Mr. Pointer) have trotted out for our benefit many old
  802
  bogies with which we are very familiar, it is gratifying to find that at any rate in this House we have had no mention of black bread and horse sausages. They have been kept for the hoardings of the town where Free Traders fight elections. I cannot refrain from commenting on the gross inconsistency of the Labour party—the party which more than any other in the State seeks protection for wages, but refuses, for reasons which I will not express here, that protection for labour which every other country in the world has adopted. What would be the position of any representative of the Labour party on a local town council in a town producing, say, pottery, if that council desired to buy a large amount of pottery and found they could get it a little cheaper from a foreign country? If that Labour representative pursued the same line there he would not be in his place a day after the following election. Labour representatives go further than that as regards municipal matters. Not only do they say, "We will not buy from the foreigner," but they say, "We will not buy from the next town if we can buy the required article from our own town at a slightly increased cost." I venture to say that grosser inconsistency was never known. We feel that the working classes of England are realising that it is essential that their labour, while not being unduly protected, should be fairly protected against the competition that is unfair. For that reason we pursue our advocacy on these benches. I cannot refrain from drawing the attention of the House to a remarkable occurrence, to my mind remarkable anyhow, which I came across not long ago.
  Some years ago there sat in this House for some years Mr. W. H. Lever, the head of that great soap manufacturing firm known as Lever Brothers. He sat on the opposite side, the representative of the Wirral Division of Cheshire, represented now, I am glad to say, by one of my hon. Friends behind me. Mr. Lever is a business man first and a politician second, like a good many Free Trade business men in this country. It became necessary for his manager in South Africa, where the firm are building a factory—as they have done in most protected countries in order to get behind the tariff, and to employ foreign workmen—it became necessary for his manager to give evidence before a Commission sitting in South Africa to inquire into tariff conditions. I am not going to read the report, but I notice, among other

  803
  things in it, that Messrs. Lever's manager asked for several increases in the protective tariff. He said they were satisfied with the existing tariff, under certain conditions, in respect of various articles, even extending to raw materials, but he asked for increased tariffs. There is one striking passage in his evidence which I commend to the attention of hon. Members below the Gangway. Cross-examined by Mr. Martin, he explained the position which Messrs. Lever Brothers had won for themselves in England. He said they had built up for themselves a foremost place in trade without the assistance of Protection. This was due to the cheap materials and the cheap labour that they got in England.
  I do commend that to the attention of those hon. Members below the Gangway, particularly, who come to this House and complain of the state of wretchedness, misery, and despair which our working classes are in owing to their inadequate wages. They tell us that there are 100,000 workmen on the railways of the country earning less than £1 a week. When they are advocating Socialism they enlarge upon the miseries I have spoken of, and which I say are due, and due only, to the fact that the wages of labour in this country, as Messrs. Lever's manager says are cheap. I do not hope for the moment that our Amendment will have much effect in the Division Lobby. I do believe that before very long we shall be able in this House to congratulate ourselves that we have won our way, perhaps after a somewhat laborious journey, to those benches opposite, owing largely to the great principle which we are advocating, and which is summed up in the words "Tariff Reform," and owing to the fact that we can put forward a practical policy—a policy which has been adopted by every great country in the world. We believe that with such a policy, and by means of our proposals, that the working classes will improve their status in life, and will secure a greater stability of labour and employment and an increased rate of wages.
  Mr. LYELL: No longer can it be said that, as on Monday and Tuesday, we are engaged in debating an Amendment to the Address which is in effect a Vote of Censure upon His Majesty's Government for their failure to redeem a hypothetical pledge. To-day the House is asked to pass what is in effect a Vote of Censure upon the Government, not for doing what they said they would not do, not for
  804
  refusing to carry out some policy which Ministers had all put in their Election addresses, but for simply carrying out a policy which they all said they would carry out, for carrying out a policy which they had had before the country at three successive General Elections, and which at those three General Elections had been ratified by the country. The Government are to be censured for not carrying out the policy of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite which on each of these three occasions had been rejected. On this occasion at least I think there is going to be no question of a Vote of Censure on the ground of any breach of faith. Nobody from the benches opposite is going to suggest that any Member of His Majesty's Government was at any time during the last Election or previous Elections anything but a Free Trader, or failed to make his position on that ground perfectly clear. The House is asked to censure the Government on four separate counts. I am going, in the few remarks I offer, to adhere a little more closely to the Amendment than has been done in the interesting speech to which we have just listened. The four counts are: The Government's failure to modify the fiscal system of this country, which is "imperilling the advantages at present derived by British commerce from the preference granted by Your Majesty's dominions overseas, has deferred the closer commercial union of the Empire, has deprived the country of the most effective method of inducing foreign countries to grant fair treatment to British manufactures, and is adversely affecting labour conditions of the country."
  I suppose these are the four wheels of the Tariff Reform chariot, or, perhaps, I should say the four legs of the Tariff Reform charger on which the Tariff Reform party have ridden forth to battle before, and, will, no doubt, do again. We are going to show that the animal is unsound on all its legs, and so long as Tariff Reformers mount this particular charger so long will they be defeated in battle. The Amendment talks about imperilling the advantages at present derived from British commerce owing to the preference given. What is the history of this preference? It began so long ago as 1896—that is, the preference in its present and modern form. In 1896 the Dominion of Canada accorded quite spontaneously to this country a preference of 12½ per cent. In the following year that spontaneous offer—that gift—was increased to 25 per cent.;

  805
  and in the year 1900, as we all know, the preference was increased to 33 per cent. The last thing that I or anybody else on these benches would wish to deny are the advantages of that preference. We do not wish to cavil at it in any way whatever. The Amendment specifically mentions commercial advantages. On that point it would not become us, as I say, to belittle in any way the preference. We might be criticised as being unpatriotic, and as looking a gift-horse in the mouth. Therefore I am just going to quote some words from one whose patriotism cannot be questioned in any way. I refer to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, a man whose single-hearted and single-eyed advocacy of a great cause and whose desire to press forward that matter we can all admire, though we differ radically as to methods. We think it is an entirely wrong line to take up in endeavouring to arrive at a goal which we all wish to reach. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham say on the subject of these advantages when he addressed the Second Colonial Conference in 1902? He said:—
  "The time that has elapsed since the preference was granted has been sufficient to enable us to form judgment of the effect of an arrangement of this kind. I have to say to yon that, whilst I cannot but gratefully acknowledge the intention of this proposal and it's sentimental value as a proof of good will and affection, yet its substantial results have been altogether disappointing to us, and I think they must have been equally disappointing to its promoters."
  What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by "substantial advantages being disappointing"? I will give the percentages of British exports to Canada and their proportion to the total trade. In 1897, the last year before this preference became effective, British exports into Canada were 30.53 per cent. of the whole, and the percentage of American exports to Canada was 46. In the next year, 1898, the first year in which preference became effective, the proportion that went from this country actually fell, being 30.23, whilst the American proportion was 51.4. In 1909, the last year for which I have available figures, the proportion was 29.84 English and 51.76 American. In 1908 the exports from this country into Canada have arisen to 32, while in other years it was about 30 or a little over 29 per cent. of the total trade. Preference thus has had practically no effect at all in raising the proportion of goods that Canada takes from this country as against those she takes from America.
  The percentage of ad valorem dutiable goods in 1897, the last year before the
  806
  preference took effect, averaged from this country to Canada rather over 30.69 per cent., whilst similarly, the average of American ad valorem dutiable goods was 26.72 per cent., so that on the whole our goods have been taxed even at a higher rate than American goods. That is not because Canada has exercised any discrimination against us. It simply means that the goods that we sent were of a kind liable to a higher duty. In 1898, the first year that preference began to be effective, the average ad valorem duty on British goods going into Canada was 29.47, that on American goods 26.11. In 1909, the average on British goods was 25.75, and on American 24.86, so that even with the preference of 33 per cent. British goods on the whole still pay a higher tax than do American goods. So much for the value of preference in Canada, for the actual "substantial value" which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham found disappointing.
  Let us for a moment turn to Australia. Australian preference was not given till 1906. Then it took the form, not of a rebate upon British goods. In the new tariff, in which the duties on British goods were in very many cases advanced, the preference was that the duty on foreign goods was advanced still further. I do not want to say hard things about the Australian tariff. I associate myself with what has been quoted already from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and gratefully acknowledge the mark of good fellowship referred to. But I would like to quote the remarks of a newspaper in this country, the "Times," which is certainly not distinguished by a bias towards Free Trade principles. The "Times" called the Australian preference a derisive preference. While on the subject of Australian preference, that is the raising still higher of the tariff walls against foreign competitors, let me again quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He said:—
  "So long as preference tariff, even a munificent preference is so prohibitive as to exclude us altogether or nearly so from your markets, it is no protection to us to know you have proposed even greater disabilities upon goods coming from foreign markets."
  That is what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he described the substantial result of preference as disappointing. So far as we examine preference we are grateful for its sentimental rather than its substantial value. The Amendment says preferences are imperilled. What does that mean? If it means anything it means

  807
  that this preference actually given us by our Dominions is given in a huckstering way, much in the same way as a whisky manufacturer sends round samples of whisky by way of inducement to people to buy more. That was what Sir Wilfrid Laurier meant in 1910 when he said:—
  "It is not the policy of the Canadian Government to ask Great Britain to change her fiscal policy one iota. We make our own fiscal arrangements to suit our own interests; so it is with Great Britain. I have heard it said that unless Great Britain gave Canada some mutual tariff arrangement, there was danger of an estrangement of our Dominion. That is an insult to the Canadian people. Let the world know that the loyalty of Canada to the British Empire, of which she is proud to be a part, is not dependent on any tariff arrangement. Canada is united to the Motherland in heart and in life, independent of all tariff arrangements."
  Hon. Members opposite may say Sir Wilfrid Laurier is no longer Prime Minister, that there has been a great upheaval in Canadian opinion, and that another sits in his place. Yes, but what was the issue, and what was the result? Was the upheaval or the result because of some weariness on the part of the Canadian electors at the British connection, or at the dilatory way in which His Majesty's Ministers on this side received their proposal, or at their not giving reciprocity as to preference? It had nothing to do with it. I heard a story about two defeated Liberal candidates in Canada who had foregathered. One said to the other, "Who beat you?" The other answered, "I do not know the fellow's name, but I believe he is the chap who wrote 'Rule Britannia.'" Is that the kind of spirit which prompts them to approach this country in a huckstering, bargaining kind of way, as if to say, "Unless you change your whole system and adopt the tariff preference we have already given you, that preference will be imperilled"?
  Canada is not the only country that has given preference. It was given as long ago as 1903 by New Zealand. Let me read to the House what was said by Mr. Seddon on that occasion. He said:—
  "We, in granting the concessions proposed in this Bill, are demanding nothing in return. I say here that the preference we propose to give under this Bill is the first instalment, and that we can, with credit to ourselves and with profit to our own Colony, and with advantage to the Empire, do more. There must be no bargaining over a great national question like this."
  I will give a later quotation. It is from the "Wellington Evening Post" of 7th January, 1910:—
  "John Bull may rest assured that his children have no wish to dip their fingers in his pockets, that if he comes to the conclusion that to grant these preferences would have that effect, it is the very last thing that
  808
  they would desire. He may also rest assured that they will never be so mean or so petty as to regard his refusal to sacrifice his interests for them as the scornful repudiation of any invitation that they have made or have any right to make. They realise that the preference which, with their high tariffs, it is easy for them to grant, is a very difficult matter for him to reciprocate. To ask Great Britain to abandon Free Trade merely in order to give us a preference, is an invitation which the Colonies never have made and never will make. If made, it certainly would justify that scornful repudiation of which Mr. Balfour speaks, but of which we have heard nothing from Mr. Asquith and his colleagues."
  So much for the question of imperilling preference. I think I have said enough to show there is no danger in that direction. The next charge is that through their want of action His Majesty's Government has deferred the closer commercial union of the Empire. What is meant by that? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite going to pursue the closer commercial union of the Empire as an end or a means to an end? It can be nothing but a means to an end. What we all desire is not so much the commercial union of the Empire as the union of the Empire in love and loyalty, the quickening sympathies and understanding between its inhabitants. That is what we all want, and if hon. Gentlemen opposite could show that commercial union is going to quicken that temper and understanding, and to promote the spiritual and intellectual union of the Empire, let us by all means embark upon the policy they want. It is because I, for one, believe that in their proposals for commercial union lie the greatest dangers to the reunion of the Empire that I am opposed to it. Hon. Members want to tax food, but not all food. They refuse to tax raw materials. I, for one, cannot make out what the distinction is between food and raw material. Both are elements of production; there is only one difference, and that is this—raw material is paid for by the manufacturer, food is paid for by the workman. Does anyone imagine if we have an entirely different system by which the manufacturer paid for the food of all his workmen, and gave them less wages because all the workmen boarded in, that a rise in the cost of food would not be at once recognised as an element in the cost of production1? And in that case I do not think this proposal would ever have been brought forward.
  How are we to bind our Colonies together on the basis of arrangement by which we tax, let us say, Australian and New Zealand mutton and Canadian corn, and give a preference to some of those parties, but refuse to give any preference to another who is producing merino sheep

  809
  for the wool and paying no attention to the mutton. A system which, for instance, prevents us giving any preference whatever to the great Canadian lumber trade and the hide trade in South Africa would not bind the Empire together. That is raw material, and nothing can be done for it. The moment you try to make such a system and get the various interests of the Colonies together, you will find it perfectly hopeless to come to any arrangement that will not leave bitterness and disappointment to a far greater extent than any advantage you can give. Let us suppose all this is done. How does it work out? Let us suppose this country is giving a substantial preference for foodstuffs, and let us suppose in return our Dominions are giving us a real preference to enable us to enter their markets with manufactured articles. To whose advantage and to whose disadvantage will that be? The people disadvantaged in this country are partly those who have to pay a greater proportion of their income for food—that is the working classes—because the price must rise if preference is to be effective. If it is not effective, you offer your Dominions a sham; if it is effective the price of food will rise, and any advantage there may be would go into the pockets of a few farmers.
  Who are to be disadvantaged in the Dominions? The preference is to be effective, ex hypothesi, that is to say, manufactured articles are to find their way in effectively in competition with the factories in the Dominions in their own market. Who is affected? In the first place, that would cause dislocation of employment among the working classes of the great towns in Australia and Canada. The people who get the advantage there are the people who grow mutton and beef and who are producing foodstuffs. In each case it is the few who are advantaged and the many who are disadvantaged. We want to enthrone the idea of Empire and of the Imperial connection, not in the hearts of the few, but in the hearts of the many. That is what we desire. To connect the idea of Empire in the minds of the working classes of this country, and in the minds of the working classes of our Colonies, with dear food and scarcity of employment, would be doing a very bad day's work for the Imperial connection. What unites us is a better thing. One great element is the sea, which is a barrier to our enemies and a bond to our friends. What does our control of the sea mean?
  810
  It gives us our seaborne commerce. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said he was unable to see how that had anything to do with Tariff Reform. His inability to see that is not shared by hon. Members engaged in shipping. They know the story of shipping here and in America. In 1850 American tariffs were like to our own; America took to Protection and we took to Free Trade. We all know that a short time ago a Commission was appointed to deal with this matter, and witness after witness gave evidence before that Commission to the effect that, other things being equal, a protectionist country could not compete with building or maintaining ships with a Free Trade country. When this House decides to accept the proposal of hon. Members opposite, it will be a deadly day for that seaborne commerce of which we are now so proud and which has done so much to unite the Empire. In support of this Motion I was rather surprised to hear the name of Sir Robert Peel. I would like to quote one remark from Sir Robert Peel on this question of inducing other countries to afford fair treatment to this country. Sir Robert Peel, speaking in the House of Commons on 5th July, 1849, said:—
  "I maintain that the best way to compete with hostile tariffs is to encourage free imports. So far from thinking the principle of Protection a salutary principle, I maintain that the more widely you extend it, the greater the injury you will inflict on the national wealth and the more you will cripple the national industry."
  When we recollect that those are the views of Sir Robert Peel, we must be surprised that his name has been quoted in this manner. Retaliation has been referred to, and that is a very attractive term. I think the best definition of retaliation was given to this House by the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord Hugh Cecil). He said that on one occasion a boy was playing whist, and his partner trumped his ace by inadvertence. The boy said to his partner, "You have trumped my ace, and I will trump yours," and later on in the game he did so, and they lost the game. A better illustration of retaliation I have not heard for a long time. By the adoption of Tariff Reform we should find ourselves disadvantaged at every turn in competition with countries armed to the teeth, as hon. Gentlemen opposite wished us to be armed. There would be plenty of tariff wars, devastating in their effects, from which the countries concerned would never recover. I think it is quite unnecessary to attempt to censure the Government for any failure

  811
  to provide ourselves with any methods of negotiations as long as our position is as strong and unchallenged as it is at the present moment. The fourth proposition in the Amendment is that our policy adversely affects labour conditions. I think that point has been amply covered by the hon. Member for Sheffield. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment said that the effect of Free Trade was to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, but that is not a theory which is shared universally by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have here a quotation from a speech by the hon. Member for Reigate (Colonel Rawson), who, speaking at Dorking on 20th July, 1910, said:—
  "What they wanted to do was to make the rich richer, for it meant more work for the unemployed. As a result of the Budget, there had not been the same amount of employment, and had the working classes profited by that? What they wanted was a policy which would give more work and more employment, and which would allow the rich to become richer. Tariff Reform would have that effect."
  I am contrasting what the Mover of the Amendment said and what was said by another hon. Member opposite, and I want to know which we are to believe. I would like to know on which leg hon. Members opposite stand. Nobody on this side of the House is going to maintain that tinder our present system all is well. We hear to-day a good deal about labour unrest, more especially amongst the miners. One reason is that through various economic causes you get a great production of coal, and although prices have risen wages have remained practically stationary for the last twelve years. That is enough to cause unrest in the labour market, and this unrest is not confined to this country. The United States has been going through a period of labour unrest, and the same applies to other countries. Germany is often held up to us as an example, and I quite agree that it is a better comparison than the United States, which possesses unexhausted resources. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Chaplin) quoted as an example the price of German pig iron as showing that we were dropping behind, and he said that this was due, not to economic causes, but to Protection. The real facts are that Germany has got far more unexhausted natural resources than we have, because she came into the industrial field later. It is only lately, owing to the scientific discoveries made in Germany, that the great magnetic beds of iron could be properly worked,
  812
  and that is the secret of the great progress in Germany with regard to pig iron. They have the same number of hours in a day in Germany as we have here and the same number of days in the week. Some time ago a deputation went over to Germany from Batley, and I think I am right in saying that it was organised by a Tariff Reform newspaper and was very largely financed by Tariff Reformers. Only one of those working men who formed that deputation could speak German. His name was Mr. Wilson, and this is what he said:—
  "I found the German woollen workers averaged about 4s. less per week than the average woollen workers, though he works five hours longer per week. … If he will have a dwelling as good as the average English worker, he must pay as much or more for it. … Food is dearer than in England with the exception of vegetables and fruit."
  Upon the subject of employment it is difficult to make fair comparisons, but if hon. Members think that the German working man is satisfied with his conditions all we can do is to point to the great upheaval which took place the other day in Germany. That opinion is not shared by the German working man, who has voted Socialist in enormous numbers, not because he is really a Socialist, or a doctrinnaire, or believes Marx's theories, but because he finds that Protection raises the price of food and the cost of living and diminishes his power of competition. I would like to give the House one more quotation, and I apologise for the number of quotations I have already given. I will read a quotation from a great newspaper, the "Frankfurter Zeitung," which published an article very shortly after the Tariff Reform campaign was instituted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in 1903:—
  "We could, from the point of view of pure malice, wish Mr. Chamberlain a speedy triumph, for it is intolerable that the English workers should enjoy the cheapest bread and meat obtainable while ours must go short in the interest of our great landed proprietors. We look forward with great apprehension to the coming into force of the new German tariff, which will again raise the price of food and reduce our competing capacity in the world's markets. It would certainly relieve our anxiety if England were to be so amiable as to equalise by means of that food the handicap to which our manufacturers are looking forward."
  I have done my best to cover the four points contained in this Amendment. The point I wish to conclude with is in regard to what has been said about a united Empire. Nobody can foresee the future and the time may come when hon. Members opposite may sit on these benches and be responsible for the destinies of this country and the future of this great Empire. I know perfectly well that they are

  813
  honest in their pursuit of the prosperity and welfare of this Empire, and quite as honest as anybody on these benches. We all desire the same thing although we try to achieve it in different ways, but I ask hon. Members opposite to think long and carefully before they associate the idea of a united Empire in the minds of the working classes of this country with the idea of dear food and the possibility of taxation upon their bread.
  Mr. CROFT: There are one or two points I should like to make in the speech to which we have just listened. It is said that if we grant a preference to the Dominions in the same way they have granted it to us, we shall have to consider the bitterness and resentment which will be caused amongst the wool producers in Australia, because you give a preference to the Australian wheat grower or producer. Does that bitterness and resentment exist among the manufacturers in this country because they do not have the benefit of Canadian preference? No such resentment exists in this country, because Germany raises her tariffs against one article more than another. If we gave Australia a preference I do not think we should find that the wool growers would feel that they were badly treated. With regard to shipping the hon. Member opposite thinks that if tariffs were introduced our exports would be reduced owing to their operation. If that is his view, I would ask him to consider whether it is not a fact that our chief commercial competitors have actually in proportion increased their exports more than this country during the last few years, and this is borne out by the answers given by the President of the Board of Trade last Session. I think it will be admitted that the amount to be carried by the ships will not be lessened by the effect of the tariff. It must be remembered that the strength of our shipbuilding industry in this country was undoubtedly built up under a tariff system and nobody can reasonably say that the American shipbuilding industry has gone under owing to her protective system.
  A Member of the Labour party opposite used an argument which he quoted from a magazine published by some charity organisation in the United States of America. I would recommend him to go to the Board of Trade Returns for his comparisons rather than to magazines, which may have been sent to him by friends who have emigrated in order to get work over-
  814
  seas. He took as his case the basis of wages in the United States of America, and a large part of his argument related to the Colorado steel and iron works, but it is admitted that they pay the lowest wages throughout the length and breadth of the United States. He went on to tell us that the Steel Trust now controls almost the whole of the manufactures of the United States. If the hon. Member had not been reading his magazine so much he would have known that that statement is not correct, because the Steel Trust controls only 55 per cent., and that is less than it did ten years ago, a fact which disproves the value of his argument.
  Mr. GILL: He did not say that.
  8.0 P.M.
  Mr. CROFT: I think he said almost the whole. If he did not say so, and the hon. Gentleman can say he did not, I willingly withdraw. He went on to point out that the working men had to buy at the stores of their employers. I should like to ask him whether the Steel Trust has such stores as he mentions. I believe that is not the case. It is very interesting to find a Member of the Labour party telling us Protection is economically unsound. I think the Labour party must gradually be beginning to realise Protection is their very life and existence. It is the doctrine upon which their whole organisation is built up in this country. Everything which the Labour party does is Protection, and it is not always remembered that the more British labour protects itself the more it increases the competition with foreign countries to which it is subjected. It was also suggested by the hon. Member that there was a great amount of unemployment in America. I would ask the Labour party whether they always take into consideration the fact that the United States absorbs 1,000,000 new citizens every year. Then we were told of the desperately low wages which exist in the pits of Pittsburg. The hon. Gentleman did not tell us, however, to what class of labour he referred. He did not say whether it was the labour of children or of adults. If that is to be used as an argument, why is it so many go every year from this country to work in the Pittsburg pits and remain there? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty asked why it was this question was put into the second row. Is not that argument a little bit cheap? Has it not been repeated a little too often? Are there not sometimes special considerations which make it impossible to realise

  815
  that which you desire above all other things to be immediately fulfilled? So long as the Constitution, as we honestly believe, is absolutely suspended, and so long as the pledge of the Government is not fulfilled, we regard it as our duty to tell our countrymen so.
  It was also interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman tell us that in January, 1910, we got our votes on Tariff Reform. We are very glad to hear that declaration from the right hon. Gentleman, because up to now we have been told that was the Election when the mandate for the Veto Bill and other questions was given. It is at least an acknowledgment for which we are grateful. I wonder whether, when he was dealing with the actual position of the workhouses in this country, he realised that in the last ten years something like one in forty people of this country have migrated? Had that not been going on, our workhouses would have been getting fuller year after year. When I interrupted him, I only wanted to apply the old age pension argument, because it was the argument the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always used. He has always said that was how the workhouses were going to be emptied. The right hon. Gentleman told us the cost of living was going up and that Tariff Reform hoped to remedy that, and at the same time to give higher wages. We can frankly say that is our honest belief. It is perfectly obvious Free Trade has not been able to keep the price of food down. We believe the one insurance for the food of the working classes of this country, and for keeping the food cheap, is the production of more wheat in the world, and that can best be done by giving a preference to the Dominions. There is hardly a Free Trade orator who has denied that. There is hardly a Free Trade orator who has denied that if we give a preference to the Dominions so much more wheat would be produced. It being admitted by the other side that our policy will stimulate the growth of wheat in the Colonies, it must also be admitted that, if there is more of that commodity on the markets of the world, it is really impossible for wheat to rise in price. We believe by insuring that supply and by the introduction of a tariff, we can find money for the reduction of other taxes, the burdensome effect of which the people of this country feel so much. That is why we believe it is good we should take the duties off the article
  816
  we cannot produce and place them on such articles as we can in time by development produce within the British Empire.
  I remember the First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking prior to the Election of January, 1910, told us that under our tariff system the most we could hope to do would be to exclude £40,000,000 worth of foreign manufactured goods. The Labour party will bear me out when I say we were told in the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission that if we could have £10,000,000 more circulating amongst the workers of this country per annum, we should practically solve chronic unemployment, at any rate in good times. The First Lord of the Admiralty told us we might keep out £40,000,000 worth of goods. If we keep them out we make them at home, and therefore, according to the Minority Report of the Poor Law Commission, we should have doubly sufficient circulating among the workers of this country to solve chronic unemployment. The hon. Member who laughs apparently differs from the First Lord of the Admiralty. It may be a matter of proportion. He may think we may exclude more manufactured goods, in which case, let him remember, we should have more money for social reform and for the uplifting of the workers of this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty said, "You say you are going to raise wages when at the same time it is pointed out you are getting cheap goods owing to cheap labour from protected countries." We do not say this has anything whatever to do with the tariff argument. It is perfectly true you have cheaper labour in Germany, and it is also perfectly true you have labour doubly well paid in the United States, in Canada, and in other big protected countries where they speak our language and understand our ideas. What we complain of is not necessarily cheap wages. We admit they exist in one or two Continental countries. What we do complain of is that these goods should come into our country bearing not £1 or 1s. with regard to the initial expense of their production. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the burden upon British manufactures was 12 per cent., but I believe he will find that by the introduction of the Old Age Pensions Act, together with the Insurance Act, that has been raised to 15 per cent. It is perfectly true foreign manufacturers have also to bear local and Imperial taxation, but all goods which are produced over the quantity necessary to make their

  817

  business pay do not bear that burden. That is all we say. It is absolutely unfair, and we cannot believe the Labour party really like to see goods coming into this country which they know could not be turned out by British workmen under honest conditions of labour at the same price.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest the wages in Germany are lower than in this country owing to Protection? If he will cast his mind back he will see that when we were the great—indeed, almost the only manufacturing country in the world—German wages were in proportion further behind than they are to-day. They are gradually coming up to us. The hon. Member for East North Hants (Mr. Chiozza Money) has himself, I think, declared quite recently that wages in Germany are increasing more rapidly than in this country. From 1860 to 1900 wages in this country were continuously on the upgrade and food was getting slightly cheaper throughout that period, but it is admitted on that side that from 1900 to the present day wages have been stationary, whilst food has been going up enormously in price. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, should we say wages have increased 3 per cent. It has been said twice to-night that they have remained stationary. Is there anyone who can really deny the fact that so long as the conditions of the working men in any country in these days are going back you must have discontent? We submit the only way in which you can have greater content among the working classes is to raise wages, and you can only raise wages in this country if you afford protection to our industries against foreign industries. Otherwise, you will see industries like the jute industry, and many others, immediately go under if there is a rise in wages. It was very interesting to hear the right hon. Gentleman tell us how happy the working classes of this country are, whilst the representative of the Labour party told us all was not well.
  Why is this great fight going on for a minimum wage throughout the country? The British people are not accustomed to agitate for a thing which common sense tells us is altogether wrong. I say there is something wrong. We shall have to raise wages in this country even if it is going to cost more for production. It is the producer who makes this country. The producers are the people who need to be considered. They are the people who, in
  818
  the end, whether they be manufacturers or working men, make for the wealth and future prosperity of the country. There is one more word I would wish to say in answer to the hon. Gentleman. It must not be altogether admitted that we suggest there is no value in the percentage argument in the future. A percentage of 1 or 2 per cent. under various conditions is of no use whatever in drawing comparisons. But if we find the trade of foreign countries year by year increasing 20 per cent. more rapidly than our own, then the comparison becomes valuable, because, before many years have passed, that country will not only have reached, but it will have passed us. It must be admitted that we are far from first among the nations of the world in the actual proportionate increase in our trade last year—a year in which trade boomed throughout the length and breadth of the world.
  I should like to say something with regard to the Imperial issue raised by the hon. Member who spoke last. I fervently believe—although he honestly thinks that you can hold an Empire together by merely talking sentiment and by keeping your thoughts concentrated upon those great things—which I do not undervalue—the flag and the Throne — I honestly believe you cannot for all time refuse to make business terms with your own people, especially when they are giving you advantages wherever you turn in whatever part of the Empire. I think it is sometimes forgotten by those whose eyes are naturally on the wages part of this question what is actually happening to this country. Some of us are inclined to forget, when we speak somewhat slightingly of Australian preference, as if it is not a thing of great value, or of Canadian preference as a thing which has not done us much good, we are inclined to forget what the Dominions are doing for this country in the matter of trade. When it is remembered that Australasia, with under six millions of population, has bought from us as much as the German Empire, with sixty millions of people at our very gates—when it is remembered that Canada and New Zealand, with under nine millions of populations have bought from us nearly as much as the United States, with its ninety millions of people—
  Mr. JONATHAN SAMUEL: Oh, oh!
  Mr. CROFT: I got these figures from the President of the Board of Trade, and I think they are valuable ones which the

  819
  hon. Gentleman would do well to study. I say that when you find that Australia, with five millions of people only, is buying more than France, who is at our very gates, then I believe that these facts are of more value than any percentages. It is an argument that never appeals very much to people apparently, but when you find a man in New Zealand buying at the rate of £8 per head, surely that is much better than a man in a foreign country who buys at the rate of 10s. per head. When it is suggested that Canadian preference is of little value, I would like to point out that the trade of Canada was going down year by year until preference was granted. We were actually being driven out of Canada by the United States, but from the moment preference was put on our trade began to go up, and within fourteen years it increased from £5,000,000 to £19,000,000 per year. Remember, too, that this increase represents no less than £7,000,000 per year for labour, and that is not to be sneezed at in these days. Take the fact that Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa, with an aggregate population of under twenty millions, are year by year buying £80,000,000 of goods from this country, and if trade progresses in the same ratio it will easily be seen that in twenty years' time that trade will represent over £200,000,000 per year. When you realise the existence of this vast field of labour for the future, can you hesitate to adopt a policy which, at any rate with regard to the Imperial side of the question, will keep that trade for our own people, especially when we remember that an assurance of that trade is needed in every factory and mill in this country for the future. I would not have spoken on this question but for the fact that I had on the Paper an Amendment calling attention to another Imperial problem of pressing importance. I believe the people of this country must assume that we are not five nations, as is sometimes suggested. We are one nation living in five countries. Every man who goes to the Dominions still remains a friend of this country, and proves it by buying so much per head. He is also a contributor to British defence and to British strength, whereas, if he went to a foreign country, he would be a contributor to foreign defence and to the cost of building foreign battleships. I hope there may be one or two hon. Gentlemen opposite who will support this Amendment, because I firmly believe that there, and there alone, lies the real salvation of the
  820
  workers' position in these islands in the future—a position besides which any palliative falls into utter insignificance.
  Mr. MOLTENO: The hon. Member who last spoke has dwelt upon the amount of trade with our Colonies, and has compared it with our foreign trade. But I would like to point out that the position during the last few years has remained practically identical, and foreign trade and Colonial trade remain practically on the same lines. I would like to ask the hon. Member if he thinks we ought to treat a foreign country worse than we treat our Colonies, and what justification there is to doing so, based on an examination of the Customs Tariff. Take the case of a country like Holland. Holland puts an average duty of 3 per cent. upon our products, whereas the duties imposed by Canada, Australia, and South Africa range from 12 to 40 per cent. How, then, could it be fair or just to say that we should treat Holland worse than we treat our Colonies?
  Mr. CROFT: Our Colonies treat us very much better than they treat foreign countries.
  Mr. MOLTENO: We must deal with this from a business point of view, and, undoubtedly, Holland treats us far better than either Canada or Australia. I ask on what principle we should treat Holland worse than we do those countries. Then take the case of Germany. Machinery is a very important article of export. Look at the relative duties in Germany and in our Colonies. They come under three headings: In Germany the duty on textile machinery is 5 per cent., on locomotive machinery 9 per cent., and on sewing machinery 9 per cent. What are the corresponding duties in Canada? Sixteen and two-thirds per cent. against a 5 per cent. for textile machinery, 23½ per cent. against a 9 per cent. for locomtive machinery, and 20 per cent. against the 9 per cent. for sewing machinery. Let us take another foreign country, Germany, where textile machinery pays 3 per cent., as against the Canadian 16 2–3 per cent.; locomotive machinery pays 4 per cent., as against the Canadian 23½ per cent., and sewing machinery pays 1 per cent., as against the Canadian 20 per cent. The idea which was put forward by the Mover of the Amendment that the duties in foreign countries were being continually increased against us, while those of the Colonies were being decreased, is altogether out of accord with the facts. The

  821
  fact is that Colonial tariffs have been increasing. At the Colonial Conference of 1907 figures were put forward showing our trade up to within three years of 1907. They showed that the only countries where our trade had actually decreased in volume were Australia, New Zealand and Russia. When you come to examine the facts, I think you will find that the trade mainly decreased because Australia and New Zealand have imposed enormous duties. Although the Canadians lowered their tariff, the Australians kept their duties exactly as they were, and put additional duties on foreign countries. As a matter of fact, they suddenly raised their duties on bicycles from 15s. to £5 per bicycle, and the preference they gave us was 5s. on that. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham pointed out to Canada the mistake of high tariffs. He asked them what was the use of their preference so long as their tariff walls were kept high enough to keep cut our goods.
  It is worth examining what would happen to our trade if we were to throw away our trade with foreign countries and expected that we were going to recoup ourselves from the Colonies with their much more limited markets. The Debate shows how far we have got from the position put forward by the Member for West Birmingham when he first proposed his policy. What were the two great props or legs on which his policy stood? One was that our trade would be destroyed if we did not adopt this policy. Great as our trade was in 1902—he thought it was going to be the nraximum—at has gone up enormously. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has entirely disposed of the idea that our trade has in any way suffered since the right hon. Gentleman first announced his policy. His statement was a phophecy. It was a prophecy which has been entirely falsified by the event. What have hon. Members opposite done? The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Harold Smith) struggled bravely with the figures. He is a lawyer, and he knows that hard cases mean bad law. He referred to factories that have been closed. But one case of a mill or factory being shut down does not mean that our trade is ruined; it does sometimes mean that there is occasional bad management. We have many unsuccessful traders in this country who become bankrupts, but it does not mean that our trade is going to the dogs because we have many bankrupts. There is another argument used by the hon. Member. He said
  822
  that Japan is introducing a tariff and that we should lose our trade there. He seemed to think that each country whom to-day we supplied with goods should receive exactly the same supplies or take the same amount and the same class of article in the future as in the past. Why should they? Why should not our customers vary as their needs vary? When you take a class of trade which shows a satisfactory increase, the mere fact that one country does not take so much at one period as at another is not proof that our trade has gone. I think hon. Members were making the best of the very unfortunate position in which they found themselves.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has dealt with trade. I should like to supplement what he said with some figures with regard to shipping. We are in an island, to which shipping is of enormous importance, and every Member of this House is agreed that all the obligations which are cast upon us should be met with regard to our mercantile marine. What is the case with regard to Free Trade and shipping? Free Trade has given us a growing and increasing lead in shipping. The output of our yards last year was over 2,000,000 tons. In Germany it was 255,000 tons, and in France 125,000 tons. France has enjoyed the benefits of Tariff Reform for nearly thirty years, and they have been endeavouring to overcome the difficulty which they realise was imposed on shipbuilding through high tariffs. They have given bounty upon bounty, and the net result is that they turned out 125,000 tons last year. Take the case of the United States. They turned out 175,000 tons last year. These totals are infinitesimal compared with ours. We to-day stand in a position without record in our own country and in all the world with regard to shipping. How can Tariff Reformers deal with that? They never attempt to deal with it because it is impossible.
  Free Trade is the very life and breath of shipping. I can only advise hon. Members if they feel gloomy and despondent to take the "Times" newspaper and examine a column in the "Times" for January last, where an account is given of all the different industries in this country, the woollen trade, the cotton trade, the machinery trade, and the iron trade, and they will find recorded there extraordinary prospects of enormous activity. Some factories are doubling the output

  823
  and doubling the works. Everything we can do to examine the position in detail shows that there is nothing alarming and nothing dangerous in it, and the "Times" described the condition of these industries as being almost phenomenal in their prosperity. Coupled with that we have this gratifying condition of things, that we enjoy the highest wages, the shortest hours, and the cheapest food in all Europe. Those wages may not be entirely satisfactory, but they are the best in all Europe. That is a very remarkable and gratifying fact, and one we should not risk by changing our fiscal system.
  Let us look at the other leg upon which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham established his policy. It was that the Empire was in serious danger of going to pieces if we did not adopt the policy of Preference. He attached so much importance to this that when in 1903 he proposed the policy of taxing food, he said he did not do it for any protective reason. He found that protective instincts were so strong that once you gave them any encouragement at once they rose and slaughtered you. Now we find that the whole case is one of Protection and nothing more. To take the position of the Empire, What is the position of the Empire to-day? Is it one fore-boding disintegration in any way whatever? The relations between the Mother-country and the Colonies have never been more cordial and more sympathetic. There has never been less friction than there is to-day. That is a most satisfying result of the position at which we have arrived.
  I should like to go a little further into that. This proposal that we should adopt the system of Preference is a revival of a condition of things which existed not so very long ago. Until 1846 we had this system of preference with the Colonies, and it led to immense friction between us and them because in order to maintain a monopoly of the Colonial market, we constantly and continuously interfered in the local concerns of these Colonies. We refused to allow them any control over their fiscal system, and although, when we lost the American Colonies, we realised the danger of imposing duties upon them for our own purposes, still we retained the power, and we did here in this House impose duties on the Colonies, but we refused to allow the Colonies their fiscal freedom because we were afraid of this Preference of ours being endangered. We
  824
  knew they would evade it—they were bound to try to evade it—because it was so detrimental to their interests, and therefore we retained that power. Why did we give it up? We never did it while we had a protective system and preferential trade. Then came the year 1846, and with Free Trade and the abandonment of the policy of Preference we began to relax our hold upon the internal affairs of the Colonies, and in 1846 for the first time we gave the power to Canada to repeal the preferential duties placed by us upon the products of other countries. The Canadian Legislature immediately repealed them. They did not waste a moment. They did not consider that Preference was any benefit to them. They repealed the duties in 1846, and we gradually relaxed our hold upon the Colonies and gave them greater freedom, and finally gave them the most complete and absolute self-control in regard to their Customs.
  In 1859, when the Duke of Newcastle was Colonial Secretary, a proposal to modify the Customs Act passed by Canada gave rise to a tremendous and violent protest that their interests should not be subjected to the views or interests of the Imperial Ministry here, but should be guided solely by the interests of Canada. When you come to examine the question of our Colonial Empire, this free Colonial Empire has only been made possible by reason of our adoption of Free Trade. It gave birth to the free system which to-day we all recognise as absolutely essential and vital to our Imperial existence. If in the past we had friction—dangerous friction — with our Colonies over these matters, is there any reason to think that if we began to have these closer associations with the Colonies we should be likely to do any better? Only to-night the Mover of the Amendment criticised the policy of Canada in a way which gave rise in my mind to considerable alarm, and only a short time ago the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) attacked the policy of the late Canadian Ministry in the strongest, language and, I think, the most dangerous language. He said, if they pursued their policy, it would be a disaster to the Empire. It is a very serious matter when we are dealing with the internal affairs of the Colonies to criticise them in language of that kind. There you have again what will happen to a very much greater extent once you come to get into these tariff bonds with the Colonies. We shall lose

  825
  this sense of complete confidence, we shall lose this readiness on their part to assist us in every way, and that will again give rise to this friction which was so disastrous in the past. This Amendment gives a number of reasons, and tells us that we are going to endanger Imperial Preference by not giving something in return. I do not think the Colonies have ever made such a suggestion. I do not remember it. I have looked up what Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the author of the preference, says on that very subject:—
  "What we have done in the way of tariff preferences to England, we have, as I said, done out of gratitude to England and not because we want her to enter upon the path of Protection. We know that the English people will not interfere with the policy of Free Trade, and we do not desire them to do so. We know that by buying more goods England will buy more from us and so develop trade, and the moment trade is developed Canada is benefited."
  That is the way the Prime Minister put it. He recognises that we have already conferred great benefits, and he wants something to give us in return without injuring himself. Let me take another Prime Minister, We have often heard of the offer of the Colonies, and that if we do not accept it we are doing something which they will resent. Here is the Prime Minister of South Africa at the Conference of 1907—Dr. Jameson. He says:—
  "I take it we are here to-day to try to get something from the Imperial Government. I am not going to split words about it. I am not going to say we are making a wonderfully generous offer from the Colonies, and it rests with the Imperial Government to do what it likes.'
  There is a perfectly clear statement there. The suggestion is that if we find it to our interest to do it we may be very glad to do it, and if we do not we must take care of our interests and they will take care of theirs. What will the people of Canada think about this? Will they be enormously benefited by Mr. Chamberlain's 1s. or 2s. duty? Do they really press for it? Do they think it will be a great injury if we do not adopt it and do not carry it out? Here is a resolution passed by the National Council of Agriculture in Canada, when they had a great meeting on 16th December, 1910:—
  "Believing, as we do, that the provision of revenue by Customs duties is economically and morally wrong, we desire that Free Trade should be established between Great Britain and Canada in as short a time as possible without unduly disarranging existing business conditions. We do not ask for any preference in British markets for our produce in return, since we regard Free Trade between Canada and Great Britain as being in the best interests of the development of Canada, nor do we suggest or desire that Britain should tax foreign foodstuffs for our benefit. Canadian farmers recognise the protection afforded to our country by the Motherland and are willing to do their part in the maintenance of the British Empire by supplying the British people with the food products they require in open competition with any other country."
  826
  That is a good British sentiment of self-reliance which we expect to find in our Colonies. It is the same sentiment as is embodied in Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement. I do not think there can be any resentment on the part of the Colonies if we do not change our policy in the direction hon. Gentlemen opposite desire. It appears to me that there is nothing for us to gain in this commercial union. The Canadians have adopted a tariff of their own, and in regard to trade relations they make their arrangements with France and Germany. I think it was the Mover of the Amendment who complained that they make arrangements with foreign countries. What would we have to do if we had a tariff? The argument on the other side of the House is that we would be able to bargain with other countries in regard to the goods we export to them if we had a tariff here applicable to the commodities they send to us. All the Tariff Reform arguments are mutually destructive. What Tariff Reformers propose is that we should levy duties on foreign goods. The result would be that the more foreign countries did for us the more we would have to do for them. The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment said that we are being subjected to foreign tariffs which are doing much injury to our trade. That is exactly what was being done in the time of Sir Robert Peel, who abolished the tariff which was in force in this country. He said: "We have done everything we can by attempting to bargain with foreign countries. We offered to lower our tariff if they would lower theirs. We have entirely failed to induce them to accept that offer, and we have to give it up. It is absolutely hopeless, and we propose to fight foreign tariffs with free imports." That was in 1846. Have we succeeded or not in fighting foreign tariffs? I need only refer the House to the magnificent return which was quoted by the Secretary to the Admiralty earlier in the Debate. That return shows that we have been most successful in resisting the foreign tariffs.
  What happened in Canada? An enormous development took place in their trade. [An HON. MEMBER: "They are protectionists."] They repealed the duties upon imports. They adopted our system, and between 1846 and 1852 they doubled their trade. We all know that the prosperity of the Colonies has been immense. The Colonies have benefited immensely by this policy of Free Trade, and so have we. As to our Colonial relations, I con-

  827
  sider that nothing but injury could come from our getting into tariff disputes with them. I could quote the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) in support of that view. He pointed out that our vast Colonies are in the best parts of the habitable globe. Any Gentleman who has read Lord Cromer's account of his stewardship in Egypt will remember that he pointed out how in the face of immense difficulties he had been able to administer that country successfully, simply and solely because it had adopted the Free Trade system and had no preferential tariffs against foreign countries. Germany has built up a very large trade in our Colonies. If the expansion in their trade is to be threatened by a system of tariffs, I can only believe that our relations with Germany must be worse in future. I say "Put yourselves in their position." I would regard the adoption by this country of a system of tariffs as one of the greatest dangers to the peace of Europe, and I consider that that policy as regards our relations with our Colonies and with foreign countries would be one of the greatest and most serious disasters that could possibly happen to this country.
  Mr. MACMASTER: I have followed, so far as I was able, the interesting speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Molteno). It is a very remarkable thing that in the last portion of his speech he referred to the successful administration of Egypt by Lord Cromer, and that he attributed all that to a Free Trade policy. But he entirely forgot that Lord Cromer, on behalf of the Sovereign of this country, signed a convention imposing a Customs Duty in respect of Egypt of 8 per cent. or 10 per cent. He did that in the interests of the Egyptians.
  Mr. KING: Did not Lord Cromer impose a corresponding Excise Duty as well?
  Mr. MACMASTER: I said he imposed a Customs Duty. The hon. Member for Dumfriesshire also called the attention of the House to the fact that certain Continental nations put on less duties against this country than are imposed by Canada after the deduction of the preference allowance. He entirely forgot that whereas Canada imposes full Customs Duties against all foreign nations they make a reduction as regards this country, and thereby confer what is known as Colonial preference. It is in that respect the con-
  828
  duct of foreign nations must be considered when we are comparing their policy with the policy of our Colonies towards us. What we say is, if the Colonies have granted to the people of this country an advantage of a certain per cent. over all other competitors, it would be reasonable on the part of this country to make, I do not say an exactly corresponding concession, I will not define exactly what the concession should be, but, at all events, some concession in favour of the Colonies that treat us better than foreign Powers do. That concession might be made, not merely in respect of customs, but in respect of dock and port dues. That certainly would require special legislation in this country. But whatever may be the benefit towards the Colonies, whether in respect of dock or port dues or Customs, I am certain that it will be appreciated by the Colonies, and would be a very considerable advantage to them. The hon. Member who spoke last attributed the prosperity, progress, and great recent development of our Colonies to Free Trade. But their progress is not at all attributed to Free Trade, because nearly every one of them cast off Free Trade. The real boon that the people and Government of this country have conferred upon our great Colonies is not Free Trade, which they never accepted, but was the gift of responsible Government, which enabled those Colonies to rule themselves in their own best interests.
  9.0 P.M.
  The last speaker referred to one of those fantastical propositions put forward, as he said, on behalf of Tariff Reform, namely, a contention that by putting a duty on foreign goods we could create a revenue on goods coming from abroad, and at the same time by keeping them out create work for our own people at home. There could not be a greater fallacy than this. I do not know of any public man advocating Tariff Reform who ever put forward any such proposition. It is a pure invention of our political opponents, and has no basis in our contention. Our contention is, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mildmay) pointed out, that on all the products produced in this country there was a necessary expenditure of about 12 per cent. before there was any balance for any useful purpose whatever. That had to be paid to the State in the way of King's taxes, rates, and other charges. That being so, his argument was that it would be a perfectly reasonable thing, as against the foreigner, that there should be a like duty, or a like impost, put upon his

  829
  products, particularly his manufactured products, through the medium of the Custom House, when introduced into this country, especially the products of a character which we could make ourselves, and which, when brought into this country, come into competition with the labour production of our own country. Our suggestion is that if a duty of 10 or 12 per cent. were imposed on articles of that character, the first result would be that to the extent that imported manufactured articles were brought into this country they would pay the duty, and it would go to the National Treasury, and that amount would go in reduction of the taxation of the people of this country. But it would not keep out all foreign manufactures, because it would be a very moderate duty, and what the foreign manufacturers would do would be that, instead of coming in as he does now and walking off with the whole profit of the transaction he would have less profit, but meantime our Treasury, would be benefited to the extent of the money he paid into the Treasury. They would not come in to the same extent as they do now. They might not come in to more than one-third or one-half the extent that they do at present. But as this is the best market in the world, and as they must sell their goods, they could not forego this market, so he would still come, and to the extent to which he came he would pay the duties, and to the extent to which he did not come the products would be manufactured by our own people, to the benefit of our labouring classes and the people who invest money to keep up our great enterprises.
  As less commodities would come in from abroad the manufacturer in this country would be in a better position than at present. He would have to supply the deficiency of the local market caused by the decline in the supply from the foreigner, and in doing so he would employ a larger amount of labour, there would be larger demands upon the labour supply, and that would enhance the value of the labour and contribute to the advancement of wages. It may be said that this increase in wages would increase the price of the product. The answer is that the manufacturer, by extending his business would produce more cheaply, and be able to meet the limited foreign competition in the local market, and also extend his operations to foreign markets. On the other hand, such portion of the foreign production
  830
  which came from abroad would create competition in this country, and that would be a guarantee for the cheapness to the consumers of this country. An hon. Gentleman from the Labour point of view spoke about dumping. He asked, supposing the foreigner does produce a number of excess articles in his own country and dumps them in this country, what injury is that to anybody, and why should not he do it, and why should not Englishmen do it also if they chose to adopt the same policy? One difficulty with regard to the Britisher doing it is that if he has a surplus to dispose of and wishes to find a market for it, he has got to get an entry into that market by paying a high tariff, as has to be done in the United States, Russia, France and Germany, where you must pay this gate money before you get in with your dumped goods, whereas the foreigner who has got a surplus to sell after providing for his own market can come in here and sell free.
  Mr. POINTER: I know that the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent my argument. My argument was that if it paid Germany to dump into this country any goods produced under cost price, perhaps it would pay our people to supply our home market with those same goods under cost price rather than let the German come in.
  Mr. MACMASTER: The difficulty with regard to that is that you sacrifice your own local market, and allow the foreigner to come in. The most valuable market to Germany is her local market, and the most valuable market to this country is our local market. In Canada 85 per cent. of the produce sent to the local market for local consumption is the result of the investment of British capital and Canadian labour. If you first destroy the local market, how can you possibly ask the British manufacturer to supply goods and sell them at a sacrifice price? If the conditions were equal, if we had Free Trade all round, both could play the same game. But that is not so. Whereas if the British manufacturer has a surplus of products he cannot count upon sending them to a foreign country and selling them there, but the foreigner can count with dead certainty upon his doing so in this country. With the local market the foreign manufacturer keeps his machinery going and gives employment to his workpeople. If he has so many hundreds of thousands of tons of surplus products he can send them to the United Kingdom of Great Britain

  831
  and Ireland and get rid of them, instead of keeping them over till the next year, when they might become stale stock. He turns them into cash, and turns over the money again. I have seen that in practical operation as between the United States and Canada, my own country. It has been put into operation in the most effective way. The United States used to sell their exports in Canada, breaking down the Canadian manufacturers. When they had broken them down they raised the prices and occupied the market.
  I may say that I am an old Free Trader; I was brought up in the Free Trade school; but practical experience of business showed me how one was confronted with obstacles, and how it was an absolute impossibility to continue it under the conditions which existed. I assert, without fear of contradiction, that though you may see many seeming wise thoughts in books on this subject, when you come to the real affairs of life you often discover that they are wholly impracticable, and will not work. It is said that this is a prosperous country, very rich, and that we should be very well satisfied with our condition. Certainly I have no inclination whatever to disparage the country, of which we are all very proud, but we must recognise the disabilities and infirmities even of our own great and rich country. You can find no higher authority than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, when speaking at Cardiff the other day said:—
  "There are millions of men, women and children in this, the richest country in the world, who, through no fault of their own, go through life sodden in poverty, wretchedness and despair."
  Can it be pretended for one moment, granting that this is a rich and prosperous country from the point of view of those who have prosperity, that the land is in a satisfactory condition, or that the people in it are enjoying a rational existence, when millions are in that position? Surely not. I do not say it arises from one thing or another; it may arise from a combination of several causes, but at all events it ought to be recognised that under this great Free Trade policy—which is not Free Trade at all—such a condition of things exist in this country. I see from the Returns that no less than 262,000 people left this country in 1911. Why did they do so? From the spirit of adventure? Or was it some necessity that compelled them to go elsewhere to fight out the battle of existence. [An HON. MEMBER: "Cheap land."]
  832
  Cheap land? It may have been that or it may not; but, at all events, there is this much certain with regard to the matter, that if this country, as we have been told, is the happiest and best country to live in, then the people would certainly have remained here. That would be my opinion at all events. But I know too well that a great many of these people, for some of them have told me so, were compelled to leave this country because of the conditions under which they had to live. Many of them said that there was no opportunity for their labour here, that the wage was insufficient if they got it, and that there was no prospect whatever. Therefore the conditions cannot be so very bright here after all, despite the glowing description of the greatness and prosperity of this land under Free Trade.
  There went from this country, as I said, 262,000 in 1911. How many went from protectionist Germany? Under 30,000, I think, last year. About the same number the year before, and the year before that again about the same number, whereas our people have been going in multitudes. There has been a reversal in regard to the exodus from Germany since the establishment by Bismarck of a tariff. For years before that event, and for a few years afterwards, the people left Germany to the number of at least 200,000 a year. In many of the large towns in the United States of America the fact that the German language is so largely spoken in the streets is the result of that exodus. Take Cincinnati. If you go to that place you see that it is a German city, like so many other cities of the United States—all the result of the exodus from Germany in the old days before Tariff Reform was established. Since the establishment of Tariff Reform of course Germany has been greatly improved. I heard an hon. Gentleman opposite say that there was far more unemployment in the United States of America than there is in this country. I admit unemployment has been decreasing quite recently in this country, but how could it be otherwise when you have the fact that people are leaving at a rate of 262,000 a year? In regard to unemployment in America, a great number of emigrants land in New York. They do not know the language, they do not know the ways of the people. [An HON. MEMBER: "I thought they were all English?"] I am talking of another brigade of people who emigrate to the United States from many lands. The 262,000 were all Britishers. The

  833
  other brigade of people who go to the United States of America, to the number of about a quarter of a million, stay in the city of New York. They are unable to speak a word of English, and until they acquire the language and get into the ways of the work of the country and obtain employment they are included in the census of those who are unemployed. As to the cost of living, I should like to give a statement from an official report made by the Board of Trade. It is known that the Board of Trade appointed a number of people to go to the United States to find out the conditions of life there, and the wages, cost of living, and conditions of living. The report has been made to this House, and it is a public document open to the inspection of any Member of the House. The report described the different groups of people, the twenty-eight large cities they saw, how some of the people were foreigners, though mostly natives, and described their conditions of life. This is the conclusion of one part of the report:—
  "By the budgets, as a whole, however, various features are brought into relief, and among those may be mentioned the high level of family income, the large contribution made by children in the higher income classes, the insignificant earnings of the wives, the considerable expenditure in food, and the large proportion of income remaining after the cost of food and rent has been deducted."
  Thus in this official report we have it noted that there is this considerable expenditure on food, and that consequently the people are living well, and that even when the cost of living is taken from the weekly wage, there is according to the report a considerable sum of money in hand. That, I regret to say, is unfortunately not very true of the people in this country. In addition, we are told in the Report that the supply of food among the working classes is larger, is "more liberal," and is "more varied." They also say that in those three great trades they investigated the hours are shorter. They also show that where in one of those three great trades, a man in this country would earn 100 shillings, he would earn 230 shillings in America. They also show that the cost of rental there is about 38 per cent. more than in this country and, balancing one thing with the other, they make out the total cost of food and rent to be about 52 per cent. higher than it is in England. Notwithstanding all that, the wages are so much higher as to leave a very considerable balance in the pockets of those people at the end of the week.
  834
  The right hon. Gentleman who replied from the Government Benches spoke about the inadvisability of drawing questions of Canadian politics into discussions in this House in relation to British politics. That is all very well, but suppose there is co-relationship between the two, and supposing there is responsibility on the Government of this country in connection with events that have transpired there, then, I submit, that is a perfectly proper subject for criticism in this House. The words of the Amendment declare that the commercial advantages we derive from the concessions made by the over-seas Dominions are imperilled by the course that is being taken by this Government, and that that course is adversely affecting labour conditions of the country. Is there any ground for saying that the advantages we get from Canada are imperilled? We all agree that the preference this country has from Canada is a great benefit and advantage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister said so in the speeches at the Colonial Conference. The hon. Member (Mr. Pointer) will remember that he stated that when this preference was introduced that, although the importations from this country had been running down rapidly before that, that that immediately stopped, and the importations then commenced to increase. That undoubtedly is true, and was owing to the advantage given to this country. The only thing the hon. Gentleman said he did not understand was that the American importations came to a standstill, and that they did not increase.
  Mr. POINTER: I said the opposite, that they increased more rapidly still.
  Mr. MACMASTER: The American importations did not. They came to a standstill, and went on increasing, but very slightly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I know. They were going up by leaps and bounds over the British importations, and what brought them to a halt was this preference given to importations from this country. The only reason why the American importations held their own against the differential preference of 33⅓ per cent. is by reason of the propinquity of the two countries, their continuity, and the further consideration that supplies could be more readily ordered from there than from here. If it were not for our preference the British trader would be swept out of the Canadian market by his American competitor. What were the propositions made by the United States of America

  835
  to Canada when the Canadian Commissioners arrived at Washington, and this, let me remark, is not sufficiently known. The offer of the United States to those Commissioners was absolute Free Trade between the United States and Canada. On that very day, 19th January, 1911, the British Ambassador at Washington sent a telegram to Sir Edward Grey advising him that that proposal was before the Commissioners. President Taft has told us that he offered absolute Free Trade to the Canadian representatives. Did the British Ambassador point out to the British Government what the meaning of absolute Free Trade between Canada and the United States would be, and, as the Government received the telegram on the day the offer was made, what was their action? We moved for the Papers, and we have all the Papers, but there is not one scrap to say or to show that any Member of this Government stood up as they should have done for the best interests of the trade of this country, or that they pointed out to their Ambassador or the Canadian Commissioners that the result would have been the complete destruction of this preference which has been of such great benefit to the people of this country.
  I won't go into the further and ancillary question of what interpretation was put on that offer and the ultimate bargain all over the United States. It was looked upon as the fore-runner of political absorption. It was something that could not be withstood. Canada could not have one tariff for all the countries in the world except the United States, and the United States could not have a tariff for all the countries except Canada with Free Trade between them, because, say, if the tariff of Canada was lower than that of the United States, the importations could be sent into the United States through the back door of Canada. The whole Press of the United States interpreted this bargain as meaning in the end political absorption. The leading men in their legislature took the same view. When they did that was there anything said in this country? Was there a word of warning uttered or a guiding hand extended to those who were negotiating that business? It was not concluded for a considerable period, but there was nothing of the kind. I respectfully submit that in that respect it is not dragging Colonial politics into this House, but it is dragging into criticism the conduct of the Government here for their lack of interest or for
  836
  their absolute acquiescence in a transaction which would have been disastrous to Canada and to this country, and which would have led to the political absorption of Canada in the United States. What was the view of our Government with regard to that transaction? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, before it was put to the Canadian people, that the agreement was "common sense." What did the Prime Minister say? After the agreement had been signed and executed, he said in this House that he thought we were now celebrating "the obsequies of Imperial Preference," which in the same speech he characterised as the "greatest imposture of modern times." Did Mr. Taft think Imperial Preference the greatest imposture of modern times? He was so anxious to carry the scheme that he delivered a sentence which is a classic in regard to the great danger of this policy coming into operation, so far as American affairs are concerned. He saw that it was so serious that it would have such a commercial, binding, and beneficial effect on the British Empire, that he said to the country, "You must pass this treaty now or never." Here are his words:—
  "Forces which are at work in England and in Canada to separate Canada by a Chinese wall from the United States, and to make her a part of an Imperial commercial band, reaching from England round the world to England again by a system of preferential tariffs, will derive an impetus from the rejection of this treaty. If we would hare reciprocity, we must have it now or give it up for ever."
  The treaty was before the public. The Canadian people in the end well understood what it meant, and they give it its quietus, and determined that this proposal to destroy the commercial band should not take effect—in other words, that the commercial band should prevail. If we have to thank anybody for the commercial band, which we hope will prevail, and for the preservation of the status of Canada in the Empire, we have not to thank Mr. Bryce or this Government, but we have to thank the patriotism of the Canadian people.
  Mr. THEODORE TAYLOR: The hon. Member who has just spoken omitted to remind us that large numbers of farmers have been going over from the highly protected United States to less-protected Canada, where they are able to live more cheaply, as well as to have cheaper land. That is one of the reasons why they are settling there. There is another thing of which the hon. Gentleman did not remind us. It is quite pertinent to his argument, though it would not have supported it. It is that the great progress which has taken

  837
  place in Canada has taken place under the lower duties levied by the late Liberal Government, rather than under the higher duties levied by their predecessors. It is true there, as everywhere else, that the freer the trade the quicker the development. I think that the hon. Gentleman, in common with other Protectionists, reminded us that the English market was the best market in the world. I quite agree in that respect. I am only surprised that Tariff Reformers should bring that out as an argument against Free Trade. In the many journeys I have made to different countries I have come across one universal testimony among those who export produce to this country, namely, that the moat, butter, cheese, and other eatables that they send are always their best. What is the reason they have given? It is that there is most competition in this market. It is the freest, the most open, and the most competitive market in the world. Therefore, our people are fed on the best, and not on the worst, food grown in other countries.
  I was reminded also of an incident that occurred in my own experience two or three years ago. I am the head of a large firm of woollen cloth manufacturers. A large customer of ours, a French house, was buying our goods to send to the United States, and he asked us for a certificate with regard to some goods for which we were charging 1s. 10d. per yard. He wanted this certificate to prove to the appraisers in New York that they really were produced at that price before the appraisers levied duties of 100 per cent. on their value on the supposition that they were worth 2s. What is to be learnt from that incident? Here is a French firm sending English made woollen cloth to the United States. We certainly did not pay their 100 per cent. ad valorem duty; we did not know to what country the goods were sent. It was certainly the consumer in New York who paid the 100 per cent. duty, and not we. What struck me most forcibly was that here was a French firm, not sending French goods to New York, not even merchanting them in Park, but merchanting them in England, and the trade of that large woollen house is much greater here than it is in Paris. Because we are a Free Trade country this is the best market in the world. The hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. H. Smith) is under a misapprehension with regard to the woollen trade. I am the head of one of the largest firms in that trade. I have
  838
  lived all my life within nine miles of Huddersfield, and I know that town quite as well as the Gentleman who once contested it. The hon. Member quoted Huddersfield warehouses as being closed. Some of them are closed, and so are some in Dewsbury and Batley. Why is that? Is it contemporaneous with the shutting up of mills? Not at all. It is because manufacturers in this country, in consequence of consular reports and other means, have been waking up during the last few years and are sending their travellers to their customers instead of waiting for their customers to come to them. In these West Riding towns, which I know perfectly well, having lived in the district all my life, the fact that a few warehouses are closed does not mean that there is any less trade. There is a great deal more trade.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I never mentioned warehouses.
  Mr. T. TAYLOR: I understood so.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I did not mention warehouses. I mentioned vast buildings which had been used as offices by those who were merchants for the American trade.
  Mr. T. TAYLOR: I will not quarrel about the word. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. It is practically the same thing. I say without hesitation, knowing the Huddersfield district well, that last year, the year before, and the year before that, there was a larger trade done in that district than ever before in its history. A large number of mills have been built in the Colne Valley, which the hon. Member must know very well, having had to pass through it many times on his way from Lancashire to Huddersfield. It is a very progressive district. The most extraordinary statement that has been made in my hearing to-night is that in which the hon. Member said that the woollen manufacturers of this country have not been sharing in the boom that our rivals have had. Is that correct or not?
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: The quotation is incorrect. I never said anything of the sort. I went so far as to say that the woollen trade is extremely prosperous. What the hon. Member is saying now does not in the least resemble any argument that I used.
  Mr. T. TAYLOR: I put the hon. Gentleman's words down at the time, and we

  839
  shall see in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow who is correct. What I have got down is that the woollen manufacturing business in this country has not shared the boom that its rivals abroad have been having. That is what the hon. Member said according to my hearing. He certainly made there a slight mistake, and the mistake he has made is this. He has not remembered exactly, I suppose, what he has heard or read, because it is a, fact that our woollen manufacturers' rivals in other countries during the last two or three years have not been enjoying the boom we have been enjoying. That is true. In regard to the worsted trade—that is not exactly the woollen trade, though it is very largely akin to it—I only heard this week from a customer of my firm in London who has been buying French and German goods, that in Roubaix, where the worsted trade has been very bad this year, while it has been very busy in Yorkshire, 4,000 looms have recently been broken up, by arrangement with the manufacturers, on protectionist principles. This was to reduce the quantity produced, so that the manufacturers could retard the cheapening of production and control their home market, though all the time we were sending goods into France from Bradford.
  Germany has been slack in regard to the woollen trade. In the United States, the great object lesson of Protection, the woollen trade has been very bad there for the past two or three years. The remarkable thing is, as I have already informed the House, that we are selling woollens there. We are not sending large quantities, because it is quite right on the part of the hon. Member to say that owing to the high and prohibitive duties many years ago, not just lately, but forty or fifty years ago, the Americans cut off our low-class trade. Twenty years ago the United States very largely excluded our high-class goods. How far has it helped them? They have been taking some of our goods, and of course they have to pay 100 per cent. duty Has it resulted in employment for their people and money being made during the last few years? Why, even the small amount of woollen goods that we export to them is larger than their export of woollens to the rest of the world.
  Would this House like to know the real figures, the quantities, not values, because I should not be at all surprised at somebody getting up and criticising, say, the
  840
  figures in the cotton trade, and saying that the cotton exported, large as it was last year, was undoubtedly swollen as regards amount beyond the usual price. There is going to be a bigger trade in cotton this year, and more money made by possibly a less amount of total exports, because the price of cotton now is cheaper. I think it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon who said what we wanted was cheap production. I quite agree. What is the way to get it? By good production, scientific production, by applying brains, science, industry and co-operation to business. That is the way to get true business; not artificial, but true production, and really inherently cheap production. I do not mean cheap and nasty, but cheap and good, because I am thankful to say that one of the features of the woollen trade in which it has greatly improved is the quality of the goods we are making—and it is not in the lowest class of goods. I think the hon. Member opposite rather hinted that it is not in the highest class of goods that we are increasing our exports, but rather in the cheaper class.
  Let me give figures of imports and exports of woollen cloth into and out of this country during the last fifteen years. I will not trouble the House by reading the yearly figures. I have grouped them in quinquennial periods, and any Gentleman who cares to look at the Blue books will find that I am giving an absolutely fair comparison. During the years 1897–1901 we imported into this country an average of 5,000,000 yards of woollen cloth, and we exported 48,000,000 yards of woollen cloth; or nine and a half times as much exports as imports. That is a pretty good comparison. In the years 1902–7 we imported under 4,500,000 yards, and exported nearly 63,500,000. Take the last five years, 1907–11, we imported 2,750,000, and we exported nearly 86,500,000. It may be said, "What about the last two years?" It is fair to give the House the figures of the last two years. In 1911 our total imports were 2,500,000 yards of woollen cloth, while our total exports for 1910 were 95,300,000. Last year our imports of foreign cloth from all countries had fallen to less than 2,250,000. Our exports have increased to 97,000,000. Let us take the year in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that the woollen trade was going. In 1903 we imported 5,000,000 yards and exported 47,000,000. Last year our imports and exports are what I have just said. In other

  841
  words, taking the five years' periods, during the years 1907–11, we exported thirty-one times as much as we imported, whereas in the first five years' period we exported only nine and a half times as much. So much for one trade.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wimbledon is a real, good old champion of Protection, and an honest man, who has always stuck to his guns, and we must admire him—I, for one, admire him, and am sorry he is not here now. He tried to make our flesh creep. He said that we did not produce so much pig iron as we used to do. Well, the very great desire of Tariff Reformers was, I thought, rather to make the higher classes of goods and the finer types of machinery than to manufacture pig-iron and to have blast-furnaces and blast-furnace men. There are very good reasons why we do not import so much pig iron as we used to do. I venture to prophesy that as time goes on we shall produce less and less pig iron. I was talking to a pig-iron merchant in Melbourne the other day. He told me that he had for many years imported pig iron largely from India, and now he was importing it largely from China. I venture to make another prophecy, not a very dangerous one, and to say that in a few years China will be producing the cheapest pig iron in the world. Why? Because she has got the largest coalfield in proximity to one of the richest, if not the richest, fields of hematite ore in the world. I hope that we shall go on as we have begun—that is, lessening our production of things like pig iron and increasing, as I am glad to say we are, comparatively enormously our manufacture of the higher type of machinery, such as electrical machinery.
  Just one word about the cotton trade. Although these figures were swollen last year in regard to the 120 millions of export, they are marvellous figures, and the best object lesson I know of as to the strength of the Free Trade position. We bring our cotton from different countries in the world, from America, Egypt, and India, across the ocean in Free Trade ships. We send it back spun and woven to the uttermost ends of the world to the very countries, in some cases, from which we imported it, and we pay in Lancashire far better wages, if we only reckon the dollar as equal to 4s. of our money, than they pay in the cotton mills of Georgia and Alabama where they work mere children of eight and ten years of age. Lancashire is an object lesson as to the strength of the Free Trade position. I say, as a
  842
  manufacturer in a kindred trade and knowing something about cotton and woollen trade, it is Free Trade that has given the unique position to our manufactures as compared in all respects with other nations. I beg the House not to give way to the very specious argument which causes people who have no time to think to imagine that it must be right to keep things out of the country so that more work may be provided for our people. There may be more work, but there will be less wages for it. It would not lighten the burdens we have to bear. It is difficult enough for people to live and to bear their burdens without increasing the cost of production, without raising the cost of people's living. That is the secret of Briton's strength, and I hope and believe we shall always retain the position we occupy under Free Trade.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: It is not from any disrespect to the hon. Member who has just spoken, nor from any lack of interest in the details of this problem we are discussing, that I ask the House, as I have only a little time at my disposal and as I must shortly give place to the representative of the Board of Trade, to look with me at the Colonial side of the question in the first instance. I have perhaps some small title to speak on that part; at any rate I have a much greater title to speak on that side of the question than upon the other. But I do not like to leave that portion of the Debate without congratulating both my hon. Friends, the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment on the great ability they have shown, and I trust it will not be taken with any disrespect to the Secretary to the Admiralty if I say that I think his arguments have been fully and satisfactorily met by other hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House.
  The Prime Minister said in the last Debate in which he took part on Colonial preference, that "the greatest and most dangerous of political impostures was about to be buried by the completion of the American and Canadian Reciprocity Treaty." That was an extremely unhappy prognostication which was based oh an absolutely unfulfilled anticipation. The Prime Minister did not know the stomach of the Canadian people, and I do not think a distinguished man in this country was ever more conspicuously and publicly rebuked for such a statement than he has been by the decision of the Canadian Parliament jointly, not merely the decision of the Conservatives but of the Liberals also.

  843
  Both sides of the Canadian Parliament have disposed of that question, I hope, for all our time, and disposed of it on a distinct basis, that a pecuniary advantage might have been theirs if they had accepted it, but they had preferred Imperial relationship in its integrity. It would be idle for me not to say, that as a result of that, the Unionist policy of closer commercial relationship with the Dominions stands upon a firmer basis than ever before. It hold's the field as the only solution as I think for problems of most far-reaching importance.
  The Dominions themselves, I am informed by news which lately reached me, have negotiations for preferential treaty arrangements between Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, and they are within measurable distance of completion, and as we stand alone outside, and as Canada has made every movement in our favour, is it not time that some requital should be expected? I quite admit, and I say it freely, in colloquial language, that no one could behave as greater gentlemen than Canada has in this matter. They have never pushed their claim, but after this great sacrifice, for it was a pecuniary sacrifice, which they made in the recent declaration and in connection with the recent treaty, it is not unnatural to find that a conspicuous Member of their Ministry, Mr. Pelletier, has pointed to this country and called upon this country to do something in response to that. He said, I think on 27th October:—
  "The defeat of reciprocity has brought the question of commercial preference with England to the fore. But the next move is with the Mother Country. Why did not England requite Canada in this matter? One of the principal reasons why Canadians had voted against reciprocity was that they did not wish to run the risk of being involved in a closer political union with the United States. Britain then, for her part, should cement the union between herself and the Dominion by more intimate trade relations. The French-Canadians had been faithful to their traditions and history during the last election in preaching the maintenance of the British connection. Perhaps it would not be out of place if he, as one of their representatives, suggested that those on the other side of the ocean should do something to correspond with what had been done on this side."
  May I endeavour, if I possibly can, to make clear what this problem of the relations between ourselves and the Dominions is, and to appreciate the gravity of the problem. We must glance for a moment at the political changes which have taken place in the last three years in the relationship between them and us. Only ten years before I was in office Lord Ripon
  844
  wrote a dispatch which at that time was considered quite a classic, in which he expressed himself in these words in regard to these relations. He said:—
  "To give the Colonies 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 of advantage to 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 a foreign Power, who will inform the Government and send instructions from them as necessity arises."
  This was in 1885. This claim was strongly set up by Lord Ripon on behalf of the Liberal Government—that is to say, the claim to control the commercial relations of the Colonies—and their treaty-making power has now been abandoned by the consent of all parties. I do not make any complaint in respect of that, because the Government know as well as I do that after the refusal of His Majesty's Government to enter into reciprocal separate relations with Canada the Canadian Government claimed the right to enter into separate treaty relations with other foreign countries. That claim was conceded to them by the Foreign Secretary in the present Government. I make no point of that because that facility was given them with the assent of the then Leader of the Opposition, who not merely assented, as we must do when the claim is made, but actually welcomed the fact that Canada had attained to such a position as would entitle her to make this arrangement with foreign countries on her own part. This fact has really brought a new problem before the Empire, which I have no doubt was dimly foreseen by the imagination and the foresight of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. Until the last few years, however, no one knew of it, and no one had granted it, and we are now in the unique position in the history of the world of possessing an Empire, the States of which in time of war each claim the right to join or not to join, as they think fit; and in commerce they claim the right, not merely to discriminate and differentiate between themselves, but actually the right to make agreements with foreign countries without mutual consent. I believe that is an absolutely unique position in the history of the world. I do not say this problem is greater than the matter which has been discussed so largely this afternoon, but it is a matter which this House, without distinction of party, should give

  845
  its most grave consideration. The problem is how in such conditions of loose organisation we are to maintain and fortify the cohesion of the whole Empire. The House is aware that the Unionist policy is partnership both in defence and in commerce. In regard to the first matter there is much common ground. I recognise that with our consent and co-operation, and, indeed, I think I may say, without offence, with our stimulus, His Majesty's Government have entered into arrangements with the Dominions by which the defences of the Empire have been strengthened. The extraordinary thing is that they failed to see that it would have been a very great force if they had always admitted the principle of partnership in commerce. The preference which has been granted by Canada has been described by the hon. Gentleman opposite as not a very great affair. On this point I will quote a very recent authority on Canada, which I think the hon. Gentleman will admit has considerable weight, namely, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who said, at the Conference in 1907:—
  "The statement has been made—we heard it in 1902 and again in 1907—that Canadian preference has not done as much for British traders as has been hoped for. I repeat there is a way of doing this. It is by adopting a mutual system of preference."
  That deals with an objection to the system of preference, which has apparently operated on the mind of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially on the mind of the Prime Minister, for I recognise some traces of what he said before in the speech in the hon. Member from Edinburgh. The Prime Minister and hon. Member for Edinburgh are afraid that not harmony, but friction, will result from preferential relations, and their case is that these preferential relations would operate against the safety and harmony of our relations with the Dominions, and they mean to maintain at any price the status quo. Will the House bear with me while I endeavour to show that the maintenance of the status quo and this policy of laissez aller between us and the Dominion will create far more dangerous friction than any which they anticipate. Why do I say that, and from whence do I draw that apprehension? Simply from the Most-Favoured-Nation treaties. That is the danger point. The House is familiar with those treaties, but there may be one or two hon. Members who have not gone into that matter, and for their information I may explain that these treaties are the machinery whereby when two nations make a bargain the third, fourth, and fifth parties benefit by that bargain. Supposing
  846
  France and Germany negotiated a treaty, and then by bargaining France gave Germany some advantage, and Germany gave France some advantage. Those advantages do not stop with the two nations who receive them by that treaty, but automatically they pass on to other nations. The advantages agreed to between A and B pass automatically to C. D, E, and F. Consequently there is a vicarious bargaining by C, D, E, and F, without exertion at all, and those countries get the advantage of the bargain between the original parties. As a matter of fact, several other nations without effort come in on the tide of other nations' exertions. The United Kingdom has many such, treaties. I think we have between thirty and forty. What will be the effect of these upon our commercial relations with the Dominions and upon the question, vital to the whole House, of the consolidation and further cohesion of the Empire? We know that the Prime Minister, in polite terms, but in terms which I can never forget, in 1907 said firmly to the Dominions, when refusing a preference to them:—
  "A preference means, as it wore, treating our Colonies better than we treat foreigners, and that, we say, we cannot do."
  Repelled thus, the Dominions are thrown, back upon making agreements with other countries, and, in pursuance of that policy, as we know, Canada has approached, and has made a treaty with France and has been approached by the United States, happily, at present, unsuccessfully. Just think of the position which must inevitably arise if the status quo is preserved. You have said in one word to the Dominions, "We cannot help you in preferential relations, go elsewhere if you think fit and make arrangements there." Very well, Canada goes, let us say, to Germany, and there finds that an arrangement which would be absolutely to her advantage if the limits of it were only with Germany becomes useless and futile and even damaging to her if the advantage she is giving ta Germany is also to be extended to several other countries. What will your position be? His Majesty's Government, I quite admit with the assent of ourselves, have said to Canada, "You are fiscally autonomous. You have a perfect right, not merely to manage your internal affairs, but we will not throw any obstacles in the way of your going to foreign countries and making agreements and treaties with them." What will your position be when you have told them that, and when you have told

  847
  them you will give them no commercial preference whatever, when they come to you, and say, "But for your Favoured-Nation Treaty we could make an advantageous treaty with, say, Germany or Russia. You have conceded us fiscal autonomy. You have permitted and encouraged us to go elsewhere, you have refused to us preference or commercial advantages in any form whatever." What answer will you have when they say, "What a mockery it is if, under these circumstances, you will not release us from obligations which were not of our making, and which, if they exist, render fiscal autonomy a futility.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson): What obligations?
  Mr. LYTTELTON: The obligations which arise upon the Favoured-Nation Clause in treaties. If I might sum up the matter, it might be put thus in the mouth of any member of a Dominion Government: "If you are genuine in your wish to afford us fiscal freedom, fiscal autonomy, and if you are determined, as the present Government is, to refuse us any special favour whatever, then, at least, give us the liberty to make the arrangements which we think are in our interests with foreign countries. What answer would you have if such a position were taken up by any statesman in the Dominions? Let me show, also, the dilemma in which you would be placed by the request which I am assuming he has made. If you refuse to grant the concession which is asked by the Dominion—that is to say, if you decline to denounce the treaties which set up these international obligations, these Favoured-Nation obligations—then, of course, you will set up a friction compared to which the friction which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh is as nothing. You give them a real ground for grievance. You are purporting to give them a great concession, but you are making it useless and futile. On the other hand, supposing you say, "I agree with you. We ought to liberate you from these treaties to which you were not a party and set you entirely free for the purposes of making these arrangements with foreign countries." Then you will introduce without the slightest question enormous confusion and even chaos in this country by suddenly depriving the commercial and mercantile community of
  848
  those Favoured-Nation Clause treaties on which they have so long relied. I do not think that really is a position which is tenable. At present the Free Trader boasts that, although he is absolutely unarmed for the purposes of direct bargaining with foreign States, he has the great merit of indirect bargaining by means of the Favoured-Nation Clause. You propose, without giving him the arm to negotiate directly, to take away the Favoured-Nation Clause which is some protection to him indirectly. I do not therefore care which way you take it. If you denounce the treaties, you cause chaos and confusion here, and if you do not denounce them you fetter and hamper the Dominions in their dealings with foreign countries.
  I put this to the hon. Gentleman who is so distinguished in economic theory. I say that quite genuinely. Have we not reached the position with our Dominions which was long ago contemplated and written of by Adam Smith, the greatest of all Free Traders as a relation in which both sides practically had political independence? The evolution which has taken place during the last 150 years has brought us in this position with the great Dominions. Practically, we are five independent and Free States of a great Empire. Adam Smith argued long ago that in such a relation the United Kingdom quite legitimately might make treaties with her Colonies over-seas so as to secure her greater advantages than she at one time enjoyed, treaties which might dispose them to favour us alike in war as in trade. I ask the hon. Gentleman, because no one is more capable of doing it than he if it is possible to be done, how in principle he distinguishes between what is quite economically sound according to his own admission, making treaties with foreign States, and making preferential treaties with independent States of our own Empire? It seems to me there is no difference in principle whatever. My last word shall be this: That in this state which I have so imperfectly depicted, but in which there is no reality and no true, real independence, fiscal as well as otherwise, in the Dominions and between the Dominions and ourselves—is it not time that instead of making futile academic and partisan objections to Colonial Preference all parties in this Kingdom should set to work to see whether they cannot make natural arrangements as between the family, and give preferential treatment as between each other in

  849
  commerce? We for a long time have urged it would bring enormous advantages to the community of interests in addition to the affinity of race.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I think the House will understand that my right hon. Friend, who in the ordinary course would have finished this Debate on behalf of the Government, has, during the past few days and especially to-day, been so absolutely occupied in matters of most urgent public importance outside, that it was quite impossible for him to follow the discussion. I may perhaps feel less diffident in taking his place, because I have a suspicion that to-night's Debate is not regarded by hon. Members opposite as of the same importance as we used to attach to it some years ago. I suggest that because I detect a cooler atmosphere; it is not like the Debates of a few years ago, and the very fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, whose name is so particularly associated with this cause, has not thought fit to take any part in it seems to give some ground for that view. There may be other reasons for the right hon. Gentleman's abstention; he may have had some misgivings with regard to speeches he made from this bench not so many years ago, as, for instance, when in June, 1902, speaking in Committee on the Finance Bill, he said it had been suggested that manufactured articles from abroad might be taxed and there were many grounds on which that proposal might not be considered unreasonable, but it was obvious there were two insurmountable objections—first, the interference with trade; and secondly, that it was impossible to tax one manufactured article without immediately raising an agitation for the taxation of all manufactured articles. Later on, in the same speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that this question of the Customs Union seemed to be surrounded by difficulties almost insurmountable.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I happen to remember that speech very well. It was almost the first I made in this House, and when I sat down Sir Henry Fowler, who sat here, said, "There is a full-blooded Protectionist."
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I suppose the breed was held at that time to be generally rather anæmic. But there are same difficulties about a statement of that kind which unfortunately cannot be checked.
  850
  In the same speech the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:—
  "The greatest difficulty was that the Colonics could send nothing but raw material and largely food, which was the last thing it would be wise or possible seriously to tax"
  In the same speech the right hon. Gentleman further said:—
  "Under existing circumstances, Free Trade was best for this country."—
  It was within two months of that speech that the right hon. Gentleman was appointed to a post in the then Government. No doubt the selection was made because of the attachment to Free Trade principles which the right hon. Gentleman had there justified.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am still in favour of Free Trade.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: All that the right hon. Gentleman need do is to dispatch communications to the Press, which I have no doubt—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) might not use some strong epithets about such changes if he were speaking. [Interruption.]
  Mr. GOULDING: Explain your own statements about black bread.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I admit that, in one point I have been met with a little of the old animation. I wish to lake a survey of the merits of the Debate, which is a different thing from the merits of the Amendment. In following the speech of one hon. Member opposite—who I think is quite entitled to the compliments paid from this side to the Mover and Seconder in respect of the general ingenuity of his arguments—I remember the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. H. Smith) did take up what we may regard as the general case in connection with the Amendment, although to a large extent he could not be said to have spoken to the Amendment. In particular he gave us an amazing vindication of the celebrated historic prophecies of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). He complained that my right hon. Friend who spoke for the Government earlier in the evening had confuted the prophecies of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham by taking the development in trade that had occurred since those prophecies were made. He said that the year in which those prophecies were

  851
  made was a bad year. I suppose they would hardly have been made if it was not a bad year. He went on to say, "You are comparing the trade of that year with the trade of a good year." Everybody knows that what followed upon those predictions was a general improvement in trade for a whole period of years. Everyone in this House knows that that improvement was arrested in the year 1907, and that after two bad years—which somehow failed to realise the hopes of the right hon. Gentleman of two bad winters—we again had a revival of trade, and now, in the face of that continuous and cumulative refutation of the prophecies of the Member for West Birmingham, we are told that the right hon. Gentleman never meant, in making those predictions, that we should not do very well even under Free Trade, when there is a boom, Joy sharing in it. This, forsooth, is a vindication of the most grossly falsified prophecy of modern politics. What could the prophecy mean if it is to be saved in that fashion? You prophesy that all your trades are going to the bad. Then it is shown that they do very well, and then the prophet, or someone for him, turns round and says, "Oh, when I said they were all going to the bad I did not mean that you would not do very well when trade was good." The same thing could be said of the state of every Protectionist country, that is to say, that they only do well when trade is good and do badly when trade is bad. The right hon. Gentleman himself was the first to predict, before it tame, the collapse of the trade of the United States in 1907. As he told us in one of his public speeches, "There is an end to fall booms," yes, even for the Protectionist country, and so the prophecy of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) is defended by being shown to be absolutely empty of meaning altogether.
  The hon. Member went on to show, as he told us, that a workman in the United States, and this seems to have been supposed to be a central point in the Debate, was, on the average, infinitely better off than the workman here. The word "infinitely" is very characteristic of the whole Tariff Reform propaganda. We see what even finite prophecies come to when we subject them to comparison with facts. What is the justification for this monstrous assertion about "infinitely better"? The main evidence that the hon. Member
  852
  gave us, and he seemed to have the subject matter pretty well in hand, was that bricklayers in the United States, I think he should have said in New York, earned wages as high as £5 10s. per week, and he challenged my hon. Friend to show a case in which a bricklayer in this country got any such wage as this. These are New York wages. They are also, as my hon. Friend pointed out, wages in a non-protected trade. My hon. Friend also pointed out the surprising lowness of wages in protected trades in the United States. That fact might have given the hon. Member some pause if he had been trying to understand the economic situation. But he incidentally revealed a few things, and I will reveal one thing more which, I think, will dispose of that argument for the infinite superiority of labour conditions in the States. I suppose the hon. Member is not aware that in New York at this moment the poverty line, as we call it, is drawn at anything from £120 to £150 per annum. It is latterly put at £150 per annum. What is the value of wages of £5 10s. a week in New York? I believe you would be overstating it if you said they were as good as £2 10s. in London. I am going on facts and figures covering a series of years. The hon. Member cited £5 10s. as if they had a purchasing power like £5 10s. over here.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: May I quote from the Government's Report of an inquiry by the Board of Trade on "Working-class Housing, etc., Rates of Wages." I will refer him to Page 5 of the introduction, in which it distinctly says that, taking the index number as 100, the wages earned are as 230 to 100 as compared with this country—in America and not in New York—and that the cost of living is as 138 to 100, leaving a benefit in the difference of 92.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The average for the United States does not in the least dispose of the figures for New York. Does the hon. Member think he is entitled to shift from the specific figure for one city, and then, to justify his argument, put the figure for America?
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I never mentioned New York?
  Mr. ROBERTSON: Does the hon. Member mean that that is the average bricklayer's wage in the United States?
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: I allege what I alleged in my speech, that it was the official return for the bricklayers' wages in the State of Massachusetts.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: I have only to say, in the first place, that it is one of the most precarious trades. As the hon Member himself told us on somebody's testimony, some of these bricklayers were in the habit of returning home annually for three months for a rest to spend in Free Trade England what they had saved in the protected United States. [An HON. MEMBEB: "For a holiday."] Yes, a holiday in the man's unemployed time. My Friends below the Gangway, who know something of the conditions of labour, are aware that in all countries the bricklayer's occupation is a precarious one. It is the one that suffers most from unemployment, and that holds equally good in the United States. The bricklayer has to come home to Free Trade England for these three months or more, for if he remained over there he would have very little money left to him if he spent his savings in America. It is a singular fact that such is the cost of living in the United States that it pays a man to take the ocean voyage both ways, and to find his living here at the lower rate in this country. [Laughter and interruption.]
  Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask hon. Members to give the Minister a fair hearing. The Front Opposition Bench has, I understand, asked a series of important questions, and the Minister who is now replying will, I have no doubt, reach them in due course; but he cannot do so if he is constantly being interrupted.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The next point in the hon. Member's speech with which I desire to deal bears very closely for once upon the Amendment. The hon. Member stated, as to the increase in our export trade in recent years—I took down his words—that that increase was largely in respect of our trade with the Colonies which have given us preference. I have the respective figures here, showing the average annual trade in the years 1901 to 1905, as compared with the average annual trade in the years 1906 to 1910. If we take first our exports to Germany, we find that in the second five-year period the percentage increase is actually 42. As regards France, the average increase is 38.6, to the United States it is 29.4, and to the six other principal protected countries it is
  854
  45.2 The total average increase of exports to the protected countries is 39.3 per cent., to the neutral markets 46.2, to British East India 27.3, while to the British self-governing Dominions it is only 14.2, so that the lowest percentage increase of all, for the five-year average is precisely to the self-governing Dominions, in respect of which the hon. Gentleman alleged our trade had chiefly increased, and that because they had given us preference. That is, I think, a sufficient answer on that point.
  I will not deal with all the points of the hon. Member, but I will note in passing that, according to him, Japan is going to be a dangerous competitor with us in respect of low wages under Protection. That is another admission which is not in favour of Protection. I wish to say a word or two as to our iron production. He said that once we led the world in iron production, and he promised to deal with the question as to why we no longer were first, but the subject perhaps passed from his memory, and he did not do so. The argument seemed to be that if we were no longer first in the production of iron Germany has taken the place that we once held. That may be true, and therefore I put to the House a question: If you have fifty tariff countries, if a tariff serves to produce a notable increase in iron production, why is it that there are only two countries to which you are able to point as exhibiting any great increase? If the tariff is the efficient factor, why is there not a similar increase in France or in Belgium? Why does it not put all the countries ahead of us as well as Germany? As my hon. Friend behind pointed out, and it is an indisputable fact, the advance of Germany in the matter of iron production is not in the least degree owing to the tariff. I do not think that you will find a single German expert who would suggest that the tariff had anything to do with it. It is simply due to the fact that the German hematite ores, which a generation ago, were worthless for commercial purposes, have now, through the invention of a well known process, become marketable ores, and on that basis the iron ore that Germany possesses becomes marketable, especially since the patents have expired and the process referred to can be used more cheaply.
  These are the main points in what I may call the typical and competent speech on the other side. But use was made by the hon. Member of the case of the woollen trade. In view of his reply to the

  855
  hon. Member for Radcliffe, I have some little doubt as to what he thinks. I understood him to say that it was a threatened trade. As a fact, it has been one of the most prosperous trades in this country for many years past. Take a period of fifteen years, and you will find imports greatly reduced and exports nearly doubled. Employment has been so great that over and over again at certain times you have had employers bidding against each other for hands. Labour Exchanges can give evidence on that head. Yet the hon. Member selects that as a threatened trade. In that sense every trade is a threatened trade, and the word comes to be as meaningless as the predictions which we have heard explained to-night. As regards the statements about the export of raw wool to the United States, is the hon. Member aware that the wool exported from this country is very largely Colonial and other wool, this country being a great emporium? Is he aware that English wool goes to the United States largely because it is of a quality which they do not produce there? Is he aware that while wool goes into the United States with a monstrous tariff it is the case that the American workman cannot afford to buy a woollen suit? Is he aware, from a recent official inquiry into the woollen trade in America that, on the one hand, the price of woollen goods has been so monstrously raised that poor people practically cannot wear woollen clothing, that clothing purporting to be woollen often contains not more than 10 per cent. of wool, that the clothing worn by the working classes is usually a bad mixture of shoddy and cotton, and that with all that the woollen industry is in an extremely unsatisfactory state, because its workers are of a low grade and badly paid, while, on the other hand, its machinery to a large extent is obsolete, and the whole process has been often described as a process of protecting inefficiency? If the hon. Member had only dwelt on a fact or two like that he would not have advanced an argument which is so ineffective in this House and still less effective outside.
  In that connection I would like to say a word on the important point raised by the hon. Member for the Chertsey Division (Mr. Macmaster) on the policy of Colonial Preference. The hon. Member for the Chertsey Division—and I take it that this is a serious matter—complained that Mr. James Bryce, in the negotiations with the
  856
  United States, did not lend a "guiding hand" to Canada in pointing out the dangers of the negotiations going on. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has just pointed out that Canada is absolutely free in these matters. Canada has claimed independence in such matters. What did the words "no guiding hand" mean unless they meant to suggest that there ought to be something in the nature of paternal pressure? Is it seriously suggested that the statesmen of Canada do not understand business negotiations? I hardly suppose that the hon. Member meant to suggest that they were children in these matters.
  Mr. MACMASTER: What I suggested was that as the representative of this country, and as the protector of the interests of this country, he should have extended a guiding hand to the Canadian representatives.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: That is exactly what I stated. The hon. Member has only repeated his words; he has given no defence of them. I leave it to the House to say whether that is a justification of the attack made on Mr. James Bryce, who, as the British Ambassador, was bound to act with perfect impartiality, and without any pretensions to wield authority over Canada, lending his good offices to statesmen who knew the facts of the case as well as Mr. Bryce did. I come to the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. So far as I follow him—I confess I am not quite sure that I understand it—I think he admitted that it was a complicated argument—he contended that if we were to go on with the Colonies as we are they would find themselves in an extremely disadvantageous position in respect of the most-favoured-nation treaties into which we have entered, and would want to get rid of the obligation, and to make more advantageous terms with other countries. I do not know what advantages the Colonies can get from foreign countries, what advantages they would get from Germany, which they could not get through us. If there is anything in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, it surely follows that if we were going to entangle ourselves with systematic Colonial preference we in turn might lose the advantages we now get from the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause with other countries. The right hon. Gentleman has never once attempted to deal, nor did the Mover

  857
  and Seconder of the Amendment, except by indirect allusion, with what he knows is the constant and emphatic answer of this party to all of these propositions. We do not enter into the system of preference with the Colonies, because it has been shown, and said, surely a hundred times, that in order to have such preference there must be a tax on food, and if you extend preference to raw material we have abundant admissions from the Canadians that it would ill-become them to make us follow a policy to make food dearer Is it said that the policy of preference would not make food dearer? Is that the argument? Having no answer "Yes" or "No" I am bound to infer the answer "Yes"—that the policy would not make food dearer. Then on what grounds do hon. Members opposite refuse to carry the policy further, and, on Imperialistic grounds, give preference to the Colonies in respect of wood and wool as well as food? They say they would not tax raw material. When they do not believe in their own argument as regards the effect of a Preference Duty, how can they appeal to this House to reverse the Free Trade policy?
  I should like to ask what is the theory of Colonial preference; what is the theory behind the whole argument tonight? Let me put my argument in the form of a question. What is a tariff for? In the terms of this Amendment a tariff is among other purposes to beat down other tariffs. Is not that implied in the Amendment—that it is a great means of forcing countries to lower their tariffs. When Canada put on her tariff against the United States, did she or did she not want to beat down the United States tariff? Surely that was the purpose. Yet the moment it seemed to have that effect there was a roar of indignation from the whole tariffist party. They are always telling us of the power of the "big revolver," but as soon as Canada seemed to hit the target with the big revolver a shriek of terror arose. An hon. Member said to-night that anything like a rapprochement between Canada and the United States would be unwholesome. [HON. MEMBEES: "For us."] Be that so or not, that nevertheless is the natural result of a tariff policy in Canada, and would be impossible under a Free Trade policy. If there is any unwholesome result it is the natural outcome
  858
  of Tariff Reform as laid down by hon Members opposite. Hon. Members opposite who profess their zeal for the welfare of the Empire, show singular heedlessness in the discussion of the operation of a tariff. The hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Lyttelton) told us that Canada alone could so develop her wheat crop as to be able to fill our markets adequately. So could India, and so, perhaps, could Australia. Thus that is going to be a fine thing for the agriculturists of three Dominions of our Empire to make wheat a drug on the market. That was the argument used by the hon. Member for St. George's, that the wheat would be at a lower price than ever before. That is one consideration; there is another. More than once in modem times the harvests of Australia and India have failed in the same year. Suppose that you had that again, and that you had at the same time a failure in Canada. Hon. Members opposite never reckon on such a thing as the failure of crops. They assume that wheat in Canada is produceable in any year in a definite quantity. What would happen to this country if we reversed our policy and were left dependent on those three Dominions and had either lost or closed such sources of supply as you have in other parts of the world. You would have put all your eggs in one basket. You would run, for Imperial purposes, such a danger of famine as you have never run before.
  I should like to say a word as to the general bearing of this policy upon our commercial system. To guard against a misapprehension, I may say, in passing, a word about the cost of living. It is true, and I rejoice that it is true, that whereas we in this country started at a very high point with regard to wages—in the year 1000 we were very much ahead of other European countries—the progress of other countries since has been relatively good. That is to say, the progress of Germany in particular has been relatively good. German wages have undoubtedly improved, and possibly—it is very difficult to get really thorough statistics—they have on the whole down to 1910 kept pace with the cost of living. If that is so, no one would rejoice more than Free Traders in general. We have no reason to be chagrined at progress of that sort in other countries. But this fact must be borne in mind. If these other countries have made any such progress in recent years they have at least very large leeway to make

  859
  up. When you ask what are the labour conditions referred to in the Amendment, we must remember that so late as the year 1905, the last year for which I am able to get accurate comparative statistics, whereas weekly wages in England and Wales stood at the figure 100, in Germany they stood at 83, in France at 75, and in Belgium at 63. On the other hand, the weekly hours of labour, taking them at 100 in England, were 111 in Germany, 117 in France, and 121 in Belguim. I need not remind the House that during the last year, while there have undoubtedly been increases in the cost of living, though not in regard to all things, in this country, where, I am happy to say, some prices went back—bread on the whole year went back by some 9 per cent., as against a rise of a similar amount towards the end of the year in Germany—while there had been a rise in prices here, the position of the British worker is still the best in Europe in respect of wages, purchasing power, and hours of work. Therefore the proposition in the Amendment that our policy has adversely affected labour conditions here is one that cannot be, and has not been, supported by one tittle of evidence.
  On the total merits of the case let me make a suggestion. The right hon. Gentleman opposite enlivened the political situation by putting forward the charge that this Government had introduced into British politics what he called the spoils system. The meaning of the phrase is pretty well known. Either the right hon. Gentleman did not know the exact specific force of the term as regards American politics, or he presumed rather courageously on the ignorance regarding it among the general public. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware that the spoils system, as they call it in the United States, could not be set up in this country. He is perfectly well aware whatever he meant to charge against the Government, that the spoils system so called could not be and has not been set up here. But there is another system that goes on in the States which I should be disposed to call the plunder system. That system might be set up in this country—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is set up"]—and if the right hon. Gentleman gets his way and lives to carry a tariff policy into effect, set up in this country the plunder system will be. I shall not be
  860
  disposed to deny the good faith of many hon. Members opposite; nor their patriotism, and disinterestedness in their advocacy of the policy of Tariff Reform. But the fact remains that the operation of the policy of Tariff Reform in any country in the world is always the exploitation of one part of the population in the interests of another. That is the simple explanation of the development of protectionist policy in our own self-governing Dominions. In Canada the explanation of the policy of Protection is that the burden of it has fallen on the agricultural classes, even as it did in the United States. In the United States the agricultural class can only save itself by imposing a return burden on the working classes in respect of those very woollen duties which we have been discussing, and which the people of the United States are doing their best at this moment to throw off. In Australia the explanation is the same. There the burden is laid on the agricultural class, and part of it goes to the industrial class. That is the fatal flaw of Protection always. There is always the plunder of one set for the benefit of another. Under the Corn Laws the masses of the people were exploited in the interests of the landlords, as they had been previously in the interests of the manufacturers. At the repeal of the Corn Laws England turned over a new leaf, and though it is quite true, as the hon. Member opposite suggested, that we have not attained, even as regards our own action, ideal Free Trade—for it is not easy to attain ideals in this world—I have no doubt the Noble Lord (Earl Winterton) always realises his—
  Earl WINTERTONmade a remark that was inaudible.
  Mr. ROBERTSON: The policy that we call Free Trade—it is mere pedantry to limit ourselves to a phrase about "free imports," as it is on the other side to use the term "Tariff Reform," which is taken bodily from the Free Traders of the United States—the policy of Free Trade has been to maintain for this country the most honest fiscal system the world has yet devised—a fiscal system under which nobody is exploited, and no class is exploited for the sake of any other class. I take it that this House on voting on this Amendment will to-night reaffirm for another period, at all events, the policy of the Government.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: As the hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to quote an old speech of mine, I should like the opportunity of quoting two extracts from it, as they seem to show that my views have not changed much in the interval. One of those was:—
  "If we claimed that our industrial position was due to Free Trade, might Germany not claim that hers was due to Protection?"
  And later on I said—and this is exactly what I have been preaching for seven years:
  "The time might come when the only chance of continuing the industrial prosperity of this country would be in some system of bringing the trade connections of the Empire closer together and keeping British trade in British hands."
  Question put, "That the words proposed be there added.
  The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 258.

  Division No. 5.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Goldman, Charles Sydney

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Aitken, Sir William Max

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

  Amery, L. C. M. S.

  Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Anstruther-Gray, Major William

  Goulding, E. A.

  O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Grant, James Augustus

  Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)

  Greene, Walter Raymond

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Balcarres, Lord

  Gretton, John

  Paget, Almeric Hugh

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

  Perkins, Walter Frank

  Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

  Hall, Fred (Dulwich)

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Barnston, Harry

  Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc., E.)

  Hamersley, Alfred St. George

  Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

  Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

  Beresford, Lord Charles

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Boles, Lieut.-Col. Dennis Fortescue

  Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

  Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Royds, Edmund

  Boyton, James

  Hills, John Waller

  Rutherford, John (Lancs, Darwen)

  Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

  Hoare, Samuel John Gurney

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Bridgeman, William Clive

  Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Burdett-Coutts, William

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  Burgoyne, Alan Hughes

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Horne, William E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Butcher, John George

  Horner, Andrew Long

  Sandys, G. J.

  Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)

  Hume-Williams, Wm. Ellis

  Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (Liv'rp'l, Walton)

  Campion, W. R.

  Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

  Ingleby, Holcombe

  Spear, Sir John Ward

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

  Stanier, Beville

  Cassel, Felix

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kerry, Earl of

  Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)

  Cautley, Henry Strother

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Stewart, Gershom

  Cave, George

  Kirkwood, John H. M.

  Swift, Rigby

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

  Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)

  Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)

  Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts., Mile End)

  Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.)

  Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)

  Lee, Arthur Hamilton

  Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Courthope, George Loyd

  Lloyd, George Ambrose

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

  Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Tryon, Captain George Clement

  Croft, Henry Page

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Valentia, Viscount

  Denniss, E. R. B.

  Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee

  Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)

  Duke, Henry Edward

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo., Han. S.)

  Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)

  Faber, George D. (Clapham)

  Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)

  MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs, Southport)

  Fell, Arthur

  Macmaster, Donald

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

  Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Winterton, Earl

  Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

  M'Mordle, Robert

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

  McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

  Malcolm, Ian

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

  Mallaby-Deeley, Harry

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

  Fletcher, John Samuel

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Forster, Henry William

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Yerburgh, Robert

  Gardner, Ernest

  Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)

  Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

  Mount, William Arthur

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Major Henderson and Mr. Ashley.

  Gibbs, George Abraham

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Gilmour, Captain John

  Newdegate, F. A.

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Muldoon, John

  Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda)

  Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

  Munro, Robert

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.

  Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Agnew, Sir George William

  Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)

  Neilson, Francis

  Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Armitage, Robert

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Hackett, John

  Norton, Captain Cecil W.

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

  Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

  O' Doherty, Philip

  Barnes, George N.

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  O' Dowd, John

  Barton, William

  Harwood, George

  O' Grady, James

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  O' Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Benn, W. W. (T. H'm'ts., St. George)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  O' Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Bentham, George Jackson

  Hayden, John Patrick

  O' Malley, William

  Black, Arthur W.

  Hayward, Evan

  O' Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Bcland, John Pius

  Helme, Norval Watson

  O' Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)

  O' Sullivan, Timothy

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Brace, William

  Higham, John Sharp

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

  Brady, Patrick Joseph

  Hinds, John

  Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M.

  Brocklehurst, William B.

  Hodge, John

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Brunner, John F. L.

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Bryce, John Annan

  Hudson, Walter

  Pointer, Joseph

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Hughes, Spencer Leigh

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire)

  Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  John, Edward Thomas

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

  Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)

  Radford, G. H.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Byles, Sir William Pollard

  Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

  Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

  Reddy, M.

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

  Rendall, Athelstan

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Jowett, Frederick William

  Richards, Thomas

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Joyce, Michael (Limerick)

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Clough, William

  Keating, Matthew

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

  King, J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.)

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Lamb, Ernest Henry

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Cotton, William Francis

  Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Cowan, William Henry

  Lansbury, George

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Lardner, James Carrige Rushe

  Roche, Augustine (Louth)

  Crooks, William

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumbr'ld, Cockerm'th)

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Crumley, Patrick

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Rose, Sir Charles Day

  Cullinan, John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rowlands, James

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

  Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

  Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lundon, Thomas

  Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Delany, William

  Lynch, A. A.

  Scanlan, Thomas

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

  Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

  Devlin, Joseph

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

  Dickinson, W. H.

  Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.

  Seely, Rt. Hon. Col. J. E. B.

  Dillon, John

  MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South)

  Shortt, Edward

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Macpherson, James Ian

  Simon, Sir John Allsebrook

  Doris, W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Duffy, William J.

  M' Callum, John M.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  M' Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

  M' Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  M' Laren, Hon. F. W. S. (Lincs, Spalding)

  Strauss, Edward A. (Scuthwark, West)

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  M' Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Sutherland, John E.

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  M' Micking, Major Gilbert

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Elverston, Sir Harold

  Manfield, Harry

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

  Tennant, Harold John

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Marks, Sir George Croydon

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Martin, Joseph

  Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Toulmin, Sir George

  Ffrench, Peter

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Field, William

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Verney, Sir Harry

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Millar, James Duncan

  Walsh, Stephen (Lancs, Ince)

  Fitzgibbon, John

  Molloy, Michael

  Walters, Sir John Tudor

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Gelder, Sir William Alfred

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

  Mooney, John J.

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Gill, Alfred Henry

  Morgan, George Hay

  Wardle, G. J.

  Gladstone, W. G. C.

  Morrell, Philip

  Waring, Walter

  Glanville, Harold James

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  864

  865

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.

  Winfrey, Richard

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Wiles, Thomas

  Yoxall, Sir James Henry

  Watt, Henry A.

  Wilkie, Alexander

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Williamson, Sir A.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Main Question again proposed. Debate arising,
  And, it being after Eleven of the clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Friday).

THREATENED COAL STRIKE.

  CONSULTATION WITH THE GOVERNMENT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—Mr. Gulland.]
  Mr. BONAR LAW: May I ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can give us any information with regard to the coal industry?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): I feel sure the House will appreciate that it would not be expedient at the present moment for me to give more than a bald recital of the proceedings to-day, which lasted from ten o'clock in the morning till after seven o'clock in the evening. The Prime Minister met at the Foreign Office to-day, in response to his invitation, representatives of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain and representatives of the coal owners of the country. The Prime Minister was accompanied by the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the President of the Board of Trade. The representatives of the Miners' Federation were the president, vice-president, the treasurer, and the secretary. The representatives of the coal owners included representatives from the federated area, South Wales, from Scotland, from Durham, Northumberland, the Forest of Dean, Bristol, and Somerset. The position in the various districts was explained by some of those present.
  On the suggestion of the Prime Minister, the coalowners' representatives appointed a small committee for the purpose of further consultation with His Majesty's Government. The miners' representatives explained that a national conference had "been convened to meet in London on Tuesday next, and the meeting could not be held before that day. The Prime Minister
  866
  accordingly invited the conference, or a committee appointed by them, to meet him and his colleagues on that day.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twelve minutes after Eleven o'clock.

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  LECTURERS.
  LECTURERS.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
  NATIONAL INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS.
  Land Values Duties.
  Land Values Duties.
  Income Tax Surveyors.
  Income Tax Surveyors.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Old Age Pensions.
  Members' Salaries.
  Members' Salaries.
  Teachers' Grants (Scotland).
  Teachers' Grants (Scotland).
  Police Service (Scotland).
  Police Service (Scotland).
  Site Value (North of Ireland).
  Site Value (North of Ireland).
  Super-Tax.
  Super-Tax.
  Breaches of Licensing Law (Ireland).
  Breaches of Licensing Law (Ireland).
  Irish Fisheries.
  Irish Fisheries.
  Poor Rate Poundage Fees (County Leitrim).
  Poor Rate Poundage Fees (County Leitrim).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Application (Bree, County Wexford).
  Reinstatement Application (Bree, County Wexford).
  Royal Victualling Yard, Deptford.
  Royal Victualling Yard, Deptford.
  Royal Navy (Stoker Ratings).
  Royal Navy (Stoker Ratings).
  Docks for Battleships.
  Docks for Battleships.
  Australian Squadron.
  Australian Squadron.
  West Indies Defences.
  West Indies Defences.
  Fair Wages Clause.
  Fair Wages Clause.
  Army Pay Corps.
  Army Pay Corps.
  Victoria Barracks, Windsor.
  Victoria Barracks, Windsor.
  Army Horses.
  Army Horses.
  Special Reserve and Territorial Forces.
  Special Reserve and Territorial Forces.
  Railway Strike (Employment of Military).
  Railway Strike (Employment of Military).
  National Reserve (Ireland).
  National Reserve (Ireland).
  Garrison Artillery.
  Garrison Artillery.
  Army Strength.
  Army Strength.
  Schools for Blind and Deaf.
  Schools for Blind and Deaf.
  Education of Boarded-out Children.
  Education of Boarded-out Children.
  Marriage Law.
  Marriage Law.
  Coal Supplies.
  Coal Supplies.
  Bronzing Regulations.
  Bronzing Regulations.
  Removal Laws.
  Removal Laws.
  His Majesty's Trade Commissioner (Canada).
  His Majesty's Trade Commissioner (Canada).
  Post Office Money Order Department.
  Post Office Money Order Department.
  Manchester Telephone Exchange.
  Manchester Telephone Exchange.
  Market Reports and Crop Statistics (Scotland).
  Market Reports and Crop Statistics (Scotland).
  Forestry in Scotland.
  Forestry in Scotland.
  Arran Harbours.
  Arran Harbours.
Preamble
The Lord CRANWORTH—Took the Oath.

INDIA.
Debate on the Motion of Earl Curzon of Kedleston "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for Papers relating to the removal of the capital of India to Delhi, and other connected matters" resumed (according to Order).
THE EARL OF MINTO: My Lords, this is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships since I returned from India, and I confess that in many ways I should have preferred not to have taken part in this debate at all. Indeed, I wish, for reasons which are no doubt patent to your Lordships, that it had been possible to avoid altogether the discussion of the points which were raised yesterday by the noble Earl, Lord Curzon of Kedleston, but at the same time I do feel very strongly that it would have been quite unjustifiable to refrain from the discussion of the policy of His Majesty's Government, affecting vast changes of momentous Imperial importance. I also feel that as the last member of your Lordships' House who has had the honour to hold the high position of Viceroy of India, and who has been so lately intimately connected with her public affairs, I am not entitled to keep silent.
Unfortunately, my Lords, any criticism on the policy we are considering, which was quite unknown to us until it was divulged in His Majesty's pronouncement at the Durbar at Delhi, runs the risk of being mistaken in India as a criticism of His Majesty's personal action, and indirectly of their Majesties' visit to India, than which I am sure nothing could be further from your Lordships' intention. Therefore the position is a very delicate one. His Majesty's Government are answerable for it, and I venture to think that it ought never to have arisen. It would be a calamity if anything said in this House should in the slightest degree mar the magnificent results of their Majesties' visit to India. The greatness of the Imperial idea which prompted that
190
visit, the determination with which the King persisted in it in the face of great difficulties, the courage with which their Majesties faced much hard work and exertion and not a little personal risk, has certainly won our admiration, whilst the magnificent reception they everywhere received from their Indian subjects of every nationality, of every religion, and of every caste, bears ample testimony to the loyal devotion of India to the Throne which their Majesties' sympathetic personality has done so much to confirm.
It was my lot, my Lords, to serve for five anxious years in India. They were years of political unrest, when the political atmosphere was dangerously electric. My noble friend the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Morley, knows well the stress of those times, and I shall always be grateful to him for the spirited support he was ever ready to give me. But before I sailed from home great administrative reforms had been introduced and many of the just claims of India had been recognised. Much had already been done to restore public confidence in the justice of British rule, and a dangerous smouldering discontent was everywhere giving way to a more friendly feeling. It was one of the most marvellous changes I ever saw. I can assure you that one could feel the differ once in one's work every day; one knew that everything was on a more friendly and happier footing. But, my Lords, something more was wanted, something that would impress upon the people of India that they, together with their British fellow-subjects, owed allegiance to the same great King, that they were together secure of his constant sympathy, and that they together shared in the interests of one great Empire; and I earnestly hope that the visit of their Majesties to India will have stamped the relations of British and Indian populations with the seal of a lasting friendship.
In The Times of February 5 there was published a "Message from the Princes and people of India to the people of Great Britain and Ireland." The noble Marquess opposite alluded to it yesterday, but to me it seems that it has scarcely attracted the public attention it deserves, and if your Lordships will allow me I will read a few lines from the Message. After conveying "to the great English nation an

191
expression of their cordial goodwill and fellowship," the Message continued—
"Their Imperial Majesties, by their gracious demeanour, their unfailing sympathy, and their deep solicitude for the welfare of all classes, have drawn closer the bonds that unite England and India, and have deepened and intensified the traditional feeling of loyalty and devotion to the Throne and Person of the Sovereign which has always characterised the Indian people."
And the Message concluded with these weighty words—
"They are confident that this great and historic event marks the beginning of a new era ensuring greater happiness, prosperity, and progress to the people of India under the aegis of the Crown."
In the face of such welcome evidence of so much good work one cannot be too cautious in approaching the policy of His Majesty's Government pronounced by the King at Delhi—a policy involving the removal of the capital from Calcutta to Delhi and other connected matters to which the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, drew attention yesterday.
I have no intention of attempting to deal in detail with the points under discussion. I would rather confine myself to a very few remarks as to the manner in which any previous knowledge of this great 6cheme was withheld from the British and Indian public until it had been announced as an accepted policy, which, without any opportunity whatever of considering it, they were expected to approve. I readily admit that there is much that is attractive in the removal of the seat of Government from Calcutta to Delhi. Delhi is the capital of the old Mogul Empire, and its history is replete with traditions of the past—Hindu, Mahomedan, and British. I have often discussed the possibility of such a change. I have no doubt other Viceroys have done the same. 1 was well aware of the cordial welcome any such suggestion would receive from the great Chiefs of Central India and of Rajputana, and it is impossible to disregard the advantages of removing the enlarged Legislative Councils from the political surroundings of Calcutta. But, on the other hand, the interests of Calcutta cannot with justice be ignored—the interests of great mercantile houses and of tradesmen. There is also the question of expense, which is bound to be enormous, for I altogether disregard the estimate of the Government of India. There were sanitary considerations to be thought of,
192
sanitary considerations which appear only lately to have dawned on the Government of India and His Majesty's Government. There are also strategical considerations as to the best locality for the capital of India from a military point of view, as to which the best military expert opinion was an Imperial necessity; whilst surely the fact that Calcutta has been for 150 years the capital of our Eastern Empire, and that her history is gloriously associated with the deeds of Clive and Warren Hastings and with the names of many great British administrators since those times—surely considerations such as these entitle Calcutta to more serious consideration. His Majesty's Government seem ready enough to recognise Bengali sentiment. Surely British historical sentiment has a claim not to be disregarded. Throughout the meagre correspondence which has so far been submitted to us between the Government of India and His Majesty's Government I am sorry to say I find very little trace of a due appreciation of the grave issues involved in any removal of the capital from Calcutta to Delhi.
The same secrecy has been maintained in respect to the reorganisation of the Province of Bengal. Lord Curzon's partition of Bengal had become law before I arrived in India, and I do not think I am called upon in any way to deal with its merits or its demerits. I listened yesterday with the greatest interest to what the noble Earl told us of the careful study which preceded the introduction of his partition legislation, of the thought which was devoted to it, and of his apprehensions in regard to the future results of a reconsideration of that partition. I am bound to say, my Lords, that I agree with all the history he told us of that legislation, and I share with him in the apprehension that he expressed as to future results of its reconsideration. But, though I had nothing to do with the legislation effecting the partition, I did see a great deal of the aftermath—the aftermath of unrest, dangerous unrest—that followed in its wake. And during those years of unrest I naturally had peculiar opportunities of knowing what was going on behind the scenes and of forming some judgment as to the genuineness of the so-called national agitation which was in many ways encouraged to rally to the cry of partition. And notwith-

193
standing the extraordinary and belated discovery of the Government of India as to the resentment about the partition which they tell us is still as strong as ever in both the Bengals, I unhesitatingly assert that there was hardly any genuine national feeling whatever in the Bengal movement. The original agitation in Bengal really was in close touch with a subterranean and dangerous agitation which had been in existence for some years in India, and which had not had the opportunity of showing itself above ground before Lord Curzon's partition legislation was introduced. When that was introduced it became a very useful cry to party agitators.
LORD MAC DONNELL of SWINFORD: Will the noble Earl mention the date from which this subterranean agitation took its rise?
THE EARL OF MINTO: Roughly it was three or four years before the partition, which became a useful peg upon which political agitators could hang their grievances. I can assure your Lordships that when I left India the agitation against partition was stone dead. I do not believe that there was a political agitator in Bengal, of whatever influence, who could have collected a representative gathering on the question. I feel bound, in justice to what I know of Lord Curzon's partition, to say what I have. Throughout my term of office the Government of India warmly supported Lord Curzon's policy in the Bengals. We were told from home that "partition" was a "settled fact." We over and over again asserted that it must continue to be so. We assured the Mahomedan population of Eastern Bengal of our appreciation of their loyalty and our determination to safeguard their interests. I should think there is scarcely a Civil servant in India who has not declared that it would be impossible for any British Government to reverse the decision it had come to. Only last summer during the Coronation festivities 1 was approached by a distinguished Bengali leader, who asked if, in view of the King's visit to India, there was no possibility of a reversal of Lord Curzon's partition, and I told him that no Government of India could ever entertain the idea of such a thing. And now the declarations of the Government
194
of India, repeated over and over again since 1905. have been disowned, with no opportunity for any expression of opinion from the public in India or at home. Such a policy can but depreciate the reputation of British rule in India.
I should like to say a word about one particular point in the changes that are to be made, and that is as regards the gift of presidency government to Bengal. With due respect to the members of this House who have so ably administered the affairs of great presidencies, I confess that it is a form of government of which I am not enamoured. I have always disliked the right it possesses to communicate direct with the Secretary of State, which I do not think conducive to the authority of the paramount power in India. Bengal is full of advanced political thought and of political ramifications which the greatest Indian expert would find difficulty in unravelling. Owing to the great increase of postal and telegraph communication, it has now become possible for correspondence to be carried on between Bengali politicians and politicians in this country, and I can assure your Lordships that in the anxious times with which I had to deal this correspondence was one of my greatest difficulties. The opinions sent home by this. I do not like to call it back-stair correspondence, but unofficial correspondence, carried on between Bengali agitators of very doubtful reputation and politicians in this country, were taken far above their value here, and were accepted as representing the views of the Indian populations as a whole, which they were very far from doing. This correspondence became, as I have said, one of the greatest difficulties with which we had to deal. And if an English statesman with no knowledge of Indian affairs is sent to Bengal, however broad-minded he may be, with the power of corresponding directly with the Secretary of State, whilst at the same time the communication between political parties in Bengal and this country, to which I have alluded continues, I apprehend that as years go on the result will be the administration of Bengal from home instead of by the Viceroy and the Government of India, than which I cannot conceive any greater danger. I can find only one explanation for what has been clone. A sop has been given to a certain faction in Bengal as a recompense for the removal of the capital from Calcutta to Delhi.

195
The key to the position created by His Majesty's Government appears to be contained in a few lines of Paragraph 24 in the Government of India's Despatch of August 25. They say—
"In the event of these far-reaching proposals being sanctioned by His Majesty's Government, as we trust may be the case, we are of opinion that the presence of His Majesty the King-Emperor at Delhi would offer a unique opportunity for a pronouncement of one of the most weighty decisions ever taken since the establishment of British rule in India."
One of the most weighty decisions since the establishment of British rule in India was to be taken without consultation with a single soul in India outside the Viceroy's Council, and without the advice of a single public man in this country, no matter how specially qualified he might be to give it. For the sake of a unique opportunity the Government of India and His Majesty's Government decided to ignore their responsibility to the public in India and at home. That is the position His Majesty's Government appear to me so unfortunately to have brought about. I have not attempted to deal in any detail with their scheme. I have endeavoured to limit myself to a criticism of the secrecy—the unconstitutional secrecy—with which they have withheld from the public all possible consideration of it. Much as I regret the necessity for this debate, I cannot see how on public grounds your Lordships could justifiably have refrained from any discussion of such momentous decisions affecting our Indian Empire.
LORD REAY: My Lords, after the very interesting speech which we have heard from my noble friend on the Cross Benches, perhaps the House will allow me to express rather a different view of the policy of His Majesty's Government. The transfer of the capital to Delhi seems to me to be completely justified. I need hardly tell the noble Earl opposite that I have no "sneaking satisfaction" at the so-called dethronement of Calcutta. I never noticed while I was in Bombay the slightest rivalry between Calcutta and Bombay. A central residence for the Imperial. Government, detached from any Local Government, has always been considered desirable by the advocates of decentralisation in India. To restrict the interference of the Central Government with Local Governments, to limit it to questions of general policy as distinct from mere administrative detail, has always been the aim of experienced
196
Indian administrators whom I have known. If proper attention is to be given to the growing needs of Indian agriculture, Indian industries, Indian education, Indian finance, decentralisation is essential. The main lines of administrative policy must be laid down by the Central Government, but in order to carry it out in accordance with local traditions it must be left to the Local Governments. You must leave them as much latitude as you can, and that is what I understand is aimed at in the Despatch of the Government of India when they state that their policy is in the direction of autonomy—autonomy restricted, as mentioned in the Despatch, to provincial affairs. The transfer of the capital to Delhi will undoubtedly promote this tendency of making the local administrations more autonomous in all provincial affairs. From some important parts of the country the Government of India will be more accessible, as for instance from Bombay and Karachi. I do not think that at Delhi the Government of India will take a less interest in the great commercial an I industrial questions which ought to engage its attention. The Imperial Legislative Council, which, of course, will meet at Delhi, will certainly keep the Government in touch with Indian public opinion.
With regard to the Partition of Bengal, I think we ought to accept the statement in the Despatch of the Government of India to this effect—
"Every one with any true desire for the peace and prosperity of the country must wish to find some manner of appeasement if it is in any way possible to do so."
This appeasement, I think, has been found by the decision of the Government in redistributing the partition. I have heard those who were not prepared for the redistribution admit that if it had been done originally on the lines on which it has now been reconstituted, they would have preferred it. There is no doubt that this new redistribution has given general satisfaction in India. I am not at all apprehensive as regards the interests of the Mahomedans in the new province of Bengal. The Mahomedan community in India is fully alive to the importance of educating members of their community, and I have no doubt that the Government of Bengal will look after their interests and meet their wishes as far as possible. I do not think there will be any difficulty in transferring the seat of Government to

197
Dacca for part of the year. The fact is, the Bengal Governor will be in the same position as the Governor of Bombay, who resides part of the year in Bombay, part of the year at Poona. and part of the year at Mahablishwar. The situation in Bengal will be identical.
As to the constitution of a Governor in Council for the new Province in Bengal, it was clearly always an anomaly that Bombay and Madras should have a Governor in Council, and that with regard to the Province which is, perhaps, the most difficult to administer in India, you should be satisfied with a Lieutenant-Governor. That anomaly was intensified when you gave to the Lieutenant-Governor a Council. It seems to me an advantage to appoint to the office of Governor men who have been in touch with public opinion here. They bring another element into the administration. Taking into account the complexity of the problems which arise in the government of millions of His Majesty's subjects in India, it seems very desirable to introduce that extraneous influence, and I have heard it admitted by very experienced Civil servants of the Crown in India that they looked upon this element as one which was very useful. Especially now that you have introduced into the Legislative Councils a more representative element there is always a certain risk of difference of opinion between the official and the non-official members, and it is obvious that a man who has been trained in public life here will in such circumstances exercise a beneficial influence. Then I would lay stress on another matter of the greatest importance, and that is in connection with the social intercourse between the representatives of the British and of the native communities. There is an advantage in having in India carefully selected administrators with experience of affairs gained here.
Now I must say a word on a matter on which, much to my surprise, nothing has been said up to now. I wish to say how pleased I was to see, among the announcements made at the Durbar at Delhi, that loyal native officers, men, and reservists of His Majesty's Indian Army are henceforth to be eligible for the Victoria Cross. This recognition of the meritorious services rendered by the Native Army was thoroughly deserved, and will, I have no doubt, be keenly appreciated throughout
198
India. The fact that 50 lacs are to be spent on truly popular education is a very salient admission of the great need, especially in the rural districts of India, of more schools and better remuneration of the teachers. That is a measure which will be generally welcomed in India.
With regard to the method of the announcement of these very important reforms, I think His Majesty's Government were absolutely justified in giving to that announcement its solemn character on a very solemn occasion. In India and here the all-pervading sentiment has been one of recognition of the great service rendered to the Empire by the King-Emperor in giving such a signal proof of his personal interest in the welfare of his Indian subjects. [t was a statesmanlike conception that the King-Emperor should himself announce to his Indian subjects measures so well calculated to impress them with his solicitude for their welfare. The outburst of loyalty which everywhere in India hailed their Majesties was spontaneous and sincere, and it certainly strengthened the constitution and foundations of British rule in India. A statement from the Throne of a policy for which the Government accepts the full responsibility is in every respect Constitutional, whether delivered at Delhi or here in His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne in opening Parliament. In both cases there is no departure from strictly Constitutional practice. Parliament retains the power of criticising the Government's policy, and will not be prevented from doing so when the Bill for the constitution of the new Provinces is submitted for its consideration. The Government seem to me to have given to the ceremony at Delhi a high and exceptional significance. It was an unprecedented event in the brilliant annals of India, and I think that my noble friend the Secretary of State for India and the Viceroy and their advisers are sincerely to be congratulated on a policy which was so well conceived and so admirably carried out, and which I think will have effects- of lasting value for the benefit of India.
LORD HARRIS: My Lords, I rise with some hesitation to address your Lordships on this highly important subject. We are some way on into t he second night of this debate, and, with the exception of my noble friend opposite, your Lordships have heard this subject discussed by ex-Viceroys

199
and Secretaries of State alone, and there are other high officials who have filled the same position to follow. It may therefore seem somewhat presumptuous in one who has not attained that conspicuous position to venture to offer any remarks, especially as I am one of that batch of officials whom the Government of India has, by unearthing a dry-as-dust description, labelled as persons of no conspicuous ability. But having had a hereditary connection with India in official life for four consecutive generations and for over 120 years, perhaps I may venture to ask your Lordships to listen to my views for a few moments.
The noble Earl who initiated this debate divided the subject into several heads, and on one or two of those I should not offer any remark at all except from the attitude of a layman. I know India too well to venture to offer any criticism about a part of India with which I am not personally acquainted, and therefore on the subject of the wisdom of the divisions into which Bengal and Assam have now been parted and were parted in the time of the noble Earl I do not venture to offer any serious criticism. But it did seem to me that the noble Earl, in his speech last night, did step very delicately over a series of incidents which I think must have had some effect on the minds of the Government of India and the Secretary of State—incidents which not only attracted attention in this country but caused a great deal of the most serious apprehension. After all, it is not for the best that your Chief Magistrate in the country, a person upon whom a huge responsibility rests, should, I will not say be under any apprehension or anxiety, but that he should be in doubt, when he goes out for his morning ride or his evening drive, whether he will be able to take it without incidents which at any rate are offensive if they are nothing worse, and the state of Calcutta's streets for some time was such that I doubt very much whether the Viceroy could take his exercise in the open or without a considerable addition to that restriction which, of course, must always limit the activities of persons of very high position. And therefore I am not surprised that the Government of India eventually made up their minds that the occasional residence, for, after all, it is only that, for two or three months in the year of the Viceroy in Calcutta was no longer necessary. It was not an essential part of the successful government of India, and
200
it was very possible that in another part of India he might be able to do quite as much, if not more, good than he could do by this occasional residence in Calcutta. I do not dwell upon that part of the case, because I have not any experience of Bengal.
As regards Calcutta itself as the seat of the offices of Government, or what in India is called the Secretariat, I do not imagine that it will make very much difference whether the Secretariat is at Calcutta or at. Delhi. For a large part of the year a considerable number of the officials must be at Simla, and if they can be for a longer time outside Simla and more get-at-able than they are at Simla, I do not. think anybody will be any the worse. I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, that in anything I may say as regards Calcutta as the seat of the Viceroy and his Council I am no more actuated by any sneaking satisfaction at those offices leaving Calcutta than he has been, I am sure, by any feeling of chagrin that the scheme which has always been attributed to him, whether rightly or wrongly, has been, after a few years' experience, altered. Calcutta is not, on the whole, going to be injured by this change. I dare say there are a few people who will be injured in pocket, as the noble Earl said. Owners of ground rents, I dare say, will not receive as fine returns as they have been doing of late, but the commerce of Calcutta is not going to be upset by the change of the seat of Government. The same goods and produce will flow into Calcutta and will flow out of it as before. There will be no attraction away from Calcutta by reason of the seat of Government being in Delhi, and I assure the noble Earl, if it is suggested that anything one may say on those lines is actuated by satisfaction, that I have never heard any real jealousy of Calcutta expressed by the merchants of Bombay. They are perfectly capable of looking after themselves and will continue to do their best to get trade to flow into Bombay and not to Calcutta or Karachi, just the same as the merchants of Calcutta and Karachi will continue to do their best for Calcutta and Karachi respectively, but there is no trade jealousy other than that ordinary trade jealousy which exists and always will exist between commercial cities. Therefore from the two points of view which I have ventured to touch upon, 1 confess to some slight amusement that so much

201
should have been made of the change. The noble Earl laid stress on the question of whether Delhi occupied a good strategical position, and it certainly did not seem to me that he strengthened his argument by being able to find no authority for that opinion nearer than the Duke of Wellington.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I could have given a great many.
LORD HARRIS: The noble Earl did not quote them. The one he quoted goes a long way back—to pre-railway, pre-telegraph, and pre-telephone days. I can imagine that some strategists might hold the opinion that a place which is about equidistant from the three principal ports, Bombay. Calcutta, and Karachi, is by no means a hid strategical position from whatever point of view you regard a strategical position. It seems to me it is a good strategical position in that at Delhi India is able to turn either to the East or to the West to important ports close to which those Fleets can lie which are her real protection except from the extreme North or North-east. And I do think that the noble Earl has overlooked this possibility, that the Government of India will not be so long seated upon those heights at Simla, but will for a longer period of the year be in more immediate touch with the Presidencies and Provinces of India, and it may be possible, therefore, for the Viceroy to see rather more of the Presidencies and Provinces than he has of late. I know all the difficulties of getting away from the office, from those masses of papers which flow in in consequence of the inquisitiveness of the British Parliament. I quite appreciate all that difficulty, but no one can be more conscious of the great factor of personal influence than the noble Earl himself, and I do believe that the Government of India would be all the better and difficulties would be simplified if the chief person in the country moved about the country rather more actively than he is able to do when for so many months of the year lie is lodged on the heights at Simla.. It is possible that he may be able to do that if for the greater part of the year he. is resident in a place like Delhi, which is so well served by the railway,
Turning back for one moment to the point of making a Presidency in Bengal, I am not surprised at the noble Earl who has addressed your Lordships to-night
202
preferring the system of a Provincial Government. He sat alongside it for five years, and if he and the noble Earl will forgive me, I assure them that there is an opinion outside of Bengal that the Viceroy of India would be very much better if he was not constantly so close to the Government of Bengal. There is quite a strong opinion in India that the Viceroy and his councillors and the opinions come to are largely affected by the fact of their being too much in Bengal and too much liable to the opinions of those who govern Bengal. Which is the better system of Government—a Presidency or a Provincial Government—is very largely a matter of opinion, but at any rate I may congratulate that unfortunate band who have been dealt with by the Government of India as I have already described upon the fact that Sir Henry Mayne acknowledged that they had done their work, which was the administration of those Provinces, fairly well, and, indeed, better than in the case of the Provinces which had been administered by those Indian civilians who had been promoted.
I quite agree with my noble friend opposite that you want occasionally some fresh blood let into the system of the Government of India. I do not think any one can admire a service more than I admire the Indian Civil Service. I think they are magnificent. Their readiness to take responsibility is unequalled in any part of the world, and their ability is unquestioned. Their capacity for argument is unlimited, and they are, without exception I should say, the most obstinate men that any official can come across. I do think that they want that obstinacy occasionally qualified by somebody who does not belong to the Indian Civil Service, and that is obtained by the introduction of fresh blood from England, the introduction of men who frequently have had some official experience which may, perhaps, not be as long as that of the colleagues whom they find there but is more varied, and therefore I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Earl on the Cross-Benches as to this change, which is one of the many things he has so emphatically condemned. I am afraid also that I am not able to take the gloomy view of these important decisions which the noble Earl on the Front Opposition Bench does. He spoke in sepulchral tones of some of these alterations, and occasionally with bated

203
breath. I was in India when they were announced, and for some little time afterwards, and making every cautious allowance for the glamour and the success of all the ceremonies which surrounded the announcement, I confess, after many conversations with Europeans and civilians, that I did not find any one possessing the fear and apprehensions that the noble Earl possesses.
I will not attempt to argue the Constitutional side of the question. The noble Marquess and his colleague have to defend themselves on the point of whether it was a grave Constitutional departure. I do not know that it was anything worse than when Mr. Disraeli, as he then was, brought Indian troops to the Mediterranean. That was a very bold departure from precedent, and perhaps from Constitutional usage, but it seemed to me last night that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State brought forward one or two cases in which my noble friend below me was concerned which were almost, if not quite, parallel to this case. My Lords, I should be inclined to describe the action of the Secretary of State in authorising what has been done as a very magnificent piece of presumption which has been justified by results. In fact, judging by the results, I think one might almost describe it as a stroke of genius. At any rate, to judge by what we hear from India, and by what I saw in India, I cannot escape the conclusion that the whole scheme was received there with considerable gratification—I am not alluding to one particular part of the scheme more than another—and that there was a sense of greater comfort than there had been before the announcement was made.
My Lords, India is advancing very fast, particularly in the social relations of nationalities and of sexes. The changes that I observed were quite remarkable after an absence of sixteen years, and showed that there was a far greater interchange of opinion between castes, between sexes, and between nationalities than was possible at the time when I was officially connected with that country. And I do think that if these important changes had really been of the disastrous character which the noble Earl would have your Lordships believe, there must have been some manifestation of it, if not publicly at any rate privately when there was an interchange of the most confidential dis-
204
cussions between old friends. India is not unaccustomed to changes of capital; indeed, one would be safer in saying that India is accustomed to changes of capital; and, curiously enough, when a change takes place there always is and always has been for many centuries a tendency to drift back to the neighbourhood of Delhi. That has to some extent engrained itself, I believe, in the minds of the people of India, and I do not think that the idea of the Viceroy going to Delhi is in any way an unpopular thing there. On the contrary, it seemed to me from what I heard on all sides that it was an extremely popular move in almost all parts of India; and certainly not only from people on the western side of India but from people coming from Bengal I heard the most confident statements that this was going to be made a success. That sounded to me very much as if there was sentiment at the bottom of such a confident statement, and we know that with Oriental races sentiment is a very important factor.
I believe that the whole of the incidents of the visit of their Majesties—the magnificence of the ceremonies, seen by millions of people who will go back to their villages and tell other millions more that they have been almost within touching distance of their Majesties; the evidence of the profound reverence for authority which was displayed after the Durbar, when thousands of humble spectators, after their Majesties had withdrawn and after the troops had withdrawn, raced across the arena and threw themselves in humble prostration before the Throne; the magnificent organisation and respect shown at the fete held by their Majesties afterwards when they sat in their robes upon the ramparts of the Fort—all those incidents seen by millions of people and described by them to other millions have permeated through the whole of India. And I believe that the various incidents connected with this ceremony—the transfer to that scene of the Government and the Viceroy; the alterations in the outline of Bengal, which, after all, one must admit have been received with satisfaction by prominent persons in Bengal whose opinion is of importance—I believe that all these incidents are grouped together in the minds of the people of India as one great act of the Sovereign, and have created a profound sentiment of reverence for their Majesties. I believe that these changes need not be

205
regarded by your Lordships with the apprehension with which the noble Earl would wish you to regard them, but, on the contrary, may be confidently looked forward to as beneficial changes in our system of government in India. The peoples of that country honestly believe that these changes have been made in accordance with their sentiments and their respect and reverence for the authority of England has been increased.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, speaking yesterday with that eloquence and force which he has taught your Lordships' House always to expect from him, stated that he would discuss his Motion under four heads. The first head he raised was the Constitutional question. He next dealt with the question of the Partition of Bengal, defending his policy in regard to that business. He passed on, in the third place, to a condemnation of the present arrangements in Bengal; and he ended his speech with an attack upon the removal of the capital from Calcutta to Delhi. I propose, my Lords, as briefly as I can, to follow the noble Earl through these four heads, and I am sorry to say that I shall have to express opinions at variance with his upon every point. I do so with the most unfeigned regret, because I regard and always have regarded with the utmost admiration and respect the noble Earl's commanding intellectual gifts and his lofty ideals of Government.
On the Constitutional question, my Lords, I will say but little. 1 am not an expert on Constitutional matters, and I desire to hasten on to the points of which I have special knowledge. But this I may say, that I am in full agreement with the remarks which have fallen from the noble Lord opposite, Lord Harris, in connection with the Durbar at Delhi, and with the necessity of the pronouncement which was then made. There cannot be any doubt that a pronouncement of a far-reaching and unique character was expected from His Majesty's presence in India. I will go so far as to say that the great Durbar at Delhi would have missed its object if some pronouncement., far beyond the common, coming home to the feelings of every person in India, from Prince to peasant., had not been made by His Majesty. Such a pronouncement was made, and it has changed the whole current of thought in
206
India from unrest and discontent to peace and loyalty.
As to the secrecy which, in the noble Earl's opinion, attended the procedure of the Government of India, 1 must say that I myself cannot understand how any other procedure would have been suitable or appropriate to the circumstances. If a charge of secrecy of procedure is to be levelled at anybody in connection with these transactions, it is to be levelled against the Government of India in regard to the original partition of Bengal. I have examined these Papers with great care, and I find that the first intimation given of an impending partition of Bengal was made in the letter of the Government of India of 3rd December, 1903. There the earlier policy and objects of the Government of India were clearly set forth for the information of all concerned. They met with the utmost opposition from every class and from every section of the community. European, Mahomedan, Hindu, all combined to say, "This is not the policy which we want; this is a policy which divides us; it is a policy which will lead to constant friction and to the deterioration of the country." The noble Earl made a tour through the Province of East Bengal; he was influenced by some. of the arguments addressed to him during his tour, and he indicated an intention of taking into consideration a revised and much enlarged Partition. That was in February, 1904. But, so far as I can see, from that date until the revised Partition was completed and sanctioned by the Secretary of State in August, 1905, no statement of the enlarged programme and no statement of revised policy was ever issued by the Government of India or made public in Bengal. If I am correct in that statement, and I have endeavoured to inform myself, it is not against the existing Government of India that any charge of secrecy can lie. If a charge of secrecy is to be made at all, it should be made in reference to the circumstances to which I have now referred.
I pass on, my Lords, to the question of the Partition of Bengal. The noble Earl's reasons for the partition of Bengal, as stated by him, were, first, the relief of Bengal from an overwhelming burden of work, a burden more than any individual could bear; and, secondly, the enlargement of the Chief Commissionership of Assam, the better recruitment of its Civil

207
Service, and the improvement of its commercial and industrial conditions. The relief of Bengal was a long-standing question of administrative reform, as the noble Earl has stated. It is obvious to everyone that it was impossible for any single individual to deal with the official work arising in a country of 190,000 square miles and over 78,000,000 of people. Relief was necessary, and I think it is to the honour of the noble Earl that he, first of any Governor-General of India, did take up in a practical and thorough-going spirit this question of administrative relief to Bengal. But, if he will pardon my frank language, I would say that he went the wrong way to work. He began with Assam. Now, my Lords, 1 would ask the question, What is Assam? I have listened to this debate and have heard statements made regarding this Province and regarding that, but I have heard no attempt made to come to the concrete facts and to see whether the facts of each Province did really call for the great administrative changes which the noble Earl carried through in 1905.
My Lords, what is Assam? Assam is that territory of about 56,000 square miles in extent, with a population of about six millions, which lies in the extreme northeastern corner of India between Thibet on the north, China on the east, Burma on the south, and Bengal on the west. Until 1874 that Province formed part of Bengal. In that year it was created into an independent Chief Commissionership, partly because of the tea industry which had arisen there, and partly with the object of giving some relief to the Bengal Government. That Province consists of 28,000 square miles of forests and hills inhabited by less than 1,000,000 people, many of whom within my own memory were headhunting savages. The rest of Assam consists of two river valleys, the Surmah Valley and the Brahmaputra Valley. The Brahmaputra Valley is to a large extent a malaria-stricken region affected by a peculiar kind of fever which has up to the present baffled the efforts of medical science to control it. The population of the Brahmaputra. Valley to the extent of nearly one-half is composed of aborigines, the pariahs of exclusive Hinduism, scarcely more civilised than the inhabitants of the hills whom I have just described. One district, Sylhet, really a Bengali district, contains over two millions of people, the only homogeneous part of the population.
208
I That is the country—primeval forests, sparsely-inhabited hills, malaria-stricken river regions where British industry has not introduced sanitary arrangements on the tea plantations—that is the country for whose improvement, administrative, industrial, and commercial, the noble Earl proposed the dismemberment of Bengal.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: With all respect to my noble friend that was not the genesis of the movement. I was only too glad to give relief to Assam and ally it to a higher form of administration, but nobody knows better than the noble Lord that we started, not from Assam, but from Bengal itself, and that my main object, as I stated yesterday, was the relief of the palpable and admitted misgovernment of Bengal.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I am coming to that point, but I think I am justified in saying that the enlargement of Assam by the transfer of districts from Bengal to Assam was one part of the noble Earl's policy. That is clear, and I venture to say that where you have such a Province as that, so circumstanced as regards population and as regards territory, the proper policy for the Government of India to adopt was to treat it as what it is—a non-regulation Province; to separate it off from the other portions of the country which require more complex law and more detailed administration; to concentrate your efforts upon it alone in the well-known manner adopted in similar backward parts of India, and not add on to it settled Bengal districts which must necessarily deteriorate by their amalgamation with Assam, nor add Assam on to the settled districts, whereby it would inevitably come to be regarded as an outlying portion of the larger Province and suffer the neglect which outlying regions usually do. My point is that the noble Earl's policy with regard to Assam was not such a policy as was called for by the conditions of Assam. The question of Assam as a frontier Province calls for particular consideration having regard to the progress of China towards our frontiers. We have learnt quite recently that the Chinese are already advancing towards that portion of our Indian Empire. They have, I believe, occupied the Chumbi Valley quite close to our Darjeeling district, and we know that they have established a military post at Rima, some three days' march from the

209
frontier near Sadya. If Assam is dealt with as a frontier Province the question of recruitment would naturally solve itself. You would not recruit for it from the Indian Civil Service, at all events not wholly; you would naturally look for young military officers willing to take service in such a place—men of the stamp of those who have pioneered our way in other parts of India.
My Lords, I now come to the other part of the scheme connected with Bengal. The noble Earl said yesterday, or at least I understood him to say, that his policy in regard to Eastern Bengal was determined by two considerations—the consideration of giving to the Mahomedans a unity which they had not had since Mahomedan rule, and naturally and consequently predominance in that part of the country; and, next, the consideration that it was necessary, to remove the scandal of ineffective administration of Eastern Bengal. I hope I do not mistake the two points of the noble Earl's policy. The Partition of Bengal as carried out by the noble Earl conferred political predominance on the Mahomedans in Eastern Bengal. That, my Lords, was the first time in the history of Anglo-Indian Civil administration, so far as I know, in which—I trust the noble Earl will pardon the word; I use it in no offensive sense—partisanship has been manifested by the Government of India in dealing with our subject races. My Lords, the manifestation of that spirit by the Government of India is, in my opinion, very dangerous. Antagonism between Mahomedans and Hindus is one of the most fundamental and serious difficulties we have to contend with in India, and the creation of a Province with the special object of giving therein predominance to the Mahomedans in a country which was essentially a Hindu country, in which the great landholders are nearly all Hindus, was calculated to produce throughout the whole of Eastern Bengal that particular difficulty which Indian Governments are most desirous to avoid. In view of these considerations I am not surprised that now the Government of India, in their Despatch of August, speak of "the growing estrangement, which has now, unfortunately, assumed a very serious character in many parts of the country, between Mahomedans and Hindus."
Nobody admires the true Indian Mahomedan more than I do. Those
210
Mahomedans who came from Central Asia and established themselves in Upper India have left behind them memorials which the modern world regard with wonder and admiration. Among the men of that race are to be found the most loyal subjects and the staunchest supporters of our rule in India. For the last six years of my official life I lived among them and was on friendly terms with nearly all of them of any importance in my Province. They are men with whom the European may be on terms of social intercourse, whom you may invite to your table and from whom you may accept invitations to theirs. To this day I am in friendly correspondence with many Mahomedan gentlemen of that class. But who are the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal? Are they the descendants of the invaders who came into Upper India under a Mahmud, a Zenghis or Timour? By no means. They are the aboriginal inhabitants of Eastern Bengal who, after the Mahomedan invasion in the thirteenth century, willingly accepted the Mahomedan creed which, proclaiming the Unity of God and the equality of man, had peculiar attractions to people outside the pale of Hinduism. From that time up to our conquest of Bengal these men lived among their Hindu neighbours, undistinguishable from them so far as historical records show. At all events, when we took possession of Bengal towards the end of the eighteenth century we found them but little distinguished from their Bengali neighbours except for formal profession of creed. Then came that wave of Wahabi puritanism from Arabia, which in time was spread in Eastern Bengal by emissaries preaching that India was the country of the Infidel and not of the true believer and that the Holy War was obligatory. The loyalty of the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal was undermined, and in time it became a prolific recruiting ground for the rebel colonies of Mulka and Sitana which were established on the North-Western frontier. It took three campaigns to reduce them, as the noble and gallant Field-Marshal on the Cross Benches can tell you. Those campaigns were followed by long drawn-out prosecutions, which I myself remember, in the seventies of the last century.
My Lords, I lived among the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal for three years and got to like them, for although they are fanatical they are a fine body of men, a hardworking, independent race, but among the

211
most ignorant people of this class I met with in the whole of my Indian career. I agree with the noble Earl that education has not been extended among these people as much as it ought to have been. After the prosecutions to which I have referred, that great man Sir Syud Ahmad Khan, of Aligarh, devoted himself to promoting Mahomedan education, and the college at Aligarh has been the result. It will, I am glad to say, soon be expanded into a Mahomedan University, from which there is a great hope for Mahomedan progress. But it will not operate on the Feraizis of East Bengal. Yet these are the men who were given political predominance over the clever and intellectual Hindus by the Partition. 1 think that such a policy if it had not been reversed was destined to be productive of the most injurious consequences to our rule in India.
The noble Earl says that the second reason why he introduced this policy was that the administration in Eastern Bengal was a scandal. I take it. from the noble Earl that the standard of administration in many of these Eastern Bengal districts had fallen below the normal standard of districts nearer the seat of Government, but, with all deference to the noble Earl, the cause of this falling off did not, in my opinion, lie in the direction that he supposed. The true explanation involves—I desire to speak with carefulness upon this point—considerations of the gravest import to our Indian Governments, because upon it hinges the relative efficiency of European and native administrative agencies. I have examined the Civil List of the Bengal services for the first quarter of 1904—the time at which the noble Earl made his tour in the Eastern districts; and I find that the following state of things then existed in connection with the administrative staff. Excluding from consideration the three divisional headquarters of Chittagong, Dacca, and Rajshahye, and also the district of Darjeeling, which, as the noble Earl knows, always have a strong European Staff, the remaining eleven Bengali districts forming the Province of Eastern Bengal and Assam showed the following conditions in January, 1904. In two districts the administrative and Judicial staff was exclusively native; in two other districts the district magistrate was a native; in another district the district and sessions judge and the assistant magistrate were natives; another district
212
had a native district superintendent of police. Finally, in two other districts the European staff was abnormally weak and was supplemented by subordinate native officers. Thus, in eight of these eleven districts of East Bengal the European element in the administration was either altogether wanting or below the normal level.
Now I do not find—and I have examined into the point—that these conditions prevailed to nearly the same extent in West Bengal, while in Behar they are non-existent. My Lords, Indian experience has almost invariably shown that, with European controlling agencies, a firmer grip is kept on the administration, and there is more executive virility than when the controlling agency is native. Crime is held in greater check, greater energy is infused into the executive departments, and greater attention is paid to the instructions which the Indian Government has prescribed for the maintenance of a high standard of efficiency. I would therefore submit that the deterioration from the standard which the noble Earl had observed in Eastern Bengal in 1904, and on which he based one of his arguments for the establishment of a Local Government, were due to circumstances inherent, in the conditions of the case, which the creation of a Local Government at Dacca could not remove. The tendency of our administration in India lies in the direction of a larger employment of native agency in these administrative posts, and this is as it should be. But the country must, make up its mind that the standard of efficiency hitherto demanded by Indian Governments cannot be maintained under native officers until the native officer learns from his British comrade the secret of British administrative success. Personally I am not prepared to deny that a lowering of the standard may not be unacceptable to native public opinion. In some matters I think it would be acceptable. In our administration of India we have aimed at the highest standard of efficiency, and it is difficult to know what aim one could have unless the highest. But, however that may be, I think the circumstances which I have now related to your Lordships will satisfy you that neither on the ground of giving predominance to the Mahomedans of East Bengal nor on the ground that a deterioration had taken place in East Bengal from the administrative standard

213
of the Province as a whole was there any justification for the kind of Partition which the noble Earl carried through.
In the Government of India's Despatch of the 25th of August last we are told that the noble Earl's Partition was working out to the loss by the Hindus in East Bengal of their previous political status owing to the predominance of the Mahomedan element in the councils, and that a similar loss was impending in West Bengal owing to the majority in the councils secured by the Provinces of Behar and Orissa. The ultimate effect of the noble Earl's policy, then, would be the destruction of the Bengal Hindus as a political unit in the Indian Empire. There is reason to believe that the Bengal mind was growing to regard that possible consummation as a fact certain to occur, and the conviction thereby produced was exciting among them the bitterest feelings of animosity and revenge, and these feelings found expression in the outrages and assassinations which have taken place. It is my firm belief that that state of things would have increased and grown worse as the effects of the policy of Partition became more fully realised; and therefore, in my opinion, no more happy event has ever occurred in our Indian history than His gracious Majesty's declaration in Durbar, by which the current of thought of an entire people has been changed from discontent to loyalty.
Now, my Lords, I pass on to the third part of the noble Earl's speech—his condemnation of the Partition as effected. So far as regards Assam, I need say no more. As to Bengal, I would only say that no statutory obligation need be placed upon the Governor to live part of the time at Dacca and part of the time at Calcutta. As my noble friend Lord Rear pointed out, the migration of the Governor from Bombay to Poonah and elsewhere is an annual occurrence. In the Upper Provinces I may tell you from my own experience that the migration of the Lieutenant-Governor from Allahabad to Lucknow and from Lucknow to Naini Tal are yearly occurrences. The Lieutenant-Governor of a Province may well be trusted to visit those parts of his charge which demand his attention.
Turning now to Behar and Orissa, which the noble Earl called "a bundle of odds
214
and ends thrown together," I would point out to the House that from the earliest times at which this question of the relief of Bengal has been under notice the official mind has always looked to the west for relief. The need for relief first came to official knowledge during the inquiry into the catastrophe of the Orissa famine in 1865. It was taken up by Lord Lawrence, who, in addition to the creation of a Chief Commissionership of Assam, suggested as a possible further relief the creation of a Chief Commissionership of Behar and certain adjacent districts. It was pressed again by Sir George Campbell in 1874. I had long service in Behar as well as in Bengal, and it always seemed to me that it was through Behar that the problem of relief to Bengal could best be solved. The old Province Bengal, less Assam, was, roughly speaking, a square, and Behar with Chota Nagpur might be regarded, if your Lordships will picture it in your mind's eye, as a slice of that square, 450 miles long by 250 miles broad. It comprises a territory of 100,000 odd square miles and a population of 31,000,000. That is much larger than the Central Provinces, much larger than the Punjab. If a Province of that sort had been created it would have ranked among the great Provinces of India. It would have a perfect frontier on its east—a frontier distinguished by geographical, by ethnical, and by linguistic attributes. It would have a race of people entirely different from the Bengalis and speaking an entirely different language. There would have been no difficulty about recruitment, as the noble Earl seemed to think in his references to a similar proposal which was put before him, because it would be larger and much more populous than the Central Provinces, which has its independent recruitment. The relief afforded to Bengal would have been most ample, because the population under the Government of Bengal would have been reduced from 78,000,000 to something under 48,000,000. No feeling of sentiment would have been outraged. The thing would have passed through without the least difficulty. But this, the obvious plan of meeting the situation, was not adopted. The noble Earl had fixed upon a policy depending on the alteration of the Assam boundary and on the division of the Bengali-speaking people involving Mahomedan predominance. Neither policy, taken individually, ought I think to commend itself to your

215
Lordships' approval; but both policies taken together were, in my humble judgment, pernicious.
In the Partition which has now been made the only difference from the plan I have just described is that Orissa has been tacked on to Behar and Chota Nagpur. This is a good arrangement. It is a mistake to fancy that greater similarity exists between Orissa and Bengal than between Orissa and Behar. I have been in communication with the greatest. linguistic and ethnological authority of India, Dr. Grier-son, and he tells me that the language of Orissa is more like the language of Behar than of Bengal, so there would be less difficulty in transferring officers from Behar to Orissa than from Bengal. The arrangement that has now been made is, in the circumstances, the best that could be made. The only regret I have, and it is an inevitable one, is that the Lieutenant-Governor of Behar and Orissa should be given a Council. I know no part of India in which a Council would be more out of place than in such a Province as that. What is a Council to do with the uncivilised tribes of Chota Nagpur? You want personal government there, as you want it in Assam. However, part of Bengal had a Council under previous arrangements, and the Council must now remain.
My Lords, I now come to the last part of my remarks—namely, as to the transfer of the capital. If I were disposed to look for reasons in favour of the transfer of the capital, not to official sources but to the speeches of public men, I should find one in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Minto. He tells you that Bengal is seamed with subterranean intrigues. He finds Bengali politicians are corresponding with politicians in England. Political life and spirit is in great activity in Bengal, and it is to be expected that if the Government of India were located in Calcutta this political activity would operate upon it and embroil it in Bengal politics. If we can accept that description and there was no other reason for the removal of the capital from Calcutta, I should find an adequate reason in that. But the discussions between the members of the Government of India in Lord Lawrence's time give you ampler reasons for the policy now adopted. Lord Lawrence, as everybody knows, objected to removing the Government of India from Calcutta.
216
He had an equal objection to creating a Governor in Council for Bengal, and his Minute of January, 1868, was directed to showing the difficulties the Government of India experience in Calcutta if a Governor in Council were created for Bengal. With my own experience of Bengal I think that Lord Lawrence's arguments on this point are conclusive. He refers to particular instances in which the presence of the Government of India in Bengal with a Governor in Council would be productive of friction. He says that "in ordinary times it would cause friction, and in times of difficulty it would produce grave inconvenience. If any difference of opinion arose between the Government of India and the Government of Bengal, both being in the same place, what would become of the former if the latter were in direct official correspondence with the Home Government? Not to go too far back, what would have been the effect as regards the Government of India if, during the disturbances of 1861 or of 1865 and 1866, the Bengal Government had been in direct communication with the Secretary of State." These, my Lords, are references to old-world incidents in the political history of Bengal, of which the noble and gallant Field-Marshal will probably have some recollection as I have, and if he speaks to-night he will be able to inform your Lordships whether he agrees with Lord Lawrence or not.
There is one way of looking at the removal to Delhi which has not yet been noticed either in this House or in the Press. I am informed by a member of your Lordships' House who is listening to me that he has heard from an officer of high position in India that the removal to Delhi has been widely taken by the native public as a wiping out of the evil memories of the Indian Mutiny and the establishment of the British Raj upon a fresher basis. That indicates the trend of native thought, and is of importance. As to the loss of touch with non-official opinion in Calcutta, I ask your Lordships to consider what is the non-official opinion you have in Calcutta. You have European and you have native opinion. Will you lose anything by being relieved of touch with that native opinion which has been described to you by the noble Earl, Lord Minto—that element which he regarded with suspicion as apt to enter into those proceedings and correspondence of which he did not always approve? But apart

217
from such considerations, nothing but good will, in my opinion, come from the removal of the Government of India from subjection to the local opinion of Calcutta. Of Calcutta Sir Henry Mayne said forty years ago—
"That place cannot be the best capital for the Empire to which the vast majority of the people governed from it refuse to come."
It is well known that no native of Upper India will come to Calcutta unless under the stress of necessity, and he gets away from Calcutta as soon as he can. In Calcutta you lose all native opinion except that of Bengal. By leaving it, you will bring yourself into touch with the thought of the more virile native society in India, and you will get out of the enervating influences of the coast fringe. As for European thought, you have in Calcutta no leisured class, no people, as you have in this country, who make politics the business of their life without having an axe to grind. The European merchants and professional men of Calcutta are engaged in making money, and they regard the questions, when they pay any attention to them, that come up before the Government of India from the standpoint of private interest or the interests of their class. I do not blame them for that. I suppose that in every country in the world the primary factor in the consideration of public questions by commercial or professional men is how will they affect themselves or their class. The Government of India will lose nothing by leaving Calcutta either from the point of view of the native or European society, for they will at Simla and Delhi and during the Viceroy's yearly visits to Calcutta have sufficient opportunity of hearing its views without being oppressed by them.
As for the danger of emergencies to which the noble Earl referred, the difficulties of preservation of documents and so on, it is well known to the noble Earl that the Government of India nowadays has all its proceedings printed; duplicates are to be had in any number; and, further, there is no reason why all the valuable and more important documents should not be retained in Calcutta as they are now, and sent, as they are now sent to Simla, to Delhi whenever they are wanted. The Viceroy will go to Delhi and probably will not stay there more than four months in the year. He will travel about for some time; he will pay his yearly visit to
218
Calcutta, and will only take the touring staff and the documents connected with current work. I see no difficulty whatever.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I hope the noble Lord will excuse me for again interrupting. The Government of India pledged themselves in December to stay at Delhi from the 1st of October until the 1st of May.
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: As I understand, the Government of India consists of the Viceroy anti his Council. The Viceroy, as a matter of course, will have to pay his visits to other parts of India, and he will decide what his movements should be. He will be able to stay at Delhi far longer than at Calcutta. He now stays at Calcutta for three months of the year, but at Delhi he will certainly be able to stay for four months if not longer. I think it will work out that the Government in its corporate capacity will stay there for about five months. I think it will also come to pass that the native Princes of India will have their houses in Delhi; they could not live in Calcutta—they will come and pay their respects to the Viceroy at Delhi, and he will be able to consult them whenever any question for consultation arises, so that the necessity for the extended tour of the Viceroy will no longer exist to the same extent. I understand that the proposed arrangement is that the Viceroy will always pay a visit of at least a month to Calcutta, and that he will be able to live at Delhi, unless some particular reason takes him elsewhere, for four months of the year. That will be a great advantage to the Viceroy and the Government of India as bringing them more into touch with native thought.
I have to apologise to your Lordships for trespassing so long upon your time. There is only one more remark that I wish to make. In my reading of the history of India we have committed many mistakes, some great, many little. But of the great mistakes that were made, three mistakes, in my opinion, stand prominent. The first of these was the mistake made by Lord Cornwallis when he made permanent the settlement of the land revenue in Bengal. I do not say it had no counterbalancing advantages, but by the permanent settlement Lord Cornwallis inflicted an injury upon the cultivators of the soil which has only of recent years been corrected. He

219
deprived the Government of India of a great source of revenue, and thereby imposed upon them the necessity of taxation; and, worst of all, he kept the Government out of touch with the people. The next great mistake, in my reading of history, was Lord Dalhousie's cancelment of the native Chiefs' and Princes' right of adoption on failure of heirs. In that mistake Lord Dalhousie sowed the wind, or helped to sow it, and the Empire reaped the whirlwind in the Mutiny. The last mistake—and I say it with deep regret—is the mistake of the noble Earl, which would have had immeasurably worse consequences than either of those other two had it not been corrected in time. The noble Earl has spoken of broken promises. A promise was given in the Proclamation by which Queen Victoria took over the direct Government of India by the Crown. Her words were—
"In their prosperity will be our strength, in their contentment our security, and in their gratitude our best reward."
My Lords, the people of Bengal, 50,000,000 nearly, regarded the noble Earl's partition as a breach of that promise. Happy Bengal, fortunate England, now that the breach has been restored from the Throne!
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, I am afraid your Lordships must be getting weary of this debate, but I trust that you will allow me to say a few words as I have a sense of duty in the matter. This sense of duty arises partly from the fact that. the opinions which I hold are very different from those of my noble friend who initiated the debate, and partly from the circumstance that special responsibility has been on a former occasion attributed to me in the matter which is being discussed. I regret profoundly that this debate has taken place. I was deeply impressed by what was said by the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House on December 12 last, when the King's Proclamation was first announced. He said—
"Nothing which this House may say or do can alter what has been announced by His Majesty the King this morning. The word of the King-Emperor has been passed, and that word is irrevocable."
It seems to me that if we acted in the spirit of those words we ought to refrain from criticism until time and circumstances bring about a situation in which we might have a responsibility which is not ours at the present time. That that is the view
220
of the House as a whole there can be no manner of doubt seeing how very few members felt it their duty to attend the debate yesterday and how still fewer felt it incumbent upon them to sit through the two important speeches which were made.
What, then, is the object of this discussion? What useful purpose can it serve? Is it to blame Ministers for their part in the matter? I am all for blaming Ministers when the blame is deserved and when that blame can be made effective. But I conceive that that is not so in this case. Nothing, as the noble 'Marquess told us, that we can say or do can alter what was announced by His Majesty at Delhi. And do we wish to alter it? Is there any one of us who wishes to alter it I venture to say there is no one present here who entertains such a wish. The people of India have assented—I might say cheerfully assented—to the changes which have been announced, and it is their opinion which really matters. The privileges of Parliament cannot, in my humble judgment, be weighed for one moment against the contentment of India in a case so unique, so impossible of constituting a precedent for the ordinary governance of India, as this one. But if your object is to prevent by your protests the course followed by the Government of India being established as a precedent, I fail to see how anything we may say in these present circumstances can affect the judgment, discretion, and responsibility of statesmen of future generations. I am not persuaded, for my own part., that anything unconstitutional has been done. Which of the unwritten laws of the Constitution has been violated No attempt has been made to show that any such violation has taken place. How far can the ancient laws of our Constitution be applied to India? There has been no demonstration of that part of the case. The changes are administrative changes, and nothing that has been done has in any way impaired the authority or responsibility of the Imperial Parliament.
There are times when exceptions to any rules are justifiable, and no circumstances could possibly be more unique than those of His Majesty's visit to India. There is an old maxim, Inter arma silent leges, and I submit that that maxim may be applied to the victories of peace no less than to those of war, for "peace bath her victories no less renowned than those of

221
War." Such a victory of peace was His Majesty's conquest of the hearts of the peoples of India. I confess that I admire the courage of those who made themselves responsible for this new policy, for it was a. courageous act. I believe that the people of India admire courage and particularly courage on the part of the Sovereign, to whom they attribute superhuman inspiration. In my view this scheme appeals to the imagination, and, as my noble friend behind me said, it is a great act of Imperial statesmanship. It has already been justified by success, in so far as it has been received with general acquiescence in India. Let us share in that acquiescence, and let us hope that that success may prove enduring.
The noble Earl who raised this debate had not one single good word to say for any part of the scheme, for there was no detail of it to which he did not apply that criticism for which he has so wonderful a talent. But can your Lordships really believe that the proposals made by the responsible authorities, the men on the spot in India, are quite so unsound and short sighted as the noble Earl has tried to make out? Personally, I was not shaken in my opinion by any one of his arguments. There was not one of them to which, so it seemed to me, there was not a fairly obvious reply. But I am not going to attempt any such exercise at the present moment, as your Lordships are, of course, anxious to get on to the hearing of views less insignificant than my own. I shall content myself with referring to two or three points only, and that exceedingly briefly. We are told that a dangerous precedent has been established. My own view is that the exercise of the King's authority, with results which so far as any one can judge at the present time are most felicitous and satisfactory, is a most fortunate precedent, and one which we can most safely leave to the discretion of the statesmen of future generations. My noble friend poured ridicule from every point of view on the idea of Delhi as the capital of India. But was it not the case—or is it merely my imagination—that there was a time when the noble Earl himself fondly cherished that idea and did not reject it as altogether out of the question?
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: That is not so.
LORD AMPTHILL: Then I am mistaken. But certainly the late Viceroy said this afternoon that he had seriously considered the possibility, and I think he suggested that it was a possibility not altogether displeasing to him.
THE EARL OF MINTO: No; I said that I had often talked it over, as no doubt other Viceroys before me had, but I never expressed any opinion as to whether it was good or bad.
LORD AMPTHILL: All I can say is that if this is a matter which has been discussed by the late Viceroy and by former Viceroys, it cannot, at any rate, have been held at any time to be a thing that was either out of the question or unreasonable. As to the suggestion that Delhi is dangerous from a strategical point of view, I would ask, Where then is the justification for the residence of the Government of India at Simla for seven out of the twelve months of the year? If Delhi is dangerous strategically, then surely on every possible military consideration Simla must be still more so. I will not labour that point. I merely throw out the suggestion that if Delhi is a dangerous place strategically Simla must he more so, and it is legitimate to ask why that danger has not been considered.
Then the noble Earl said that he had never heard it suggested that it was a disadvantage to the Government of Bengal to be overshadowed, as the expression goes, by the Government of India. Although I cannot say that I was long on the spot, my experience is altogether different, for even in remote Madras it was a commonplace of conversation that the Government of Bengal was so overshadowed; and I know that there were many people in Bengal, judging by what I constantly read in the Press and heard from other sources, who did wish for the comparative independence of Presidency Government. I disagree entirely with the views expressed by the late Viceroy (Lord Minto) on the comparative advantages and disadvantages of Presidency Government and Government by a Lieutenant-Governor, but I am not going to take up your Lordships' time with that:, as it does not seem to me to be relevant. But the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, said that the "weight of authority" was always against such a form

223
of Government—that is to say, Presidency Government—for Bengal. But what about the "weight of public opinion"? He did not say anything about that, but my own view is that there was always a considerable body of public opinion in favour of such a change. The noble Earl went on to say that if it were a valid argument that the Government of Bengal was overshadowed in Calcutta by the Government of India, it would apply also to Simla, and he said that that had not even been suggested. But it does apply to Simla. So much so that during the very time the noble Earl was Viceroy a scheme was being discussed for the purposes of withdrawing the Government of the Punjab from Simla, because, I understood, the Government of the Punjab was so overshadowed by the Government of India.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No.
LORD AMPTHILL: Then as regards the new form of partition, I cannot admit that there has been any betrayal of Mahomedan interests. The present arrangement seems to me fair, as there will be no decisive preponderance of numbers, either of Hindus or of Mahomedans. They will compete so far as there is competition on equal terms—that is to say, as regards numbers —in a sphere which will not only be wider but will also afford larger opportunities to the Mahomedans than the present arrangement.
Whatever be the real feelings of my noble friend—and I know that in everything he is actuated by noble conceptions of duty and by lofty motives—I am afraid that a great many people will attribute his action to a sense of personal grievance. He regards these changes as a reversal of his policy. In fact, he said so last night. The noble Marquess who leads this side of the House unfortunately gave colour to that idea, which was then disseminated far and wide. The noble Marquess, speaking in this House on December 12 last, said—
"These proposals involve an abrupt reversal of the policy initiated by my noble friend behind me."
The noble Marquess must have forgotten what took place in this House on June 30, 1908, when the noble Earl informed an astonished audience that I was the real culprit in the matter of the Partition of Bengal. Speaking of the Partition of
224
Bengal, and more particularly of the advantage it would be to Mahomedans, the noble Earl used these words—
"But the credit for that, if credit it be"—
Your Lordships will note that qualification—
"was not mine. The ultimate form which the Partition took, and which differed very materially from the proposals I put forward in the first place, was conceived when the Government of India was in the hands of my noble friend Lord Ampthill."
A few days later, writing to The Times newspaper on the subject of that debate, Lord Curzon said that he had nothing to withdraw or qualify in what he had said on the subject. To the best of my belief he has never retracted those words, and he might therefore have left to me the blame for a defective policy which has needed a complete reversal as he regards it. I repeat what I said on a former occasion, that not the smallest share of credit is due to me for a policy which was described by Mr. Lovat Fraser, the great apologist of my noble friend, in his valuable and interesting book, as the "greatest and most beneficent of Lord Curzon's labours in India."
But if it were otherwise I can say, quite sincerely, that I should not feel aggrieved by the present changes, or regard them in any sense as a reversal of the former policy. They seem to me to be modifications of that policy which are not unnatural after some years of experience of a great administrative change, especially when new and unexpected circumstances which no human being could have foreseen have recently arisen. There has been no return whatever to the old state of things. Bengal is still partitioned, though partitioned in a different way, and it is partitioned for precisely the same reasons and with the same objects as those which actuated my noble friend when he made himself responsible for that policy. But, my Lords, since nothing that we can say or do can alter that which has been done, let us not set an example of discontent. There is no evidence and o no reason to believe that the people of India are discontented in this matter. On the contrary, so far as my information goes, there are many signs that the reverse is the case, and the contentment of India should, in my humble opinion, be sufficient to justify our contentment.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY): My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has truly said that the discussion opened last night by the noble Earl opposite will be ineffectual, as the Motion of the noble Earl can produce no result in the way of a change of policy. But the Government, while not urging discussion, have never been in a position to deprecate it. It is impossible that they should, and they do not deny for a moment that the matters involved in the new policy are fairly topics for Parliamentary debate, and the taking, if necessary, of Parliamentary opinion. I confess, with all admiration for the noble Earl's great gifts and for his sure knowledge of the topics which he handles, that I do think the tone of his speech last night was not all that could have been desired from a man of his authority and antecedents in Indian policy and history. For example, I think we were all rather surprised, and I think somewhat shocked, that he should have thought it worth while to bring up that story about the Indian who had been invested with a ribbon, and made an offensive remark about it.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: Not offensive.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: It is satisfactory to us to be able to say that that story is completely unfounded. Trouble has been taken to ascertain about it, and I can assure the noble Earl that he has been misinformed. The story is untrue, and even if it had been true I cannot but think that it is a kind of thing that, on reflection, the noble Earl will consider had better have been omitted. The debate this afternoon has in no way helped the object of the noble Earl. We have had speaker after speaker, four of them, all adverse to his views and propositions. The speeches of Lord Mac Donnell, a man of special competence on this subject, of Lord Harris, Lord Reay, and now Lord Ampthill, all deprecated the line taken by the noble Earl, and all approved, almost without reservation, of the new policy.
There was one exception which was particularly disagreeable to me, the speech of Lord Minto. It was particularly disagreeable to me because for five years he and I were good comrades in a rather stormy
226
voyage. He was good enough to say something about me, and I can cordially say the same of him. He dwells upon the point of what he calls secrecy. He thinks there ought to have been a much more ample discussion before those resolutions were finally adopted. Now what does he exactly mean? He says "Oh, there were Indian authorities in England who ought to have been consulted there were Lieutenant-Governors in India who ought to have been consulted," and so on. My noble friend and I have often groaned under the tendency of the officials of the Indian Government to multiply what are called files, and, as Lord Mac Donnell showed, to go back into history. What would have been gained by asking their opinion upon a point which depended, not upon old history, not upon old arguments threshed out, but upon the present actual situation? I was often reproached when I had the honour of being Secretary of State for not paying deference enough to the man on the spot. The noble Earl did not say that and would not say it, but it was said. But how does my noble friend suppose that any of the noble Lords who have been Viceroys of India or Governors of presidencies could have given point to questions like the transfer of the capital from Calcutta to Delhi, which has been before the people of India, officials and others, for generation after generation? As for consulting Lieutenant-Governors, I do not wish to say anything disrespectful of them, but looking back upon my co-operation with my noble friend I am not sure that I can recall any particular reverence that was paid to them by my noble friend or myself. Therefore I think that is rather a factitious point. Then my noble friend expressed a very adverse opinion indeed to Presidency Government, and he made a point that Bengal is the worst place in which to have a government of that kind, and he implied among other reasons because there were communications between Bengal and people in England. My noble friend and I used to differ sometimes. He attached a good deal more importance to `the communications with gentlemen in the House of Commons and newspaper editors and so on than I ever did; and I suffered from them mach more than my noble friend did, because the result of those communications was a shower of questions to me in the House of Commons day after day. But let me put this point to him. I am sure he will recognise the aptness of it. Will

227
he say that there are more communications of that kind between Bengal and politicians in this country than between Bombay and Poona?
THE EARL OF MINTO: I should say certainly so.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: My noble friend speaks not without authority and knowledge, and he says he thinks so. I wonder now whether there is much of a margin in favour of Bombay as compared with Bengal. I should have thought not; but as my noble friend differs, so be it. As for partition, though we began to consider that point, there was never between my noble friend and myself, so far as I recollect, one single atom of dissention, and everything I said in this House and elsewhere was exactly what my noble friend would have liked me to say. On that point the noble Earl referred last night, perfectly good naturedly, to the line taken by himself and by the Government represented in this House by myself at that time upon partition. I used to be questioned and blamed very much by persons who sympathised with Lord Mac Donnell, for example, for not reversing the partition right away. I said, as the noble Earl stated last night, that I did not like the method in which partition was carried. But there were other reasons. What were they?
My noble friend was made Viceroy in November, I became Secretary of State in December. We were therefore a new Government. I am sure the noble Earl would be the first person to admit that. a great Party sweep having taken place in Great Britain and a Government of a different tone and complexion having come into power, it was all-important that nothing should be done to lead people in India to suppose for a moment that there was going to be any great sweep or reversal of policy. There was another reason or argument which I am sure actuated both of us—namely, that it would be wrong, partition having only been in operation for six months or less—wrong and rash for us at once to reverse an operation the effects of which we had had no opportunity of forming a judgment upon. There was a third reason. My noble friend and I were engaged upon a project of Council reform. That was a project which was regarded by
228
a great many people as dangerous, as hazardous in the extreme, as opening the door to all kinds of mischief, and let me say that the Bill which I had the honour of introducing and carrying through the House was most thoroughly considered and fairly treated by the noble Marquess and by the noble Earl. That was a tremendous reform upon which we were engaged. It was a reform for the successful carrying out of which we were bound to have with us as far as ever we could the good opinion and the friendly aid of the Indian Civil Service and of Anglo-Indian public opinion. if they had seen that we were going to reverse Lord Curzon's policy, that we were then going to launch out on this difficult and arduous voyage, we should have run the risk of having our whole course and prospects seriously damaged. That is the whole story. I commend it to friends of mine, outside as well as here, who were very angry for many months with me especially for not taking immediate steps for reversing that policy. That, if you like, would have been a concession to clamour, if we had reversed partition in December, 1906. There was a well-known Member of Parliament who wrote a letter and said that if they would be tenacious in keeping up the clamour they would squeeze me into advising my noble friend opposite to give way. That is the story of the failure to reverse, and if there is any charge of inconsistency in abstaining from reversing partition in 1906, 1907, and onwards, and now accepting the policy, which is not a reversal but a modification of the policy of partition, my withers are at all events completely unwrung.
The noble Lord who has just spoken reminded your Lordships of a debate that took place on June 30, 1908. I am not going over that ground again, but I must say to the noble Earl that his accounts of his attitude and his motives in regard to partition are a little difficult to follow. In 1908 he gave the whole credit to Lord Ampthill. Last night he said that it was not the Viceroy at all who drew the partition line, that the particular line to be drawn was a matter, not for the Viceroy, but a matter to be settled by consultation and discussion between the local Governors and officials of the representative bodies, and so on, and that they agreed upon a line based upon ethnical and geographical considerations, the importance of which would not be denied.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I have been challenged on both sides, and perhaps the noble Viscount will not think it rude of me if I state in a sentence or two what are the facts of the matter. They arose in this way. In December, 1903, the first schemes of partition were put forward. They were published in papers in India and in a Blue-book in Parliament. The line first put forward on the advice of our officials was, I believe, a bad one. I went to Dacca and other places in Eastern Bengal and soon realised that the public was adverse to our proposals but that larger schemes would be favoured, and I indicated that such schemes would be considered. They were considered, and we sent the matter again to our local bodies and officials and to public bodies and asked their opinions with regard to it. The answers to the letters we wrote had not come in before I left India in April, 1904, for a six months' holiday. The noble Lord (Lord Ampthill) then took my place at Simla, and the answers came in while I was away. The whole matter was most carefully examined and discussed by the noble Lord and his councillors in my absence, and the line ultimately adopted was recommended by these various officials to whom I have referred in my absence. With perfect loyalty to me the noble Lord left the discussions on paper to be dealt with by me when I arrived at Calcutta. I took over from him in December. I read the whole of the discussions and the whole of the reports of the officials that had passed in the interim. I found that they had settled on a new line differing entirely from my original one, and even from the one proposed when I left India. I accepted the new line, and at the first meeting of the Council we agreed to send the proposals to the Secretary of State. For everything after that date I have accepted the sole responsibility.
VISCOUNT MORLEY: After what the noble Earl has said I am glad to think that we in this House—I, at all events—shall never again be bewildered, as we have been ever since June, 1908, down to the eve of the present statement by the noble Earl, as to the real history of this famous transaction. I hope that I, at all events, shall never have anything more to say upon it.
Now, my Lords, I am only going to make one or two remarks more upon the
230
Constitutional point. I think my noble friend Lord Minto said a word upon that. What is exactly the Constitutional point? The noble Earl I do not think put exactly what his point is. Lord Salisbury, speaking I suppose in this very place, said—
"I hold that the Monarchy should seem to be as little Constitutional as possible."
I think I understand what Lord Salisbury who was not a rash talker, meant, but it is a doubtful proposition. It is true that we are now dealing with what is undoubtedly delicate Constitutional ground. A very admirable Constitutional writer once said—
"It would create great surprise if people were told how many things a Sovereign could do without consulting Parliament."
It is quite true that the Sovereign can exercise Executive powers to an enormous extent within specified restrictions of law.
Let us turn to the Indian system of government. The Indian system of government is a written Constitution resting on Statutes and instruments, warrants, and the like which are as good as Statutes. The ultimate responsibility for Indian government rests beyond all question with the Imperial Government, represented by a Secretary of State, and in the last resort, therefore, through the Secretary of State by Parliament. The Cabinet of the day, through a Secretary of State, has an indefeasible right, within limits laid down by law, to dictate policy, to initiate instructions, to reject proposals, to have the last word in every question that arises and the first word in every question that in their view they think ought to arise. There cannot be any doubt in the mind of any noble Lord that that is the final doctrine. It has been accepted by everybody, and how can you suppose that we should have tendered any advice to the Sovereign which would in any way have impaired that doctrine?
What has the Government of India to do? The Government of India and the home Government have to regard two sets of public opinion obviously—public opinion in India and public opinion here. That is what an ingenious man meant who said that the government of India under those double responsibilities was like a man trying to keep his watch in time in two different longitudes. That is the constant difficulty. In this case we avoided that

231
responsibility. Is it not clear—Lord Harris mentioned it to-night, and there is evidence in abundance from India—that we have satisfied public opinion in India, however you may define Indian public opinion, and we have satisfied opinion here. It is quite true that noble Lords may say—I hope they will not, for many reasons—"Wait, you do not know." But we do know that the step itself and the policy, including the making of the announcement by the King, have been received with warm approval in India both by the Anglo-Indian officials and by the Indian population, and here by organs of the Press and by both of our two great Parties. Here is the announcement of His Majesty the King which it was my duty to read to the House in December—
"We are pleased to announce to our people that upon the advice of our Ministers tendered after consultation with our Governor-General in Council we have decided,"
and so on. There is no more pedantic worshipper of the Constitution than I am. Is not that exactly what the Constitution demands? There are other expressions in these Papers which point the same way and from which the same moral is to be drawn. I could labour that very easily, but I do not think it is at all necessary. I did not hear from the noble Earl, and I certainly have not heard it from anybody else, since the general view of the House has been entirely the other way, anything to justify the language that has been used as to the unconstitutional nature of this proceeding and the method of it.
The noble Earl has predicted, among other things, that the finance will be nearer £12,000,000 than £4,000,000. I care as much about finance as 1 do about any Department in the Government of India. I think half of my time was spent in remonstrating about discrepancies between estimates sent from India and the actual expenditure when the bills came to be paid, and when you think of all the changes in fiscal policy that may result from overcharged or badly managed finance I regard this as the most serious element of all, and I should have been very jealous of the expenditure which might have been involved. But what my noble friend said last night ought, I think, to reassure all those who have nervous misgivings, which I confess in the early stage of these proceedings I myself had. I hope that that prediction of the noble Earl, which was quite a fair one for him to make if he had so
232
persuaded himself, may not come to pass, and I can only say that many predictions about India in the past have failed to come to pass. I have read a great many of them from the time of Pitt down to that of the noble Earl opposite, and it is astonishing how false predictions abound. I would also remind the noble Earl that when I brought the Indian Councils Bill before this House he and the noble Marquess, while they pressed their case with perfect fairness and Parliamentary judgment, both doubted whether those reforms would turn out so well as my noble friend and I hoped. They have turned out extremely well, and I hope that as that prediction as to the policy of 1909 has not been realised, so the misgivings which the noble Earl gave utterance to last night will also prove to be unfounded.
EARL CLTRZON OF KEDLESTON: May I say one word in reply to the noble Viscount, who rebuked me for having told a story yesterday? I dare say it was rather a trivial one and perhaps unworthy of being mentioned here. But with regard to my authority for it, since the noble Viscount denied the story explicitly, I may say that I told the story on high authority, and not upon gossip, with permission to use it in this House and with the assurance that it was absolutely true.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word on the point of this rather unfortunate story. I am informed that the story as told by the noble Earl has been telegraphed to India in this form, that the personage whom he reported as having received a high decoration and as having said that it must be regarded as a rope with which to hang himself, was actually invested with the decoration and made the observation at the time.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As told by the noble Earl, the story, I suppose, was susceptible of that interpretation, although I am quite certain it was not the story the noble Earl intended to tell. I am very sorry that he thought his story worth telling at all, but told in that form it would mean that an insult of a most offensive kind was intended by this Indian gentleman with respect to an Order conferred by His Majesty; and naturally that

233
such a story should be believed in India would be most unfortunate from every point of view, and would be a grievous injury to the very loyal gentleman who was most obviously pointed at in the anecdote told by the noble Earl. My noble friend, therefore, drew attention to the facts in order to state that the story in the form in which it has been repeated is not a true one. It can easily be shown that it is impossible that the story could be true, because the particular gentleman in question, although he was at Delhi, was ill, and was never invested with a decoration. Therefore the story must obviously be untrue. As I said yesterday, I do not know on What authority the story, if it referred to a casual remark supposed to have been made by this gentleman, was told; but I consider that it is of the first importance to contradict it absolutely, in the form in which I understand it has been conveyed to India through the public Press; and I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be grateful to me for doing so.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am not responsible for the form in which it was sent to India. This is really most unfair. The story is apparently sent out to India in a mutilated, erroneous, and offensive form, but I have really no responsibility for that. I told it in the innocent form in which it was told to me. I regret, of course, that I ever told it, but for the consequences I am not responsible.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Your Lordships have heard speeches in the course of this debate from three exViceroys—for I have a right to count my noble friend on the Back Bench as one—and I confess that it is with a certain amount of reluctance that I offer a fourth contribution from a similar source. Eighteen years have passed since I left India, and I realise fully that circumstances have changed very much in that country, and that the impressions which I may have formed in those days may have become considerably out of date. There is another reason which renders me reluctant to intervene, and that is the reason which was so well expressed by my noble friend Lord Minto in the first speech which he has delivered in your Lordships' House since his return from India, a speech to which therefore we all listened with great interest and pleasure, when he expressed his earnest wish that nothing
234
might be said in the course of these discussions which might appear to detract from the brilliant and unbroken success of the recent visit of His Majesty to his Indian Empire. Whatever we may think about the questions which we are discussing tonight, we all feel how great a debt of gratitude we owe to His Majesty for the signal service which he has rendered to the Empire by his recent progress through India, and I therefore hope I shall say nothing which could lend itself to the interpretation of a desire to strike an inharmonious note. May however, say that this feeling of reluctance is very widely shared both here and in India, and that the noble Marquess opposite ought, perhaps, to take the existence of that feeling into account when he tells the House that public opinion is unanimous, or almost unanimous, either here or in India, in favour of the recently announced policy. It is within my knowledge, and that of many of your Lordships, that there are a number of people here and in India who have very grave doubts indeed as to the wisdom of the new policy, but who nevertheless, for the reasons which I gave a moment ago, are unwilling openly to express their misgivings or their disapprobation. For example, when we are told that the Mahomedans of Eastern Bengal are likely to acquiesce in the changes which have been made we are perfectly certain in our minds that they are profoundly chagrined by those changes, but we know also that their well-known loyalty will render them very slow to take any action or use any language which might be considered as an indication of a desire to give further trouble to the Government.
It will scarcely be disputed by noble Lords opposite that we have an ample right to examine with freedom the new departure which is about to take place. I was glad to note that the noble Viscount who spoke just now readily admitted the existence of that right. For, my Lords, there are two propositions which I do not think any one will be courageous enough to dispute. The first is that these changes are of immense importance; and the second that they have been accomplished by methods entirely unusual. I will not labour the first point, because we have it on record in the words of the Government of India that this is one of the most weighty decisions ever taken since the establishment of British rule in India. There can be no doubt that in the history, of the

235
country the year of the departure of the Government from Calcutta will be an imperishable landmark. Nor, my Lords, is it likely that the visit of His Majesty would have been signalised in this manner had it not been for the consciousness of his advisers that these changes were indeed of the most momentous description. As to the unusual character of the procedure followed, the noble Marquess in the course of his long speech last night did not for an instant dispute that the methods were unusual. His defence was of a different kind. He did not deny that the utmost and most unusual secrecy had been observed, but his point was that the occasion itself was so entirely exceptional that unusual methods were justifiable. That, if I may be allowed to say so, was rather a different defence from that which we heard a moment ago from the noble Viscount, because the noble Viscount gave us a disquisition on the Constitutional rights of the Sovereign, and denied altogether that there was anything unconstitutional in his action on this occasion. I do not desire to raise the high Constitutional point. I am content to argue that this thing was done on the advice of His Majesty's Ministers in a manner wholly unprecedented and in a manner which, as I shall endeavour to show presently, does not form by any means a desirable precedent with regard to the future.
Let me say two or three words as to the merits of some of the changes which are about to be introduced, and first, one word about the Partition of Bengal. My noble friend Lord Ampthill took me to task for having spoken of this as a reversal of the policy of my noble friend behind me. I am willing to accept his correction. I think the word used by the noble Marquess opposite, who described it as the re-partition of Bengal, was perhaps the more correct expression, but I should have been equally correct if I had described it as an abrupt disturbance of the partition arrived at by my noble friend behind me. I think my noble friend behind me may well claim that, although his partition has been thus materially modified, the great principle for which he contended when he was concerned with these affairs has been respected. My noble friend's great point was that the Province of Bengal, owing to its enormous and unwieldy size, was of such an extent that good administration
236
was not possible within it. He addressed himself to that great problem and brought about, as we all know, the partition of the Province. Whether my noble friend's partition was indeed the only proper partition to make, whether ingenuity could have devised some partition, some territorial re-arrangement less open to objection, I have never felt competent to decide. The case clearly was one which only persons possessing expert knowledge could deal with adequately. But the fact remains that the question was dealt with, and dealt with deliberately, by those who had the expert knowledge in India; that, after all those who had a right to be consulted had been consulted; after the change had been approved by the Secretary of State in Council and by the Cabinet; after it had been discussed in Parliament; after it had been formally accepted more than once by the noble Viscount himself as a settled fact—that settlement is to be upset entirely and a territorial re-arrangement of a wholly different character put in its place.
The case which is made by my noble friend behind me is that whatever opposition his partition may have encountered at the first, that opposition had been overcome so that the country had entirely settled down. We had a most important contribution to our knowledge of this subject in the speech of my noble friend Lord Minto. He told us that he had become aware that the agitation was stone-dead—I think that was the expression which he used. That is really a very remarkable and authoritative statement, derived, not, of course, from my noble friend's own personal inspection of the Province, but from the reports of his advisers, who were familiar with the circumstances and who had the right to make him aware of their views. And to my mind much the more serious factor in this controversy is that during the years when my noble friend's partition was being bitterly and, I think, unscrupulously attacked, the officials of the Government of India had been constantly intimating to those who came to them for advice that the partition was a settled thing and that there was no prospect whatever of its being disturbed or altered. Information of that kind was given to men who had stood by us when times were bad and who have leaned upon us, and to them and to the officials who held this language to them

237
it cannot fail to have come as a most serious shock and disappointment that, all of a sudden, the arrangement of my noble friend is to be torn up by the roots. I am afraid there can be no doubt whatever that the impression left upon the minds of many of those most concerned is that, however excellent the motives may be for which this change is to be made, it does represent the triumph of a very persistent and a very dangerous agitation.
May I pass from that for one moment to the question of Calcutta? I own that I am quite unconvinced by any of the arguments which I have heard as to the alleged unfitness of Calcutta to be the capital of the Empire. During the time which I spent in India, although I often heard murmurings as to what used to be called "the Simla exodus," I never heard murmurings at the residence of the Government of India in the city of Calcutta. Calcutta seems to me to possess all the attributes calculated to make the city a worthy capital. It has a very large population. It is a great emporium of trade. It has a large, varied, and representative community, native and European. The commercial element is strongly represented. You have the legal element, due to the presence of the High Court of Calcutta, and you have the official element, due to the presence, not only of the Government of India, but also of the Government of Bengal. I am somewhat distracted by the different arguments which have been used in reference to the alleged dangers supposed to be caused by the presence of the two Governments—the Bengal Government and the Imperial Government—in the city of Calcutta. The noble Marquess's apprehension was that in times of trouble friction might arise between the two Governments with obviously inconvenient results.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: I did not say that friction might arise between the two Governments. What if said was that in times of trouble, and in dealing with matters connected with crime, the divided responsibility of the two Governments gave rise, and had actually given rise—I was not merely expressing a fear of what might happen—had actually given rise to inconvenient and serious consequences.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: That at any rate is a very different ground
238
of objection from that alleged by my noble friend Lord Harris. His rear was that the Government of Bengal and the Government of India at Calcutta would become too intimate—that the Government of India would be likely to overshadow, I think that was the expression he used, the Government of Bengal. And then there is the third and different reason which is alleged in the Despatch of the Government of India. In that Despatch, Lord Harding's fear is that, if Calcutta were to become a Presidency Government, there might not be room in the city for two such high officials as the Governor-General and a Governor sent out from England; that there might be, as he puts it, regrettable antagonism or rivalry between them. All these dangers seem to me to be a little farfetched. All I can say, speaking from personal experience, is that I never knew of any difficulty arising from the simultaneous presence of the two Governments. On the contrary, I think it was considerably to the advantage of the Government of India to be able to confer personally with the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal and with some of his highest officials. With regard to considerations of health, I do not think Calcutta leaves much to be desired. It has vast open spaces, its sanitary conditions have been greatly improved, it, has broad thoroughfares, and an abundant water supply. I cannot but think that it is a misfortune for the Government of India to lose its connection with Calcutta, and, to some extent, I think it is a misfortune for Calcutta to lose its connection with the Government of India, although I have no doubt that the men who have made Calcutta what it is will survive the passing disappointment occasioned by the severance of a tie which has lasted for a century and a-half.
My noble friend dealt so fully with the conditions which are found at Delhi that I need say very little about them. I am a little sceptical as to the immense sentiment in favour of Delhi as the capital which noble Lords opposite believe exists in the public mind in India. I think it may be taken as established that the sanitary conditions of Delhi are considerably inferior to those of Calcutta. I remember hearing, when this discussion began, of an ailment known as the Delhi boil. I was at first incredulous. I thought the story was the invention of some evil-disposed person, but, rather to my surprise,

239
two or three days ago I happened to notice in one of the newspapers a statement, apparently on high authority, that a great American investigator, Dr. Wright, has been devoting a considerable amount of attention to this mysterious complaint. It is described as an ulcer which sometimes reaches a diameter of three or tour inches, lasts for from five to ten months, and then gradually heals, fortunately leaving the Patient proof against further attacks. Let us hope that the members of the Government of India, in their first term of residence at Delhi will undergo a kind of seasoning, and escape all further tribulations from that source.
But the great point about Delhi is that you are going to move the Government of India from a city which has a great many of the best attributes of a capital city to a city which has not now, and is not in the least likely to have those attributes as time goes by. The present city of Delhi is a comparatively small walled city. You are going to create a new capital, probably at some distance, it may be some three or four miles, from the old city of Delhi. You are going to call into existence, not a great centre of national life and activity, but what will be very little better than a cantonment grouped around the official residences, with such bazaars and things as are necessary for the supply of those residences, but without any of that representative element, that mixture of society, which is to be found at Calcutta. There is a complaint now that the Government of India is too long shut up at Simla, away from outside influences. Under this arrangement the Government would spend part of the year shut up at Simla and the other part in an equally bureaucratic and remote society at some place adjoining the city of Delhi.
There is one argument against which my noble friend protested and in which protest I desire to join in regard to the movement to Delhi. We are told that the transfer to Delhi is to be regarded as an emphatic indication that the Government of India intend to remain in the country. I must raise my voice against that argument. Is it necessary to do anything to convince the people of India that we are going to stay in the country? If it has come to that we are in a bad pass indeed. And let me add that you will give a shock to confidence in the stability of your arrangements by upsetting the Partition of Bengal which
240
the transfer of the Government to Delhi will certainly not neutralise.
I do not think any one has taken up the point which was raised by my noble friend behind me when he called attention to that very remarkable third paragraph in the Despatch of the Government of India. In that paragraph it is intimated that what the Government of India have in their mind is an ultimate arrangement under which there would be a number of autonomous Governments with a Viceroy directing the whole system from some central point, where he would be cut off equally from all those autonomous Governments. That policy may be good or bad, but it certainly is not a policy into which we ought to be rushed in the manner in which we are being rushed into these other changes. If His Majesty's Government really carry out their craze for devolution to the extent that they are meditating—if they contemplate the introduction in India of some federal system of the kind which apparently they have in view for parts of the Empire nearer home—they raise a vast question of policy which ought surely to be fully discussed and examined before we are committed to it.
As to the question of cost, my noble friend was not successful in obtaining any information as to the data upon which the estimate of four millions was framed. The reason is not far to seek. You cannot have had a properly prepared estimate. If you had you would have been obliged to consult the different Departments, certainly your Public Works Department. You could not do so, because the seal of secrecy was set upon the whole of these proceedings. We have not been told whether the estimate includes all the consequential expenditure, nor whether it covers a sum of three-quarters of a million which has already been spent upon the creation of a new capital at Dacca. Does it include the cost of new headquarters at Patna, of hill stations, and of the barracks which will be required? We have asked for information but have failed to obtain any on this important point. I may say frankly that I have met no one who believes that the cost of all this will be kept within four millions or anything like it.
I o do not think I am putting it too high when I say there is room for doubt as to all these questions. There

241
may be answers to our criticisms and objections, but we have not had them. The reason we have not had them is that owing to your desire to introduce this new policy as a dramatic surprise you have precluded yourselves from seeking the kind of information and advice to which, in ordinary circumstalices, you would have been bound to resort. In. India all important proposals have to go through the official mill, which no doubt grinds rather slowly. The noble Viscount betrayed his impatience of the process in some remarks he made just now. He asked what would have been gained by consultation. He did not say as the noble Marquess his colleague said, that consultation was impossible because Otherwise the thing might mot have gone through. The noble Viscount is much more autocratic. Indeed, if you want autocratic sentiments you have only to go to a Liberal Minister. The noble Viscount avoided consultation because he did not want to be bored by the weighty files that the Indian Departments produce so freely. He has taken the short cut, and in this case it was a short cut indeed. Do not let me be understood as failing to understand the reasons for which His Majesty's advisers desired that there should be something dramatic in regard to the announcement to be made by His Majesty at the Delhi Durbar. I go further. I say the country would have allowed you without wincing to stretch a good many points in order that this desire for dramatic effect should not be disappointed. But in this case, was it really essential that you should dispense with the whole of the usual procedure and run the tremendous risks which, I believe, you are running in order that your dramatic effect should not fail of its impressiveness? I cannot help feeling considerable doubt when I am told that feeling Majesty's visit would have fallen short of the success we all desired for it if this new policy had not been announced in the manner in which it was. Lord Harris gave us an eloquent description of the way in which the great crowds rushed in to do homage to the empty Thrones on which their Majesties had been sitting. It was, no doubt, a most impressive spectacle. But, my Lords, when it is suggested that the people who did this were thinking either of the Partition of Bengal or of the change of capital I am profoundly incredulous.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: They could not have known, for the
242
announcement had only just been read out by the King-Emperor iii English.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As my noble friend reminds me, they could not have known anything about it, because the Proclamation had only just been read. Of course, what created the enthusiasm on that and other occasions was the feeling of the people, with whom His Majesty Mind himself face to face, that their ruler was no longer "the King of some remote star," but a human ruler able to go among them and charm them by his own personality, and willing at the very outset of his reign to undertake the immense exertion and fatigues inseparable from so long and arduous a progress.
The reply and explanation of the noble Marquess is one which fills me with considerable alarm. He asked us last night what would have happened supposing instead of taking the country by surprise we had done all this in the usual manner. He said there would have been a marked and lively agitation, that we might have been obliged to enforce the Press Act against the newspapers, and that the Mahomedans might probably have given trouble. I think it quite possible that some of these things might have happened; indeed I think it quite probable, that if the speech delivered by my noble friend Lord Curzon last night had been delivered in this House or by sortie one, else the House of Commons or on public platform while His Majesty's Government Were still Uncommitted, public Opinion would have demanded that Ministers should hold their hand before committing themselves beyond recall, as they have, to this new policy. But observe what the legitimate deduction from the noble Marquess's explanation is. It is that when a new departure in policy is likely to Meet with an inconvenient reception you may rush the public into it and dispense with all the usual and timehonoured—I will not use the word Constitutional—processes which have always been resorted to in India and elsewhere when some great new departure takes place. What an argument for Liberal Ministers to use! They are supposed to welcome the free breeze of public discussion. The noble Viscount himself has introduced popular representation in India. All this is to be ignored whenever it suits the convenience of His Majesty's Government to do this, and they resort to what I can only describe

243
as something very like a coupďétat, because if they had not done so they might have found it difficult to get their proposals through at all.
I have said all that I desire to say. The changes are, beyond question, most momentous. S
ome of them seem to me to be of a very doubtful character. At any rate, I venture to affirm in regard to them that they required an amount of examination which they did not receive, and that they have been accomplished under very unusual circumstances. We were bound to comment upon the action of His Majesty's Government. We should have been unworthy of our position if we had failed to do so. But, my Lords, let me end by saying that now that our protest has been made we shall say nothing and do nothing to interfere with the success of the new policy. Indeed I will go further and say that no one would be better pleased than we if the apprehensions which we have expressed should prove to be groundless; and that no one hopes more sincerely than we do that the bright page of history which His Majesty has been instrumental in inscribing upon the annals of the Empire will be followed by an unbroken record of prosperity, contentment, and good government.
THE MARQUESS CREWE: My Lords, may I, by the indulgence of the House, explain one point, not of course in answer to anything which the noble Marquess has said, because I am not entitled to do that, but with regard to a remark which fell from him and to one also which fell from the noble Earl yesterday with which I omitted to deal, for I am rather afraid that the absence of any observation from this side upon it might lead to misunderstanding in India. The point relates to the third paragraph in the Despatch of the Government of India. Unfortunately I had a great deal of ground to cover in the very long speech with which am afraid I wearied those who listened to it yesterday, and I did not reply to the noble Earl on that point. The point is this. He seemed to assume, and the noble Marquess who has just sat down also seemed to assume, that there was something approaching a settled policy on the part of the Government of India and, for all I know, of the Government at home, leading in the direction of something like a federal system in India. I wish to dispel altogether the idea that anything of the kind is intended. What my noble
244
friend the Viceroy in his Despatch did—and I think if the paragraph is carefully read it will be taken as doing nothing more—was to draw attention to the general trend and tendency of the form of Government in India, particularly as it now exists under the Councils Act of 1909 which is associated with my noble friend Lord Morley. Lord Hardinge was speaking of the general tendency which might be expected to continue towards a further decentralisation in all matters of a provincial kind, and he drew the conclusion which is to be found towards the close of the paragraph. But it would be unfortunate, and not in consonance with the facts, if a belief were held that we have or that the Government of India have any policy in view in the nature of a formal system of federation. I repeat that my noble friend Lord Hardinge was simply speaking of what he takes to be the inevitable trend and tendency of things in India.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: As I understand there is no business on the Paper for Monday next, I propose, if your Lordships agree, that the House should adjourn until Tuesday.
Moved, That the House do adjourn, except for Judicial business, until Tuesday next.—(The Marquess of Crewe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.