Sitting of 16 February 1914

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

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (IRELAND).
Petitions in favour of financial assistance to municipal authorities in carrying out housing schemes were presented by:—

Mr. Reddy, from Birr.

Mr. Muldoon, from Youghal.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords],—Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in respect of the Bills comprised in the List reported by the Chairman of Ways and Means as intended to originate in the House of Lords, they have certified that the Standing Orders have been complied with in the following case, namely:—
Leeds Corporation Bill.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD FOR IRELAND (HOUSING CONDITIONS OF THE WORKING CLASSES IN DUBLIN).
Copy presented of Report of Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the Housing Conditions of the Working Classes in the City of Dublin [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
INEBRIATES ACTS, 1879 to 1900.
Copy presented of Report of the Inspector under the Inebriates Acts, 1879 to 1900, for the year 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
JUDICIAL STATISTICS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
Copy presented of Judicial Statistics, Part I., relating to Criminal Proceedings, Police, Coroners, Prisons, Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and Criminal Lunatics for England and Wales for 1912 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
Copy presented of Diplomatic and Consular Reports, Annual Series, No. 5257 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES.
Copy presented of Agricultural Statistics, 1912. Vol. XLVII., Part V., Colonial and Foreign Statistics, with Index to Vol. XLVII. [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 to 1911.
Copy presented of Order No. 9003, dated 5th February, 1914, revoking The Liverpool (Birkenhead) Foreign Animals Wharf Order, No. 8984, of 1st January, 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
NATIONAL GALLERY (REPORT).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th February; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 98.]
SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th February; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 99.]
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1912–13.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 11th February; Mr. Masterman]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 100.]
DUCHY OF LANCASTER.
Accounts presented for the year ended 21st December, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed [No. 97.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
Copy presented of Provisional Regulations made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee and the Irish

549
Insurance Commissioners, acting jointly, entitled the National Health Insurance (Collection of Contributions) Consolidated Regulations (Ireland), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 101.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, established under The National Insurance Act, 1911, entitled the National Health Insurance (Deposit Contributors' Administration Expenses) Regulations (Scotland), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 102.]
Copy presented of Regulations made by the Welsh Insurance Commission, entitled the National Health Insurance (Claims for Exemption) Regulations (Wales), 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 103.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 13th February, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Barnsley, Dewsbury, and Wallasey Insurance Committees) Regulations (No. 2), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 104.]
Copy presented of Regulations, dated 13th February, 1914, made by the Insurance Commissioners, entitled the National Health Insurance (Insurance Committees: Election of Medical Representatives) Regulations (England), 1914 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 105.]

COLONIAL REPORTS (ANNUAL).
Copy presented of Report, No. 792 (Grenada, Annual Report for 1912) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
PASSENGER MOVEMENT FROM AND TO THE UNITED KINGDOM.
Copy presented of Return showing for each month of the year 1914 (1) the numbers of the Passengers that left permanent residence in the United Kingdom to take up permanent residence in Places out of Europe and the numbers that arrived from Places out of Europe to take up permanent residence in the United Kingdom; and (2) the number of Passengers that left, or arrived in, the United Kingdom for or from Places out of Europe; and the number of Passengers between the United Kingdom and Ports on the Continent of Europe or within the Mediterranean Sea [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
BOARD OF TRADE (DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR STATISTICS).
Copy presented of Report on Profit Sharing and Labour Co-partnership Abroad [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS (MONEY ORDERS AND TRANSMISSION OF WAGES).
Account presented of all Deposits received and repaid by the Board of Trade on account of Seamen's Savings Banks under The Mercant Shipping Act, 1894, during the year ended 20th November, 1912, and of the interest thereon; Statement showing the number and amount of Seamen's Money Orders issued and paid at Ports in the United Kingdom and at Ports Abroad from 1855 to 31st March, 1913; also Statement showing the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Transmission of Seamen's Wages, Home and Foreign, from 1878 to 31st March, 1913 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 106.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Albania.
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is still the intention of the Powers forming the Triple Alliance to assign to the newly formed principality of Albania the Greek-speaking district of Northern Epirus; and whether, seeing that the inhabitants of the district are opposed to such inclusion and are determined to oppose it by force of arms, His Majesty's Government are prepared to assent to their coercion?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Acland): Communications are passing with the Greek Government respecting the settlement of the Southern Albanian frontier line on a basis unanimously agreed upon by all the Great Powers, represented at the Ambassadors' Conferences held last year. The decision of the Powers on this point is therefore not that of the Triple Alliance only. I trust that no question of coercive measures will arise.

  Mexico (British Lives).
  Mr. NEWMANasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he has any information to give the House as regards the protection and safety of British lives and property in Torreon and Mexico City?
  Mr. ACLAND: I have no information on this point as regards Torreon. As regards Mexico City, the British Admiral in Mexican Waters has been authorised to send to the British Legation such arms as are necessary for the defence of British lives in a possible emergency.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Have any marines been landed?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think not—certainly no force of marines in connection with Mexico City.
  Mr. NEWMAN: Where have they been landed?
  Mr. ACLAND: I think no force has been landed anywhere.

  Imported Meat.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is taking any steps to check the passing off in this country of imported chilled beef and mutton as British-killed meat; whether he is aware that the New Zealand Government appointed a produce agent, Mr. Henry Cameron, to look after the interests of New Zealand meat producers in this country; and whether he is aware that a number of successful prosecutions for passing off Argentine and other foreign meat resulted?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Runciman): The answer to each part of the question is in the affirmative. Perhaps I may mention that within the last month convictions have been obtained by the Board under the Merchandise Marks Act in four cases in which Argentine meat was falsely described as British.
  Mr. PETO: Are all those cases reported as being in the London area only, and is the right hon. Gentleman going to take any action as to other parts of the country?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not, without notice, give information as to individual cases.

  Swine Fever.
  Mr. ORDE-POWLETTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the loss and hardship caused by the slaughter of swine in this country, he will conduct further inquiries as to the result of the serum treatment for swine fever in foreign countries, with a view to its adoption here in place of indiscriminate slaughter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will refer to the Second Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever published last week (Cd. 7247), he will see that the experiments made with serum in other countries have already been very carefully investigated on behalf of the Board. Similar experiments are to be made without delay on infected premises in this country, and at the same time the Board will continue to keep themselves regularly informed of any new developments abroad.
  Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) the total amount of money spent during the past twenty years to the end of 1913 in the attempt to stamp out swine fever; whether he can give any estimate of the cost to farmers; what measure of success has been obtained hitherto in stamping out swine fever; and what prospect there is, if any, of success on present lines; and (2) in view of the fact that in 1894 in the county of Wiltshire there was the highest record of outbreaks of swine fever, 256, and in 1908 the number of outbreaks were 227, in 1911 the, number of outbreaks were 210, and in 1912 the number of outbreaks were 219, whether he can state the total number in 1913; and whether, in view of the fact that there is practically no diminution due to the action of his Department during the last twenty years, he proposes to continue the existing restrictions, or adopt some other method of dealing with this epidemic in future?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is impossible to say what proportion of the expenses incurred in the administration of the Diseases of Animals Acts can be assigned to work in connection with swine fever, or to estimate the amount of loss suffered by farmers. The number of outbreaks in Wiltshire during the year 1913 was 177. Although the total number of outbreaks in Great Britain last year was 2,573 as compared with 2,920 in 1912, the results of

  553
  the Board's policy in dealing with swine fever have up to the present been disappointing, and the Departmental Committee, over which the hon. Member for the Rye Division presides, has agreed, after careful examination of all the available evidence, that experiments may now be tried with a serum treatment on infested premises. Arrangements have been made for carrying out these experiments without delay, but in view of the very uncertain results of similar experiments in other countries no general change in the Board's policy can be contemplated at present.
  Mr. PETO: Considering the vast number of cases of swine fever and the expense of administration, would it not be possible to keep the expense of dealing with this disease separate from that in connection with other diseases of animals?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The expense incurred with reference to swine fever can be kept separate as far as compensation is concerned, but it is quite impossible to say how much of the expense of the salary of inspectors should be attributed to swine fever and how much should be attributed to other things.

  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Ireland).
  Mr. CRUMLEYasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, now that no further outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred in Ireland for the past three weeks, if he will remove the restrictions against the removal of fat and store cattle from Ireland to the markets in Great Britain?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: On Thursday evening, the 12th, the veterinary inspector in charge found very suspicious lesions in certain swine which were about to be slaughtered in the landing place at Birkenhead. An examination on Friday morning satisfied him as to his diagnosis of foot-and-mouth disease. Moreover, that same morning he found undoubted evidence of the disease in seven cattle forming part of a separate cargo. The swine had been landed from Waterford on Sunday, the 8th; the cattle from Newry on Tuesday, the 10th. Later that day disease was discovered in ten cattle forming part of a cargo landed from Dundalk on Tuesday, the 10th. The vessel in which these cattle were carried returned to Ireland, and on Thursday, the 12th, landed
  554
  swine from Dundalk which showed lesions of the disease when examined alive on Friday evening. On Friday evening and Saturday morning disease was discovered in animals forming parts of four other shipments, namely, three arriving on the 10th from Belfast, Dublin, and Waterford, and one arriving on the 12th from Dublin. This cargo came on the same-vessel as that which arrived on the 10th. The existence of foot-and-mouth disease in these cargoes has been confirmed by the Board's assistant veterinary officer. Whether disease was actually carried from each of those five ports can only be finally determined after full inquiry in Ireland. In these circumstances I have had no alternative but to prohibit the landing in Great Britain of animals from Ireland for the present, and it may be well to state that under the most favourable circumstances there is no possibility of the trade being resumed for, at the very least, a fortnight from to-day. Much will depend on the success of the Irish Department in locating the centre or centres of disease, but even when this has been done an interval of time must be allowed to elapse, as a matter of precaution, before shipments of animals for slaughter at the port can be resumed. The earliest possible information will be given to the House when any modification of the Order can be made and due warning will be given to traders. In the meantime I can only express my profound regret at the unfortunate predicament which has arisen and assure hon. Members that it will be my endeavour to alleviate the position so far as it is in my power to do so consistently with safeguarding the interests of stock owners in this country. I need hardly, perhaps, add that every possible precaution is being taken to prevent the escape of the disease from the Birkenhead landing place.
  Mr. CRUMLEY: Is it not a fact that after making careful inquiry throughout Ireland at the different ports where these animals were shipped and on the different farms from which the animals came no trace of the disease has been discovered?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think that question ought to be addressed to the Vice-President of the Irish Department of the Board of Agriculture.
  Mr. FIELD: May I ask the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) whether he will make a statement giving us any other information?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL (Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture, Ireland): I propose to make any statement I have to make after Questions. I do not think it would toe right to intervene now.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: In view of the alarm which his statement will cause to British herd owners, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the inspection of the five ports of embarkation is adequate?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The inspection of the five Irish ports has been better done during the last few months than ever before.
  Mr. FIELD: Can the Vice-President of the Department of Agriculture (Ireland) give the House any information as to foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland at present?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I think I had better read to the House a telegram I have received from the Department as to the actual facts in Ireland:—
  "15th February, 1914.
  "Following are results of Department's investigations so far in relation to Birkenhead outbreak. A telegram will be sent to-morrow morning giving additional particulars reported by then. As Board are aware from previous telegram to-day, Department have information regarding six shipments only out of the eight in which Hoard state disease has appeared.
  Newry Shipment (Collins's).—Eight cattle have been traced to farms and all in-contacts examined and found healthy. The remaining thirteen cattle in same cargo shipped by William Reilly, Carlingford, have also been all located and in-contacts examined and found healthy. The two swine and twelve sheep of same cargo have been located, and the animals in eon-taut, except in the case of two of the sheep, have been examined and found healthy. Report regarding remaining in-contacts expected shortly.
  Waterford Shipment.—The lot of sixty swine amongst which the six cases of disease appeared have been traced. Fifty-seven of these were purchased from numerous owners at Athenry Fair and three at Roscommon, but it is now known that the disease did not appear among this latter three. The fifty-seven are being traced, but, owing to obvious difficulties of investigation in this case, tracing will take some time. With the fifty-seven from Athenry was another pig, which, being overfatigued at Waterford, was not shipped. This animal is still at Waterford and is healthy.
  Dundalk First Shipment (shipped on 9th instant).— Casey's twenty cattle have all been located and all in-contacts found healthy. Dundalk Second Shipment (shipped on 11th instant).—Tracing in this case somewhat hampered owing to Department not having at first received from Birkenhead particulars of actual lots of swine amongst which the disease appeared, but it has now been ascertained that the consignors of such lots obtained them at fairs in Loughrea and Cavan. Tracing in these cases will also occupy some time. There were thirty swine intended for shipment to Flood, one of the consignees, which were in contact with others shipped for him among which the disease appeared. These thirty swine are still in the Dundalk inspection yard. They are all healthy.
  Belfast Shipment.—All Keenan's cattle have been located and the in-contacts are being inspected to-day.
  556
  Dublin Shipment per steamship 'Carlow.'—Tracing in progress so far as particulars yet available regarding lots in which animals found affected.
  As regards general position no reports are coming to hand of any supposed cases either in scheduled district, or elsewhere, although all veterinary surgeons, and the police also, as well as officers of the Department throughout the country, including agricultural inspectors and the inspectors of local authorities, were circularised to be on the alert to secure prompt notification of any possible cases of foot-and-mouth disease."
  The telegram simply means that, although these cases have undoubtedly broken out at the landing-stage at Birkenhead, we cannot find the slightest trace of disease up to the present in Ireland.
  Mr. FIELD: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's opinion that the landing-stage at Birkenhead is infected and not in Ireland?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Whoever is to answer that question, it is evident it is not me.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he has imposed no restriction on movement whatever of these in-contact stock, which are for the time being apparently healthy?
  Mr. RUSSELL: Yes, Sir, in every case restrictions have been imposed.

  Deer Forests (Scotland).
  Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)asked if the President of the Board of Agriculture will state what is the extent of the land at present used for deer forests in Scotland which has been reported by the Highlands and Islands Commission to be fit for arable purposes; and what is the total number of persons employed on land at present used for deer forests?
  The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. MacKinnon Wood): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. In answer to the first part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the Report, dated 1895, of the Royal Commission (Highlands and Islands, 1892) and the series of statistics shewing the acreage of deer forests in 1883, 1898, 1904, and 1908, which will be found summarised in the Deer Forests Return, No. 220 of 1908, together with the later information contained in the Deer Forests and Sporting Lands (Scotland) Return, No. 538 of 1913. I have no information as to the total number of persons employed on deer forests.
  Mr F. HALL: In view of the important statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer lately, may I ask whether it is not advisable that we should have later information than 1905?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The last information is 1913.
  Mr. F. HALL: In reply to the first part of my question, may I ask whether he has any information later than 1905?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The last information is 1913.

  Destructive Insects and Pests Act.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether it is proposed to replace the inspectors under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, until recently employed by the Kent County Council, by similar officials appointed by the Board; whether the Board advocate and are prepared to adopt this policy throughout England and Wales; and how many such officials are now employed by the Board?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Board have recently appointed an additional sub-inspector in their Horticulture Branch for the purposes of the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts. Further appointments of the same class will shortly be made with a view to the more effective and uniform administration of those Acts throughout England and Wales.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to make a Board Inspectorate for this purpose throughout the whole country?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: It would be difficult, in reply to a question, to give a full description of our organisation, but I hope to so arrange the administration of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act that it will cover the whole country.

  Tuberculosis Order.
  Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will state, approximately, what was the amount expended in 1913 upon the administration of the Tuberculosis Order, 1913, in England and Wales; whether it amounts to more than three times the aggregate sum paid by way of compensation under this Order; whether, seeing that less than £2,000 has been expended
  558
  by the Board upon compensation out of a total Exchequer Grant at the rate of £60,000 per annum, the balance of such Grant will be remitted to the Treasury or will continue to be available for the above purpose; and when he expects to be able to state the result of his negotiations with the Treasury in respect of a revision of the basis of valuation and the scale of compensation prescribed in the Order?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The collection of the material required to enable me to give a precise answer to the first and second parts of the question would involve correspondence with every local authority in the country, and would take a considerable time. But from the information in the possession of the Board it is evident that the administrative expenses have substantially exceeded the amount of compensation paid under the Tuberculosis Order during the year 1913. The Board have made representations to the Treasury on this point, but I cannot say when a decision may be arrived at. Any unexpended balance from the Board's Estimates at the end of the financial year will, in the usual course, be surrendered to the Treasury.

  Calton Gaol, Edinburgh.
  Major HOPEasked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, if he will state to what use he proposes to put the site of the present Calton Gaol; and whether he has secured the necessary sanction of the Lord Provost, magistrates, and council of Edinburgh for such use of the site?
  Mr. WEDGWOOD BENN (Lord of the Treasury): The site of the Calton Gaol has not yet been acquired by the Commissioners of Works. If so acquired, the present intention is to use it for the erection of offices for Public Departments. The First Commissioner is advised that the sanction of the Town Council of Edinburgh to any building scheme on the site is not necessary.
  Mr. JAMES HOGGE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the City Council of Edinburgh has, at any rate, rights in regard to the nature of the structure1?
  Major HOPE: Is the site to be acquired from the Corporation of Edinburgh, or who is it to be acquired from?
  Mr. BENN: The site in question is at present in the occupation of the Prison

  559
  Commission, for whom the Office of Works have no responsibility. After the site has been transferred to the Office of Works, then they will accept responsibility for it.

  County Council's Schools (Herefordshire).
  Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been directed officially to the state of affairs now obtaining in the schools under the control of the county council of Herefordshire; if so, what action has been taken in the matter; and what further steps, if any, the Board propose to take to bring about a settlement of the present dispute between the local education authority and the teachers?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. J. A. Pease): My attention has been directed to the matter in connection with official correspondence, and I need hardly say that I have watched with grave concern the development of the dispute between the local education authority in the county of Herefordshire and a large number of teachers in their service. My intervention has not been invited by the local education authority, and I have no power to intervene except in particular cases where the provisions of the Code are violated, or where it is shown that the local education authority have failed to maintain and keep efficient the public elementary schools in their area, or where a question has arisen between the local education authority and the managers of voluntary schools which is referred to the Board for determination. I have, however, both officially and personally, intimated the willingness of the Board to use their good offices to further a settlement of the dispute. I have reason to hope that the last word has not been said on either side, and I am hopeful that the negotiations which are now pro-feeding will lead to an early settlement.

  Elementary School Teachers.
  Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that of the adult teachers employed in schools under his Department there are 858 paid under £25 as full salary for full-time employment for a whole year, 4,872 less than £35 a year, and 10,434 less than £45 a year; and whether he will approach the Board of Trade to have a wages board set up to deal with these sweated
  560
  labour conditions, or will endeavour to have these teachers, who are expected to keep up a certain standard of dress and appearance, included in the proposed minimum wages proposals for rural labourers?
  Mr. PEASE: The figures quoted by the hon. Member appear to be taken from Table 173 of the Board's Statistical Volume, Part II., for 1909–10, relating to the salaries of women supplementary teachers in England. I regret that more recent figures are not available, but I may mention that the total number of women supplementary teachers has declined since the date of this Table from 15,732 to 13,473. I am not prepared to take the action suggested in the second part of the question, but it is my hope that one of the results of the legislation which I propose will be to improve the remuneration of the teaching profession.
  Mr. E. JONES: Would that legislation contemplate the abolishing of these and not engaging any more?
  Mr. PEASE: I do not think I can add anything in reply to a supplementary question.
  Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: Can the right hon. Gentleman furnish a Return showing the places and conditions under which the teachers referred to in the question are now employed?
  Mr. PEASE: If the hon. Gentleman will put a form on the Paper showing the character of the Return, I will certainly look into it and see if I can do so.
  Mr. EDGAR JONESasked the President of the Board of Education if he will state what number of students finished their course as pupil teachers and qualified as assistant teachers in each year from 1900 to 1904, inclusive; what annual number of students who intend qualifying as teachers is considered sufficient to provide an adequate supply; and what number entered this year?
  Mr. PEASE: The number of candidates who had been pupil teachers and who qualified for recognition as assistant teachers by passing the King's Scholarship Examination was:—1901, 9,010; 1902, 9,584; 1903, 11,050; 1904, 10,397. Figures for 1900 are not available. The figures for each year do not represent a net addition to the stock of assistant teachers, since

  561
  some of the successful candidates in each year had already passed the examination and taken up service, while others went direct to training colleges. It is difficult to give an exact answer to the second part of the question, but it is probable that, apart from other sources of supply, at least 8,500 bursars and pupil teachers should be recruited annually, merely to keep the staff of qualified teachers at their present numbers. The number of bursars and pupil teachers recognised for the first time since the 31st July, 1913, is 5,132. In addition, a few applications are still under consideration.
  Mr. E. JONES: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to stop this shortage of the teachers, which is causing inconvenience and trouble?
  Mr. PEASE: I have been in communication with almost every local education authority, and the local education authorities are now considering schemes. Some schemes have been already approved, and that, to some extent, will reduce the shortage.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.

    REFUND OR CREDIT OR STAMPS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Secretary to the Treasury if he will say how many claims have been made upon the National Insurance Commissioners for a refund or credit of stamps placed on lost cards; and what proportion of claims have been allowed, and what is the value of the stamps in the cases where the claims have been refused?
    Mr. BENN: Claims for allowance in respect of lost cards have been admitted in 601 cases, but some of these claims included more than one card. No record has been kept of the number of claims disallowed, nor of the value of the stamps stated to have been lost, and it would be impossible at this date to compile a complete statement. Even an approximate calculation would involve much more clerical labour than would be justified in the interests of the public service.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is going to happen to the money?
    Mr. BENN: Perhaps the hon. Member will give further notice of that question.

    VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTORS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON - EVANSasked how many voluntary contributors there now are; and how many have joined owing to the extension of time for joining granted by the National Insurance Act (1911) Amendment Act, 1913?
    Mr. BENN: The number of voluntary contributors in the United Kingdom at the latest date for which figures are available was 21,165. This number does not include persons who have taken advantage of Section 2 (2) of the National Insurance Act, 1913, since many approved societies have not yet, forwarded to the Commissioners all their contribution cards for the quarter ending on the 12th October, 1913.

    INVESTED FUNDS.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked why approved societies are not being allowed a greater rate of interest than 3¼ per cent, per annum on moneys remaining in the hands of the Commissioners; whether it is possible safely to invest money at the present time to produce over 4 per cent, interest; and whether he is aware of the waste arising on the large National Insurance funds in the hands of the Commissioners, because they are being invested at a low rate of interest in funds authorised as investments under the Savings Bank Act, 1863?
    Mr. BENN: The rate of interest has been fixed in the first instance at 3¼ per cent., because it was not thought that a higher rate could prudently be allowed until further experience has been gained of the terms upon which investments can be made. The rate will be varied from time to time as the state of the income account of the investment fund permits. The limitation of the powers of investment in respect of these funds (for the custody of which the Government is responsible) to Parliamentary securities is imposed by Section 54 (3) of the National Insurance Act, 1911, and follows the usual practice of Parliament in regard to such funds.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the hon. Member aware that in the past the friendly societies found perfectly safe investments for money at 4¼ per cent.?
    Mr. BENN: That may be so, but as I have said, the rate of interest may be varied when further circumstances are known.

    SHARE FISHERMEN.
    Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSONasked what the Scottish Commissioners were doing to hasten the decision of the Court relating to share fishermen; whether he is aware that inconvenience will arise when the decision is made in consequence of arrears now accruing in respect of persons whom the Court may decide to be compulsorily insurable, or in consequence of persons now paying contributions who the Court may decide are not compulsorily insurable; and that the invenience is being increased by the delay which has now extended over about twelve months?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend is informed that no avoidable delay has taken place in this matter. Until, however, a decision has been given, the second and third parts of the hon. Member's question cannot arise.
    Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the contributions be refunded in the case of persons decided not to be insured?
    Mr. BENN: I think it would be better to wait until the decision of the Court is given before any further answer is made.

    EXCESSIVE SICKNESS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked when the Report of the Departmental Committee on excessive sickness under the National Insurance Act is expected to be ready?
    Mr. BENN: The Committee are still taking evidence, and my right hon. Friend has no knowelge when they will complete their labours.
    Mr. LOUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury the composition and full terms of reference of the Committee which he has appointed to inquire into excessive sickness; whether the evidence taken by that Committee will be laid before Parliament, together with its report; and when is it expected that this information will be available?
    Mr. BENN: The details asked for in the first part of the question will be circulated with the Votes. My right hon. Friend cannot fix the date when the Committee will report. Evidence will, of course, be published in addition to the report.—[See Written Answers this date.]
    Mr. LOUGH: Do I understand that the terms of reference will be circulated?
    Mr. BENN: The terms of reference and names of the members will be circulated.

    WOMEN'S APPROVED SOCIETIES (CLAIMS).
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the actuarial expectation of claims in several women's approved societies is. being exceeded; whether, as a consequence, deficiencies are probable after the first valuation; and whether this will entail a reduction of benefits or levies in such societies, or whether the Government propose to come to the assistance of those societies?
    Mr. BENN: It is impossible to say, in the case of women members of approved societies, whether the actuarial expectation has been exceeded until the age distribution and the condition of the members as to marriage has been ascertained, and also until the accounts of the societies have, been made up so as to show their actual experience for at least the first year of benefits. Information on the first head is now being forwarded by the societies to the offices of the Commissions in connection with the crediting of reserve values. Full information on the second head will not be available until the accounts of the societies have been audited. Meanwhile, the Departmental Committee, as the hon. Member is aware, is inquiring into the allegations that excessive claims are being made in respect of women's as well as men's societies.
    Mr. HARRY LAWSON: When will the accounts be audited?
    Mr. BENN: The accounts for a complete year cannot be audited until a complete year has terminated.

    AMENDMENT OF LAW.
    Mr. C. BATHURSTasked whether Section 7 of the National Insurance Act, 1913, is being interpreted by the Insurance Commissioners as having retrospective operation, and thus exonerating all insured persons who were prior to the Act in arrear in payment of the employer's contribution during unemployment from such payment; and, if so, whether, seeing, that such effect was not contemplated during the passage of the Bill through this House, it is proposed to remedy the injustice thereby inflicted upon thrifty persons who prior thereto, and often at

    565
    great sacrifice, paid up their arrears in full, and to make good the financial loss suffered by societies in writing down the book value of their outstanding arrears by three-sevenths in the case of men and half in the case of women by a special Grant from the Exchequer?
    Mr. BENN: The Commissioners are advised that the clear effect of Section 7 of the Act of 1913 is that an employed contributor can pay off at the reduced rate all arrears which have accrued since July 15th, 1913; and they are not aware that Parliament contemplated any other effect in enacting the Section. No financial loss has been or can be suffered by societies in respect of arrears contracted after July, 1913, and not paid up in full. Whore such arrears are redeemed by payment of the member's own share, the society concerned will have the contingent light to the Grant from the Sinking Fund or the Exchequer conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act of 1913, and where such arrears are not so redeemed the loss to the society will be made good by the equivalent reduction, postponement or suspension of benefits directed to be made by Section 8 of the same Act.

    PROSECUTION (NOTTINGHAM).
    Sir J. D. REESasked what prosecutions have been instituted in the city of Nottingham, and with what results, for breaches of the provisions of the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. BENN: Proceedings have been instituted in one case in the area referred to, and resulted in a conviction.
    Sir J. D. REES: Will the hon. Gentleman instruct the insurance committee to abstain from prosecutions which are locally regarded as persecution?
    Mr. BENN: The Insurance Commissioners are the prosecutors in these cases, and the fine amounted to two shillings.
    Sir J. D. REES: My question is, Whether the Insurance Commissioners may be instructed to abstain from these prosecutions on the ground that they are regarded as cruel persecutions?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Can the hon. Gentleman see whether he could not make Nottingham a kind of city of refuge?

    EXAMINATION ON ACCOUNTS.
    Mr. CASSELasked whether the examination of accounts of approved
    566
    societies and branches to ascertain whether they show any deficiency in administration account has been completed; whether any such deficiency has yet been shown; and, if so, in how many cases and how it is proposed to deal with it?
    Mr. BENN: Societies are themselves responsible for ascertaining whether there is a deficiency in their administration account, and, where there is, for removing it either in other ways, or, as a last resort, by a levy upon the members. If any society neglected this duty the fact would in due course be reported by the auditors to the Commissioners. No cases have, however, yet been reported, as in no case can any society have been under an obligation to enforce a levy payable before the end of the current month.

    SANATORIUM BENEFIT.
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to a recent case in which a deposit contributor under the National Insurance Act has been turned out of a sanatorium in Hampshire because his contributions were exhausted and before his cure was effected; if there have been other similar cases; and if some arrangements can be made to secure the benefit of continuous sanatorium benefit to deposit contributors?
    Mr. BENN: The attention of my right hon. Friend has not previously been called to the case referred to; but if the hon. Member will furnish him with particulars he will be glad to inquire into it.

    DISABLEMENT BENEFIT.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked whether a contributor from whom contributions are not payable owing to unemployment may pay up contributions at 4d. a week so as to complete the 104 weeks waiting period and qualify for disablement benefit?
    Mr. BENN: The answer is in the affirmative.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the unemployment is due to sickness, is the answer still in the affirmative?
    Mr. BENN: If the unemployment is due to sickness, the person is not accumulating arrears, being in receipt of sickness benefit.

    APPROVED SOCIETIES (LAPSED).
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked how many approved societies or branches of approved societies have ceased to carry on business under the National Insurance Acts, and for what causes?
    Mr. BENN: My right hon. Friend is obtaining the information desired by the hon. Member, and will communicate with him.

    ARREARS OR CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked how many members of approved societies were, at any recent date, in arrear with their contributions for periods exceeding twelve weeks a year on the average since entering insurance?
    Mr. BENN: The information asked for is not available, and could not be obtained without requiring all societies and branches to undertake the serious work of making a detailed examination of their registers and furnishing special returns, which would be of no value for any administrative purpose, either of their own or of the Commissioners.

    Old Age Pensions.
    Mr. FELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury how many persons were in receipt of old age pensions according to the latest figures available in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland respectively?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Montagu): The number of pensions payable on the last Friday in December, 1913, the latest date for which figures are available, was as follows:—

    England and Wales

    685,288

    Scotland

    97,702

    Ireland

    199,302

    Total

    982,292

    Crown Property, Regent Street.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked what were the old ground rents upon the Crown property in Regent Street; and what are the new ground rents now asked for by the Crown for a renewal of lease, together with the building requirements?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The old ground rents of Crown property in Regent Street (a street formed and sewered entirely at the cost of the Crown) are not uniform. The rents obtained on new lettings are based
    568
    on the present value of the land as certified by the Crown Surveyor in accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Acts, and vary according to the position of the site, the relative amount of frontage to back land included in the letting, and other circumstances. A general reply to the question is not therefore practicable. As re-lettings are effected, full information including both old and new rents are given with Commissioners of Woods' reports to Parliament, but if the hon. Member desires further information as to any particular case it can probably be furnished. On re-lettings in Regent Street rebuilding has usually been necessary to meet modern requirements and has been carried out by the lessee as part of the arrangement for re-letting.
    Sir S. SCOTT: May I ask whether the increase of rent is based in any case on the goodwill of the tenant?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, we try to avoid assessing the goodwill of the tenant as far as possible, and I understand the Crown surveyor does not take that into account.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the average percentage of increases?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: If I gave an average like a great many other percentage calculations it would be totally misleading.
    Mr. RUPERT GWYNNE: In view of the widespread interest in this subject among Members of his own party, will the right hon. Gentleman issue a White Paper giving this information?

    Parliament (Dissolution).
    Mr. CLOUGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, since the Prorogation on the 15th August, 1913, a petition, numerously signed by Members of the House of Lords, has been presented to His Majesty, praying His Majesty forthwith to dissolve this Parliament; and, if so, whether he will give the full text of that petition and a complete list of the signatures attached thereto?
    Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: May I ask whether, when considering that petition, due weight was given to the fact that not one of those 180 Gentlemen who signed the petition is affected by a dissolution of Parliament, or by any dissolution except death?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): I am afraid I shall not answer the supplementary question, for a reason which will be perfectly clear when I answer the original question. I have not seen or heard of any such petition.

    Post Office (Engineering Staff).
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSasked the Postmaster - General whether the non-established portion of the engineering staff employed by the Post Office have to stand off during inclement weather; and whether he can take steps to remedy the hardship thus involved to the poorest section of Post Office workmen?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hobhouse): The general rule is that all possible opportunity should be given for the making up of time lost by construction gangs on account of bad weather, and even when this is not possible the men are paid for the lost time if they are working away from their headquarters and are in receipt of lodging allowances. The rule was explained to the recent Select Committee on Post Office Servants, who recommended that no change should be made.

    American Mails (Queenstown Harbour).
    Mr. MULDOONasked whether any new contract or arrangement has been entered into with the Cunard Company in reference to the American mails; and, if so, what it is; and whether it provides for the inclusion of the call at Queenstown as originally provided?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: An arrangement has been concluded with the Cunard Company under which, commencing on the 28th of this month, the Cunard packets will leave Liverpool every Saturday at 2.30 p.m., instead of at 5 p.m. as at present, and will proceed to New York direct, without calling at Queenstown.
    Mr. MULDOON: Is the right hon. Gen-man aware that this is, in fact, a new contract with the company; and has this contract been entered into with the company without the sanction of the House of Commons?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: No; no new contract has been entered into. A variation of the old contract has been made, but inasmuch as it imposes no new charge upon the public it was not actually necessary to lay it before the House. If, however, the House desires to see that variation, the nature of which I have stated in
    570
    my reply, I shall be happy to lay it before the House.
    Mr. MULDOON: Was this proceeding the act of the right hon. Gentleman or of the late Postmaster-General? Has the right hon. Gentleman taken the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown on the point of its being a new contract?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I have been Postmaster-General only three or four days, it was clearly the act of my predecessor, who took the opinion of the Law Officers upon the point.
    Mr. DONELAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of entrusting the transmission of Irish mails to the White Star Company, in view of the fact that their steamers are engaged in a weekly service between Liverpool and New York via Queenstown?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: Some of the Irish mails are entrusted to the White Star Company, which company, in respect of one of their ships—the "Olympic"—find exactly the same difficulty as the Cunard Company—namely, that it is dangerous for that ship, having regard to its size, and particularly its length and depth, to enter the harbour at all.
    Mr. DONELAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what respect Queenstown Harbour is more unsafe now than it was when the Cunard Company entered into the contract?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The date at which the contract was made was 1903, and these two big ships—the "Lusitania" and the "Mauretania"—have been built since that time. As their size could hardly have been anticipated then, it is clear that a very considerable change in the circumstances has taken place, and it is that change which necessitates the abandonment of Queenstown.
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the White Star "Arabic" entered Queenstown Harbour yesterday and left with perfect safety for Boston, and that the Cunard liner "Carmania" refused to enter?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I was not aware of the actual circumstances of the two ships; but it is the "Olympic," of the White Star Line, which is unable to enter Queenstown, and the "Olympic," under the terms of contract, is one of the vessels that is bound to carry the mails.
    Mr. W. A. REDMOND: Why did not the "Carmania" enter the harbour yesterday when the White Star liner "Arabic" entered and discharged the mails?
    Mr. ALAN SYKES: There is 5,000 tons between them.
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have not had the opportunity of comparing the two vessels, but if a question is put down I will look into it.

    Supper Clubs.
    Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that certain places in London, under the denomination of clubs, are carrying on what is essentially a restaurant business and are in a position to keep open and trade without any restriction as to the hours of closing; and whether he will take into consideration the adoption of measures to ensure that hotels and restaurants, which are called upon to pay substantial licence duties and to conform to regulations as regards closing their premises, shall not be prejudiced and suffer disadvantage through this form of competition?
    Mr. McKENNA: There has been in recent years a development in London of establishments known as supper clubs, the purpose of which is no doubt partly to supply food and entertainment to their members at an hour when licensed premises are closed. The Commissioner of Police informs me that these clubs have a legitimate membership and comply with the statutory requirements concerning clubs; but I shall, of course, consider the representations which I understand are to be made to me on the whole subject.

    Mr. C. E. Fenner (Arrest).
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked whether a warrant has been issued for the arrest of C. E. Fenner, an undischarged bankrupt; and whether the Government have taken any steps to ascertain his whereabouts and to secure his arrest or extradition?
    Mr. McKENNA: A warrant was issued on 24th December last, on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the arrest of this bankrupt on a criminal charge. When he was traced by the police to an address in Paris, I applied through the Foreign Office for his arrest, which was effected a few days ago; and steps are now being taken to obtain his extradition.

    Deported Labour Leaders (South Africa).
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the Home Secretary whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent the landing in the United Kingdom as undesirable immigrants of all or any of the Labour leaders who have been deported from the Union of South Africa in the steamship "Umgeni"?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; there are no steps which I have any power to take for the purpose.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Is it not a fact that one or more of these deported alien labour leaders is an alien, and, as such, comes under the powers which the right hon. Gentleman possesses?
    Mr. McKENNA: I thought that one was an alien, but my right hon. Friend (the Colonial Secretary) now tells me that the presumed alien has stated that he is a naturalised British subject.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: How did he inform him?
    Mr. BARNESasked the Home Secretary if he can make any statement to the House as to the date of the landing in this country of the men deported from South Africa, the port of debarkation, and the legal position of Dr. Poutsma, being a Hollander, and Robert Burns Waterson, an Australian?
    Mr. McKENNA: I am not aware of any restrictions applicable to the landing in the United Kingdom of any of the men in question; and I have no information in regard to the date or port of their arrival.

    Statutory Declarations (Fees).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in certain petty sessional divisions it is a practice for justices of the peace to charge a fee for the signing of a declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835, even when acting away from the Court, and to hand such fee afterwards to the clerk to the magistrates; whether he is aware that the handling of money by the magistrates under such circumstances is illegal; and whether he will notify clerks-to the justices to that effect?
    Mr. McKENNA: A justice of the peace has not, so far as I am aware, any authority to charge a fee for taking a

    573
    statutory declaration; nor is a justice's clerk entitled to the fees allowed in the prescribed table, except in respect of services actually rendered. I am advised, therefore, that, if not actually illegal, it would be most unbecoming for a justice to receive a fee for taking a statutory declaration for the purpose of handing it over to a justice's clerk who was not present and took no part in the matter. I have no reason to suppose that such a practice as my hon. Friend suggests is prevalent; but if he will bring any case to my notice I will make inquiry.

    Suffragist Prisoners (Treatment).
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked the Home Secretary whether any and, if any, what principle is applied to the differential treatment of suffragist prisoners, several of whom have been released within a few days of being sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, whilst Miss Rachel Peace, alias Short, who was sentenced on 15th November to eighteen months' hard labour for a similar offence, was forcibly fed in November, December, and January, and is still undergoing sentence?
    Mr. McKENNA: Since the passing of the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-health) Act, the general rule has been to release under the Act those prisoners who have refused food to the point of endangering their health, if the offences were of a minor character, or if they were not likely to repeat their offences while at large; but, in accordance with my definite statement in the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, I have not released under the Act persons who were guilty of arson, or other serious outrages, and whose fixed determination to repeat such crimes rendered them a danger to the community. It is true that in one case where a prisoner was able to reject all the food given her, and in another case which was complicated by appendicitis, I have found it necessary to use the Act in the case even of determined criminals; but there was no such exceptional necessity in Rachel Peace's case. She had been guilty of arson, and her demeanour before the justices and at her trial showed that she was prepared to repeat her offence; and I have therefore been unable to release her. If she will promise not to commit further crimes, I should be glad to advise the remission of her sentence.
    Mr. CHANCELLORasked why Miss Rachael Peace, alias Short, was forcibly fed on remand before trial, and whilst, therefore, presumed to be innocent in the eye of the law of the offence with which she was charged?
    Mr. McKENNA: The justices had refused to admit this prisoner to bail, as they had reason to believe that if at liberty she would commit offences similar to that with which she was charged. For the same reason I should not have been justified, unless it were absolutely necessary to save her life, in ordering her release, under the Prisoners (Temporary Discharge for Ill-health) Act.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: May the House be quite assured that there has been no differential treatment of any of these prisoners arising from social position or anything of that kind?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes, most certainly. I have proceeded in every case upon the principles which I have definitely stated in this House.

    Miss Zelie Emmerson.
    Mr. KEIR HARDIEasked the Home Secretary whether he authorised Mr. Marshall Hall, K.C., to inform Miss Zelie Emmerson, a witness against the police in a recent case, that Scotland Yard was arranging for her deportation; and whether, as such a statement was calculated to prejudice the jury against the witness, he will make a searching inquiry into the facts of the case so as to prevent any recurrence?
    Mr. McKENNA: I understand that Mr. Marshall Hall was informed by the solicitor instructing him that on the last occasion when Miss Emmerson was charged with an offence, instructions were given that, in the event of her conviction, the magistrate's attention should be drawn to the fact that she is an alien with a view to his recommending her for expulsion if he thought fit to do so. If any objection were to be taken to Mr. Marshall Hall's question, it should have been taken at the time by the counsel who called Miss Emmerson as a witness, and the chairman could then have dealt with the matter. It is entirely outside my province to inquire into such a matter.

    Cruelty to Animals Act (Appointment to Advisory Body).
    Colonel BURNasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a memorial from the National Canine Defence League, signed by 5,480 persons, protesting against the appointment of Sir John Rose Bradford as a member of the advisory body under the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any action thereon?
    Mr. McKENNA: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; to the second, in the negative. I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I made on this matter in the course of a debate in this House on 18th March last.

    Post Office (Reinstatement of Mr. Taylor).
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked the Postmaster-General whether he has reinstated Mr. Taylor in the Post Office service; and, if so, for what reason he has now taken that course?
    Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Noble Lord is mistaken if he thinks that Mr. Taylor was ever dismissed from the Post Office service. He was reduced in rank by my predecessor in order to mark his disapproval of certain actions which Mr. Taylor had taken, and his opinion was that sufficient time has elapsed to justify restoration to his former rank, but not to his former seniority on the occurrence of a vacancy.

    Street Traffic (Metropolis).
    Mr. HARRISasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government have considered the Report of the Select Committee on London Traffic which was presented last Session; and whether they propose to take steps in the present Session for establishing some adequate authority for the regulation of such traffic?
    Mr. F. HALLasked the Prime Minister if the Government has considered the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Motor Traffic for further securing public safety in the streets of the Metropolitan area; if, in view of the urgency of the matter, the Government intends to introduce and press forward proposals for dealing with such of the recommendations as require legislative sanction; whether legislation will be necessary to establish a special traffic branch of the Board of Trade on the lines sug-
    576
    gested; and if it is proposed to take the necessary steps with that object in the present Session?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): The matter is receiving the careful consideration of the various Departments concerned.
    Mr. KELLAWAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the House will be given an opportunity of discussing the report?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot say-that; perhaps my hon. Friend will give notice of that question.
    Mr. F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman reply to the latter part of the second question?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The matter is under consideration by the Departments, and I would rather not give an answer.

    Somaliland.
    Mr. CROFTasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant a special day for the discussion of affairs in Somaliland?
    The PRIME MINISTER: An opportunity will arise when the Supplementary Estimates are submitted to the House.
    Mr. CROFT: Will the right hon. Gentleman grant at least half a day for discussion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: We will give adequate time, certainly.

    Post Office Employment Committee.
    Sir GILBERT PARKERasked whether it is the intention of the Government to appoint an early day to discuss the grievances of postal servants and the findings of the Holt Committee and the decision of the Government?
    Mr. GEORGE ROBERTSasked the Prime Minister whether he will grant some time for a discussion on the Report of the Post Office Committee, or whether there is to be a Supplementary Estimate on which a discussion of this matter could be taken at an early date?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot yet say whether it will be possible to give time for a discussion of this matter. There, will be no Supplementary Estimate for the Post Office.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into consideration the extraordinary amount of unrest and dissatisfaction that exists in the fact that no discussion has taken place in this House, and that Members of Parliament are being asked to assist in having such a discussion?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I will take all that into account.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    NAVY ESTIMATES (OVERSPENDING).
    Mr. MOLTENOasked the Prime Minister whether there has been overspending to the extent of several millions beyond the Naval Estimates voted last year and, if so, upon which Votes; and whether the Estimates Committee will be reappointed at once and the subject of this overspending referred to them for examination and report before the Supplementary Vote is taken?
    The PRIME MINISTER: A Supplementary Estimate will be required this year, and will be fully explained when presented.

    FAIR-WAGES CLAUSE.
    Mr. BARNESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the firm of Messrs. Gwynne, engineers, Hammersmith, has a contract with the Admiralty; if so, whether he is aware that the labourers employed by this firm receive from 17s. to 24s. per week, trimmers from 24s. to 20s., and crane drivers from 24s. to 26s. per week, whereas the respective minima fixed with other firms are 27s., 28s., and 30s.; and whether he will make, inquiries into the matter in order to secure due observation of the Fair Wages Clause?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Messrs. Gwynne have work in hand for the Admiralty, and inquiries will be made.
    Mr. WILLIAM THORNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the investigations into the complaint that the British Portland Cement Manufacturers and the Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers were not observing the Fair-Wages Clause have yet been completed; if so, will he state the result; whether he is aware that attention was first drawn to this matter nearly twelve months ago; and whether any decision come to will be retrospective?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: The investigations referred to by my hon. Friend are nearly completed, and I hope to state the result very shortly. I should add that the work of giving a decision in this case is one of considerable difficulty, and communications have had to be made with a number of firms and employers, as well as with the Board of Trade. With regard to the last part of the question, I should prefer at this juncture not to prejudge the decision which may be come to.
    Mr. W. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to give a definite answer next week?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Next, week is but a short time away.
    Mr. THORNE: In two weeks?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes, perhaps.

    SUNKEN BATTLESHIP "EMPRESS OF INDIA."
    Colonel BURNasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will grant compensation to those fishermen who have damaged their boats through colliding with the wreck buoy placed to mark the sunken battleship "Empress of India," and who have lost their gear or a portion of it owing to their nets getting foul of the wreck itself?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Compensation will be granted for any ascertained damage to boats or gear sustained prior to the establishment of a lighted buoy, for which arrangements have been made, provided that the damage was not due to contributory negligence on the part of the fishermen themselves.
    Colonel BURN: May I send the right hon. Gentleman evidence of the damage sustained?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I shall be very glad to consider it.
    Mr. NEWTON: Will contributory negligence be alleged as a matter of course?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: No; not as a matter of course. I shall have to examine the circumstances.
    Colonel BURN: Is it not admitted that owing to the darkness the fishermen cannot see the buoy?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I hope I shall not be asked for a definition here and now of contributory negligence; the men will now, as always, be treated fairly.
    Mr. DOUGLAS HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this buoy is a very serious danger to navigation and to vessels plying between Portsmouth and Rye, and that there is great danger of breaking their propellors, though the attention of the Admiralty has been drawn to the matter?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: I will look into the matter.

    MANUFACTURE OR NAVAL AIRSHIPS.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is making any provision for the manufacture of naval airships in State factories?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Churchill): No, Sir.

    SUBMARINE A7.
    Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he can inform the House to what depth submarines of the "A" class can dive with safety; what is the depth of water in Whitsand Bay where the submarine A7 lies; and could a vessel of the "A" class dive to that depth without risk of any kind?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: Submarines of the "A" class are periodically subjected to the same tests as submarines of other classes; and during the last two years have been equipped with powerful electric pumps capable of dealing effectively with water at a great depth. They have now a large margin of safety at a depth of 150 feet. The depth of water in Whitsand Bay, where submarine A7 is lying, is twenty-three fathoms. Submarines of the "A" class have been exercising constantly during the last ten years in this area, and in greater depths of water, and this is the only fatal accident which has occurred to a British submarine while diving, except through collision.
    Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in submarines previously lost something went wrong and that it was shown that a greater depth was necessary.
    Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord might put a question down.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a lighter of the type which raised submarine A8 would be able to raise submarine A7;
    580
    will he say what dead weight lighter 94 can raise; what dead weight lighter 96 can raise; what is the estimated dead weight of submarine A7 now that she is full of mud, and what dead weight will the new lighter which it is proposed to station at Devonport be able to raise?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is considered that mooring lighters of the type used for raising A8 should be able to raise A7. The answer to the second part of the question is 270 tons; and to the third part, 450 tons. The dead weight, when completely filled with water, is about 160 tons. It is impossible to estimate the dead weight if, as suggested, the submarine is full of mud. The reply to the last part of the question is 270 tons.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Are we to understand that lighter 94 was not sufficiently powerful to raise the submarine if it was full of mud?
    Mr. CHURCHILL: It is impossible to estimate the dead weight if the submarine was full of mud. How the submarine got full of mud I cannot suggest.

    DIRECTOR OF WORKS DEPARTMENT.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the first Lord of the Admiralty whether in 1911 their Lords Commissioners received a petition from the draughtsmen, accountant clerks, general foremen of works, foremen of works and tracers engaged in the Director of Works Department at the Royal dockyards, praying that establishment may be applied to them, and setting out the reasons of their request; whether, in the event of these petitions being received, he will say why no answers have been given; and, seeing that an Admiralty Order has since been issued granting establishment to hired men (mechanics, skilled labourers, etc.), will he, for the reasons set out in the petitions, consider the possibility of placing the subordinate officers referred to in the same position as regards establishment as that of the workmen?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: About the time that the petition in question was received a Departmental Committee was appointed to consider the organisation of the Works Department. This Committee went fully, amongst other things, into the organisation of the staff engaged under the Director of Works at the Admiralty. As regards the staff at the outports, it recommended that the Director of Works

    581
    should himself inquire into its organisation. That inquiry is now in hand, and the question of the extension of the establishment to a proportion of the subordinate officers referred to, together with other matters, will, I hope, be settled in the very near future.
    Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes the inquiry will be finished?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: In the very near future.

    Sir Sydney Olivier.
    Mr. DENMANasked the First Lord of the Treasury what steps, in view of Sir Sydney Olivier's speech on armaments last autumn, have been taken to uphold the principle that Civil servants shall take no public part in current political controversy?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Sir Sydney Olivier's attention was called to the rule which obtains in the Civil Service. No steps of a general character have been taken nor do I think any necessary, as the rule is well understood, and I may say almost universally observed. The principle falls within the scope of the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service which is now sitting.
    Sir W. BYLES: But was this a political matter at all?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Well, we thought it better to draw attention to the rule.

    National Education.
    Mr. NEWMANasked the Prime Minister whether the words from the Throne, that a measure will be presented to develop a national system of education, include the making of the cost of any national system a national charge; and whether he is aware of the hardships and burdens entailed under the present system in those areas which are known as necessitous?
    The PRIME MINISTER: The Government do not propose to transfer the whole cost of education to the Exchequer, but proposals are under consideration, and will be explained in due course, for readjusting the share of the cost borne by rates and taxes, respectively. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

    Malta and Gibraltar.
    Sir SAMUEL SCOTTasked the Prime Minister whether the present garrison and armament of Malta and Gibraltar are considered adequate by the Imperial Defence Committee, the Admiralty, and Army Council, in view of the general naval situation in the Mediterranean; and, if not, what steps he proposes to take?
    The PRIME MINISTER: So far as existing conditions are concerned, the answer is in the affirmative. The adequacy of the garrison and armament of all defended ports abroad is kept under constant observation by the Committee of Imperial Defence and its standing Sub-Committee the Oversea Defence Committee, and they are readjusted when necessary to meet changes in the situation.
    Lord C. BERESFORD: Is it not a fact that the garrisons both of Malta and Gibraltar have been considerably reduced?
    The PRIME MINISTER: They have been reduced, certainly.

    Government of Ireland Bill.
    Lord ROBERT CECILasked whether it is the intention of the Government to propose the exclusion of Ulster from the operation of the Government of Ireland Bill?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot at this moment anticipate the statement which I have undertaken to make to the House on this subject.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say in what Parliamentary form the amended proposal will be put forward?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not say that at the present moment.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an idea?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I did last week.
    Lord ROBERT CECIL: To what portion of his speech does the right hon. Gentleman refer; I do not think the House is quite clear?
    The PRIME MINISTER: I thought I had made it clear: I said that as soon as the necessary financial business was concluded I would make a statement.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The 1st of April!

    Foreign Milk (Importation).
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, for the purpose of protecting the public from tuberculous or unclean milk, any and, if any, what steps are taken to inspect the dairies from which imports of foreign milk are obtained?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Herbert Samuel): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. The British Government has, of course, no power to inspect dairies in a foreign country. Samples of imported milk are from time to time taken by inspectors of the Local Government Board and submitted to bacteriological and other examinations. Tubercle bacillus has not been found in any sample.

    Patents Act, 1907.
    Mr. PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he intends to introduce an Amending Bill during the present Session to restore the effective force of Section 27 of the Patents Act of 1907, by placing the onus of proof of adequate working within the United Kingdom on the patentee and not on the applicant, as it was prior to Mr. Justice Parker's ruling in the Hatschek case in 1909?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns): Should it be found possible to introduce an Amending Bill, the provisions of Section 27 would be carefully considered with the other Sections of the Act, but I am not prepared at this stage to specify the exact nature of any of the amendments which would be proposed.

    Railway Companies' Charges.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the railway companies, in declining to take into account fractions of a penny in fixing their increased charges for the conveyance of agricultural produce, have, in fact, in pursuance of an alleged intention to levy an increased charge of 4 per cent, only, increased their rates for the conveyance of milk in many cases by
    584
    no less than 14 per cent., and have thereby rendered the milk producer's business, especially in the south of England, precarious and unprofitable; and whether he proposes to take any and, if any, what steps in the matter?
    Mr. NEWTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the increase in the charge levied by railway companies for the conveyance of milk amounts in practice frequently to as much as 16 per cent.; and whether he is able to take, and proposes to take, any steps in the matter?
    Mr. SANDYSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the increase in the charges made by railway companies for the conveyance of milk; whether he is aware that, for the conveyance of milk from Weston-super-Mare to Bristol, the charge for twelve gallons has been raised; from 6d. to 7d., an increase of 16 per cent.; whether he is aware that comparatively little labour is incurred in handling the milk traffic, as the railway company gives no collection or delivery, and can claim from the consignee assistance for unloading the milk; and whether, in view of the fact that this increase in rates is affecting a large section of the agricultural community, he proposes to take immediate steps to deal with the matter?
    Mr. BURNS: The railway clearing house inform me that a deputation from the Milk Traders' Railway Rates Committee discussed the matters referred to in these questions with representatives of the railway companies on the 28th January, and that it is hoped that a reply will be sent to the committee in the course of a few days. I will communicate with the hon. Members as soon as I learn the nature of the companies' reply.
    Mr. BATHURST: Can the right hon. Gentleman exercise greater control over these great national monopolies than did his predecessor?
    Mr. BURNS: I will consider the point when I see the reply of the companies.
    Mr. GEORGE TERRELLasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity in gallons of the imports of fresh milk in the United Kingdom during the year 1913; and whether any and, if any, what increases have been made in the same year in the through rates charged by all, or any, of the railway companies

    585
    for the carriage of such milk from the Continent to London?
    Mr. BURNS: The quantity of fresh milk imported into the United Kingdom in 1913 was 4,237 cwts. The imports are not recorded in gallons. Practically all the milk entered Southampton, and the London and South-Western Railway Company inform me that the through rate has not been increased.
    Mr. G. TERRELL: Are there not considerable milk imports into Harwich and other of the East Coast ports?
    Mr. BURNS: No; the facts are as I have stated. The import is not considerable.

    Building Trades Dispute (London).
    Mr. ALDENasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can see his way to offer his advice and assistance to the employers and men of the building trades in the London area, with a view to settling the dispute, which is causing suffering and hardship?
    Mr. BURNS: The good offices of the Board of Trade are, as is well known, at the disposal of the parties to the dispute referred to by my hon. Friend, should they desire to avail themselves of them, and the Chief Industrial Commissioner has been in frequent communication with both parties. I understand, however, that at the moment efforts are being made in other quarters to arrange a conference on the matter.

    Labour Exchanges.
    Mr. CROFTasked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of applications for employment at Labour Exchanges during the year 1913?
    Mr. BURNS: The total number of applications for employment—that is, registrations of workpeople—at Labour Exchanges during the year 1913 was 2,973,189. This total includes re-registrations of the same individual. The total number of individuals who registered at some time during the year was 1,877,221.
    Mr. CROFT: Is not that an increase of something like 500,000 applications over last year?
    Mr. BURNS: I believe that is somewhat near the figure.

BETHNAL GREEN BY-ELECTION.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether his attention has been called to Mr. Masterman's statement in Bethnal Green on Friday last to the effect that he was going to launch a scheme under the Insurance (Amendment) Act dealing with casual labour at the docks? Whether such a scheme was prepared during the last autumn; and why it has been kept over until the middle of Mr. Masterman's by-election?
The PRIME MINISTER: I only got notice of this question as I entered the House. I know nothing about it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will answer the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): My attention has not been previously called to the statement referred to. By Section 19 of the National Insurance Act, 1913, it is contemplated that there should be an issue of special orders dealing with casual labour, and the case of dock labour in the Port of London was then fully discussed, and it was contemplated, as every one knows, who took part in the Debate, that an order should be issued dealing with the Port of London. The Port of Liverpool has been largely dealt with, the Port of London has not, and therefore it was thoroughly understood that an order should be issued dealing with casual labour in the Port of London. Since the Act came into operation, steps have been taken to obtain the views of both employers and employed before issuing an order. A good many diverse interests have been consulted, and there have been negotiations and conversations with various interests in the Port. The order is in course of preparation and must be launched in a very short time.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question my hon. Friend really put, and that is, what is the explanation of the strange coincidence that this event is announced in the middle of a by-election?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: As a matter of fact it has been announced repeatedly before this election. [HON. Members: "When?"] It was announced in this House. I am not at all sure it was not announced once by my right hon. Friend,

587
but it was repeatedly announced in this House; it has been referred to repeatedly by my right hon. Friend Mr. Masterman in the course of speeches in the last two or three months. The only difference is, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite knows it perfectly well, that once a statement is made in the course of a by-election special prominence is given to it, and I have no doubt we owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) for still further calling attention to it.
Mr. BONAR LAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware he has still left the question unanswered. We all know that vague statements were made. Why was a definite statement left over until the middle of a by-election?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. So far from the statement being vague, nothing could be more specific. If he really will take the trouble to look at the Act which was carried last year, he will find it states almost in these very words that special orders may be made. [HON. MEMBERS: "May be made."] It was stated beyond that, that these orders would be made specifically in reference to the Port of London; in fact, the whole Debate turned upon the conditions of casual labour in the Port of London. Anyone who is acquainted with the subject knows it was the result of a great discussion, in which hon. Members on both sides of the House took part, and which had reference almost exclusively to the Port of London. I received deputations myself last year before that, and this Section was put in as a consequence of the pressure being brought to bear upon us, and therefore there is nothing new, except that the hon. Gentleman has so kindly called attention to it.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask whether it is not a fact that Mr. Masterman himself said the scheme is still under consideration, and has not been agreed to either by masters or men, and if so why is it now sprung upon the public?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is exactly what I have said. The hon. Member seems to have forgotten, so I will read what I said again. I said that steps have been taken to obtain the views both of employers and employed before the issue of an order, and the hon. Gentleman takes as new something I told five minutes ago.
Dr. ADDISON: Is it not true that Mr. Masterman was replying to a question put to him at a meeting in which he was asked what could be done for dock labour, and Mr. Masterman explained in accordance with the provisions of the Act of last year a scheme was being prepared?
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Can the right hon. Gentleman point to a single case of a statement made by any Minister in public until Mr. Masterman's statement the other day putting forward specific details of this scheme for dealing with casual labour?
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The Noble Lord does not seem to have acquainted himself with the facts. He talks of a scheme with specific details.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: Yes, certainly.
Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Even the hon. Gentleman who asked the question does not submit any question of specific detail. Mr. Masterman himself repeatedly, at Bethnal Green, in the course of the last three or four months made statements of that kind.
Lord ROBERT CECIL: The right hon. Gentleman impugnes my accuracy: his accuracy does not satisfy me.
Mr. SPEAKER: There seems to be a good deal of contention in this matter. It had better be raised in the course of debate.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to give notice that I shall, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, raise the question of the Bethnal Green by-election.

TOWN TENANTS MEETING (DUBLIN).
Mr. FIELD: I desire to ask the Chief Secretary a question, of which I have given him private notice: Whether he can state the reasons why a meeting of Dublin town tenants was prevented from being held in Kevin Street; whether he can state by whose authority and upon what information the meeting was proclaimed; whether the police were present in large numbers to prevent the meeting; and whether the officer in charge refused to give any reason for its prevention?
The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): I have no information, and this is quite new to me. I will telegraph for information, and as soon as I get the facts I will communicate with the hon. Member.
Mr. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the information to-morrow?
Mr. BIRRELL: I expect to do so.

WICK BURGHS ELECTION.

  MR. GULLAND'S SPEECH.
  Mr. CATHCART WASONasked the Prime Minister, seeing that no opportunity is likely to arise during the Debate on the Address on the questions arising out of the Wick Burghs Election, if he will give an early opportunity of enabling the House of Commons to be put in full possession of the facts relating to the speech of the hon. Member for Dumfries Burgh on the occasion of the by-election in Wick Burghs?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I have made inquiry into this matter, and I find that any hon. Friend, after eulogising the services which the Lord Advocate had rendered to the local interests of his constituency while a private Member, added an expression of opinion that those services might be still more valuable now that he had become a Member of the Government. I regret, and my hon. Friend shares my regret to the full, that such language was used. But he assures me that his speech was unpremediated, and that when he employed the words which have been criticised, he did not intend to convey and did not realise that what he said was capable of the construction which has been put upon it. My hon. Friend committed an error of judgment, but I feel sure that the House, always generous to its Members, among whom I believe he is one of the most generally esteemed, will accept his disclaimer of any corrupt or improper intentions.
  Mr. GULLAND: May I be allowed to add that I can assure the House that I never intended to suggest more than that the Lord Advocate had been a most useful local Member. I can only express my deep regret that I used language which could be regarded as conveying any other meaning.
  4.0 P.M.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: We had, of course, intended to ask the Prime Minister to give time for the discussion of this subject, but after the expression of regret which has been made both my himself and by the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs (Mr. Gulland) I am ready to accept it.
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Munro): May I, with the permission of the House, just add a few words with regard to my position in this matter? I referred to the Wick Harbour on one occasion only in the course of my election. I did so in reply to a question at Wick, which was put to me on 13th November. What I then said was:—
  "Nothing has been said and nothing will be said by me or with my authority to the effect that tile result of the election will affect the result of the application for the Harbour Grant. I cannot speak either for the Treasury or for the Development Commissioners. All that I can say is that if I am returned to Parliament, as I believe I will be, I will do my best to secure the grant. If, on the other hand, Mr. Mackenzie is returned, as I do not think he will be, I do not doubt that he will do the same."
  So far as the speech of my hon. Friend is concerned, I was unable to be present at the meeting at which it was delivered till a comparatively late stage, and, in particular, I was not present during the portion of it to which objection is now taken. Nothing occurred to suggest to my mind that my position with regard to the Harbour, already, as I thought, specifically defined, both with regard to the past and the future, required elaboration or modification on my part.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether all reflections and imputations upon the accuracy and veracity of the newspaper reporters implicated are withdrawn?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know why that question is addressed to me. I made no reflection of any sort or kind.
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: May I ask the question of the hon. Member for Dumfries Burghs?
  Mr. GULLAND: I shall be glad to answer that. The newspaper reporter admitted that his report was not a verbatim report, but, at this distance of time, I do not challenge his report. It is very difficult to remember three months after a speech is delivered the exact words used, and I am quite ready to accept these words as accurate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  BILLS PRESENTED.
    DOGS BILL.
    "To prohibit experiments upon Dogs." Presented by Sir FREDERICK BANBUBY; supported by Colonel Lockwood, Mr. Butcher, and Mr. George Greenwood; to be read a second time upon Friday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
    PUBLIC LIBRARIES BILL.
    "To amend the Acts relating to Public Libraries." Presented by Mr. GLADSTONE; supported by Sir Gilbert Parker, Sir John Dewar, Mr. Arthur Henderson, Sir John Harmood-Banner, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Middlemore, Sir David Brynmor Jones, Sir Charles Swann, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Morrell, and Mr. James Parker; to be read a second time upon Friday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
    COMPANIES (CO-PARTNERSHIP) BILL.
    "To promote the adoption of Co-partnership by statutory and other companies." Presented by Mr. JAMES HOPE; supported by Lord Robert Cecil, Mr. Worthington-Evans, and Mr. Peto; to be read a second time upon Friday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
    CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To consolidate and amend various enactments relating to offences against the person, to the protection of women and girls, to prostitution, and to brothels and other premises; to amend the Law relating to the extradition of criminals and to vagrancy; and otherwise to make further and better provision with respect to offences against morality; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." Presented by Dr. CHAPPLE; supported by Mr. Alden, Mr. Crooks, Mr. Annan Bryce, Mr. Black, and Mr. King; to be read a second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

    MONEYLENDERS ACTS (1900 AND 1911) AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Moneylenders Acts, 1900 and 1911, and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Mr. LEACH; supported by Sir Stephen Collins, Mr. Llewelyn Williams, Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. John Hugh Edwards, Dr. Chapple, Mr. Chancellor, and Sir John Spear; to be read a second time upon
    618
    Friday, 10th April, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

    SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) ACT (1911) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
    "To amend the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911." Presented by Mr. MORTON; supported by Mr. Ainsworth, Mr. Bryce, Sir John Dewar, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Macpherson, and Mr. Cathcart Wason; to be read a second time upon Friday, 13th March, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]
    ILLEGAL FISHING BY TRAWL VESSELS (SUPPRESSION) BILL.
    "To provide for the suppression of illegal fishing by trawl vessels." Presented by Mr. MORTOX; supported by Mr. Cathcart Wason, Mr. Harry Hope, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. John Hope, and Mr. Watt; to be read a second time upon Friday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]
    RAILWAY REGULATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    "To amend the Railway Regulation Acts; and for other purposes relating thereto." Presented by Mr. MORTON; supported by Mr. Esslemont, Mr. Robert Harcourt, Mr. Leicester Harmsworth, Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. MacCallum Scott, Mr. MacVeagh, Mr. Charles Price, Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Watt, and Mr. Wilkie; to be read a second time upon Friday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]
    ILLEGITIMACY AND MATERNITY BILL.
    "To make further and better provision with respect to Illegitimacy and Maternity; and for other purposes connected therewith." Presented by Dr. CHAPPLE; supported by Sir Godfrey Baring, Sir Robert Price, Mr. Alden, Mr. George Greenwood, Mr. King, Mr. Chancellor, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Snowden, and Mr. Henry M'Laren; to be read a second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]
    SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AND ABSENT VOTERS BILL.
    "To enable persons who are unable to attend at the poll owing to absence from their place of registration to record their votes at Parliamentary election." Presented by Mr. BUTCHER; supported by Sir Mark Sykes, Mr. Worthington-Evans, Mr. Peto, and Mr. Douglas Hall; to be read a second tune upon Friday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]
    LOCAL AUTHORITIES (ENABLING) BILL.
    "To extend the powers of Local Authorities in matters of finance and municipal trading." Presented by Mr. KEIR HARDIE; supported by Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, Mr. Pointer, Mr. George Roberts, Mr. Philip Snowden, Mr. Jowett, Mr. Parker, and Mr. William Thorne; to be road a second time upon Friday, 17th April, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]
  HIS MAJESTY'S GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.— [Fifth Day.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (10th February), "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—[Mr. Walter Roch.]
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Another Amendment proposed, at the end of the Question, to add the words,
    "But regrets that His Majesty's Government intend to proceed further with the Established Church (Wales) Bill, which is backed by no evidence of any popular support in the country, and is arousing increasing resentment and hostility from members of all denominations in England and Wales."—[Mr. Ormsby-Gore.]
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added.''
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I rise to move this Amendment in order to submit that the Established Church (Wales) Bill, if it be a fact that it is still before Parliament, has not behind it sufficient popular support to deserve it being proceeded with further. I would note, first, that there is no specific mention of this, the second capital measure of the Government, in His Majesty's Gracious Speech. Apparently they are too ashamed of it to mention it in the Speech from the Throne, and that fact coincides with the whole conspiracy of silence on this matter which has been the distinguishing feature of the manner in which this Bill has been put forward in this House and elsewhere.
    620
    The Government have never made any attempt to show that they have popular support behind them for this Bill on its merits, and the silence in the King's Speech is only exceeded by the silence of Cabinet Ministers in their speeches in the country. During the Recess most right hon. Gentlemen have made speeches in the country, but none of the important Cabinet Ministers, with one solitary exception, namely, the Prime Minister, has made any reference whatever to the Established Church (Wales) Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the so-called champion of Wales, has made speeches in Wales and up and down the country, but he has never made one reference to the question of Welsh Disestablishment or to the Bill before Parliament. All the reference in the Prime Minister's speeches has been a solitary sentence in his speech on 27th November at Leeds. I will at once give this reference of the Prime Minister to the matter. At Leeds, in a lengthy speech, he uttered these few sentences:—
    "What about the Welsh Church? They want a Referendum or a General Election all to itself upon that, for it is perfectly certain that the Welsh Church would be brought into the controversy, and would play as conspicuous a part as the indefatigable advocates of the Welsh Church could persuade the English electors to allow it to do and perhaps a very serious one."
    That was the single sentence which appeared in the "Times," the "Daily Chronicle," the "Daily News," the "Manchester Guardian," and the "Morning Post." We at once took note of this remarkable statement of the Prime Minister. He admitted that the Welsh Church question might play an important part in a General Election; he admitted it in his speech delivered at Leeds. A fortnight later came the information that in all these papers, his own Press as well as the Opposition Press, the Prime Minister was misreported seriously, and that instead of intending to say that "it might play an important part, perhaps a very serious one," he intended to say, "not perhaps a very serious one"—that is to say, the question is so small that it is not likely to play any part in a General Election. The Prime Minister, as reported by the newspapers, emphasises the importance of the part it is bound to play in a General Election, and his whole sentence, if it means anything—his reference to the indefatigable advocates of the Welsh Church—point to the fact that the reporters had every reason to believe that was what the Prime Minister intended. Of course, he throws over the reporters and makes nonsense of his sentence, and shows by that that he regards the Welsh Church question

    621
    as a small matter, not perhaps a very serious matter, not so serious as to be worthy of mention in the King's Speech, a mere small question to be brushed aside and never referred to in any of his speeches in the country. That is the first thing I would say. The Government go out of their way to hush up this question and prevent it being brought properly before the notice of the electors of the country.
    The second thing I wish to point out is this: During the Recess Church defenders have been holding meetings and demonstrations throughout the country. We have held most remarkable demonstrations. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman saw any reference in his own papers or in ours to the demonstration held in my Constituency at Wrexham last autumn. There you had 34,000 people—the checked account proved it—and those people had gathered from North Wales to protest against the terms of the Bill, a demonstration against which there has been no attempt on the part of the great Liberal party, so large in Wales, to gather even the smallest meeting. No attempt has been made in Wales, especially, either to produce any enthusiasm or any evidence whatever for the support of this Bill. We have held demonstrations in the autumn throughout England and Wales. We held in Wales alone forty-seven Church Defence demonstrations. At Wrexham, Llandrindod Wells, Rhyl, Pontypridd, Bridgend, Llandilo, Colwyn Bay, Aberdare, and Blaenavon, to mention the principal ones, and yet there is on the other side complete and absolute silence, and no attempt whatever to answer those manifestations of popular enthusiasm against the Bill. In addition to the meetings in Wales there has been a striking demonstration in Manchester. This Disestablishment and Disendowment campaign, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea (Sir D. Brymor Jones) is treasurer, has completely failed and is defeated in the country. But you continue to use—what arguments? The arguments that were used three years ago—the old arguments about, the last General Election. Does the Parliament Act mean this, that, however much popular opinion is shown to be against the Bill in the two years' delay which the Parliament Act allows, that public opinion—that public expression of opinion—is to be swept aside, and you are to go back to what you claimed originally? Why, if that is so, the two years' delay is absolutely useless and futile.
    622
    This is not a democratic institution. We know what happens when people try to express themselves directly on this question, and when petitions signed by the people of Wales are brought up to this House. You laugh at them! All the Government do is to use the name of the people to carry out the opinions and wishes of a caucus against Wales. You say in regard to all these public demonstrations and petitions, "They do not matter to us; we are a powerful autocracy. We have a majority in this House, and therefore the Bill must go through. The will of this House must prevail, even though the will of the people is against it." That is the position of the Government. Then I come to the question of Parliamentary support. What Parliamentary support have you got for the Bill? What interest is shown in it in this House? I quote at once the hon. Member for the Swansea district, the leader of the Welsh Liberal party, who said, quite honestly, that the Bill stood in danger from the open hostility of sections and the lukewarmness of nearly the whole of your party. Everybody knows that there is no enthusiasm either in the Liberal party, certainly not in the Labour party or even in the Irish party, for the proposals contained in this Bill. The most significant thing connected with the Parliamentary situation is the statement of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor)—a leading Irish Nationalist—who, in a letter which he has cabled to the "New World," gives his opinion as to the opinion on the Welsh Bill. I quote from the version received by the "Winnipeg Free Press," which, in its issue of 6th December, gives the following from the cable:—
    "In Gladstone's days the Nonconformist clergy and the Nonconformist congregations formed the most effective and best organised electoral power, and to them an appeal for the Disestablishment of any Church would be potent; but now, except in the country districts, the Nonconformist clergyman has ceased to have any special influence on the working class. He is now regarded as almost an apostle of the middle class, and the middle classes are getting steadily less powerful with the working classes. Thus it was when the Welsh Bill came before the House of Commons it did not excite a ripple among the working classes, and if it had not been for the steady adhesion and splendid discipline and attendance of the Irish Members it, would not have passed through the House of Commons."
    We know that that is the Parliamentary situation. If it had not been for the Irish Nationalists' support, the Welsh Disestablishment and Disendowment proposals would have been nowhere. What is the measure of that support? Is it support

    623
    on the merits of the Bill? We all know it is not. What were the two foremost occasions when the Irish party saved the Government and saved this measure for the Government? They were two significant occasions, when the questions of compensation for curates and of the glebe were raised. Upon both those occasions, taking out the Irish Unionist Members and the Irish Nationalist Members, there is a majority against the Government on the question of compensation for curates of twenty-three, and upon the question of glebe of twenty-four against the proposals of the Government. That is to say, the Coalition Government has carried by an Irish majority two of the vital points of the Bill. Is it not a cynical reflection that on the question of compensation for curates, carried alone by an Irish majority, when the Irish Church was Disestablished and disendowed the Irish curates got compensation, yet compensation is refused by the votes of Irish Members for the curates of the poorer church in Wales? Is not that a part of the general cynicism of the Government attitude towards the Welsh Church? It shows pretty well the Parliamentary situation. If this Bill were not part and parcel of your coalition scheme it would not have a chance of passing this House.
    I wish now to come to the most recent expression of public opinion in the country. In the papers this morning there was published a protest signed by 15,000 odd adult Nonconformists from the counties of Flintshire, Denbigh and half Montgomery-shire. That protest was sent by a committee from Denbigh, the town I have the honour to represent. I had nothing to do with this protest; it was got up entirely independently of me, or of my agents, or of any Conservative. It was organised and sent out by a committee of the most sturdy Liberals, who never voted for me or are likely to vote for me, with, I believe, one exception, that of a voter, who, at the last election gave me his vote because he objected to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered on the eve of the poll, in a chapel in my Constituency. So far as I know, he is the only signatory who has ever supported me. These people, for the most part, are sturdy Liberals; they give their denomination; they are not the riff-raff of Nonconformity, but they are prominent men, who have come out into the open against your proposals and against your Bill. I will give one instance,
    624
    over 700 came from a parish in East Denbighshire, which is recognised as one of the most stalwart Radical strongholds in the whole Principality. These men are Radicals; they will remain Radicals, but they object to your Bill; they think it mean, and the two proposals they select for special condemnation are those for the filching of the churchyards and the spending of £157,000 a year upon worldly purposes—purely worldly purposes—money which has hitherto been spent on religious purposes.
    Let us examine, further, the figures as to the signatories. In some districts they represent half the total adult Nonconformist population, they represent more than a quarter of the total membership claimed by fourteen denominations in the diocese of St. Asaph. They are significant in their numbers; they are much more significant in their character. Let us examine their character. Twenty-nine ministers and 158 deacons have signed the protest against your Disendowment proposals, and all the people who have signed are over twenty-one years of age. They signed in spite of the fact that the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. Lewis) made speeches before they signed, recommending them not to do so—in spite of the fact that every form in the chapel school was used to prevent their signing, and monthly meetings were held of the central organisations in their chapels.
    Mr. LEWIS: In my speech to which reference has been made, all I said—and I said it in consequence of representations which had been made to me—was that I hoped that no landlord will ask his tenant, that no customer will ask the tradesman with whom he deals, and that no employer will ask his workman to sign this petition. All I asked was that no material pressure should be brought to bear on anyone.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I unreservedly withdraw my statement. I had heard that the hon. Member had recommended that no Liberal should sign the petition. But I withdraw the statement that I have made. I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has given the explanation. I think, in the interests of fair play in Wales, his statement was one that should have been made. But the very best answer I can give, as showing that this petition was not signed under pressure by landlords, or anything of that sort, is a quotation I have in my hand from "The Banner," which is a great

    625
    Liberal organ published in the town of Denbigh. It says this:—
    "It is surprising to find any Nonconformist and Liberal of principle signing this petition."
    This was before it was finally sent in.
    "By so doing they at once sell their birthright, and spit mockery on the efforts and sacrifice of their forefathers in the fight for religious liberty. It is easy to understand how a serving man or a slip of a servant girl, under the thumb of a Tory or Church master, or in the presence of the vicar or curate, may stoop to the temptation of signing the petition. But when the petition is actually signed by the religious leaders of the Nonconformist denominations, and by persons who hold official positions with the party of progress, it is time to protest in the most emphatic way against treachery of this sort which is now being carried on."
    That is a very significant quotation from a prominent Welsh newspaper. You cannot disabuse your minds of the fact that these 15,000 Nonconformists have protested; you cannot pour contempt on them; they will not yield to any screw, political or otherwise, the threads of which are beginning to wear. I think nothing could be more significant than the way in which events are moving in Wales upon this matter. We have had upon various occasions ministers and members of Nonconformist denominations coming out into the open. Here you have a large body of public opinion in Wales asserting itself against the manner in which this measure is being carried forward, not by denominations so much as by politicians, who for a generation have used Welsh Disestablishment and Disendowment as the best lever by which to get jobs, places, honours, and rewards. After all, these expressions of public opinion are extremely significant. The popular support on the other side is practically nil, and yet this Government are asking this House to go on with the Bill unaltered by even a comma, and to proceed with it in the grip of the legislative machine, without any alteration, and without listening to any suggestions, for when appeals for alterations and suggestions are made, either by Nonconformists or by Churchmen, or by Members on this side of the House, they are told it cannot be altered. The Government are willing to give concessions to Ireland, because they fear Ulster, but for the Church in Wales they have neither pity nor feeling nor sympathy with her demands. Anything more mean, anything more contemptible than your offers to Ulster paralleled with your silence about the Church in Wales, and your continued pressure of this Bill through the legislative machine, as you confess it to be, anything more cynical than that conduct, or anything more likely to be resented for generation after generation of Churchmen. I
    626
    cannot imagine. What becomes of your promises given in this House on the Parliament Act? What becomes of the promise of the Prime Minister? Speaking in this House on the Third Reading of the Parliament Act on 15th May, 1911, he said:—
    "I have sufficient belief in the power of public opinion in this country, in the ventilating and enlightening effect of Parliamentary and outside discussions and criticism, to feel confident that a measure which was really being forced by the House of Commons outstaying or misreading its mandate, and forcing legislalation against the opinion of a large majority of the people, would never stand, and could never stand, the series of checks to which it would be exposed under this Bill."
    Where is the enlightening effect of Parliamentary discussion? The "gag" and the guillotine have prevented that on the Committee stage and the Suggestion stage in regard to this Bill. What becomes of Parliamentary opinion and the outside criticism referred to by the Prime Minister? Nothing has been said on your side; everything has been said on ours, and in the battle in the country we have a clear and decisive victory against this mean measure. In view of these circumstances, it is all important that the House should pause before it proceeds any further with this measure. I seek to insert this Amendment in the Address in order that the House may record its decision against proceeding with this measure because it receives neither the support of England nor of Wales, nor even honest Parliamentary support in this House. There is no democratic sanction behind this measure. Even so far as it is being-pressed forward, it is being pressed forward simply and solely because it is regarded by the Liberal party as a precedent for the further spoliation of the Church of England. You say that the Church in Wales is unimportant. We know perfectly well why you will not give way on the question of the churchyards or on the question of compensation for curates, find will not let us remain in the constitution, that is, in Convocation. It is simply because, as the "Westminster Gazette" has eloquently put it, this Bill would be a precedent for England. On 8th February, 1913, the "Westminster Gazette" said:—
    "It has not, we think, been sufficiently understood by certain Members on the Liberal side, that the Welsh Hill necessarily sets a precedent for other parts of the country, and that in pleading for more favourable treatment for the Welsh Church they are giving away principles which might at some future time be of the utmost importance."
    Now we know why the Bill is going on. It is not mentioned in the King's Speech, because it is a stalking horse for more secular and more worldly purposes, first

    627
    against the Church in Wales, and then against the Church of England. One after another religious organisations are to be broken up, the trusts torn up, and their funds taken for some library. Meanwhile, what is the position to-day? I only quote the position in Wales, where feeling towards this Bill is growing more and more hostile. Why? Because the money of the Church, which she is now using for the highest and best purposes, is being regarded as needed more and more for those purposes. The "Free Church Chronicle" of this month has a most illuminating article upon the position in Wales. It says:—
    "The indifference of the people to the Bible, their ignorance of its history and contents, its power, its grace and life is much too evident to be ignored. This seemingly haw impressed itself on the Talgarth Council recently—and very appropriately. For is not this the town where Howell Harris one Easter morning at Holy Communion found his Lord? Is not this the district where the great evangelist began to thunder against indifference to the Scriptures and the consequent prevalence of sin?"
    That is the opinion of the "Free Church Chronicle" on the position in Wales to-day—the indifference of the people and the prevalence of sin. Yet you are going to pass a measure under which you devote money which is now devoted to Evangelist services to a library at Aberystwyth. This large building is to be built by and maintained out of Evangelist money. The worldly uses to which you propose to put the funds of a large religious denomination in Wales are beginning to stink in the nostrils of the people in Wales. They are beginning to hate your secularist policy, and, above all, they feel with the Church in the meanness of your proposal with regard to churchyards. As a Welshman—a Churchman—said to me the other day, "I would rather you take every penny than that you should take our churchyards." We know you propose to alienate the churchyards in the diocese of St. David's The Nonconformist denominations in that diocese have as many churchyards of their own, but those you do not propose to touch under your Bill. That is your religious equality! I will give the House the figures. The churchyards in the diocese of St. David's which are to be confiscated number 421, while the Nonconformists in the diocese of St. David's possess 480 of their own. In only 77 cases out of the 421 is there any Nonconformist burial ground in the immediate vicinity, and in those 77 they have the right, under the Burial Act, 1880, to bury their dead and conduct the services with their own
    628
    ministers. Is not the meanness of your proposal to take away our churchyards more than any man who respects the rights and liberties of any denomination will stand? Many of these proposals you have made no attempt to justify whatever in this House, and, more particularly, in the country. You say that this Bill is one of the most typical first fruits of your Parliament Act. You destroy democratic sanction and democratic control. This House has reduced itself to a paid and packed caucus—it is nothing else—paid by the country and packed by the party whips, with its Members voting absolutely like machines. This Government has not scrupled to use the power of this House, and to use the prerogative of the Crown to give this House the power to override the claims of justice which are being urged on behalf of the Church in Wales, not merely by Churchmen alone, but by Nonconformists as well. There is a very striking phrase in Gibbon on the Venetian Constitution—
    "The oligarchy had degraded the Doge to a pageant, and the people to a cypher."
    You have used the Crown in order to get Parliamentary powers to override—
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think it is necessary to bring the Crown into this matter.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I unreservedly withdraw if I was bringing the Crown in. My position is that the Government have used the prerogative of the Crown—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—that is not bringing the Crown in—in order to bring the Constitution into the position in which it is now—that is, into a suspended state. During that suspension they have used that prerogative in an endeavour to force, against popular sanction and the public will, certain measures into law, namely, the Home Rule and the Welsh Church Bills, and are endeavouring to carry those measures by an automatic majority of this House of Commons. In these circumstances, can they expect to receive anything else than the resentment and opposition of Churchmen in Wales and in England? They say that they wish to be good friends, and that they wish to do away with the old sores and old grievances. Is it likely to promote unity to go on with this Bill, or to refuse to listen to the request of 15,000 Nonconformists in the diocese of St. Asaph who have asked for better treatment for the Church? Those 15,000 Nonconformists have done

    629
    more by signing the protest to once more cement good feeling between Christians in North Wales and between the Church and chapel than those on the Front Government Bench have done in the whole course of their career. The Welsh Parliamentary party, for political reasons, and in order to get political advantages out of the Disendowment and Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, have done and will do everything they can to separate Christian men in Wales. Why do you want the tithe, the most religious in its character of all endowments? You want that for some Welsh Radical county council to administer in schemes advantageous to yourselves. There will be more officials to administer, and more jobs in Wales for the Liberal party. The resentment against this Bill is steadily growing, while support of it is getting less and less. If the Government continue with this policy they will be outraging the feelings not only of Churchmen, but of many Nonconformists in England and Wales.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I desire briefly to second the Amendment that has been so ably proposed by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend has dealt mainly with the entire absence of support of this Bill in the Principality of Wales. I wish to deal with a similar state of things in England—the absence of all enthusiasm on the part of those who nominally support it, and the growing opposition on the part of all classes in England to the provisions of this Bill. I dare say I shall be told—we have heard it in this House before, and we may hear it again to-day—that this is not a matter for England, and that it is exclusively a Welsh matter, which concerns only Welsh Members of Parliament and Welsh voters. I utterly deny that position. This Bill mutilates the Church of England as a whole and dismembers it. The Home Secretary himself has admitted that the Bill dismembers the Church of England; but he has said that that is inevitable if you disestablish the Church in Wales. In other words, you must either disestablish or dismember the Church of England in order that the Church in Wales may be disestablished. If that treatment is to be meted out to the Church in England, surely we in England have some right to a voice in the matter. The Bill breaks up Convocation. Parliament takes upon itself to undo what it never did, to destroy the unity between the Welsh dioceses and the rest of the Church of England. If
    630
    that is so, surely we in England have a right to make our voices heard. It is because we entirely disapprove of the dismemberment of our Church without the consent of Church people, and of the Disestablishment of the four poorest dioceses, that we protest in England against this Bill proceeding any further. This Bill is a precedent for what may happen in England later on. As the late Bishop Creighton, of London, said, a Disestablishment Bill for the Church in Wales is a suspensory Bill for the Church of England. Surely we have a right to say whether we want a suspensory Bill for the Church of England, and therefore I brush aside entirely the contention that this is a matter for Wales only. It is undoubtedly a matter for England at the same time. What is the state of opinion in England? Wherever you look in England this Bill is most unpopular. Take any test you like. I will not go back to what is now the old story of the petitions against the Bill, but at all events you have this fact, that two million signatures were sent off against the Bill to this House, and, so far as I know, not a single one from England in favour of it. I do not for a moment say you could not have got some petitions if you had tried; but they knew very well that their total would compare so badly with cur total that they, very wisely, did not try.
    Then, take the test of meetings. Take those marvellous outdoor demonstrations all over England. I know a little about the history of those. The Central Church Committee, in the summer months, when indoor meetings were almost impossible, suggested one big demonstration in London and perhaps twenty in provincial centres. Some people thought it would be impossible to get up as many as twenty in the country districts. What happened? The idea spread like wildfire, and we had 180 of these demonstrations attended most numerously, full of enthusiasm, with people of all classes and both sexes present, and practically every one of the speakers were not exclusively Unionists and were not exclusively churchmen. There were Liberal speakers at everyone of the demonstrations that I attended, and at nearly everyone there were Nonconformist, speakers too. I want to know where are your meetings on the other side? You could not really get together two men and a boy in favour of this Bill in any town in England. There are not any of these demonstrations. They cannot be got up. Even in Wales

    631
    they have been a most awful fiasco. I can give an example of one which took place in the Rhondda Valley—which is usually regarded as somewhat of a stronghold of Nonconformity and Liberationism—at a place called Williamstown last spring. The meeting was announced in favour of the Bill and a Nonconformist preacher was announced to speak. The meeting took place, but when the speaker got to it the chairman discovered a very large assembly the greatest part of which was against the Bill. He got up and said, "The speaker is not going to speak on the Welsh Church Bill. He will give a lecture on Church History." That shows that even in Wales you cannot get up a satisfactory meeting in favour of it. Why is it? I have heard two reasons put forward why meetings in favour of the Bill cannot be got up. One is that they cost a lot of money, and that it is impossible for the Liberationists to find the money to organise the meetings. If that is so it does not look as if there was great popular support of the Bill. I do not know what the funds of the Liberationists in England may be, but I know they are rather short in Wales, because when the right lion. Gentleman (Sir D. Brynmor Jones) issued an appeal last March for what he called the great national movement, he only got £16 in the whole of South Wales and £18 in the whole of North Wales, which does not look as if there was any violent support in favour of the great national movement.
    But there is another reason put forward which I think is probably the reason. It is that the Bill is going to be passed anyhow, what ever way public opinion may manifest itself, under the terms of the Parliament Act, and that view was put forward very explicitly by the right hon. Gentleman in these words. He said:—
    "We do assume that the Bill is in the grip of a legislative machine of absolutely good pattern and up to date, and I am rejoiced that the Government will do nothing to stop the action of the machine."
    I think we see exactly how we stand. The Bill is in the grip of a machine. Public opinion may manifest itself to any extent outside, but the machine is set to work, and, unless it gets upset in some other way, the Bill will be forced down against the wishes of the people, and therefore it is quite unnecessary to endeavour to influence public opinion. I ask what becomes of the Prime Minister's assertion that the Parliament Act is not to be used covertly and arbitrarily to smuggle into law measures condemned by
    632
    public opinion? I ask where is the stable opinion against the Bill? Where is the stable opinion in favour of the Bill? There is stable opinion, but it is only against the Bill, so far as we can judge at present.
    Let me take another way of judging public opinion in England. Take the test of a by-election. Do any hon. Members opposite really think this Bill is popular at by-elections? There is nothing that loses them more votes than the Welsh Church Bill does at by-elections. [An. HON. MEMBER: "Home Rule."] When I say nothing more, I mean it certainly loses them a great many votes. I am not going to institute any comparisons, I will merely speak about what I know. There was a rather remarkable election the other day. There was a Liberal Member before. It was a three-cornered fight, which means deducting a lot of votes from the Unionist candidate, yet the Unionist poll enormously increased, and the seat was won. At that election Church defenders sent down an expert agent, whose duty it was to get into touch with Liberal Churchmen in the constituency. He traced some 200 or 300, of whom 150 gave a definite pledge that though they had never voted Unionist before they should vote for the Unionist candidate on this occasion on account of the Welsh Church Bill. That was quite sufficient to turn the election. There, again, you had public opinion obviously growing in England against this Bill. These were not what you might call wobblers. They were known to be Liberals. They were in favour of Home Rule. They believed in some cases, I dare say, in the verbal inspiration of the Insurance Act. They supported the Government policy in everything else, but they chose to put their Church before their party. Because they objected to the unjust proposals contained in the Welsh Church Bill, they unhesitatingly gave their votes to the Unionist candidate. What do the Government care? The Bill is in the grip of the machine, and therefore it has to proceed notwithstanding public opinion. Another manifestation of the unpopularity of the Bill is in this House. Over and over again but for the Irish vote you would have been defeated. On four separate occasions in Committee but for the Irish vote the Government would have been in a minority; But there is another thing we can take into account. I have only left out the Irish

    633
    vote. If I was taking a constitutional view of the matter I should have every right to exclude the Scottish vote too. Hon. Members apparently have forgotten, or have never been aware, of the remarkable conditions which were made at the time of the Union with Scotland. It was then laid down—and you can find it in the respective Union Acts between England and Scotland—that neither country would intermeddle in the religious establishment of the other, and therefore if that principle had been carried we ought to exclude the votes of Scotland. The only two countries which are really directly interested are England and Wales, and in England and Wales you have not a majority in this House for the Bill, and you have a strong and growing volume of public opinion against you.
    The Bill is declining in popularity on account of the manner in which it is discussed by its supporters in the country. It is the commonest case for the provisions of the Bill to be totally misrepresented in the country by its supporters. We are frequently told in the country that it will only leave the Church £51,000 a year worse off than it is at present. The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that that is not the case. The Bill takes away £158,000 a year from the Church, and the £51,000 is only arrived at by a piece of financial juggling which would disgrace a shady company prospectus. We know the way it is got at. The Home Secretary counts in the value of the life interests. If the life interests are expended on the existing holders, there can be nothing left for the Church afterwards. Secondly, he counts in £31,000 a year which may come to the Church after it is Disestablished and which will equally come to the Church if it is not Disestablished, and if, therefore, he counts the figure on the one side he ought certainly to count it on the other. Let me give another example. It is commonly stated even now, notwithstanding all the contradictions which have been given in this House, that the Bill will bring relief to the farmers by relieving them of the payment of tithe. I do not charge the Home Secretary with having said it.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. McKenna): Nor seen it.
    5.0 P.M.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I will give an example. There was an election last spring at Altrincham, which also resulted in a notable Unionist victory. This
    634
    is an extract from a Liberal newspaper which was circulated, and the statement was repeated from the newspaper, immediately before the election. The paper in question was the "Manchester Evening News," and I am quoting from its issue of 21st May:—
    "In Wales the abolition of the tithe would give very substantial relief to the farmer, but in matters affecting the Church in Wales religion, according to Mr. Hamilton, must come before politics, and as the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in the principalities would destroy the Christian religion in Wales, the Welsh farmers need not look for relief in that direction."
    A party which circulates statements like that, which are obviously and manifestly untrue, at times of election, clearly does not believe in the right and justice of the Bill it is supporting. Let me quote one further example. This does not refer to the provisions of the Bill. It refers to statements that are constantly made in Wales and elsewhere about the Church. There was a remarkable speech made by the Bishop of St. Asaph at the Diocesan Conference at Newport last October, in the course of which he said:—
    "There had been a meeting a few weeks before of the North Wales Baptists, and at that meeting the Rev. T. Shankland, the librarian of University College, a very eminent historical authority, stated the well-known fact that the Church had rescued the Welsh language in the period of transition, immediately there were loud cries of dissent, and exclamations, 'Don't you see there are reporters present?'"
    I say that a cause that is bolstered up on the principle of telling the truth in private and not telling it in public is a cause not worth having. That is the way this cause has been bolstered up, and even so, with such bolstering up, the cause is dying from one end of the country to the other. The real fact is that my hon. Friends opposite who come from Wales represent a cause which is dead in this country. They are really fossilised liberals. It would have been all very well in Queen Victoria's days. They might have been in the fighting line then, but they are only a sort of baggage guard now. "Liberationism, separation of Church and State, and the secularisation of Endowments" was a great cry undoubtedly some thirty, forty, or fifty years ago. It was a great cry in England, Wales, and Scotland, but circumstances have entirely changed. We take a different aspect. Look at the remarkable change which has taken place in Scotland. I remember twenty-one years ago, when first I had the honour of being a Member of this House, we used to have in the Queen's Speech of the day

    635
    mention not only of Disestablishment for Wales, but also Disestablishment for Scotland. We never have that now—it is entirely gone—but we have had the advantage of a Liberal Government for eight years. They have produced nine King's Speeches, and in not a single one has there been any sort of allusion to Disestablishment and Disendowment for Scotland.
    Just as this principle has died down in England, so it is dying down in Wales at the present time, and hon. Members opposite know better than I do that the agitation there is a very weak and mild one as compared with what it was twenty years ago. It is merely kept up now as a party and political battle cry. But unfortunately its fulfilment is necessary to the coalition. The Government policy is a mosaic. If one part drops out, the whole thing goes to pieces. If the mosaic of the Welsh Church comes out, down go Home Rule, Plural Voting, and all the rest of it; for hon. Members from Ireland, who want Home Rule, support Welsh Disestablishment, and in return the Nationalists, who care nothing about Welsh Disestablishment, support the Welsh Church Bill. The Church is being made the victim of a mere party cry. It is made the victim of a temporary coalition. We protest to the utmost of our power, and say that this injustice ought not to be done except upon reasons which can be defended in this House, and which have the support of the people outside.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentlemen who moved and -seconded the Amendment have certainly justified one part of their speeches, inasmuch as they have made it quite clear to us that this Bill is unpopular with certain persons. I cannot help thinking, however, that they have confounded individual opinion with popular opinion. I am rather at a loss to know on what motive, if what the hon. Gentlemen say is true, the Government have acted. Undoubtedly for the sake of principle we are prepared to sacrifice our popularity. That seems to me somewhat novel, coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite. Both of them tell us that this Bill is extremely unpopular, that it is growing more unpopular alike in England and in Wales, and that since its first introduction we have lost certainly one election. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment is doubtful whether we have not lost more.
    Sir A. GRIFF1TH-BOSCAWEN: I have no doubt.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman thinks that we have lost more, and that even strong Nonconformist supporters are now against us. Because this Government is devoted to principle!
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Devoted to office.
    Mr. McKENNA: No, no. We were willing to sacrifice all our political future, and even to incur all this unpopularity for the sake of our principle in this Bill. That must be the only conclusion which can be drawn from the speeches of the hon. Members. On what evidence do they base their charge? I quite agree with them that this Bill is very much disliked by a certain section of the community. There is nothing new in that. It has been disliked ever since it was put forward by the Liberal party as one of the leading measures in their programme thirty years ago. Churchmen, both in England and Wales, have always disliked it. Now the hon. Gentleman opposite says, that the unpopularity is growing, and he proves that from the evidence of church meetings and petitions. He also points to the absence of Nonconformist meetings and petitions on our side. Long ago this Parliament passed an Act establishing the ballot as the constitutional machinery—
    Lord HUGH CECIL: Hear, hear.
    Mr. McKENNA: Establishing the ballot as the constitutional machinery by which we should determine public opinion at an election. We were not to determine public opinion by petitions, or even public meetings; but the Parliament of the day, which is the only legislative authority, so far as the House of Commons was concerned, was to be elected by ballot. Our ancestors when they passed the Ballot Act knew not only that petitions could certainly be obtained under pressure, but that even open voting at the hustings might not truly express the opinion of the voters. We have got the ballot, and we have had, since this Bill was introduced, ample evidence of what the opinion of England and Wales is upon the measure. Since the Bill was introduced, and with all the knowledge of what we were doing, including our dealings with churchyards and with the sum of £157,000 a year, we have had three by-elections in Wales. One of them was in the very heart of the diocese of St. Asaph, which is the home of 15,000

    637
    petitioning Nonconformists. My hon. Friend who sits on the benches behind me is the representative of the constituency which was fought at that by-election with the power and authority of the Bishop of St. Asaph at the very door. We have had two other elections besides that. One of the constituencies is represented by my hon. Friend near me, and the other by my hon. Friend below the Gangway. Both have been returned by overwhelming majorities at by-elections since this Bill was introduced. It so happens that there are just as many Conservative Members for Wales as there have been by-elections in Wales since this Bill was introduced. There are three Conservative Members for Wales, and the whole of their combined majorities amount to 362 votes. In the three by-elections which we have had upon this growingly unpopular measure, the majority in favour of the Bill has been no less than 4,221. When we have got this constitutional means of testing public opinion, are we to turn our backs upon the wisdom of Parliament and upon constitutional practice, and are we to say that the evidence of the petitions, however good, is more valuable than the results of by-elections?
    In England there has been only one by-election in which it can be confidently asserted that the Welsh Church Bill was made, if not a leading issue, certainly one of two or three, leading issues. It so happens that owing to peculiar circumstances the Welsh Disestablishment Bill was chiefly the issue. The House will remember that we lost the year before last the services of Mr. Harwood, a very distinguished Liberal Member, who disagreed with his Friends on this side of the House on the subject of the Welsh Church Bill. I am not certain that he did not actually move the Amendment against the Second Heading of the Bill. Mr. Harwood died, and in consequence there was a by-election at Bolton. At that by-election, the Liberal candidate, who is the present Member for the constituency, took up the Welsh Church Bill as his main plank. A churchman himself, he was anxious to fight his constituency upon that issue. My hon. Friend won the election with a majority of 1,200.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: What was the Liberal majority at the preceding election?
    Mr. McKENNA: At the preceding election the majority was 1,300 or 1,400.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: No.
    Mr. McKENNA: At the preceding election the Liberal obtained 10,358 votes, the Labour candidate obtained 10,108, and. Colonel Hesketh, the Conservative candidate, obtained 8,697 votes. The two first candidates were successful, and the majority of the second candidate over the Conservative was 1,411. The present Member for the constituency obtained a majority of 1,176, and when you remember the difficulty which all Governments have in defending seats at by-elections the reduction of the Liberal majority by a matter of only one or two hundred votes in a constituency in which the Welsh Church Bill was made the direct issue is a sufficient proof that in England, as well as in Wales, this Bill is as popular to-day as ever it was. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh at that. I quite expected that they would laugh, because, if they are to make any point at all under the Parliament Act, they must show that this Bill is more unpopular than it was or that there is a growing unpopularity against it. If I show that, whether it was popular before or not, it is no less popular to-day, then I have proved my case.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: No.
    Mr. McKENNA: If the Noble Lord desires any weight to be attached to his negative he must imply that we have no authority to introduce this Bill after the election of 1910. He must imply that the constituencies were not aware of this Bill, and that we have smuggled it in under the Parliament Act. Does he say that we have no authority to introduce it?
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Yes.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member says that we have no authority for this Bill after the last election. I have a series of quotations here, one of them from the hon. Member himself, as to what the opinion was in January, 1910. The hon. Member, in his election address, says:—
    "Mr. Asquith has now brought forward the question of Home Rule for Ireland, and has applied for a mandate to carry it into effect in the coming Parliament. First, we are threatened with wholesale revolution; the House of Lords is to be abolished; the Church dismembered and disendowed, and the unity of the Empire destroyed at one and the same moment."
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The question is not what I said, but did the Government tell the country that they were going to do it?
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member evidently thought that they did.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: It was clear to us, but not to the electors.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member's language was:—
    "Mr. Asquith has now brought forward the question of Home Rule for Ireland, and has applied for a mandate to carry it into effect in the coming Parliament."
    The hon. Gentleman had no doubt that the Prime Minister had done so at the last election, but his modesty will not allow him to accept his own authority on the point, and I would like, therefore, to quote the authority of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: The point was not what my hon. Friend may have said by way of warning, but whether the Government themselves told the country that they were going to do this.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister had done so. The other hon. Member said in December, 1910:—
    "One of the purposes for which the powers of the Second Chamber are to destroyed has been described by Mr. Winston Churchill for the Government as the intention of the Government to five Wales from its alien church."
    So that the had full warning, like the other hon. Member, on the authority of the Government, as to what we intended to do.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: On both occasions I was returned, and, more than that, my opponent on the first occasion made no reference to this question in his election address, and at the second election my other opponent made but the vaguest reference to religious equality.
    Mr. McKENNA: Now I understand fully why both the hon. Gentleman's opponents were beaten, and why the majority of the hon. Gentleman was increased from eight on the first occasion to nine on the second occasion. It would have been entirely swept away if his opponent had come forward firmly on this subject, One opinion which I share with the hon. Member for Dudley was that expressed by him on a previous occasion, when he explained his own defeat in a Welsh constituency by his reference to the Welsh Church Bill.
    Sir A GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Not this Bill.
    Mr. McKENNA: It was a Bill which took away more from the Church than
    640
    this Bill does. I have said sufficient to establish two points from my point of view: first, that the voters were aware of our intention to introduce this Bill, and, second, that there was no sign of growing unpopularity. The hon. Member for Dudley tells us that if we only postpone this Bill for a little longer, as our cause is a dying cause, the claim to Disestablish the Church would disappear altogether. The hon. Member made a speech on the same subject in 1895–that is, nineteen years ago. I am sorry to have to quote the hon. Member again, but he can seethe relevance of what I have to say. He said:—
    "The reason why he and his friends were determined to fight the Bill was that, judging from everything they saw in Wales, by the manner in which the people were coming back to the Church, and even by so trivial an incident as county council elections, they believed that time was on their side. The Church might be weak, but was now growing every day, and its supporters were determined to put off this question until the time when the Church was so strong that Disestablishment would be entirely impossible."
    Nineteen years ago the hon. Member described this as a dying cause. Since that time we have had a series of elections in Wales. At no time has the minority of Members opposed to Disestablishment and Disendowment in Wales—this dying cause—been greater than nine out of thirty-four, and nineteen years after its death was foretold the minority is three out of thirty-four. In those circumstances can there be a shadow of doubt in the mind of any reasonable man that the feeling in support of Disestablishment and Disendowment is as strong to-day as ever it was? "Why," says the hon. Gentleman, "do you not hold meetings in Wales?" Why should we? It is the Constitution of the country at this moment, with the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, that when this Bill passes this House for the third time it will become law. The hon. Gentleman would find meetings large enough and representative enough in Wales if the Bill were dropped. But the Welsh people have sufficient confidence in those who represent them in this House, and, if I may say so with all becomingness, sufficient confidence in the Government to know that we shall not abandon them. We do not ask them to hold meetings in support of a Bill which has been over and over again acclaimed at General Elections for a period of thirty years. We must have better evidence than we have had yet before we can see any reason for giving up this Bill.
    Lord HUGH CECIL: What evidence will induce the right hon. Gentleman to drop the Bill?
    Mr. McKENNA: I would like to see what evidence the Noble Lord can obtain. Let me come to the latest piece of evidence, the supposed petition from the 15,000 Nonconformists from certain counties in Wales.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Why supposed?
    Mr. McKENNA: I may be permitted to make my statement. First, this body of 15,000 Nonconformists have chosen as the area of their organisations a diocese—a peculiarity which must strike everybody's mind: that Nonconformists desiring to organise against this Bill should choose the diocese as their area. The next thing that occurs to me about this petition is that the gentleman who forwarded the petition is reported to be a strong Conservative. I am told that he was undoubtedly, in days gone by, a Nonconformist and a member of a particular Church. I am told that he may still be a member of that Church, but that he no longer resides in the place where his Church was, and that he has not joined the Church in the place where he now lives. But he is certainly, as I am informed, a strong Conservative. What evidence have we got of a change of feeling where a Conservative petitions against this Bill? I have not had an opportunity of examining all the names yet, but I would ask the lion. Gentleman who spoke with such confidence about this petition whether he makes himself responsible for two statements which he made as facts: First, that the 15,000 people who signed this petition are Nonconformists; and, secondly, in reference to the office-holders, twenty-nine ministers whom he names, 158 deacons and other office-holders, whether there is that number of ministers and deacons and office-holders among the signatories to the petition?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: As I told the right hon. Gentleman, this petition was got up without consulting me. I am not responsible for it in any way, nor is the Conservative party. It must be taken on its face value. If he chooses to doubt the names, he must state the grounds upon which he does so.
    Mr. McKENNA: I am sure the hon. Gentleman has been quite frank about the
    642
    subject. He knows extremely little about it, and he cannot give his authority that these are genuine Nonconformists and that the persons who signed are what they purport to be.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: You have their own authority.
    Mr. McKENNA: A statement from a gentleman who was reported to me to be a strong Conservative.
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I deny that.
    Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman denies that. Mr. Williams, who is the chairman of the committee, who has been vouched for as a Liberal, is, I am informed, a well-known Conservative. We are at issue immediately on the first point, and I would beg the House to postpone judgment until we have been able to examine the petition. Reference has been made to a letter written to the Prime Minister quite recently, and before there was time to investigate any of the facts. Presumably, in anticipation of to-day's Debate, a letter was written to the ''Times'' setting out certain ex parte statements. I have looked into the petition, and I have already discovered that a number of the signatures are in the same handwriting; but, until we have examined the petition, I would beg the House to withhold judgment. In the absence of that petition, is there any evidence at all of any change? There is none. I ask the House, therefore, to continue to support the Bill this Session as it has done in the last two Sessions. Upon the merits of the measure I do not think this is the occasion to discuss them. If the hon. Gentleman desires to raise the question of the churchyards or the question of the alleged taking away from the Church of £150,000 a year, on all those points I shall be happy to meet him when the time comes. The case which arises now has failed, and I trust the House will not accept it.
    Mr. HOARE: The Home Secretary has done his best to minimise the result of the petition, but it is perfectly easy for him to test the accuracy of the signatures and the value and substance of the petition. It certainly seems to me to bear the stamp of truth when people not only put their names—which can, after all, be verified—upon a petition, but actually asked the Prime Minister to receive a deputation on the subject. I cannot help thinking that it is unfortunate

    643
    that the Prime Minister, although it is some days since they first communicated with him, has not yet seen fit to see the signatories of a petition, which, on the face of it, is a very remarkable document. During his observations the Home Secretary was successful in adding two new features to a Debate, which is already becoming very time-worn. First of all he made an historical discovery, and secondly he asked Members on this side of the House a question. First of all he stated that the electors of this country are in possession of the ballot. That is an historical fact. Secondly, he asked Members on this side how, if the Bill is unpopular, are the Government to go on with a measure which, on the face of it, is unpopular? That in the mouths of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench sounds a very difficult question to answer. They ask us how we expect them to go on with the Bill, which is apparently so unpopular as this Bill. Let me connect those two statements together. First of all he said that we are in possession of the ballot; secondly, that the Government should not be accused of going on with an unpopular Bill. It is true that we are in possession of the ballot—that is simply stating a fact—but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues do not give the electors an opportunity of using the ballot. There is a very obvious reason which is bound up with the question he asked about the unpopularity of the Bill, namely, that if the Bill is unpopular they must not venture upon an election, for, if they did, they might lose the emoluments of office to which they have clung like limpets during the past few years.
    I desire to make one or two observations upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend. It seems to me that, in point of time, we have reached a period not unlike that in which Mr. Gladstone found himself in the year 1869. I say only in point of time; in every other way the situation then was in direct contrast with the situation as it is now. In 1869 Mr. Gladstone was embarking upon a Session in which he intended to pass a Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of part of the National Church. At that time every organ of the Constitution was in full play, every part of it was working smoothly, and every part of it carried out the object for which it existed, so much so, that, summing up the result of that Session, Lord Morley, in his Life of Mr. Gladstone, said that the passage of
    644
    the Irish Disestablishment Bill, quite apart from the merits of its provisions, was the legislative triumph of Mr. Gladstone's career. How different is the situation in which we find ourselves now. In 1869, electors, Lords, Commons, Crown, were all doing their part in the passage of an Act of Parliament. Now, we find a Bill rushed, as my hon. Friend below me said, through this House without any real or genuine discussion—for our discussions were nothing more than academic debate. The Second Chamber is gagged. So far from the electorate having been consulted as they were then, the Government refuse the Amendment of my hon. Friend, proposing a means by which alone the electors would have an opportunity at the next election of giving their decision. We have reached the situation which was foretold by the Prime Minister during the discussions of the Parliament Act.
    The Prime Minister, the House will remember, declared that the delay of three Sessions, or two years, when the suspensory veto on the House of Lords is imposed, precludes the possibility of covertly and arbitrarily smuggling into law measures which are condemned by public opinion, and that it will, at the same time, ensure ample opportunity for reconsideration and redivision against slovenly legislation. I say nothing about the second proposition. The opportunity we have had for reconsideration of slovenly legislation certainly was not enjoyed last Session. As to this Amendment, I confine myself only to the first of the two propositions, that no unpopular Bill could become law owing to the force of public opinion making itself felt during the operation of the suspensory power of the House of Lords. Can anyone say that the present state of affairs resembles in the remotest degree the promise that the Prime Minister held out to us in 1910? It is all very well for the Home Secretary to scoff at the various ways in which public opinion has shown itself in opposition to this Bill. Let him suggest any other way, and we will take it.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: By-elections.
    Mr. HOARE: The hon. Member says by-elections. Can he point to any single by-election in Wales, or anywhere else, where Welsh Disestablishment has been a prominent issue, or an issue at all, in which his party have not lost votes? The hon. Member does not seem to regard that

    645
    as an answer to his question. What more can he ask? Is there any by-election where you have not lost votes? Look at public meetings. The Home Secretary seems to think that, because the Constitution is in suspense, and because we possess a ballot which he will not allow us to use, we may not have even public meetings. I do not suppose that there ever has been a campaign fought in which a larger number of well attended meetings have been held through a great length of time in protest against any Bill. For three years this controversy has been fought out in this country, and month three years this controversy has been held in every part of the land, not only in Conservative districts, but in Radical districts, in Wales as well as in England, and I challenge hon. Members to mention any series of meetings that, both from attendance and enthusiasm on the part of those present, could vie with the meetings we have held in protest against this Bill.
    If the Home Secretary does not attach value to that test, take the test of the attitude of Members sitting behind him. Is the Bill likely to have behind it a consistent body of strong support, when during its course it has been subjected to all those ups-and-downs, those petty manœuvres which we watched with such interest a few months ago—how at one time in a critical condition their majority was reduced to twenty, and on other occasions to thirty, forty, or fifty. I cannot help thinking that, if hon. Members really found that they had behind them a strong and consistent body of public opinion they would not be reduced to the petty manœuvres and intrigues to which they were reduced to get their Bill to the Third Reading at all. If I want a further test of the unpopularity of the Bill, where better could I look than to the speeches of that past master in electioneering, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If this were a popular Bill, and if it had behind it a consistent body of public support, would it not have played a very prominent part in the speeches which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been making in the country during the last few months? How is it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer never mentions it upon the platform at all? Is it not because he considers it is better electioneering to abuse the dukes rather than to rob the curates? Judged by every test that we can apply to this Bill, it has behind it no public support, and it is nothing short of an outrage to push it through this House of Commons,
    646
    in the picturesque language of the Leader of the Welsh party, in the grip of the legislative machine—whilst outside in every walk of life and in every party the body of men and women who are protesting against it is, in spite of what the Home Secretary said, increasing. I therefore hope that, though my hon. Friend's Amendment will not be earned in this House to-day, it will concentrate people's attention on the cynical way in which the Home Secretary and his colleagues are treating one of the gravest subjects which could possibly be raised for the consideration of the electorate.
    Sir DAVID BRYNMOR JONES: I confess that I heard with some surprise one observation from the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He had the hardihood to say that the Government were obtaining the passage of this Bill by petty manœuvres. I think that comes with very bad grace from those who resorted to petty manœuvres in order to win an advantage by a snap Division by reducing our majority certainly to a somewhat small proportion, but the opinion of the House was immediately shown by the fact that in the very next Division on the Report stage of the Bill we had a majority of over a hundred. I confess also to some surprise that the hon. Member, whose contribution to our Debates on the Committee stage of the Bill was so useful, should have thought it wise to refer to anything of the kind upon the Amendment now under the consideration of the House. I prefer to turn from answering such trivial arguments to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment, which appeared to me both able and both distinctly relevant to the subject we are now debating. What is the Amendment? It certainly contains one most extraordinary assertion, an assertion not set up by either the Mover or the Seconder. The Amendment affirms the universal proposition that there is no evidence of popular support for a Bill which embodies a reform which all the representatives of Wales and Monmouthshire were pledged to support in 1906, and thirty-one out of thirty-four in both elections of 1910, and which has now been twice passed through the House of Commons. The Mover of the Amendment did not, of course, take up so extreme a position as that, and immediately said that what he asserted was that the Bill has not received such adequate support as to justify its being proceeded with.

    647
    Taking that as being the question which we have to consider, may I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what evidence they will accept as sufficient evidence of popular support to justify the Government in proceeding with this Bill? Do they ask us, the people of Wales, to resort to irritating guerilla warfare such as has been adopted by the militant Suffragettes. Supposing we took that line of petty persecution of bishops and clergy, will that convince them? But suppose we take a more pompous and at the same time even more illegal and unconstitutional course than that, and suppose we adopt the Ulster method, and suppose we call another convention at Cardiff representative of the whole Principality of Wales, and suppose that we sign in our thousands a solemn covenant to make Government in Wales impossible, and suppose that we establish a Provisional Government, and that we begin to drill our able-bodied men, and suppose that we buy guns and rifles and ammunition, and suppose that we make every town in Wales a place of arms, will that be such as the Opposition will accept? I do not know. I presume that they do not expect us to adopt any unconstitutional methods to convince Parliament that the Bill which we are supporting is a just and expedient and reasonable measure. Short of any such expression of opinion as I have been adverting to, I assert that no movement for the reform of the Constitution, either in Church or State, has ever received a more long, continued, persistent and extensive support from the people concerned than that for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church in Wales. I appeal in support of that proposition to facts that must be well known to all the Members of this House.
    I would ask you to consider the origin and history of this movement. Both the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) have throughout the whole of their speeches to-day treated this question as though it were one of a modern kind and as something that had been suddenly sprung on the country, and something in regard to which we were relying upon a scratch majority at some General Election. That is not at all the character of the movement with which we are dealing. It is not a movement of any wire-pulling or of any log-rolling kind.
    648
    It is not a movement which has been imposed upon the people by politicians, but it is a movement which has been imposed by the people of Wales upon the politicians of Wales. It is a movement which started more than a hundred years ago, and is one that has been growing, and growing not as part merely of any political party programme, but growing co-incidentally with the great rise in Non-conformity upon an unparalleled scale in the Western part of our country. It would be unpardonable on my part to attempt to develop the point to which I have just alluded, and I am not going to do so. But if the question of whether this has popular support is to be decided, not merely by considerations of the moment, but by considerations of all the relevant facts, I would have to point, secondly, to the electoral statistics connected with this question. I think that they are fairly well known. I do not think that it would be advisable for me, or that anybody would expect me, to explain the result of each General Election, in so far as Wales is concerned, from 1868 onwards, but it is a very remarkable fact that, whereas only seven Members supported the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales in the year 1868, the very moment that the Ballot Act had been passed and an opportunity afforded to the people of Wales, the Welsh-speaking people, the people who have been concerned in this national movement, of expressing their opinions, the number rose from seven to twenty-seven. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has sufficiently adverted to what has taken place from that time onwards.
    The next point which I rely upon is, seeing that there is ample evidence for Parliamentary support of this Bill, supposing that the kind of evidence which we have to give is evidence which ordinarily has been accepted as adequate in our Parliamentary proceedings under representative government, the Parliamentary history of this measure. I shall only say one or two words on this aspect of the case. It ought not to be forgotten that as far back as 1895, when a Liberal Government was in power, a measure not very dissimilar in its terms from the one now under consideration received a Second Reading by a very considerable majority, and I would especially ask those Members who are concerned in North Wales to remember that that Bill received the assent of no less a person that Mr. Gladstone, who at one time was undoubtedly

    649
    hostile to the notion of treating Wales separately from England in regard to Disestablishment and Disendowment, but who ultimately endorsed with the sanction of his great authority a measure for treating Wales separately in regard to this matter.
    Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Which Bill?
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: The Bill of 1895.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: For which Mr. Gladstone expressly insisted on breaking his pair.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Not on the principle. The light hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is perfectly true Mr. Gladstone was not Prime Minister in 1895 when the Bill was brought in, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look back to the record he will see that Mr. Gladstone assented to the Suspensory Bill, and was Prime Minister while the Suspensory Bill was before this House.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understood the hon. Member to be referring to the Bill of 1895, and not to the Suspensory Bill.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: It is perfectly correct that the Bill I was referring to was the Bill of 1895. I said that a Bill for the separate treatment of Wales in regard to this question of Disestablishment and Disendowment had received the assent of no less a person than Mr. Gladstone.
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That was the Bill that came before the House when Mr. Gladstone had ceased to take an active part in its proceedings, and Mr. Gladstone broke his pair for that Bill.
    6.0 P.M.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: Those are matters of personal history which are of very slight relevance to what I am now saying. If there is any doubt about the attitude of Mr. Gladstone, let me refer to the fact that the Suspensory Bill of 1893 was brought in in his Prime Ministership, and the Suspensory Bill had no meaning whatever unless he was prepared to support the principle of the Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales and Monmouthshire. Let me also say, that in a Debate in this House on the 20th February, 1891, Mr. Gladstone said:—
    "Wales having thus spoken, is it right, is it desirable, can it long continue, that by English opinion such a declaration proceeding from Wales should be disregarded, contravened, and overruled? It may happen once or twice. I will not say how long it may continue;
    650
    I will not undertake to define the length of time in months or years. In politics it is dangerous to predict. But this I will say—it will be a very little time.… the people of England, who are eminently a just people, will give, and will insist on giving to Wales in respect of her reasonable demands the same just, considerate, equitable, and conclusive settlement which, in the like circumstances, I believe they would claim for themselves."
    That is some of the evidence undoubtedly upon which our case is based. A Bill was passed in the year 1895, so far as the Second Reading stage was concerned, and a Bill has now been passed twice through the House of Commons. The next point in regard to the evidence for the popular support of this Bill, is the situation created by the Parliament Act. Both in the election of 1910, and in the election of December, 1910, every single Welsh Liberal Member made it perfectly clear in his constituency, that he was asking the electors to decide to put an end to the veto of the House of Lords, in order that Bills which could not be got through so long as that veto was unrestricted might be passed into law. The hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs has made some considerable play from time to time about our election addresses. I would submit to him, because I know him to be a fair-minded man, that there is really nothing in that point. It is quite true that in my election address in December, 1910, I did not expressly refer to the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church in Wales, but if the hon. Member will refer back to my election address in January, 1910, he will find that I there did so. In December, 1910, I did not publish the same address, or any lengthy address at all, but simply referred my Constituents to the address which I had issued in January, and said that my opinions then were identical. My hon. Friend says that I was unopposed. That, however, does not matter. I issued an address, and under the circumstances, I did not think it necessary to say more than that. I put forward exactly the same sentiments as before. The hon. Member will find, if he makes further inquiry, that that was the case throughout the whole of Wales and Monmouthshire. He knows as well as anybody on this side of the House, that no man had a chance of being adopted as a Liberal or Labour candidate, unless he was sound upon this question. The hon. Member will not deny that; therefore, any question as to the exact form of an address, or exactly what was said at this meeting or that, ought not to influence anybody's opinion upon a matter of this kind.

    651
    We regard the decision of the General Election of December, 1910, as final on this question. We look upon the matter res judicata. We have obtained time after time a final verdict from the highest court in the land—the opinion of the electors of the United Kingdom. That has been our position, and that shortly is our answer to all those points which were so cleverly made by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs, and the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley. If they like, after a judgment has been given, to go and hold a demonstration, there is nothing to stop them; but why on earth should we, having obtained these decisions, regard the matter as in any sense doubtful. I am referring to Wales, which, of course, is our business. I have noticed running through the speeches on the other side this afternoon a recognition of the distinction between Welsh and English opinion. I am the last to regard with any disrespect the opinion of either English Churchmen, English Nonconformists. English Liberals, English Labour, or English Conservatives, but I venture to say that the question of what is the opinion of England in regard to this matter is not the overruling question. I admit that the votes of the electors in England, Scotland and Ireland have, in fact, a great influence upon the development of affairs, upon the passing or not passing of any particular Bill, but our contention is that this Bill is one which ought to be passed because the opinion of Wales is in favour of it.
    Throughout our discussions upon the present Bill, from the time it was brought forward in 1912, we have taken as our first principle the principle that Wales is a separate nationality, and ought, in regard to merely domestic concerns, to be treated as a separate political entity. If you deny that principle, if we advocate the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the English Church at all, we ought to extend the sphere of our activities to England and Wales. But we do not ask that. Many of us believe that the connection between a particular Church and the State is wholly unjustifiable and unfair. But we are not raising that broad and general question in our present disputation. The Bishop of St. David's, who is a thorough Welshman, and has been following our arguments with the greatest skill, and has answered or endeavoured to answer them without showing any ill-temper, unlike some other people who have been concerned in meeting us on this question, is
    652
    reported in the "Western Mail," of the 14th February, as having said at a meeting, at Penarth, on Friday last:—
    "He had last month explained at length his views about Welsh nationality, and he valued Welsh nationality because it formed a common ground of patriotism on which Nonconformists and Churchmen could stand together as Welshmen, for the promotion of the welfare of Wales as a whole."
    The hon. Member opposite agrees with that statement of principle. In regard to any matter touching conscience, touching the question of how the Welsh people are to carry on their religious work; how can he assert that the opinion of Wales ought not to be the ground of deciding what is best for the welfare of the Welsh people? The Bishop of St. David's says that it forms a common ground on which Welsh. Nonconformists and Churchmen can stand together for the promotion of the welfare of Wales as a whole. Who are to be the judges of the welfare of Wales as a whole, unless it be the Welsh people?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Not you.
    Sir D. BRYNMOR JONES: How are you going to ascertain the opinion of the Welsh people, except through their representatives, unless you desert altogether the standpoint of popular government? I think it fair to refer to that statement as showing that in the highest quarters we are gradually convincing people that the principles upon which this measure is founded are true, and ought to be acted upon. There is one observation made by the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs, which I think ought to be answered. He referred to demonstrations in Wales, and especially to one held at Wrexham. The hon. Member knows that none of us would, for a single moment, question the zeal and sincerity of the people who attended those demonstrations. Personally I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the numbers suggested by the hon. Member as having attended. My answer is, that we have not thought it right or necessary on our part to try to answer the kind of argument implied in a demonstration by any similar measure, except on one occasion. We held one demonstration, which we thought, was quite sufficient, namely, the demonstration on the 28th May, at Swansea. I took the best methods I could to ascertain the number of people who came into Swansea for that demonstration. First of all, in the morning we held a meeting at which there were over 1,000 people who came from all parts of Wales, and who in effect, I believe, represented the views of the Nonconformists

    653
    of those various districts. We were unanimous in our views about proceeding with this Bill. I may mention also that in the afternoon a great meeting was held in the Victoria Park. I am told—and I believe the matter can be easily verified—that over 60,000 people actually arrived at the park. From inquiries we find that something between 90,000 and 100,000 came into town specially and joined in the procession to the Victoria Park. At any rate, I can say this, that our demonstration was as remarkable in all its features as any that has been held by those on behalf of the Church in Wales.
    When you come to deal with English demonstrations, I am not at all inclined to think that the arguments of the hon. Gentleman carried the matter much further. I find that these English demonstrations and processions have not been of a political character. I think 180 have been held altogether. I have seen reports of a good many. I find that most of them are not demonstrations of the same type of demonstration that we, at any rate, have endeavoured to hold in Wales from time to time; but that they are of a definitely religious character. That is not, I think, denied. At any rate, I see that the "Times" newspaper said that in regard to the Hyde Park demonstration, which has been referred to, that it was obviously and intentionally one of a religious character. Banners were exhibited bearing the following inscriptions: "Britain's Church is Britain's Glory," "Church before Party," "Fight for the Faith," and so on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Quite so; I have not the slightest objection, but if that is the kind of demonstration you are going to hold, the meeting becomes, not an appeal to the reason of the citizen, but an appeal to the obedience of the faithful. All our demonstrations have been held on a purely secular basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I rejoice to hear that cheer, because at our meetings not one word, so far as I have observed, has ever been said against religion or against the doctrines or tenets of any. Church—certainly not the Church of England. That is our whole point. Let us come again to Colchester. The Bishop of Colchester, I am told in the report, gave a telling and earnest address. I have no doubt about it. After the Creed, prayer, and the address, his lordship put this question to the vast crowd: "Do you who are gathering here solemnly protest against the
    654
    proposal of the Government to destroy the organic unity of the Church of England and to confiscate much of the property of the churches in the Welsh dioceses?" Very well! Surely, if the Creed is recited and there is prayer, that is a religious ceremony.
    Again, when you come to the great Hyde Park meeting, I observe that no less a person than the Bishop of London prayed and said: "I appeal to God; He can smash any machine. I appeal to God to smash the Parliament Act." How can we answer the argument of prayer? I do not know what that kind of dialectic is. It certainly would be most unbecoming on my part to say anything in the way of adverse criticism upon people who like to hold these meetings. The only thing I can suggest is that we should try to find some Elijah. I am not at all sure that the Rev. Evan Jones, who has been so bitterly attacked by the Bishop of St. Asaph, would not take upon himself the function of praying on our side. If, as a result, this Bill becomes law, I do not think the Bishop of London can complain if we say that he has been in this regard rather a false prophet. I do not think it is necessary to deal with any of the points relating to the substance of the Bill, which have been more or less referred to on the other side. I confidently submit to the House that there is nothing in all that has been said to show the slightest change of popular opinion in regard to this measure. We stand by the decision of a country in 1910. I can tell the House that the spirit of the Welsh people, as our history proves, is like a sword of steel. You may bend, but you will not break it. Our hearts are set upon this measure, if only as an expression of our national will. We shall spare no measures to compass the passing of the Bill, which we regard as one of tardy justice and historical retribution.
    Mr. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down naturally, perhaps, devoted the greater part of his speech to establishing the proposition that this Bill was still popular with the majority of the Welsh voters. I am not going to enter into the controversy between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh Boroughs. He may be right, or he may be wrong, in thinking that the majority of the Welsh people desire this Bill. I have no means of testing it; but the fact that so large a proportion of the Members from Wales vote for it, is, I quite agree,

    655
    a primâ facie argument in his favour, and I am not going to dispute it. But there are one or two propositions which the hon. and learned Member advanced on that aspect of the question which I think are rather dangerous. He quoted the Bishop of St. David's as being a supporter of Welsh nationality, and I have not the least doubt that he quoted him perfectly accurately. The Bishop of St. David's is a Welshman, a Welshman of Welshmen, a patriotic Welshman, and if I, though not a Welshman, may say so, an ornament to Wales. He was perfectly justified in appealing to the feelings of Welsh patriotism. But I utterly mistake the whole tenour of thought of the bishop if he ever suggested the doctrine which the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded to found upon the bishop's statement, which was that every measure that passes the House of Commons of the United Kingdom for Wales should have a majority of Welsh people behind it. That is not Welsh patriotism. That is Welsh separatism. It has no other meaning. If it is to be the doctrine laid down in absolutely categorical terms by the hon. and learned Gentleman as applying to all portions of the United Kingdom, I can hardly conceive why a Home Rule Bill should be passed at all. Apparently you may divide the United Kingdom up into factions as you please, and then whatever the majority of representatives in any of the factions decides is good for that fraction, is to be passed obediently without debate, without discussion, without criticism, by the remaining Members of the House. That is an impossible doctrine. That is absolutely subversive of Parliamentary Government in any shape or form, and, if I may say so, it is a doctrine which is utterly inapplicable, in my opinion, to any kind of measure. Even if it applied only to a fraction of the United Kingdom I should never admit the argument—even if the Disestablishment Bill affected only Wales. Let me remind the hon. and learned Member that it is universally agreed that the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales does not affect the Church in Wales only. The Church of Wales is at present an integral part of the English Church, and it is absurd to suggest that the English Church can be forcibly bereft of so important a fraction of its organism without itself suffering. This may be more important to Wales than it is to the rest of England, or of the United Kingdom; but it is not only con-
    656
    trary to all sound doctrine of Parliamentary Government to say, that if this is a purely Welsh question it must be settled by purely Welsh representatives; but it is a great violation of the known facts of the case to suggest that it is only a Welsh question, and that only Welshmen can settle it.
    I do not, however, rise for the purpose of dealing with the state of public opinion in Wales, or of offering any verdict upon the matter in controversy between the hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. Friend. I rise merely again to point out how unjustly and absurdly the Parliament Act is working in connection with tins measure. We know exactly—it has been quoted in this Debate—the Prime Minister's general account of how he thought the two years' delay would work in assuring that no measure should be passed over the House of Lords of and in spite of the House of Lords unless it had behind it the general sentiment of the people of this country. I have not the right hon. Gentleman's words here, but his meaning was perfectly clear. Probably most hon. Members have in their minds the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made on more than one occasion, and the argument he advanced. That argument was this: That if the Government brought forward a measure under the Parliament Act which did not have behind it the assent of the people there would be discussion, interest, and argument carried on in all the constituencies throughout the country, and people would have an opportunity of indicating, not, indeed, formally by their votes, but by pressure upon their Members, that the measure was distasteful to them; that, as a result, no Government which valued its own skin—and certainly no Government values its skin more than the present one—would proceed with the measure. I think that argument had considerable weight. I think people did feel that if public opinion was really to be concentrated upon a measure for two years, if the result of that careful attention was to bring to light objections which had not been thought of before, the defects which bad lain concealed within the Bill would cither be profoundly modified or the Bill would be abandoned. How much chance has the ordinary elector of this country had to concentrate his attention upon this Bill? Two years was supposed to be a protection against rash legislation. It has operated precisely in the opposite direction. The effect of the way the Government have

    657
    worked it is this: They have said to themselves: "If we bring only one important measure in under the Parliament Act no doubt public opinion may be concentrated upon it, and the result may be disastrous to its fate. Let us bring in several measures, and if the measures which we bring in are not enough, Jet us start another agitation at the same time, and make it perfectly confident that the attention which the electorate of this country can give to the measure will be necessarily so superficial that we may hope to escape any hostile criticism." That is the broad policy. Now, how is it carried out. It is carried out admirably and effectively, I mean admirably from the point of view of the wire-pullers, and effectively, from the point of view of the Government, and fatally, from the point of view of the principles of Parliament. Will any hon. Member on the benches opposite get up and honestly tell me that with the Home Rule Bill constantly under discussion, with even the Home Rule Bill eclipsed by the effect of the Insurance Act, by the discussions and debates on the Insurance Act, that even such attention can be given to the Home Rule Bill, beginning to be eclipsed by the knowledge that that Bill may lead us to civil war, and on top of all that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer going blazing about the country with the deliberate intention of turning public attention away from the Insurance Act, away from the Home Rule Bill, away from the condition of Ulster, and away from the Church Bill—will anyone on the Front Bench get up and tell me that this measure of Disestablishment has seriously received the attention which it would, and might, have had during those two years under more favourable circumstances? The thing is absurd, and everybody who knows the realities of politics knows it is absurd.
    Our electors are necessarily and inevitably busy men. They have to earn their living; they are occupied with the local affairs, they are occupied with all those innumerable questions which the Government have thrust upon their notice, some of which touch their interest vitally and immediately, and it is absurd to ask them to give balanced and impartial consideration to a measure which, however important, and however important they may think it, if they had the chance, does not actually directly touch their immediate interests. Therefore, I say the whole manner in which this Bill
    658
    has been treated by the Government shows, in the first place, that it is not a proper measure to be forced through under the Parliament Act, and, in the second place, that if it ever was a measure that ought to be forced through under that Act, the Government have deliberately and intentionally and persistently taken every step in their power to make it impossible for the people adequately to consider it in those two years which were avowedly given to other considerations, and that is no doubt, one of the reasons of the phenomenon which so shocks and horrifies the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. He is dreadfully distressed to find that so many of the meetings directed against this measure have been religious meetings, and he draws an especial distinction between religious demonstrations and appeals to the reason of the people, which he seems to think the first result to forward.
    It may surprise the hon. and learned Gentleman that this is religious in part, and that it is largely and fundamentally a religious question. And it is the Nonconformists who have realised that the interests of religion, apart from sectarian differences, are involved in this measure which is largely responsible for that appeal made, to which my hon. Friend refers, from Nonconformists in Wales. And everybody in this House knows well that the Nonconformist clergy and many of the most earnest and religious of the Nonconformist bodies in this country, those, in other words, who do consider this as a religious question, and not as an appeal to the reason of the people in the curious paradoxical sense in which the hon. and learned Gentleman uses that phrase, are opposed, and are joining the Churchmen in their profound regret that the Government should deliberately set to work, and in the name of Welsh nationality or Welsh religious freedom, do so much to impair and hamper the real religious work which is now going on in Wales. What makes me feel that the crime, as I think it, which the Government, protected by the Parliament Act, are now committing against very high interests committed to their charge, what makes me feel that crime is greater than it might be in other circumstances, is the profound conviction that the best movement of our time, irrespective altogether of denominational differences, and differences between Churchmen and Nonconformists, is growing more and more hostile to this unscrupulous appropriation

    659
    of money devoted to religious purposes. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this is a very old movement in Wales, and had gone back 100 years. I do not doubt that his facts may be true, and that 100 years ago there were earnest Nonconformists, at a time when Nonconformity was doing a great religious work in Wales. I do not at all deny that it is going on still. When the movement was in its first vigour I do not doubt there were many views as to beginning these attacks on Church property, especially as at that time the activity of the Church was on a far lower level of religious devotion than it is now or for many years past.
    I believe anybody who will impartially try and investigate, not the way votes are given at political meetings when the hon. Gentleman and his Friends are appealing to what they call "the reason of the people," but who will try and make out which way the tendency of opinion is going amongst those who really lead opinion, those who first say what others will say in a few years' time, I think anyone who tries to make that study impartially and effectively will come to the conclusion that this Disestablishment tide is receding, not the least because people are becoming indifferent to religion, but because they are beginning to see that the greatest religious interests are, whatever your opinion may be as to Church and Nonconformity, or one form of Nonconformity or another, the greatest interests of religion are not bound up with those sectarian differences, and will not be helped by this sectarian plunder. If I am right in saying that, if I have given an accurate diagnosis of the way in which this opinion is now moving, and of the way in which all opinion will soon, move, then under cover of this Parliament Act, with the people not generally consulted, with their reason not in any true sense adequately appealed to, you are really committing a crime, which once committed cannot be undone, and you are using the constitutional instrument you yourselves have forged to carry out a policy which I believe even the most devoted Welshmen of the next generation will look back upon with a deepest and most heartfelt regret.
    Mr. LLEWELYN WILLIAMS: We, on this side of the House, who suffer most from the dialectical skill of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, welcome his appearance in our Debates, and always listen with great respect and admiration
    660
    to the sentiments he utters. The right hon. Gentleman availed himself of this occasion to point out that the Parliament Act was inefficient in several respects. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Parliament Act ought never to have been required in order to pass this measure into law. Let me remind the House for a moment of the Parliamentary history of this measure. I venture to say that there-never has been a Bill in the long Parliamentary experience of the right hon. Gentleman which has been subjected to so much Parliamentary criticism and discussion and which has been submitted so often in all its details to the will of the electors of this country. In 1905, to go no further than that, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman said upon the eve of the election in December, 1905, that he proposed to introduce this Bill if he were returned to power. In July of the following year, 1906, in reply to a question put to him by the hon. Member for Oswestry, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman then said, he hoped to introduce legislation upon this question. Three years later, in April, 1909, that promise was redeemed, and the Liberal Government introduced this Bill, for it was this Bill, and the only modifications that have been made in it ever since are modifications in the interests of the Church, not in the interests of the Welsh people. That was in 1909; an election took place after the Bill had been introduced. After the country had got to know the text of the Bill and exactly what was proposed to be done, the Prime Minister made a speech in the Albert Hall, and the Bishop of St. David's speaking on the 22nd December, 1909, said this, as reported in the "Guardian" newspaper of that date:
    "Parliament is not entitled to overthrow ancient national institutions without a clear, deliberate, decisive warrant from the people. That warrant was now being asked for by the Government for the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, just as it was asked for in the General Election of 1868 in reference to the Irish Church. The Prime Minister's recent speech at the Albert Hall is a plain warning that if he and his friends are returned to Power, the Welsh Church will be disestablished and disendowed."
    The Prime Minister and his followers were returned to power, but circumstances over which we had no control, and over which I believe the Government had no control, made it impossible for the Government in 1910 to deal with this question, and when another election was forced upon the Government in December, 1910, the Prime Minister repeated his declaration at the Albert Hall to the effect that, if returned to power, he would introduce

    661
    this Bill, and the Bishop of St. Asaph, speaking at Oswestry on the 16th November 1910, said this:—
    "I am wholly unable to agree with those who think that this is not a supreme crisis in the history of the Church in Wales. So far as the Church is an established and endowed Church, personally, I say without hesitation at all, I think that the fate of the Church, so far as those two sides of her position are concerned, will be decided within the next six or eight weeks."
    You have the Prime Minister on three occasions, on the eve of three General Elections, stating to all the world that if returned to power almost the first use he would make of the confidence of the country would be to introduce a Disestablishment Bill for Wales. That was accepted by the two great protagonists of the Establishment in Wales, because it was accepted by the Bishop of St. David's in 1909 and the Bishop of St. Asaph's in 1910. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London, who has had such a long experience of this House, and who has made a great reputation as a Parliamentary Statesman, how otherwise ran Wales press her view upon the House of Commons except in the constitutional way she has chosen? I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in his great and long experience of Parliament, he has ever known a Bill with all its details put before the country at three successive General Elections, winning all the three, which has not become Law? It is all very well to say there were other questions before the electors. The right hon. Gentleman seems to make complaint of the fact that now, when this Bill has got in the grip of the Parliament Act, other questions have been forced to the front. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to call to mind what happened in 1902. In that year he passed an Act which offended the conscience of thousands, and tens of thousands, of the best citizens of the country, and he passed that Act in spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) pledged his word in 1900 that a majority returned in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's policy would not be used to do I anything to offend the Nonconformist conscience, and he said the majority would be used only to end the war. In spite of that pledge the right hon. Gentleman opposite used his majority in this House in order to force through the Education Act, which is still a standing grievance with thousands of Nonconformists.
    Sir F. BANBURY: Why have you not changed it?
    Mr. L. WILLIAMS: That Bill was sent to the House of Lords, but they did not suspend its operation for two years. If the Parliament Act had been in vogue then and the Education Act in 1902 had got into the grip, of the legislative machine; if there had been at the other end of the corridor a Second Chamber that would deal as faithfully with the Education Act as it deals with Home Rule and Welsh Disestablishment to-day; if they had suspended the operation of the Act for two years, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that with all the by-elections going against him it would have been possible for him to put that Act on the Statute Book? The Licensing Act of 1904 is another instance. That was an Act which, no doubt, there is a good deal to be said in favour of. I agree that it was not altogether a bad Act, but it did introduce another element into our system. It laid down that the annual licence granted to a publican should be compensated for if taken away. That was a new and novel doctrine against all the decisions given in the Courts of Law. I do not say whether it was right or wrong, but, at any rate, it was a new thing, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite used his dwindling majority remorselessly in forcing through this House that Act without the excision of a single word. It passed through the other House. That is why we were compelled, if our measures were to have any chance, to pass the Parliament Act. We were not in love with the Parliament Act. I think that Act bears hardly even now upon our party. Why should the right hon. Gentleman and his followers be able to pass into an Act of Parliament a Bill like the Education Bill in one Session, amid the grumbling of his own followers here and amid the desertion of many of his followers in the country? I think the right, hon. Gentleman opposite has, since then, admitted very candidly that that Act did create some grievance upon Nonconformists which ought to be removed.
    Mr. BALFOUR: No.
    Mr. L. WILLIAMS: I think it was during the Debates of 1906, but if the right hon. Gentleman denies it I do not press the point. At any rate, he cannot deny that many of his own followers among Nonconformists believe that that was a grievous thing to do then, and yet he was able to pass that Bill in one Session. If that be so in regard to Tory legislation, how can it be unfair that

    663
    Liberal legislation, after running the gauntlet of, public opinion for two or three years, should have a chance of getting on the Statute Book? That is all we ask. What evidence is there or can be adduced that during the last two or three years this Bill is more unpopular than it was? We are a small country. We are feeble folk in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We have only got thirty-four Members in this House, and, unfortunately, three of them sit on the other side; but we have done all we could, and the people of Wales have done all they could, to point out to this House the reality of our grievance. As the Home Secretary has already pointed out, the combined majority of the three hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent Wales is only something like 400, while the majorities of the thirty-one hon. Members from Wales who sit on this side is something like 90,000, or an average of 3,000.
    The hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), with a courage which I admire, seemed to think that, because there were some slight decreases in the majorities obtained by two of his colleagues, that that showed a certain amount of growing unpopularity in Wales of Disestablishment. I do not look at it in that way. I have a majority of 1,281 in an electorate of only 7,500, and I am sure that would be a majority which the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs would be very proud to have. The hon. Member has increased his majority from eight to nine, and perhaps I may point out that my majority of 1,281 is greater than any Liberal majority anybody else has had in that constituency. The hon. Member mentioned demonstrations at Wrexham and Llandilo. Now, Llandilo is the centre of a constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen (Mr. Towyn Jones). No doubt there was a great demonstration, at Llandilo, but there was a greater one in Carmarthenshire where there was a by-election. The present Member for East Carmarthen was returned by a majority of 2,700, and the Labour candidate who also fought that election and described himself as a more pronounced disestablisher than the hon. Member himself, also had over 1,000 votes recorded in his favour. Therefore, this very constituency, with Llandilo as its centre, only a year ago showed that it possessed a majority of 3,700 in favour of this question.
    664
    We are told that, not only are there demonstrations against us, but that we are getting petitions against this Bill. We have heard of petitions with 15,000 signatures, and signed by Nonconformists. I do not know Mr. John Williams, who sends the petition here, but I am told that he is a Conservative. Whether he is a churchman or not I do not know, but I know he is not a Nonconformist. I do not know what politics these 15,000 petitioners may hold, but I do suspect very much every one of these petitions. We have had experience of them before now.
    7.0 P.M.
    There were 1,094 petitions sent to this House last year, and they were examined by the Petitions Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Merionethshire sat as a member of that Committee. He went into the matter as far as his own constituency was concerned, and what did he find? He told the House some time ago that there were dozens of signatures in the same handwriting. Out of 1,094 signatures, 361 transgressed the rules of this House. He said he found duplicate and triplicate signatures. A publican in his constituency signed his name twice; an ex-sheriff also signed twice, and a rector and his wife and domestics signed the petition in Merionethshire, went to the seaside, and then signed the petition again. The signatures wore supposed to be those, of persons over fifteen years of age, but my hon. Friend found several instances of those who had signed under fifteen years of age. Another point is that they were supposed to be residents of the Principality, but in one parish, out of 2,000 signatures, over 600 were non-residents; and yet, taking all that into account, you get only about 550,000 or 560,000 signatures. At the last Census it was found that there were 1,600,000 adults over fifteen years of ago in Wales. Consequently, if you put in the non-residents, the people who signed with double and treble signatures, and all the rest of it, and give the benefit of all the doubtful ones in these petitions to the other side, you find that less than one-third of the adults in the Principality have signed petitions. Somebody has spoken of a chapel screw. I know Welsh Nonconformity, and I have never known anything in the shape of a chapel screw. I have heard of thousands of Nonconformists who do not believe in Disestablishment. It was said as long ago as 1909 by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Bridgeman) in this House that he knew of

    665
    thousands of Welsh Nonconformists who were against this Bill. These are his words, on 21st April, 1909:—
    "I represent"—
    There were no Tory Welsh Members in those days; we were all sitting on this side of the House, even the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) as hon. Member for Montgomery Borough:—
    "thousands of the most religious and conscientious Nonconformists in Wales, who view with alarm this increasing association of their leaders with political caucuses."—
    I have never known any Nonconformist. leader bring out a candidate at an election, but I have known a Welsh bishop at the last election bring a brewer, out to fight one of my hon. Friends. I have never seen any Nonconformist leader go into the Liberal Chief Whip's office, but last week two Welsh bishops were seen to go into the Conservative Chief Whip's office:—
    "and who realise that the best course they can pursue, and the course they wish to pursue, is one of united action with the Church. Many Nonconformists loathe this attack upon the Church Endowments."
    That was said in 1909, and I accept it. I have no doubt the hon. Member was perfectly right when he said that there were many Nonconformists who loathe this Bill. I have no doubt the hon. Member for Denbigh Boroughs and his colleagues in the Tory representation of Wales will agree with me that were it not for the fact that some Nonconformists, at all events, have voted for them they would not be sitting here to-day. It is a mistake to suppose that every Nonconformist is a Disestablishes and it is a mistake to suppose that every Churchman is against this Bill. We have more Churchmen from Wales sitting on these benches than on the other side of the House. I think we have five or six Churchmen, men who are devoted to their Church, who love their Church, but who think that the Church is in a wrong position as long as she is alienated from the national sympathies of Wales. The whole question, however, is not if there are Nonconformists who are against this Bill, but whether there are any Nonconformists who voted for this Bill in 1910 who are against the Bill to-day. Can the hon. Gentleman who moved this Resolution point out a single Welsh Nonconformist who has changed his colours since the last election? And unless some new fact of that sort emerges from this discussion it is idle for the hon. Gentleman to say that this House ought to ignore the last election either in Wales or anywhere else.
    666
    The right hon. Gentleman started by saying that he did not think the opinion of Wales should overrule the opinion of England in this matter. No Welshman has ever said, as long as Welshmen have come to this Parliament, that their wishes alone should prevail even in a matter of this sort. We have to appeal not to the Members for English constituencies alone, but to the House of Commons, the representative assembly of Great Britain and Ireland. We have to appeal to them, and, if we cannot convince them of the justice of our claim, then I agree that the mere fact that Wales itself asks for this act of justice is not sufficient. I thought that was agreed during the Debates of last Session. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Wilton Division of Liverpool (Mr. F. E. Smith) making a very significant and a very eloquent speech on 29th November, 1912. There was a proposal to divide the Bill into two parts, Disestablishment and Disendowment. What did the right hon. Gentleman then say? He said, with regard to Disestablishment, he agreed that the case made out on the representation of Wales, almost unanimous Liberal representation of Wales, it is very hard to meet, and he was not prepared to controvert that part of the case, but with regard to Disendowment a different set of questions arises. You have to show not only that Wales wants Disendowment, but you must also convince the House of Commons that the proposals for Disendowment are just and equitable.
    Speaking some days afterwards, I for my: part, agreed with that statement of the constitutional position; but I say now that, though this House will, I hope, always listen sympathetically to the voice of Wales, yet if they think that what we want is unjust, they must of course override our demand. I honestly believe that in the course of the discussion which has. been going on now for two years, with twenty-six days of discussion in 1912 and 1913, and two great debates last year, hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have been, I will not say convinced of the justice of our case, but they have, at all events, begun to see that Wales is not altogether unreasonable in the demand which she is making. I am perfectly certain that the people of England are not going to put an obstacle in the way of the fruition of the hopes of Wales in this matter. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Sir A. Griffith-Boscawen) said that you could not get two men and a boy

    667
    to attend a meeting in favour of the Bill in England. I have attended ten or twenty meetings in the last autumn in various parts of England.
    Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: On this Bill?
    Mr. L. WILLIAMS: On this Bill alone. I went to Peterborough last September, at the request of the local people, the week after the Bishop of St. David's had been holding a demonstration against this Bill, and we had as enthusiastic a meeting in favour of the Bill as I have had in Wales itself, and my experience could be paralleled by the experience of other gentlemen in various parts of England. I venture to say, that the people of England are not so blind to the justice of the Welsh case as hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think. The people of England may be slow to move, but I, for one, believe profoundly that they are people who are amenable to reason and to justice, and that they will listen even when a small country like Wales puts forward her claim in a reasonable and constitutional way. I would ask the House, when they consider the difficulties which every small country has in laying its case before
    a great country like England and Scotland, and when they remember the multitude of domestic interests which must come nearer the hearts of Englishmen than a measure of this sort affecting a remote and obscure part, as they think, of this Kingdom, whether we people of Wales ought to be deprived of this tardy act of justice. We have striven for it for forty and fifty years. We have come here in a constitutional way, with mo threats on our lips, and with no hatred in our hearts. You taught us the constitutional methods which you yourselves created. England created the representative system, and for 400 years Wales, at your dictation and at your request has been sending her Members to this House of Commons in order to demand, whenever necessary, justice for that little country. She sends them today, and she has sent them for forty years, asking you to grant to Wales what you granted to Scotland 250 years ago, and what you granted to Ireland in 1869; we ask now, at long last, that you should do us this tardy act of justice.
    Question put: "That those words be there added."
    The House divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 279.

    Division No. 4.]

    AYES.

    [7.11 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Cator, John

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Cave, George

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Goldman, C. S.

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

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

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Baldwin, Stanley

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

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

    Chambers, James

    Grant, J. A.

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Gretton, John

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Barnston, Harry

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Guinness, Hon.W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

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

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

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

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish-

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Croft, H. P.

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

    Bigland, Alfred

    Dalrymple, Viscount

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Bird, Alfred

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Blair, Reginald

    Denison-Pender, J. C.

    Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Denniss, E. R. B.

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

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Doughty, Sir George

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Boyton, James

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Hills, John Waller

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

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

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Bull, Sir William James

    Falie Bertram Godfray

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Fell, Arthur

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

    Butcher, John George

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Camphell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)

    Campion, W R.

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Horner, Andrew Long

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Fleming, Valentine

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Forster, Henry William

    Hume-Williams, W. E.

    Cassel, Felix

    Gardner, Ernest

    Hunt, Rowland

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Nield, Herbert

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Jessel, Captain H. M.

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

    Stewart, Gershom

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Kerry, Earl of

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Keswick, Henry

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Larmor, Sir J.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)

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

    Perkins, Walter F.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Touche, George Alexander

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, Y.)

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    Tullibardine, Marques of

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Valentia, Viscount

    Locker-Lampson. G. (Salisbury)

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

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

    Ratcliff, R. F.

    Ward, A. (Herts, Watford)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

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

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Watson, Hon. W.

    MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh

    Rees, Sir J. D.

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Weston, Colonel J. W.

    Macmaster, Donald

    Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset, W.)

    M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Royds, Edmund

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

    Malcolm, Ian

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

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Winterton, Earl

    Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

    Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

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

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Worthington-Evans, L

    Moore, William

    Sanderson, Lancelot

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

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

    Sandys, G. J.

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Mount, William Arthur

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Yerburgh, Robert A.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Younger, Sir George

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Stanier, Beville

    Newman, John R. P.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Starkey, John Ralph

    Edmund Talbot and Mr. Bridgeman.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Crumley, Patrick

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Cullinan, John

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

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

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

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

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Gulland, John William

    Alden, Percy

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Hackett, John

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

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hancock, John George

    Arnold, Sydney

    Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Dawes, James Arthur

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Da Forest, Baron

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Delany, William

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Devlin, Joseph

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

    Barnes, George N.

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Dillon, John

    Hayward, Evan

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Hazleton, Richard

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Doris, William

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Birrell, Rt. Hon, Augustine

    Duffy, William J.

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Black, Arthur W.

    Duncan, c. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Boland, John Plus

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Hinds, John

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Hodge, John

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Hogge, James Myles

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Falconer, James

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Holt, Richard Durning.

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

    Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Field, William

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Hudson, Walter

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    John, Edward Thomas

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Jones, Rt.Hon. Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gill, A. H.

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Clough, William

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Jowett, Frederick William

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Goldstone, Frank

    Joyce, Michael

    Cotton, William Francis

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Keating, Matthew

    Cowan, W. H.

    Greig, Colonel James William

    Kellaway, Frederick George

    Crooks, William

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Kelly, Edward

    670

    671

    Kenyon, Barnet

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Kilbride, Denis

    Nuttail, Harry

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

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

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Sheeny, David

    Leach, Charles

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Shortt, Edward

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    O'Dowd, John

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Ogden, Fred

    Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

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

    Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)

    Lundon, Thomas

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

    Lyeli, Charles Henry

    O'Malley, William

    Snowden, Philip

    Lynch, Arthur Alfred

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

    Soames, Arthur Wellesley

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Hon. Sir Albert

    Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    O'Shee, James John

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Maclean, Donald

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

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

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Tennant, Harold John

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Thomas, James Henry

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    M'Curdy, C. A.

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    M'Kean, John

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

    Toulmin, Sir George

    McKenna. Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

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

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    Verney, Sir Harry

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

    Pointer, Joseph

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

    Manfield, Harry

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Pratt, J. W.

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Wardle, George J.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Median, Patrick J. (Queers Co., Leix)

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Millar, James Duncan

    Radford, G. H.

    Webb, H.

    Molloy, Michael

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wedgwood. Josiah C.

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Reddy, Michael

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Mond, Rt. Hon. sir Alfred

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Rendall, Atheistan

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Mooney, John J.

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

    Morgan, George Hay

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    Morison, Hector

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    Morton. Aipheus Cleophas

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    Muldoon, John

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Wing, Thomas Edward

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Yoxall, Sir James Henry

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Nolan, Joseph

    Rowlands, James

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Illingworth and Mr. W. Jones.

    Main question again proposed. Debate resumed.

    TARIFF REFORM.
    Captain TRYON: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "But this House humbly expresses its regret that Your Majesty's Government refuses to modify the fiscal system of the country by a reform of our tariff which would

    (1) adopt Imperial Preference, in so far as it can be carried out without imposing fresh duties upon imported food-stuffs, by admitting imports from the British Dominions at lower rates of duty than those levied on imports from foreign countries; and

    (2) impose a moderate duty, not exceeding an average of 10 per cent, ad valorem, on foreign manufactured goods in order (a) to safeguard the stability of British productive industries against the attacks of arti-
    672
    ficially stimulated foreign competition, and (b) to increase the national revenue and so make funds available for the assistance of agriculture and purposes of social re form."

    I am deeply conscious, as is, I suppose, every Member of this House, of the enormous importance to the country of the two great issues which have just been debated in this House—the Welsh Church and Home Rule. But there is one issue which can never be set aside, and that is the task of providing, year by year, for the financial needs of the nation. I may illustrate my meaning by pointing out that although the Liberal party were able to set aside Home Rule for a whole Parliament without making Ireland ungovernable, the question of the Budget must be faced year by year. We find that the Prime Minister has told us that, under our present system, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is; nearly at the end of his financial resource.

    673
    I believe that finance is likely to be a concern of growing anxiety for both parties, and, if the Unionist party should be returned to office, it would be a great advantage to it in the difficult times before us, to be armed with a valuable source of additional revenue which no other great nation neglects. I understand that there are, among our opponents, some who say that you cannot shut goods our, and also get revenue when they come in. An authority who, at that time, was well known throughout the country by the name of Mr. Ure, has told us that, if you put a duty on manufactured goods coining into this country:—
    "one half will be shut out and we would make the goods ourselves, and the other half would cone in and we should get revenue from them."
    I do not commit myself necessarily to the accuracy of that statement. But at the same time, I would point out that if goods are made here, instead of abroad, we should add to our revenue the tax-paying capacities of the works which would be put up in this country.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago made a speech in London, and described it as a non-party speech. I think perhaps the House will remember which speech I mean when I say it was the speech in which he denounced golf and motoring before motoring down to play golf. He told us—and I may explain I was in a rather responsible position, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was living in my Constituency at the time I was elected, and, naturally, I had to try and ascertain his views—he told us that the presence of a vast amount of remedial poverty is common ground to both parties. We all agree upon that. He then discussed the problem of Tariff Reform in terms which were much fairer than the way in which the case is generally dealt with, and, after dismissing Tariff Reform, he said:—
    "Let me give you the other side of the picture—Form IV."
    I will not discuss Form IV., but I may state this, that we have had three years or more of the People's Budget, and we are still getting harrowing and, I believe, Accurate accounts from the right hon. Gentleman of the condition of the working classes. I think those accounts are, in themselves, an admission that his remedy has failed, and that, under Free Trade things are going on in this country which are not right. I need hardly remind any Member of this House that nobody ought to speak on the question of unemployment
    674
    without also calling attention to the enormous amount of emigration from this country. We find that the Liberal party now are so far despairing of their own remedies that they tell us they have got to go into the country to find a new policy with which to "catch votes." I do not know whether "catching votes" is exactly the right way of putting it. I suppose the Chancellor of the Exchequer would word it much better. He probably would say he was going to gild the mountain tops with hope.
    The Prime Minister within the last twelve months—and I am going to confine myself as far as possible to points which have arisen recently—has, through the mouth of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, definitely committed his party to the principle of the minimum wage. The minimum wage when advocated by the Liberal party is, firstly, an admission by that party that Free Trade had failed to provide adequate remuneration for the workers, and it is obviously also an admission that the remedy lies in a highly Protectionist expedient. We find the "Daily News" admitting that, in this so-called year of prosperity:—
    "the reward of labour has not increased with the advancing cost of living."
    In other words, a man who was employed a few years ago and who is employed to-day is worse off now than he was a few years ago. This is a double question—a question of wages and a question of the prices of commodities—and I believe that, with regard to the question of the price of commodities, we ought to call attention to the way in which the Government have decided to encourage agriculture—by agriculture, of course, I mean agriculture in East Africa, where apparently the way to develop agriculture is to lighten the burden of finance, and I cannot help thinking that the application of the same methods to agriculture in this country would not be without its benefits. It is also interesting to know that the Liberal Government, in legislating and working for what is described by them as Free Trade Lancashire, think it is an excellent thing to grow its additional supplies of raw cotton, not anywhere, but within the British Empire. I think that is a principle which might be extended. This question of real wages is, as I have said, a double one—it is a question of wages and a question of prices. I should like most respectfully to call the attention of the House to what the Government is doing at the present moment with regard

    675
    to sugar. In the case of sugar there is a duty of 1s. 10d. a hundredweight on sugar coming into this country, but there is no duty on sugar manufactured here. As result a thing which is causing horror to the Cobden Club has occurred, a new industry is springing up. So serious is the situation that the Liberal Press has offered a most dignified protest. The "Manchester Guardian'' said:—
    "It is highly objectionable in principle to permit the beet sugar industry to establish itself in England under the artificial shelter of an Import Duty,"
    They then proceed to demand that the Sugar Duty should be abolished, but, if it cannot be abolished, then they say we ought to have an Excise Duty upon home-produced sugar, so as to stop this industry from springing up. That is a very interesting situation. Here we have the party who could not bear the idea of food taxes demanding additional food taxes in order to stamp out an industry. Of course, I know that hon. Members opposite are in a difficult position with regard to food taxes. There is nothing so picturesque at elections as a Liberal candidate standing up and saying he would never be a party to taxing the food of the people. They have been doing that for about thirty years. I realise that if they do not vote steadily to keep these taxes on they could not at subsequent elections keep promising to take them off. I should have hoped that the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald), who I regret not to see in his place, might have supported this Amendment, seeing that it is, in fact, a lowering of the duties upon food. I should have thought if the hon. Member had ascertained that a sufficient number of the Irish Nationalists were present to ensure his being defeated, he might perhaps have voted with us. With regard to the question of sugar, it seems to me that in this case you are affecting the problem of real wages favourably by what I call a small working-model of Tariff Reform, because you are creating in the neighbourhood of Norwich an additional demand for labour, but in the case of prices you are also affecting them in a way favourable to the working classes, because by developing a larger supply of sugar in this country you are putting us in a better position for purchasing additional supplies from overseas cheaply. That is not the only example; we have the case of cocoa. There is a number of eminent Liberals who were discovered enjoying the benefit of Protection, and the Cocoa Duties have been
    676
    altered so as to bring them more into accord with the great principles of Free Trade. What is the result? A reduced demand for labour in this country, affecting wages adversely. I have got the proportion of the imports of cocoa, and I find that since the duty has been readjusted so as to be in accord with Free Trade principles a larger proportion of manufactured cocoa comes into this country and a smaller proportion of unmanufactured cocoa. Therefore, just as sugar is a little-working model of Tariff Reform because-it gives more employment, in the other case a return to Free Trade principles in regard to cocoa is reducing the demand for cocoa here.
    If these are small cases we have larger ones. There is the case of Canada, where, as everybody knows, there are Import Duties on manufactured goods going into Canada. As a result we find that an American, speaking on this subject, declares that they are moving their works over into Canada because under existing circumstances—that is, of course, the tariff—they have to go into Canada to enjoy the market there. I need hardly point out that no one need put up works in this country to enjoy our market. At all events, in this case, also, the putting up of American works in Canada is adding: to the demand for Canadian labour. The American who moved his works into Canada said:—
    "Under the conditions that exist there the American firms must remove in parts to those countries that they desire to reach."
    However, when we suggest these remedies the Prime Minister asks, if we are to adopt the proposals contained in the Amendment, "What compensation are you going to offer to British trade as a whole for the enormous stimulus to our own industry, enterprise and invention which is supplied by the keen competition of outsiders?" What would be the "enormous stimulus" in the case of sugar? It would have meant that the great foreign firms on the Continent would have done their best to undersell that young industry for a time, knock it out, and then put the prices up against it. That, I suppose, would have been a stimulus. It reminds me very much of the speeches made by the Home Secretary, who appears to regard Disendowent as a stimulus to the Welsh Church. I find that in the case of a very well-known leader of the Liberal Party—Lord Murray of Elibank—that he has been making a contract in Ecuador. I do not know whether it has been confirmed or not. I

    677
    mainly put it forward as illustrating the deep-seated conviction in the justice of Free Trade which animates the Liberal party. He tried to make a contract in Ecuador, giving him the right to develop Ecuador in sections without competition. I think that is a remarkable example. I do not quite know what Lord Murray of Elibank would think of the Prime Minister's question about a stimulus, but apparently so far as Ecuador is concerned Lord Murray of Elibank is prepared to risk it and go on with his enterprise without the stimulus. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has spoken in this House in many successive Debates with great power, but we have only in the last few months had the immense privilege of knowing what he really thinks about Tariff Reform. We have often heard him denounce it in this House, but the other day he went to Birmingham, and he announced that the original policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain) was a consistent whole, that it would have raised a substantial revenue, and that it would have conferred on our Colonies a preference of some value. I must say, with all respect, that it would have been better if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had announced his sincere convictions a little earlier in the discussion. I believe he has been going about the country this autumn holding a series of funerals over Tariff Reform. I do not know how often Tariff Reform has been killed. I saw in the paper yesterday a copy of a piece of news printed in a newspaper a hundred years ago, in which it was announced, to the delight of the people of this country, that the Emperor Napoleon had been defeated and killed again. That has something in common with the cause of Tariff Reform. There are, however, more serious sides to this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies announced to an admiring audience not very long ago that at the last—
    "Colonial Conference preference was never mentioned."
    He added what I think is a very excellent explanation—
    "I happened to be chairman."
    I cannot help feeling that if a Member of the Unionist party had been the chairman it would have been mentioned. What is this contention about? You have declared that what the Colonies put forward is a political imposture. The First Lord
    678
    of the Admiralty boasts that he has banged the door in the face, of the Colonies, and, after you have treated the Dominions like that, you announce that at the next Conference the subject was not brought up. Was it likely to be brought up? I think the right hon. Gentleman would have been fairer to his audience if he had admitted at the same time that at the very time he mentions—1911–Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at the National Liberal Club, where there have been so many luncheons and dinners, speaking of the people of Canada and of this country, said:—
    "They want to sell to them in preference to other nations, and they want to buy from them in preference to other nations."
    So that at the time that the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting to his audience that the Colonies did not want any sort of preference, the Prime Minister of Canada was declaring at the National Liberal Club exactly the opposite. We have had an occurrence comparatively recently in the United States—the party of the high tariff has been defeated, and the party of the low tariff has been returned. I see that the "Daily Chronicle" announces that the new tariff averages about 26 per cent, on the articles protected—that is to say, more than twice as high as the tariff suggested in this Amendment. How does the "Daily Chronicle" announce it? They announce it as "Free Trade Day in the United States." I cannot help thinking that Free Trade Day in the United States is a very near relative of "Joy Day" in England. At all events we find, carrying on this pretence that a 26 per cent, duty is Free Trade, that we have resolutions put forward at various Liberal meetings welcoming the coming conversion of the United States to Free Trade. It is the kind of resolution that is put forward by the League of Little Liberals, or whatever the institution is called. What are the actual facts? That the Liberal party has been expecting the conversion of other nations to Free Trade for upwards of sixty years. One party in the United States is in favour of high tariffs and the other party is in favour of low tariffs. The leader of the party of low tariffs is President Wilson, and he announced, in a statement I copied from the "Spectator," that
    "No thoughtful democrat advocates Free Trade for the United States."
    In these circumstances, I feel that the celebrations of the Liberal party of the approaching conversion of the United States

    679
    to Free Trade are rather likely to enjoy an element of permanence which is so often lacking in human happiness. There is one other point which ought to be brought forward, that is with regard to Australia. When the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies instituted an inquiry into the resources of the Empire one subject was barred—the fiscal question—but apparently the editing of the Report was not sufficiently careful, for we find the Commissioners recently reported that:—
    "Throughout Australasia we were impressed by the desire of all classes to deal with the British Empire rather than with foreign nations. Not only is a preference given in the matter of tariff, but there is a clear and distinct preference on grounds of sentiment and of practice."
    I feel that the policy that we are putting forward would make a valuable addition to our sources of revenue—it would enable us to reduce the burdens on agriculture, and it would encourage manufacturing production in these islands by putting the working classes, for the first time for nearly two generations, on even terms with their competitors in other nations. And when we find a Liberal Government developing, by State aid, cotton growing in East Africa, we feel that social reform and Imperialism are not antagonistic. We feel, when they do that, that they are building social reform in this country on firmer foundations. We believe these two policies, social reform and Imperialism, should go forward hand in hand, and that the time has come when we should cooperate with our great Dominions in the deliberate development of the great territories of the Crown.
    Mr. CROFT: In seconding the Amendment, I desire to address myself entirely to business arguments. I think it will be generally admitted that the Free Trade party has hitherto entirely based its case on two main arguments. First of all, they have stated that under free imports this country remains in a supreme position, and that owing to that system we are practically unassailable; and, secondly, that if we were to adopt the policy of tariffs, which is enjoyed by every other civilised country in the world, we should restrict our imports, and therefore restrict our exports, which go to pay for our imports, and thereby harmfully affect our internal trade. With regard to the first point, as to the supremacy of this nation under Free Trade in the world's markets, I maintain that we are no longer supreme, that
    680
    we are no longer even ahead to any appreciable degree in foreign trade, and that in total production we are absolutely beaten by our principal protected rivals. In support of this I will merely mention that thirty years ago we were absolutely the supreme—we were a long way first in the race—but to-day we are running a neck-and-neck race with our two greatest protected rivals for the first place. The President of the Board of Trade last Session gave me figures showing that our exports during the previous year were actually beaten by the United States, and that Germany was very near behind us. It is admitted by the Attorney-General that we cannot for all time hope to keep ahead of our two principal protected rivals because their population is so great, and he says the only real test is the test of exports per head of population. I have taken the trouble to inquire into the actual facts with regard to exports per head of popution, and I should like to give the leading countries. Holland, I find, heads the list with £34 10s., Belgium comes next with £18 2s., New Zealand £17 15s., Australia £15 2s., Switzerland £12 16s., and then comes the United Kingdom with £9 9s. I think that proves pretty conclusively that if you are going to take that test, at least it has helped protected countries to a greater extent than it has helped this country. Incidentally I might mention, now that this has become a test of prosperity, that Ireland far surpasses Great Britain in this respect, because she has an export trade per head of population of £12 16s., which, if this is a test of prosperity, is a very good reason for leaving her alone under the Union. But if this is the real test, we have to expect in the near future that the President of the Board of Trade will confess that we have-been beaten by Russia, owing to the population of that country, I suppose; and within a few more years time, we shall have to admit defeat at the hands of the Chinese, owing to the fact that they have a greater population than this country.
    But what is of far more importance than foreign trade is the internal trade of our country, and I think, from the business point of view, I can put a case before hon. Members opposite which will even satisfy the hon. Gentleman (Sir A. Mond) to prove how very much more serious is our position in this connection. I think it will be generally admitted that, coal consumption is a very good test of industrial activity, and I find in the last completed year for

    681
    which returns are to be found, that Germany consumed thirty-two million more tons of coal than this country, and the United States, three hundred million tons more. If we go on from coal to the production of pig-iron, we find that Germany in 1912 produced twice as much as this country, and the United States nearly three times as much, and if you take the consumption of pig-iron, Germany consumes twice as much, and the United States three times as much. If you take crude steel, Germany produces two and a half times as much, and the United States five times as much as this country; and if I might be permitted even to mention the word "cotton," the United States now consumes two hundred and ten million more bales of raw cotton than are consumed in the great industry of this country under Free Trade. Therefore, I think it can be accepted that in foreign trade and in internal trade combined, we are defeated by our principal protected rivals.
    Then I come to the second point, with regard to the suggestion that tariffs restrict trade. In exports and in imports our protected rivals are increasing their trade more rapidly than we are in this country, and if I might take the most important test, I will take manufactured exports for the last thirty years, and we find that we in this country have not doubled our export or manfactures within something like thirty years, but Germany has multiplied hers by three times, and the United States by seven times, which, I think, proves pretty conclusively, that as far as foreign trade, exports of manufactured goods are concerned, we are not holding our own, and far from restricting trade our protected rivals have gone ahead very much more rapidly than we have. If I might take the same test with regard to the increase of internal trade, the facts are still more remarkable. In coal consumed, taking the period commencing with the average for the five years from 1880–85 up to the last completed year, 1912, we find that Germany has increased twice as quickly as ourselves, and the United States eight times as much. In pig-iron production, Germany has increased nine times as rapidly as ourselves, and the United States thirteen times as rapidly. In the consumption of pig-iron, Germany's increase is six times, and the United States twelve times as great as ourselves. In crude steel Germany's increase is three and a half times as great, and the United States six and a half times as great, and
    682
    in the consumption of raw cotton, the Continent has increased three times, and the United States two and a half times as rapidly as this country. I maintain that these are facts which we cannot get away from and that if there is any fairness in the test of exports per head of population as the test of a country's prosperity, I ask the Attorney-General whether it is not an equally fair test to take production per head of population in a comparison of this kind, if you are going to decide the merits of the respective systems. If that test is taken, I think the Attorney-General will discover, if I may use an Americanism, that we have been beaten to a frazzle by our principal protected rivals in these great index trades. I am not satisfied, and I think none of my friends are satisfied, with the present condition of the trade of this country compared with other countries under the circumstances.
    Our opponents tell us that we are having a boom in world trade, as if this country, and their own particular efforts, were responsible for this boom. I would remind them that we got the results of that world boom last, after the great protected nations, and, in addition to that, we have not shared in that boom to so great an extent as Germany, and the United States of America. But, apart from that, dare anyone, in any quarter of the House, say that the conditions of the working classes in this country at present are satisfactory even under the world boom of trade? What are the actual facts? Last year, at a moderate estimate, half a million were permanently out of employment, a million people in our country were in receipt of relief, in this, the boom-time of trade, and the Labour Exchanges last year, as we were informed to-day, had no fewer than 2,973,000 applications for work. Perhaps hon. Members may suggest that one or two of these applicants went two or three times to the Labour Exchanges, and, though I did not ask the question, the President of the Board of Trade informed me that there were 1,800,000 individual applications at Labour Exchanges during this last year on the crest of the world-boom. Simultaneously in the same year our emigration reached the record figure of 302,000, all of whom went to protected countries to improve their condition, and simultaneously we find that there was greater industrial unrest last year and the year before than has ever been known in this country. If I might summarise the effect of the sunshine that the Chancellor

    683
    of the Exchequer and his colleagues have brought into the cottage homes of this country, one in every twenty-five of our inhabitants have been forced to emigrate to other countries since 1906, when the Government came into power. Our answer to this is that Tariff Reformers are deliberately out for higher wages. We are not satisfied with the condition of this country, and we say that all the policies of the party opposite put together cannot do so much as a reasonable scientific tariff can for the creation of labour in this country.
    Consider for a moment how the Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to solve this question. I am a business man—I have managed a business from the age of twenty up to the present time. I am beginning to understand what is meant when the Chancellor of the Exchequer says "the State will pay for these various reforms." I find that every single one of these so-called "reforms" has meant an enormously increased burden upon the industries of this country. I need only mention two instances. The settlement of the railway strike, by which the Government gave a pledge permitting an increased charge for freights, has been a serious blow to all our traders in this country. Again I think it will now be admitted that the Insurance Act was no advantage to the employers of this country. It has become a weekly tax upon the industries of the country. Like trade union legislation, excellent in its way, it is all increasing the cost of production, with the result that our competition is becoming more severe, the margin of profit is lessened, and the real wages of the workers are going back in spite of the fact that world civilisation and world prosperity are going forward. I do not believe all these palliatives are getting anywhere near the root cause of the social trouble in this country. A £1,000,000 worth of wages is worth £10,000,000 worth of palliatives. I put it to the House which is the best policy? It would be better to find an additional £1,000,000 a year wages for the workers rather than have to pay out £1,000,000 per year for the amusing policy of taxing dukes in order to provide money from land taxation.
    8.0 P.M
    Our opponents tell us that we cannot provide wages and at the same time provide the revenue under our tariff scheme, but we cannot have it both ways. I say we can have it both ways. We have been
    684
    told by eminent free traders that under the Tariff Reform system, with a 10 per cent, tariff, something like one-half of the manufactured goods which at present come from abroad would be excluded. The total at present is £160,000,000 of foreign manufactured goods coming into this country, and according to eminent free traders, we shall only exclude £80,000,000. That is not my figure. I am taking the worst case that can be made against us. That would mean £8,000,000 of revenue on manufactured goods alone, apart from the duties on luxuries, such as diamonds and pearls, and the other £80,000,000 of goods which are now imported would be manufactured in this country. If these manufactured goods which come from abroad are going to be kept out, obviously they are going to be manufactured at home. Under that system you are still going to have 10 per cent, for local and Imperial taxation on the production of goods in this country, so that you get £8,000,000 in that way too. I put it to the House that we would raise £16,000,000 in revenue for the relief of local and Imperial taxation, while also keeping out the goods of foreign competitors. That would mean £80,000,000 worth more production in this country than before. I do not think that any free trader will deny that we will get £8,000,000 of revenue on imports. [An HON MEMBERS indicated dissent.] I must give the hon. Member for East Northamptonshire (Mr. Chiozza Money) credit for greater knowledge on this subject than the hon. Member who interrupts me. In the "South Wales News" for 12th December he is reported to have said that it is no answer to the Tariff Reform argument, to say that we cannot get revenue from Protective duties. The hon. Member added that we can easily get £13,000,000. I think that will prove that I have been exceptionally modest in accepting the lower estimate of our opponents in saying that a revenue of £8,000,000 is what we would get. You would manufacture £80,000,000 worth more than you do at present, and £40,000,000 would be spent in wages for the workers in this country. We shall have £40,000,000 more circulating among traders, agriculturists, and all the various industries and professions of this country.
    My final point is with regard to labour. I am sorry that there are not more Members of the Labour party present. They do not seem to take a very real interest in this question—at any rate, so great an interest as it would seem to

    685
    deserve. I would ask the Members of the Labour party how can wages advance? They can only advance if you create greater demands for labour, and make labour more valuable. I venture to think that if more of the manufactured goods which are consumed in this country were manufactured here, you would immediately create these demands. There would be more jobs to apply for, and the value of labour would go up in this country. The point we have to consider is the wages in this country. In the second paragraph of the Amendment mention is made of the fact that we regret that the Government refuses to modify the fiscal system of the country by adopting Imperial preference, in so far as it can be carried out without the imposition of fresh duties on foodstuffs. The Unionist party have postponed its full policy until civil war is averted. We are determined that in this issue of life and death in the sister island there will be no obscuring of the question by the dishonest cry of dear food. I should not have thought it necessary to mention that after the speech made by the Leader of the Unionist party, but the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Outhwaite) said that at the next election the test will be "Free Trade and Land Taxes as against Tariff Reform and Food Taxes." I may say that this is a most dishonest argument. If anybody had taken the trouble to say that the Single Tax was no longer an issue, I think the hon. Member for Hanley would have great cause for complaint. I think people have no right to carry that argument any further in the constituencies. What we do ask for is what Mr. Deakin and Dr. Jameson asked for at the last Imperial Conference. We ask an immediate preference on all existing food taxes to be allowed in their favour. We ask that you should establish the same principle for Imperial tea, coffee and sugar as you wisely apply to the beet-sugar industry.
    It may be suggested that under the preference you may not be giving a great advantage, but if the advantage be small, it is the great sentiment we want to see established in reciprocating the action of the Dominions Overseas. Let us show that the spirit is willing, and that we desire to deal with the Dominions Overseas as they are dealing with us. We are told from time to time that our policy is a sordid one. Is it sordid to try to create greater industrial activity for the people at home? Is it sordid to encourage 400 millions of
    686
    subjects to trade together and to develop British trade under our own flag? That is no sordid policy. It is an extraordinary thing that already all the self-governing Dominions have established the sordid policy, and that the present Government have taken good care to see that we should be enslaved in the same sordid bonds with the West Indies as to any advantage they may give to the other Dominions. What is the result? The Dominions have come to us and made a tremendous sacrifice of revenue, the result is that we have seen an enormous expansion of trade with the Dominions in the last two years. We are always told that we may make Germany angry, or that we may upset the Chinaman. Our best customers are the Dominions Overseas. Australia has brought more manufactures from us than the people of Germany. Canada has bought more than France. New Zealand has bought more than Belgium. South Africa has bought more than Russia and Switzerland put together. I venture to think that when we realise these facts, and that even in boom times we should have been having great distress for the reason I have indicated, we shall see that it is time to reciprocate their great gifts and try to do something for the Dominions Overseas.
    We should try to create a greater demand for labour at home. We should try to see that all the work is given to our own workers in this country which they can properly undertake. We should try to give to our own kith and kin who are emigrating from this country the advantages which we are giving to foreigners who are competing with us. We should trade with those who build "Dreadnoughts" for us, in preference to those, who build "Dreadnoughts" against us. That is no sordid policy. No one can deny that they are patriotic principles. If they are patriotic, then I say that distortion and abuse should not be cast against our policy. Is it not time that these questions should be considered as greater than party, and that those who really love their country should show their love of it by organising trade in the way other countries have done.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croft) ended his very interesting speech by referring to Imperial matters. I wonder that the hon. Gentleman did not attempt to show some kind of logical nexus between what he was telling us and the Amendment on the Paper, and not only with the Amendment on the

    687
    Paper, but with what I may call the latest official edition of the policy of Tariff Reform which was issued forth by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at Edinburgh. I take it that the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment endeavoured to give Parliamentary form and substance to the Edinburgh policy. I well remember another occasion on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman and myself met in debate some years ago. We failed, I think, to convince each other then, but, at any rate, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman failed to convince me as to the policy of Tariff Reform, he convinced me then both of his ability and sincerity. But many things have happened since then. They were days of the full-blooded policy of Tariff Reform, which was reflected in both of the interesting speeches to which we have listened. What has become of that policy? I think the hon. Gentlemen forgot that they were speaking to the Amendment. They thought they were speaking of the other policy, which told us quite plainly that if you want to give a preference to the Colonies you will have to put a tax on food. They forgot to read carefully the Edinburgh speech. Let me remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of a point which he failed to put into his Amendment—indeed, I hardly see how he could have put it in. The Leader of the Opposition not only told us that we should give to the Dominions of the Crown in our market a preference, possibly by the imposition of now duties on food, but he made a promise to British working men. He said:—
    "If we are returned to power we shall impose no new duties upon file fond of the people, but, on the contrary, we hope to take off some of the food duties."
    So the right hon. Gentleman was doing this remarkable thing. He was at one and the same time promising the Colonies a preference upon existing food duties, while promising the British workman that he would destroy those food duties. What, then, is to become of the preference? The hon. Gentleman, in the peroration of the speech to which we have just listened, referred to an Empire cemented together. Cemented by what? Cemented by a slight differential duty in favour of the Colonies upon sugar, tea, coffee, and cocoa. That is to cement the Empire, to bind the Colonies closer to us. But he forgot that his own leader has promised the British workmen to cancel the very duties by which he proposes to cement the
    688
    Empire. When you come to look at these duties on sugar, tea, coffee, and cocoa—the cup that cheers his Majesty's Government, which sometimes, if I may say so, inebriates his Majesty's Opposition—we find in relation to the only one of those articles which can justly, in the proper sense of the word, be called a food—that is sugar—that the importation from the Colonies is quite negligible. So that even, if the operation of cancelling this duty on behalf of the working man were not performed according to promise, the amount of cement that would be left for Imperial purposes would be exceedingly small. I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite will not think that I am neglecting his speech any more than that of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, for I am endeavouring to follow the Amendment, and I hope to be able to reply to their speeches in great part in passing; but the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned sugar, and he noticed the American tariff.
    The Americans, after a long experience; of duties, propose to cancel the sugar duty within three years of this time. In three years America will enjoy Free Trade in sugar. So one may well hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will emulate the Americans. I rather wondered in view of that fact, that the hon. Gentleman should mention, sugar to-night. In regard to the existing Revenue duties I deny that they can properly he called Food Duties, save in respect of sugar. As for the Sugar Duty, I may remind the hon. Gentleman that it was reimposed by his party after an interval of about twenty years, and that His Majesty's Government have already cancelled about half of it. Of all these duties it is only with regard to sugar that it is possible to say that it is a food duty in any possible sense of the word. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tea."] No, but I should at once grant that tea is a great comfort, especially to many poor people, and I desire to get rid of the duty upon it, like the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition: but, if I do, I get rid of the Imperial cement at the same time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because, if there is no duty on tea you cannot give a preference to India on a duty that does not exist. We hope to take off the duties, but if no duty exists you cannot give a preference, with regard to that duty. Coming to the question of a Customs Union, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I respect his policy most: when he has regard to the Imperial factor,

    689
    and I fully recognise the sincerity of that argument. But the present Leader of the Opposition in this House in 1902, when he occupied an official position, said:—
    "A Customs Union seemed to be surrounded by difficulties which were utmost insurmountable. The greatest difficulty was that the Colonies could scud us nothing but raw material and food, which was about the last thing that it would be a wise policy to tax."
    That was the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition as recently as 1902. It is our opinion to-night. I fail to detect in the speeches to which I have listened any argument to make us retreat from that position. There is one other thing which I am perfectly sure cannot be charged properly against the hon. Gentleman opposite. If he had the framing of a customs tariff he would not desert the British farmer. I detect in his Amendment a shadow of the Edinburgh promise to the farmer, that we were to raise revenue by a duty on manufactures, and with that revenue to relieve some of the existing burdens upon agriculture. But does the hon. Gentleman, who reminded us of this new American tariff, realise what that American tariff has done for the American farmer? After all their experience of tariffs, of which we have been reminded by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, the United States have given the American fanner Free Trade over a large range of articles. When the right lion. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham introduced his policy that was not the case. Then the American farmer had to pay duties on many things that are now on the free list. He had to pay very high duties on many other things the duties on which have now been reduced very greatly indeed. Therefore, our farmers entering into competition with those of America would, unless we have some clearer light thrown on what is meant by the Opposition at the present time, be placed now in a position inferior to that which is occupied by the American farmer. The Amendment before us speaks of a moderate duty, not exceeding an average of 10 per cent., ad valorem, on foreign manufactured goods, in imitation, I suppose, of the Edinburgh tariff. Could somebody speaking from the Opposition Bench tell the House is that 10 per cent, to cover the articles on the American free list or not? If not, have they no regard for the position of our farmers in competition with the farmers of the United States? It is an exceedingly important point. Agricultural machinery, fencing, wire, leather, harness, saddlery, and many other things
    690
    that I might name, are now on the American free list, and the farmers can get them, without duty. What, then, is to become of our farmers if they are exposed to competition, reinforced, if I may use the phrase suggested by the hon. Gentleman, stimulated, by a Free Trade policy as it has never been stimulated before? It is quite cleat1 that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition knew very well that the British farmer would be hardly likely to welcome a simultaneous dropping of food duties while the duties on goods were retained as a point in Unionist policy. He was so convinced of that that he said at Edinburgh:—
    "I believe that farmers and agriculturists would be justified in being hostile to that policy if it stood alone, But it does not stand alone. We shall take part of the revenue of that tariff and use it in reducing the burdens of agriculture in order to make sure that the farmer will at least be compensated, and more than compensated, for any additional price which is the result of the tariff he may by any possibility he called upon to pay."
    As the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place, it is only fair to say that he did not fully admit in that speech that duties would raise the prices, but he evidently thought that the farmer would be only too likely to believe that they would raise prices. Therefore, he used the argument that in a reform of the tariff every protection should be given to help the British farmer. It seems to me that in view of the circumstances of the American tariff, and apart from the objections which still obtain, the British farmer would be very unwise to listen to that proposition. I come to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which speaks of 10 per cent, on manufactured articles in relation to the stability of industry and the raising of revenue to assist agriculture and social reform. First, with regard to the stability of trade. I should be the last to; urge here or anywhere that I believe the industries of this country, or of any other in the world at this time, are as stable as they ought to be, or as I think they might be. But did the hon. Gentleman attempt in his full-blooded tariff speech to establish that the trade of this country was loss stable at this time than that of the United States? He told us, for example, that America produces more iron than this country. Of course it docs, [n this country, forty or fifty or sixty years ago, it was prophesied that it was inevitable that America would become the greatest iron country. In regard to stability of condition, look at the record of unemployment in New York State? It

    691
    relates to 600,000 trade unionists. Let me warn the House that the figures are not compiled in exactly the same way as are trade union figures in this country. They are not strictly comparable with trade union returns here. At the end of September last, when trade was good and stable here, the unemployment rate was under 2 per cent., reckoned in relation to over a million trade unionists. In New York State the unemployment rate was about ten times as great.
    Mr. CROFT: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that nearly a million immigrants in New York State every year are absorbed?
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I do not exclude that from consideration, but the hon. Member must recollect that these are trade unionists that I am speaking of. At the same time, immigration does not account for the extraordinary variation in New York State, where trade unemployment may fluctuate between 4 per cent, and 30 per cent. No such extraordinary variation, however the figures are calculated, can be accounted for except on the hypothesis that trade conditions in the United States are much more variable than in this country.
    Captain CAMPBELL: Is it not the ease that about a year ago a report of the trade union leaders in New York said it was because of cheap labour in New York that there was immense unemployment among the, trade unionists themselves—which may account for the figures the hon. Gentleman is now quoting?
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: I have already admitted the validity of that point in a certain degree, but it cannot account for the variation between 4 per cent, and 30 per cent. Taking the very industry to which the hon. Gentleman referred, there is never such a variation in our iron industry as in that of the United States. It is simply extraordinary that one-third or one-half of their furnaces may be thrown out, and one hears of slumps in the iron trade of America, which cannot be accounted for by any immigration into the United States. Surely immigration has not such an immediate effect as to be the cause of these extraordinary slumps. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the words of the Amendment that a 10 per cent, duty would safeguard the stability of British productive industries have not been proved by the speeches to which
    692
    we have listened, and are indeed inconsistent with the known facts. As to our own trade, it is certainly true—and it is a remarkable thing worthy of notice in a wider connection than in the limited sense we are dealing with trade to-night—that-British trade in recent years has become, steadier than ever before. We are not experiencing booms and slumps of the acute character that used to visit us in the sixties, seventies, or eighties. There is every reason to believe that our trade conditions are becoming more stable, and when we reflect, not only that they are becoming more stable, but that we have evidences—I do not attempt to defend the whole of our trade conditions, or to represent them all as being for the best in the best of all possible worlds; I make no such absurd statement—of this increased stability, I think there is certainly ground for satisfaction. If we take our export-trade, we find that since 1890 it has doubled. That is surely very satisfactory indeed! And surely it is satisfactory when we reflect that this exists under conditions of fiercer competition!
    In the old days Mr. Gladstone said that our trade was increasing by "leaps and bounds," and, when he coined that expression, we were, indeed, in a position of extraordinary pre-eminence. The resources of America had not been developed—indeed, the resources of this country had not been developed, and we had got it very much all our own way. But the increased stability which we have experienced in recent years has been won under conditions of fierce competition by two great industrial rivals, basing their economy as we base our economy—and we should never forget it—upon coal, and those two great nations have been developing very much as we have developed. We have made this great advance, and secured this stability in spite of that great competition. I come to another very important point to which I call the attention of the Opposition, and which was not dealt with in their speeches. I refer to the American tariff. The hon. and gallant Gentleman denies that the American tariff is a Free Trade tariff. I should be the first to admit that, but surely he cannot deny that it is a great advance towards Free Trade! I have got, the American tariff here, or rather a translation of it. The hon. Member laughs. The translation of the free list of the American tariff in the Board of Trade Blue Book occupies twenty-four pages, and consists of 600

    693
    articles. My Constituents, at any rate, cannot afford to laugh as did the hon. Gentleman. My particular Constituency lives upon boots. The American tariff gives the American manufacturer something at which my Constituents cannot afford to laugh; it gives them free hides, free leather, and no tax upon boots. That is the present made to the American boot trade at which the hon. Gentleman laughs.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I laughed at the word "translation."
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The American language is not exactly ours. Of course, the coinage has to be translated in the report. I was saying, to take this particular illustration, it is one that goes far. Here we have the American boot manufacturer given free hides and free leather which he had not before. I suppose in the last ten years, I speak from memory, we must have trebled our exports of boots. Should we have trebled them if the United States manufacturers had had the advantage of free hides and free leather? I venture to doubt that we would, and therefore I cannot afford to laugh at the American free list, because I feel it means for my Constituency much fiercer competition in the future than they have had in the past. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees, and thereby admits that there is some virtue in Free Trade policy.
    Mr. CROFT: For raw material.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: That brings me to an important point. If he takes an estimate of what a 10 per cent, tariff will yield, he must consider this. If he will admit that he intends to tax all the articles that appear in the category of manufactured articles in our export lists and import lists—does he intend to do that, I ask him?—if he will do that, I will grant him that there might be a reduction of 10 or 15 per cent, on imports, and he would get revenue. I understand he said leather is raw material.
    Mr. CROFT: Raw hides.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The American, with all his experience of tariff policy, which is longer than that of the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps more practical, has decided that it is a wise thing to take the duty not only off hides, but also off leather.
    Captain CAMPBELL: The American clause is elastic, as ours would be, and
    694
    would be changeable according to the circumstances of the hour.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to note the form the elasticity has taken? After a long experience of the tax on leather they have decided to take it off. If the hon. Gentleman who seconded will grant that we have got to leave untaxed not only leather and paper and the things of that, kind which are used in manufacture, he will not get the revenue he expects, and, on the other hand, he will have to revise his ideas of what the taxes are to be on other articles because the Amendment, like the Edinburgh programme, speaks of an average of 10 per cent. What is the average ten per cent if you leave untaxed in your tariff all the articles which are untaxed in the American tariff? It means that you have got to raise your duty on the remainder of the articles in the manufactured list to very great heights indeed. That is a very serious consideration, because the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition at Edinburgh promised the farmer compensation, and what kind of compensation I ask is he going to offer to the general consumer? We have had no light on that point to-night. I suppose the hon. Gentleman would say that the general consumer, like the farmer, needs no compensation, because the duty is paid by the foreigner. If he holds to that doctrine, then I feel inclined to quote to him what a profound student of economics uttered at Edinburgh in another speech, not quite so recent as that which I am discussing to-night, but which is not less important, and that is the speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour). This is what he said in his Edinburgh speech, and really it covers the whole ground in this regard:—
    "The object of Protection is to encourage home industry. The means by which it attains that object is by the manipulation of the Fiscal System to raise home prices. If the homo prices lire not raised the industry is not encouraged. If the industry is encouraged it is by the raising of prices. That is in a nutshell, Protection properly understood."
    That is the truth about the matter. So that, if we have a free list like the American, we would have to put much higher duties than 10 per cent, on the remainder in order to get the average of 10 per cent. Then not only have you got to get the farmer very serious compensation, but you have to offer the general consumer very serious compensation also, because, undoubtedly, while you would get revenue

    695
    which you might use for the purpose of assisting agriculture or for the purpose of social reform, what would you be doing? For every pound that you raised in revenue you would undoubtedly inflict a private tax upon the consumer of several pounds. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] But if the prices are not raised the industry is not encouraged.
    Mr. BIGLAND: I do not agree with that.
    Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: The hon. Gentleman throws over the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City, and, with all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I prefer the latter authority. May I come to the imperial note which was struck by the hon. Gentleman. I myself am a Free Trader, not only because of my view of the economy of this country, but because of my view of the economy and interest of the British Empire. So far as the Island is concerned, if I may call the United Kingdom an island, the basic argument remains that we are a very poor country, in that we have only one great physical asset, our coal supply. It is therefore to our obvious advantage to make ourselves what we have been now for two generations, a great free port, where the productions of all the world, the materials of all the world, may be freely bought, and freely dealt in, and freely used as materials. I believe, and I thing I may say for my hon. Friends, we believe, that it is by virtue of that policy that we have been able, in spite of our poverty in other regards, to make such a great advance. I do not claim, and I do not think any Free Trader worth the name, claims, that British wealth is wholly founded on Free Trade. It is founded on our coal supply assisted by Free Trade. I think that is the truth of it. That is the policy so far as the island is concerned. What is the policy so far as the Empire is concerned. I think both the hon. and gallant Gentleman and the seconder himself must here have regard to the fact that if you once set up as between the various parts of the Empire the conception that Protection is Imperial policy, you will create not ties, but you will create causes of severance. You cannot preach surely for an old and developed country like this that Protection is a good policy without teaching your Colonies that they must have Protection against your goods.
    696
    It is all very well to talk of Preference, but if the tariff wall that remains after-Preference is extended is a high one, and if it is one sufficient to injure your trade, then undoubtedly your high protective effect remains, and you will have done something to keep British goods out of the market. The same is true, not only with regard to the self-governing Dominions, but of India. It is undoubtedly true that the preaching of Tariff Reform in this country has made Protection popular with many thinking people in India. How, then, are you to maintain your Imperial connection there if you actually set up in this country a tariff against foreign manufacturers, while you deny to India, which is a new country in the modern industrial sense, the right to set tip a tariff against her foreign manufacturers? That is a point of the greatest importance, and it seems to me that those who in this House talk of Empire in connection with preference overlook that fact. With regard to food supplies, if you once embrace this policy, as an Imperial policy, you have to reconcile the preaching of Protection to the British farmer with the conception that you are to allow food to come in untaxed from the Colonies. You immediately create a sense of distrust and unfairness as between a body of producers in this country and a body of producers in the distant parts of the Empire. Surely these considerations should give pause to those who, like the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, see high Imperial sentiment connected with their policy. Fortunately the Free Trader has none of these embarrassments. He, believing that free imports into this country are good for the United Kingdom, does not doubt that free imports into any part of the Empire are good for that part of the Empire. He, therefore, can claim that he is advocating a policy which is not only good for his own country, but in the best interest of the British Empire.
    Mr. GEORGE A. LLOYD: I am sure that the whole House has listened, as it always does, with great interest to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Chiozza Money) whose honesty, at all events in his statistics, we all admire. I do not propose, on this-occasion, to follow him in the details of his speech, but I would like to remind him in regard to India, that, if he rightly follows what is happening in India, as I have no doubt he does, he will agree with me

    697
    that India is very likely to set up a protective tariff herself, and if you do not choose to make a reciprocal treaty, or reciprocal arrangements at this period, you will very likely have a high protective tariff without any opportunity of doing so later, unless you are going to be unfair to India and to the local authorities which you set up there under your system of self-government. The same is true in regard to the hon. Member's remarks in reference to preference generally. I understood him to say that in any case if you leave a tariff wall up at all in the Dominions, protanto you are stopping a certain amount of British trade there. But, if the hon. Member looks at the position in Canada or Australia to-day, he surely will not deny that if it were not for the principle of preference you would have had the high wall there still higher, and you would not have had your preference of a lower rate for British goods. You are not going to destroy the principle of Protection in the Dominions by a policy of free imports here. What you are going to do is to confirm them in a policy of high tariffs without getting any of the advantage which they at present offer you, but will not go on offering for ever.
    My purpose to-night is to direct the attention of the House to an aspect of the subject other than that which has been dealt with by my hon. Friends. I wish to refer to the vexed question of the most-favoured-nation treaties in relation to the Empire. Most of us Tariff Reformers are in favour of Imperial preference, because we see, in the policy of free imports, what we think to be a very great tendency towards the disruption of the Empire. That is to say, those of us who hold that the final bond of sovereignty in Empire is the unique control of foreign affairs in one central place, think there is a very grave danger that, if we continue moving down an entirely different economic road from that followed by the rest of the Dominions, we shall compel them sooner or later to claim an increasingly large share in the control and negotiation of their own foreign treaties, and so you will gradually have the Dominions with a foreign policy conflicting with our own. We believe that then the end of union will be very near. So long as Crown Colony Government existed in the whole Empire, before the Dominions had their own ideals, the most-favoured-nation treaty operated fairly well; but once the Dominions had an entirely separate commercial policy, the
    698
    false bases of these treaties became very evident.
    Take, for example, the case of Australia, which is an important one, and has come up repeatedly. For a very long time Australia has desired to give a preference to British shipping in her own waters, and to goods imported specifically in British bottoms. There is no doubt whatever about this. It cannot be denied. It has been put forward over and over again by Australia. In 1902, at the request of Australia, the Imperial Conference adopted a resolution in favour of refusing privileges of coastal trade to those countries which refused to British ships the advantages of coastal trade in their waters. The question was raised again in 1906, once more by Australia, and the present First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Churchill), who was then Under-Secretary for the Colonies, replied in a very important, phrase that such a step would violate treaties made with Greece, Italy, and Russia. One of these treaties was made so early as 1859, long before the Dominions had any consciousness of their own or any separate commercial policy. That was the best answer that could be given then. In 1907 the question was again raised, and the resolution in favour of a preference to British shipping was reaffirmed, the present Government alone dissenting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer tried to get the resolution altered, but failed. The Prime Ministers of the Dominions insisted upon the resolution being left intact, and the present Government alone blocked the way to a Preferential scheme. In 1910 Australia asked the present Foreign Secretary to negotiate with Italy and Austria, who were the beneficiaries under the most-favoured-nation arrangement. The Foreign Secretary was asked by Australia to negotiate for the denunciation of those treaties, because Australia wished to give a preference to British shipping, but did not wish to have to extend it to Italy and Austria and other countries under old and obsolete treaties. The Foreign Secretary so far admitted the justice of the ease that he undertook to negotiate.
    But in 1911, at the Imperial Conference, we have the old story: The Foreign Secretary had received replies from Austria and Italy refusing to give up any of the privileges which they held under ancient treaties made long before Australia had a voice in the matter or anything to do with the control of their own affairs.

    699
    Since then we have heard nothing. But we know from various sources that dissatisfaction is felt by Australia with these old bonds, which shackle the Dominions and with the fashioning of which they have nothing to do. Their own people are against them and would throw them off. They are, indeed, beginning to throw them off by the appointment of separate Consuls for the Dominions in the negotiations of various commercial matters, which, I think, is a grave danger. I do not want to worry the House with a long history of various aspects of this question. We have heard something tonight about "sordid bonds." That is a phrase not used by our side, but used by free importers on the Liberal side of this House. May I put it to them to-night, without criticising their actual phrases, that there are bonds much more dangerous than the negotiation of trade treaties at the request and with the sympathy of the Dominions? There are bonds like these treaties, which we maintain against the wishes of the united Dominions, and which is very likely to raise a grave feeling between ourselves and these Dominions; one that we must take notice of in this House. It would be well if we were a little more sympathetic, and if we could forget the narrow dogmas of the Cobden Club, or the Free Trade system of fifty years ago. We, the Tariff Reformers of this House, are no dogmatists at all on this question. I speak for myself. We differ from the hon. Member who spoke last in his easy definition as to how the wealth of England was built up. We do not think it was entirely owing to coal. It was coal and the Navigation Laws which built up the wealth of England.
    On this side of the House all we say is that we ought to have a sound trade policy, one according to the modern needs of a modern people. We do not want to be tied to a system which was in vogue in Manchester and which not only benefited rich merchants, but was framed especially to benefit them and which was carried by their money before the working classes had votes. We seek to get away from this kind of bond. We seek to have power from this House to impose just such tariffs as will suit the particular needs of our own Dominions, and meet the modern requirements of a great and growing Empire; to be able to impose duties where we think we need them, and to take them
    700
    off where we desire to; to have free imports where they will assist us, and to have tariffs where they are necessary. Let me take once more another class that has been referred to, the "most-favoured-nation" treaties. I want to speak of Canada. According to Ministers in this country and in Canada, the Canadian Government cannot lower her duties to any foreign nation without reducing those duties at the same time, and in the same degree, to a long list of countries, including Austria, Russia, France, Spain, Japan, and the Argentine. I will not repeat here—let us try to imagine—what we should feel if we were bound by treaties which Canada had made for our trade policy years before we had anything to do with it. What would our work-people say? In this case actually the treaty with Russia was passed in 1859 long before the North America Act. Canada feels very strongly on this subject. She had-absolutely no voice in the making of that treaty with which she is absolutely bound. It is ludicrous to call it Free Trade. She-is shackled, and cannot get free from it. She cannot negotiate a single commercial treaty.
    There is no doubt here as to what Canada wants. In 1891 Canada protested to the Home Government, who virtually replied that to take the step which Canada required would be too grave, inasmuch as it would mean the tearing up of many existing treaties. We grant it would be a big step, but, on the other hand, we have to consider the growing commercial needs of a great Empire. In 1891 Canada protested without effect to this country. In 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved and carried a resolution at the Imperial Conference, asking the Foreign Secretary again to negotiate towards freeing the Dominion from these bonds. I do not know how many times this has occurred. How persistently the Dominions have kept this question before the Conference! What did the Foreign Secretary reply? He said that he would negotiate again. He said:—
    "If we cannot bring it to a conclusion in a year or two it looks as if the negotiations would never result in anything, and we shall have to consider the situation afresh."
    9.0 P.M
    I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, what has happened since 1911? How the Government reviewed the situation further? If so, why are we not told? The Dominions have pressed since 1902–I think really

    701
    since 1901–on this one question alone with the United Kingdom. They have spoken with a persistent voice. At last the Home Government says it will negotiate. The two years have elapsed which the Foreign Secretary himself said were the limits to which inaction, should go. We hear of nothing being done. I, for one, have no reason to believe that anything has been done since 1911. At any rate, no result has been achieved. I would like to ask for a very definite and a very clear statement on this question of the Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty Clauses. We have very few opportunities of debating this question in the House, or of getting answers to questions when we put them. These are questions which concern the whole of the Dominions in the answer which will or will not be given to-night. An immense amount of interest will be taken in the replies by the Dominions concerned. I think, in conclusion, it is only fair to remind the House that it is in the last ten years, while the opposite party have been in office, that the once-derided principle of Imperial preference has been mainly before us.
    What has happened? Canada has negotiated and increased the whole scope and nature of the principle of Imperial preference. The idea was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Canada followed out the idea so rapidly and so successfully that she eventually extended it to the United Kingdom, and also to South Africa, India, the Straits, and the West Indies, thus building up a great change of Inter-dominion preference. We realise that the change cannot be brought about by any one Act. But we are concerned to show that these acts may be taken as not conflicting one with another, so that later all may fit into a perfect whole. Australia has herself not only given preference to this country, but has extended it to South Africa. South Africa, not content with giving a preference to the United Kingdom, has been busy in extending the principle of Imperial preference. In 1903, she extended it to the United Kingdom; in 1904, to Canada; in 1906, to New Zealand; and to Australia in 1907. It is a persistent policy, steadily pursued, on the road to Imperial preference, and the only country in the whole of the Empire who refuses overtly to take up this policy and adopt it successfully, as has been done throughout our Colonial industries with
    702
    immense success—the only one which refuses to co-operate is the Imperial Parliament. I think it is indeed a shame, and I think it is indeed a lack of statesmanship. In the Dominions this question has been settled long ago. In our sense we keep it alive; we are loyal to it, and keep control of it because we know that you on the opposite side will have to come to it. Other portions of the Empire having walked down the one road, it is impossible to conceive that we alone will be able to walk down another without disruption. Therefore, we say that this question is a decided issue; it is prejudged, and by the nature of the Dominions themselves and by the course of their trade and the distribution of ideas. I am perfectly certain, whatever the answer that may be given from the Government Bench to our Preference Amendment to-night, that before many years are out we shall ourselves have taken the last step towards that policy of preference, and have made the whole of it a complete system.
    Sir WILLIAM BEALE: I have for many years listened to Debates upon this subject in the hope that some time or other we might hear some definite suggestion, something intelligible and practicable directed towards alleviating the disturbances or depressions of trade, such as do undoubtedly occasionally occur from the difficulty of what is in this Amendment described as artificially stimulated foreign competition. From the history of Protection which we have very often debated, I do quite admit that there is something serious which, if you direct your mind to the particular nature and conditions which occur, which may perhaps suggest a practicable remedy. Though I have listened silently for a great many years to Debates upon this subject, I ask the patience of the House to-night while I touch upon the subject from my own point of view, entirely free from the oratorical colour given to it both outside and inside this House, and without attributing to my opponents either the wish or the desire not to deal thoughtfully with the matter under consideration, I was very much pleased to hear the language of the last speaker which, to a certain extent, I think, was intended to acquit us of any desire merely to dogmatise. I am sure we quite believe his statement that, at all events, at the present time, Tariff Reformers are not to be looked upon as people who dogmatise without having seriously studied the question before them.

    703
    I regret for all that I cannot find in the present Amendment anything sufficiently concrete or sufficiently definite in the line of action foreshadowed which we could follow, so as to produce any real benefit to the country.
    In the few words I wish to address to the House, I shall try to keep clear of criticising figures and statistics that have been brought forward, on one side or the other, because my view is that in the use made of thes statistics on both sides it has been too much asumed that the idea of post hoc ergo propter hoc has prevailed too much. Suppose you can compare the prosperity of a country which has got a protective tariff with a country that has not, and show that the prosperity of one has advanced really, or on that very voracious footing of percentages, it has been assumed that if you can show that one has advanced more than another, you have won your case, I think you leave out numerous considerations which are really more essential before you can come to any-such conclusion; I refer, of course, to the question of superior commercial education, and numerous collateral questions—the better management of the transport system, railway rates and so on, better painstaking in our Consular service and things of that sort. I ask the House to forgive me if I leave that line of argument, and touch this as a very common theory at the bottom of it. I do not take the shibboleths of the Cobden Club. I am more impressed with the writings of Mill and Fawcett, but I do not take the shibboleths of any writer. I say candidly, and perhaps it will surprise some of my friends, that the basis of my firm adherence to Free Trade comes from the study of those who have written seriously on scientific Protection, and it is that subject which I want to say a word about.
    I understand that from time to time these propositions which are formulated in this Amendment have been brought forward. They would occur to almost anybody who has made any reflection upon political economy, if he tries to study it at all. I will not say more about them, or that they occur chiefly to the young, but they occur to people generally only to be displaced by more mature deliberation. At all events when they have been brought forward, they have failed to stand the test of practical application. I will not go back a very long way, but I am sorry to say that my memory goes back
    704
    to the period when, the Repeal of the Corn Laws was still a very recent affair, when there were Protectionists and Pealites in the Conservative party of that day to which a man of great eminence, Mr. Gladstone, belonged. There were two sides to the question, but I refer to that which I recollect after I had attained a mature age. The proposition put forward then was similar to the proposition put forward today. It was one for Free Trade within the Empire. The controversy was between Free Traders and fair traders. At that time that proposition had a great effect on many minds, including my own, because our Free Trade convictions were liable to be stirred in view of the very great progress which we saw going on in the United States of America, and which in later years we have seen occur in Canada. It did seem that where there were large undeveloped territories a system of Protection did tend to prosperity, and to a system which, at all events, had the effect of ousting our goods. It occurred to us that by having Free Trade within the Empire we should be put in the same position, because our Empire had a still larger proportion of undeveloped territory than had the United States at that time. That controversy went on, and it was exceedingly like what is going on at the present time. These two views were mixed up, as we now get the two different parts of this resolution mixed up and confused with the propositions to be found in the second part of the Motion before the House.
    The advocates of a Protective duty, with a view to Free Trade within the Empire, got into exactly the same fallacies as we now, rightly or wrongly, attribute to many of the warm advocates of Tariff Reform opposite. They tried to get it both ways; they argued that duties would keep out foreign manufactures for the benefit of British trade, and at the same time that they would let them in at high rates of duty for the benefit of this country. I do not repudiate altogether what I think I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London say on one occasion, that there was no objection to a tariff which you could show would do good because it merely had a protective effect on British manufactures. There was another point on which the Seconder of the Motion touched, and that is the notion that if you keep out foreign-made goods you will make those goods at home. True, you will make them, but what they never

    705
    see is that you will not get the same amount of goods, because imports are paid for by exports. Again, you are assuming that the demand will remain the same, or rather that it will be double, which is equal to saying that if two people left off doing trade together they would double the amount of work. The result of this policy would be that each would have a great deal more work, but the amount of produce would be the same, because it would involve more expenditure of labour. I am only pointing out this to show that these questions are in controversy now, and that they were matters of controversy then. There was the same outcry against unfair competition, and there was a Royal Commission appointed in 1885 to inquire into the reasons for the depression in trade, and to say what, if any, suggestions could be made for remedying it. The majority of that Commission reported against any protective duty of any kind. I am aware that the minority on that Commission suggested a moderate duty on manufactured goods, but what came out and what they took evidence upon was that it was largely due to the longer hours worked by foreign workmen and to the lower rate of wages those foreign workmen received. Consequently, I am not very much surprised that in this instance there was no intention to imitate the foreigner. When this question was again considered in the year 1903, Protection was again brought forward by a Statesman with whom I should have only been too willing to agree, and whom I know was actuated by the best love for his country. At that time I tried to see if there was anything in those proposals which would give a solid foundation for some change in the direction in which he pointed. The only remarkable feature about that propaganda, which was started in 1903, was a comparison with Germany. It was implied that if you studied the German writers you would find some justification for the change. I looked very carefully to see if such justification could be found. I was very much impressed, reasonably impressed, when the proposition came from such a quarter, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, whom I respected so much, put it in this way:—
    "You any that England alone is right, and that nil other countries are fools."
    I thought the question deserved considerable study. I say that what the foreign
    706
    political economists, from whom I derive my notions much more than from the English economists, show is that the systems of Protection that have been adopted by foreign countries have been adopted under very different circumstances and for very different purposes than those which are put forward as the basis for the change in our fiscal system which we are now asked to vote upon as an improvement. I say that the theory is not to be found in any of the writers on which foreign countries have proceeded. It has been suggested that by adopting a Protective duty you can eventually come to such cheap reduction that you can actually send goods and sell them cheaper than they can be produced in the country itself. I would, however, point out that it is not a game at which all producing countries could play, because if they did it would kill itself by over-production. It may be an incident which occurs at the present moment, but it is not a thing which we can cure, or at least cure for our permanent advantage by acting in the same way. It is not a thing which you will find advocated as a good move by any writers who have advocated Protection.
    Oddly enough, if I recollect rightly, the notion was started first in this country by Lord Brougham in 1815, who said, I think in a speech in the House of Lords, that it would be well worth producing at a loss because we could prevent other countries beginning to produce at all. I never heard it suggested as a thing which could be done where the country had begun to produce, and where they had facilities of production. What I do find in the views of the German and American writers in common with some of the views of our modern advocates of Tariff Reform is that it may be well worth while to make the sacrifice of some benefits for the sake of other benefits which you could derive by the establishment of Protective duties. That, is the only thing I find in common. It always has involved the idea of sacrifice. You never find in any writers the idea that Protective duties can in themselves be a benefit to a country. The first of these scientific gentlemen on whom the Germans went to work was of course Friedrich List. I hope that his work now is pretty well known. His contention was that the benefit to be derived from scientific protection was ultimately to arrive at Free Trade. His book, I think, appeared in 1841, before the effects of the continental system had worn off. It was

    707
    when they were struggling against the English supremacy in trade that he issued the suggestion that France, Germany, and the United States ought to see the importance of Protection. He did not think that what he lather rudely called the barbarous countries would be fools enough to think that they could develop manufacturing industries in their backward state of culture. He said:—
    "If France, Germany, and the United Suites will adopt Protection. England will then give up the idea of manufacturing for the whole world. She will not expect France Germany, and the United States to give up manufacturing and send only raw products and take British manufactures. She will see that they are right in Protection, though she will herself more and more favour Free Trade, taught by the theory that, a nation which has arrived at manufacturing supremacy, can only protect herself against decline and indolence by the free import of food and raw material."
    I do not see any reason why we should depart from that view of scientific Protection and say that a country shall set to work to use Protection to enable her to compete with other countries that have already established their supremacy of production. That is the view of writers on scientific Protection, both in the United States of America and in Germany. The view was started in America by Carey, who has been adopted in Germany as the best authority. The object was not only what I have mentioned, namely, the advantage of the country, but it was also directed to the equality of prosperity between different classes. Carey talked about harmony of interests and tried to bring it about in America. He condemned the British system, because it tended to centralisation and to the concentration of special industries at great centres, and he recommended that Protection should be scientifically adjusted in order to decentralise and to foster the greatest variety of production in any country or district. He said, further, that the British system tended to make slaves of the workers. That is Socialism in one sense, but not in that truer definition which we have from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London. It is remarkable, you will always find national economy and Socialism dealt with as kindred subjects which have to be considered together. The objects aimed at were very different from the objects put forward by advocates of Tariff Reform in this country. The arguments used, both in America and Germany, were seized upon by capitalists, and were directed to very opposite ends. Carey wanted to protect home interests like the
    708
    Americans do, but he does not tell the wealthy classes that the vowed object of the father of scientific Protection was to undermine the preponderating influence of their class, and to render futile the efforts at commercial supremacy on the part of any country. We may be told that these quotations from the old economists are ancient history and that circumstances have since changed. Of course they have—I do not suppose that Adam Smith or List or Carey looked forward to the enormous changes in the means of transport such as have occurred. I do not suppose they ever imagined that corn would be grown in Canada, come to Reading to be made into biscuits, which in their turn would be sent back for sale in Canada. Of course, circumstances have changed very much indeed, but I do not think that the theory underlying Carey's writings has changed the least in the world. I want now to refer to one authority showing that those theories have not changed, and that they do not point in the direction which Tariff Reformers point to, when they advocate the fiscal changes foreshadowed in this Amendment. I have heard mention in this House the name of one eminent modern authority. Professor Schmöller, who pointed out the danger of Tariff Reform. In his book, which appeared in 1904, he says:—
    "The true reason for agrarian Protection in our day is not that special industries now or formerly thrive or thrived on Protection, but that it is a question of life or death for the community to help our own agricultural industry above the shock of international, certainly temporary, concurrence."
    List said:—
    "An attempt by any one country to acquire overwhelming power and wealth would be as harmful as the-attempt of the ancient Romans to do the same by arms and bloodshed, and would equally lead back to barbarism."
    Schmöller comments on the dependence of Great Britain on the surplus production of other countries, and says it will in time fail, and adds:—
    "Germany must not follow the false example of Great Britain, must turn round in time, support its agricultural industry, and be moderate in its export trade. The marks of an industrial State are depression of general comfort, unequal distribution of wealth, impossibility of social reform, unique domination of capitalists, unhealthy increase of population, and crowding of towns and industrial districts.''
    He further says:—
    "High duties would destroy the valuable British trade in America. Germany, etc., and bring about tariff wars. There would be little chance of diminishing the evil of free ports. It is to be hoped that Mr. Chamberlain, with his influence, will succeed in keeping these people in check. Only a very moderate differential system with the Colonies can have any lasting result. It will not hurt Germany. But it is difficult to say that such an Imperial combination will save England. It is too

    709
    like the old Colonial system. The independence of the Colonies will work in favour of protection of their industries. When Professor Ashley advised them not to found new industries and to rely on agriculture, he was right. But will the Colonies follow such advice?"
    I quote Professor Schmöher as an authority on Tariff Reform, with whose principles I scarcely find any occasion to disagree. He entirely combats what I might term the popular view expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am not going to say that, under certain conditions and with a definite aim, either national or to equalise prosperity, we should not be prepared to make sacrifices. I am not going to remind the House of the sacrifices we have made in order to pay for a definite aim, but in the present circumstances, with our present information, to make an entire change, as is suggested in this Amendment, in our fiscal system is not a suggestion one would advise His Majesty to add to His Gracious Speech.
    The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stanley Buckmaster): The Amendment now before the House is drawn in the same terms as the Amendment that was considered in April of last year, and I therefore assume that it may be regarded as the latest and the most authoritative statement of the policy of hon. Members opposite. During the last nine years this subject has been before the House in many forms, but I doubt if it has ever been placed before our consideration under circumstances of greater difficulty for the Mover and the Seconder of the Amendment than those which exist to-day. In saying that I do not merely refer to these statistics and figures affecting our trade. I do no propose to quote, striking though they be, the records of our export and of our import trade during the past twelve months, nor the significant figures that are to be derived from the returns of the Clearing House, the Custom House, and the Inland Revenue, or all the different means by which we may measure and test the pulse of trade. I do not refer to these things because I know quite well that the inference to be drawn from these figures is a matter of controversy between us, and that though we may think they have point in one direction, they are not so convincing to hon. Members opposite.
    The facts to which I refer are not, I think, in dispute. I refer to the fact that the policy represented in this Amendment is nothing but a rudimentary, and, as I think, a devitalised fragment of the whole of the larger policy of Tariff Reform, and that whatever arguments can be used
    710
    against the full-blooded policy, apply with redoubled force against this anæmic fragment. In this I think I must command the support of many of the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. I certainly do not propose to fatigue the House by the repetition of quotations which must, be familiar to them all, but I am satisfied that we all remember that the policy put forward in the first paragraph of this Amendment is one that has again and again, in clear and emphatic terms, been declared to be a policy which cannot exist. If you desire Colonial Preference, you must have a tax on food. That is a statement the speaker of which has never receded from the effect of his utterance, and it is as true to-day as when he uttered it. Indeed, I think the statement must command the assent of the leader of the Opposition, because if I read his speeches aright, that also is his expressed view. Again, it has been put forward in language as violent as it is just by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings). But I find in this respect right hon. Gentlemen opposite are merely carrying forward the positions of an older policy, for in 1879, when this theory of taxation of products for the benefit of the industries of this country was beginning to grow, it attracted the attention of Mr. Gladstone, and speaking in Midlothian in that year, this is what he said:—
    "Protection has been asked for by certain injudicious cliques and classes of persons connected with mine manufacturing Industries. They want, to have duties laid upon manufactures; but here Lord Beaconsfield said and I cordially agree with him, that he would be no party to the institution of n system under which Protection was to be given to manufactures and to be refused to agriculture. That one-sided Protection I deem to be totally intolerable, and I reject it oven at the threshold as unworthy of a word of examination or discussion."
    In addition to that, the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Tryon) and the hon. Members who have supported him during the Amendment have got a new difficulty to face which has never been faced before, and that is the fact that they find themselves in acute and fierce collision with the very industry whose succour and relief was the main, and I think the most praiseworthy object of the whole movement. The agricultural interest has discovered the illusion of these proposals, and under the leadership of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) the hon. Member (Mr. Hunt) and other leaders who still regard the maintenance of the original policy as something more important than an attempt to serve both worlds, are in open

    711
    and avowed revolt. In these circumstances I think it requires both courage and skill to move this Amendment, and I think also that those qualities were admirably shown by the Mover and Seconder; but I think they were equally divided. The skill was shown by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved it, for he evaded the difficulty, and the courage was shown by the hon. Member who seconded, for he disregarded them.
    10.0 P.M.
    Consider for a moment what it is that the Amendment proposes. It proposes to adopt Imperial Preference so far as it can be carried out without imposing fresh duties upon imported foodstuffs, and neither the Mover nor the Seconder has even approached within reasonable distance of a definition of what that statement means. Is it intended to include or exclude raw materials? To that, up to the present time, we have had no answer. The hon. Member who seconded appears to consider that it did not affect raw material at all. His views about raw material seem to be somewhat hazy, for as I gathered from an interruption which was made, his idea of raw material began with boots, then paused and hesitated on leather, and finally settled down comfortably upon raw hide. Surely we are entitled to know, before we vote upon such an Amendment as this, what it is that means, and what it is that it pledges the House to support. Hon. Members opposite when discussing such an Amendment are sometimes too apt to believe that we pay no regard to an attempt to bind ourselves and our Colonies together. I think they are profoundly mistaken. I think that we, just as much as hon. Members opposite, are anxious above all things to bind ourselves and our Colonies beyond the seas into one solid and indissoluble whole, but we are utterly unable to see that any scheme that has been produced in the nature of this Amendment is in the least likely to accomplish that object. As for this Amendment, it appears to me that not only must it fail in the accomplishment of such a purpose, but it must carry with it the seeds which will ultimately lead to a growth that many of us will be unwilling to contemplate. You propose to put a tax upon the imports into this country of manufactured and, I gather, semi-manufactured goods, and to give a Preference in that respect, and in that respect alone, to our Colonies, with the
    712
    result that some of the Colonies will be almost entirely excluded from the benefit of your tax, and in all cases such benefit as may be received must vary in amount, while the total advantage that they will gain will be something so trifling that it cannot be worth the trouble and cost of any attempt to impose such a tax. I am quite agreed that if you desire to accomplish Imperial Preference, you must put a tax on food, and you must put a tax on raw materials, and the reason why these products are omitted from this Amendment is not because hon. Members opposite do not thoroughly realise that their introduction is essential to the vitality of the scheme, but because they know that such a scheme will not be accepted by the country, and they have thrown over the most unpopular part of their cargo.
    Let me say a few words about the remaining part of the proposal. It deals with an attempt to tax, by what I understand to be an average tariff, manufactured imports into this country. Once again we have no means whatever of knowing to what extent these goods must be manufactured to come within the operation of the tax—whether pig-iron is to be regarded as manufactured goods or raw material, and, again, the old and insoluble difficulty of leather, which I am certain would be regarded as a raw material in one part of the country and as a finished product in another. It is important to see, first of all, what you are going to tax; and, secondly, what is the object you hope to obtain by the taxation. In every speech made on the other side during this Debate no one has referred to the possible result of this proposal in raising the price of the article upon which it is placed, and the first thing to consider is whether or no that is what it is desired to do. It has been pointed out that that is almost by concession what it will do, but I would be glad to know if that is what it is desired to do. I quite agree that upon this question of the increase of price, due to the imposition of a tariff, the varying circumstances of the country where the tax is imposed, and of the character of the product upon which it is placed, affects to some degree the extent to which the price of the article will be raised, and it is obvious if you were to put a tax upon the importation of steam coal in Wales, you would not raise the price of steam coal in Wales by any appreciable sum. If you were to tax the importation of oil into Mexico, I should

    713
    imagine that you would not raise the price of oil in Mexico by a single peseta. I only quote that for the purpose of saying, that I at least have never suggested that an increase in price must in all cases and on all products inevitably follow the imposition of a duty. That is not so at all. But where the article on which the tax is imposed is an article whose price is regulated in the protected area by keen competition, then the result of the imposition of the tax is to raise the price of the article by the amount of the tax; but in several instances, as the records of other countries show, the price gets lifted even beyond the amount of the duty.
    Assuming that that fact can be accepted—and I really do not see that there is anything striking or remarkable in what I am saying—assuming that that fact can be accepted for the purpose of argument, I want to know what is the result to agriculture under this system? The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said, when a Debate on a similar resolution was before the House, that if it could be shown that agriculture would instantly suffer, he would agree that agriculture would be right in objecting. But it seemed to him impossible to consider that agriculture ever would suffer. Let me see whether it can. Is there a single article that the farmer uses, apart from his live stock, the price of which is not determined at the present moment by the fact of free foreign competition? I believe there is not a single thing he uses from first to last in which he has not the benefit, the full benefit, of a free market. It is obvious that the whole of his iron goods, ploughs, forks, harrows, reapers, sowers, mowing machines, threshing machines—in fact as to every article or machine which he uses, much of which is imported from foreign countries, the price is modified by the fact that foreign competition exists. But it is not only that. Wire fencing, iron for the roofs of his barns, the mills by which he pumps his water, even the hewn timber by which he builds his sheds—in every single case the articles which he uses are articles which are subject to the competition of similar imported articles from abroad. It is therefore perfectly plain that an increase in the price of the articles he uses in the course of his industry is a hindrance and not a benefit to a man carrying on the trade of farmer, and he must suffer, and suffer permanently, by any system which gives an average duty of 10 per cent. on
    714
    manufactured goods. It is suggested that, although he may suffer, he is to receive some equivalent compensation from the money which is to be raised by the tax. Well, the money that is going to be raised by the tariff has been pledged so often for such large sums that I do not think there is much in the ultimate value of the equity. Let me assume that the proposal that has been suggested is to give some relief to the burdens which at the present moment the farmer bears. Those burdens are either local or Imperial. With regard to the adjustment of local burdens I believe all Members of the House are in agreement that at the present moment their incidence is irregular and unfair. But I do not think we are all in agreement as to the best means by which that inequality can be readjusted. At any rate, no scheme has been put forward to enable us to arrive at readjustment. It is assumed that one of the first purposes is to relieve the burden of the Income Tax.
    How will that benefit the farmer? At the present moment there is no class in the whole Kingdom that suffers so little under the Income Tax as the agricultural industry. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the labourer?"] I do not call the farmer an agricultural labourer, but I regard the farmer and the labourer as persons who are engaged in connection with one interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear," If you are in such agreement, why contradict me? For the purpose of Income Tax, the labourer may be disregarded. As for the farmer, there is no class in the community upon whom the Income Tax presses more lightly. And why? Because he is exempted from returning under Schedule D, and his returns for the purpose of Income Tax, are fixed by Statute at one-third of his rent. If, therefore, a farmer farms 1,000 acres at £1 an acre, he would return his income for the purpose of Income Tax at £333. If he took off £160, the exemption before he came to be taxed, he would be taxed on £173, and if you took 2d. off his Income Tax in order to relieve the agricultural burden, you would benefit him only to the extent of £1 10s. a year. And while that is the advantage which the agriculturist is going to get under this system, I say that the burden which he is going to suffer is definite and substantial. I know that the agricultural interest is not the only one that has got to be considered in this matter, and hon. Members opposite have again and again suggested that one of the many advantages accruing from the introduction of this duty, will

    715
    be the opportunity that will be given for the improvement of wages, and the benefit which will be conferred upon the industrial people of this country. Once more there is no difference between us as to the desirability of the object. The only question is the means by which it may be obtained. A word or two about the means by which it shall be reached.
    I am still arguing upon the assumption that the imposition of this duty is going to increase the price. It is suggested that that will give a larger profit to the manufacturer, and that he will be able out of his increased profit to pay a larger Wage. We have had during the last few years a most remarkable and startling illustration of the increase of prices. We know that since 1900 the prices of food commodities in this country have risen 15 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Under Free Trade."] Yes, but in no protected country except possibly France have they risen by anything like so small a sum. I say except in France, because the returns, which have been given dealing with these countries, put down the increase in price as the same as the increase here. But I think that it is obvious to anyone who looks at the report and the figures that the figure given for France, unless taken subject to the qualifications which are expressed, is liable to lead to mistake, and without these qualifications the figure would be higher. I will tell you why. I am not making a statement without having taken the trouble to consider the report. The figure which showed an increase of 15 per cent, for France is a figure which relates to the retail price of twenty-four articles of food, including wine, fuel, and lighting materials in Paris, according to the workmen's consumption, and when you turn to see what are the actual figure as to the increase in the price of food in France in reference to which I can refer hon. Members who desire to read about this matter, to page 341 of the report, you find that the wholesale prices food in France, taking 1900 as the standard year, have increased 28 per cent, from 1900 to 1911. And that is the only country in this report, except Australia and New Zealand, in which the increases are not enormously in excess of our own. So that though the increase of prices has been a common factor in the history of the world during the last few years, Free Trade England still maintains her position, and the increase here is less per annum
    716
    than it is elsewhere. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wages."] Yes; the very thing I am coming to. I now ask hon. Members to consider whether an increase in prices, which might just, as well be due to the imposition of a tariff as to economic causes, has produced a corresponding increase of wages? What is the industry in relation to which these prices are the most important? It is, once more, the agricultural industry; and you will find in this report that the articles upon which those prices have been calculated are articles nearly everyone of which, except potatoes, have been imported from abroad. The consequence is, that there has been a protection of 15 per cent. given to the agricultural interest by economic causes during the last twelve years. Is there anyone going to tell me that the wages of the agricultural labourers have risen to any extent in any way commensurate with that amount? A more complete and absolute refutation of the theory that, with the imposition of a tariff, wages must rise, cannot be found than in that book. If that is so, the experience of other countries will also tell us this, that although it may be that the high prices will in the end cause higher wages, even in a country where they are low, yet the wages and the prices do not move onward step for step; but while prices move forward on a fleet foot, wages limp wearily behind. This Amendment is finally recommended to us as a scheme for settling social discontent. How social discontent is going to be solved by the adoption of a scheme of which the first step is to increase the prices of daily commodities to the industrial people of this country—[An HON. MEMBER: "NO."]—it is quite obvious—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not at all."]—that your duty is not going to be productive if you are merely going to tax things which the people do not use. The only way in which a tariff can be productive or effective is to tax the goods which are in common or daily use. I think all of us look forward with some anxiety to the industrial condition of this country. The demands of labour are becoming more insistent and more incessant year by year, and at once to understand and satisfy what is just in those demands is one of the gravest difficulties of modern statesmanship. We welcome any discussion that will enable us to see whether any scheme put forward will allay that unrest, and we welcome it none theless because we at least

    717
    on this side of the House are convinced that no solution of that difficulty is to be found by attempting to change the system which, whatever may be its faults, has caused this country to grow rich and strong, which has enabled it to bear with unbent back the heavy burden of our Imperial responsibilities, and lastly—and this is the chiefest merit in it all—it has brought cheap food to the lips of millions of the poor.
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It is interesting to find that the present Government have adopted as a permanent principle the handing over of the defence of their case on Free Trade questions to the two Law Officers of the Crown. To-night the brief has been transferred to the junior Member, and all that I can do is to heartily congratulate him on having presented a case which I think is equal to that we are in the habit of having from his senior. I think, all the same, the hon. and learned Gentleman will be prudent as he gets more accustomed to the brief. I do not at all follow the line of argument which he based upon the rise of food prices in the country and the absence of a rise in wages. He seems to imagine that some people—presumably he thought they were Tariff Reformers—are of opinion that a rise in wages necessarily follows a rise in prices, from whatever cause. I, at least, have never made any such assertion. What we have pointed out is precisely the thing the right hon. Gentleman did not—that there has been a great rise in the cost of the necessaries of life in this country, and that there has not been a rise in wages, and that while there has been a rise in the cost of necessaries in other countries, there has been a rise in wages that has more than counterbalanced it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite perhaps doubt that. Let me give the opinion of our own Consul as regards this in Germany. He used these words:—
    "The only factor which has safeguarded the standard of life of the German worker and prevented it from falling has been the ample rise in wages, which has more than kept pace with the rise in prices."
    That was in the year 1909–[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and the conditions, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know, were equally true then as they are to-day. The hon. and learned Gentlemen, as was inevitable, began by a taunt upon us upon a change in our fiscal policy. That taunt is natural, and, to some extent, it is deserved, but it comes rather strangely from a party which has professed, as the hon.
    718
    Gentleman the Attorney-General told us, that for the last thirty years their hearts have been bound up with Home Rule, and yet during the ten years they were in Opposition a Motion of any kind in favour of that proposal was never made by the official Opposition, and it was never mentioned in the address of the Leader of their party, and it was never once touched by them until the Irish vote became necessary for them. In what I say to-night I am going to refer to the fiscal policy which, if, as hon. Gentleman opposite think impossible, we are returned to power, we intend to carry out. And here I may say, there is one difference between us and them: whether that policy is right or wrong, we have at all events made it perfectly clear. We do not intend to imitate the methods of the party opposite. We intend to have no conspiracy of silence. We shall mention it in our election addresses, and the country will know exactly what we intend to do. I say that I am going only to refer to the policy that we shall be able to carry out, if we are returned to power, as the result of the election; for I admit that it would be no defence to point to something which could be done later if we are not able to justify what we propose to do on its merits. It is assumed by everyone who has spoken from the benches opposite that a system which proposes to put a tariff on manufactured articles with a corresponding tariff on agricultural produce is, in its nature, absurd. Even on theory I am not inclined to accept that view. I think, indeed, that the root difference between us and the rigid adherents of our present fiscal system, is that they do and we do not think there is any fiscal system which applies to all countries and at all times. We think that it must vary, if it be a right system, in accordance with the conditions of the country in which it is imposed, and the rest of the world at the time it is imposed.
    I, for one, apart from any question as to merit, have always held, and I hold now, that the system which would be suitable for a country where agriculture was almost equal with industry, would be quite unsuitable for a country where industry preponderated over agriculture to such an enormous extent as with us. But whatever may be the view as to theory, is it not rather strange to say that a system is absurd which is already in force, and successfully in force, in other countries? As I pointed out last year, the country in

    719
    Europe which most resembles our own is Belgium, and the fiscal system there is approximately the system which we propose to establish here. There is in Belgium no duty on wheat, and there are very small duties, and unprotective, on any agricultural produce, and yet that system has worked, and worked successfully, even from the point of view of agriculture in Belgium. Further, if it was, as I think, absurd to suggest last year that the system was logically impossible, it is still more absurd to suggest it now in view of what has happened in connection with the American tariff. We were told, and I daresay that there are people on the benches opposite who believe it still, that that tariff was, if not Free Trade, a step in the direction of Free Trade. As a matter of fact, the Protection of manufacturing industries remains as strong as ever. The difference is that the rate was 40 per cent., and it is now 30 per cent.; but as the cost of production in America as compared with this country was greater when the old tariff was imposed then it is now the effect of the present tariff in the way of Protection is as great, I believe, as that of the previous tariff. Therefore the only step in the direction of Free Trade has been in the direction of removing the duties on agriculture, and so bringing the American tariff more nearly to the precise proposal we now ask the House to adopt.
    I know that the whole of that is now from a new point of view. We used to be attacked—till last year—on the ground that we were going to tax the food of the people. That has shifted now. We are attacked now because we are not going to tax the food of the people. As an electioneering weapon in the hands of a Government, and of a party which is not, I will not say immoral, but non-moral—which in politics has no novelty except success—in the hands of such a Government. I much prefer the present electioneering weapon to the one they enjoyed till last year. There are, I think, two points of view from which farmers, and those who advocate the cause of famers, should look at this question. It is certainly true—nobody doubts it—that it would be a greater advantage to the farmer if there were a tariff on agriculture corresponding to the tariff on industry. That we all admit. What I think we have a right to say is: Unless it can be shown that the proposal we make is actually
    720
    going to injure the farmer, but merely that it is not going to benefit him as much as the other arrangement, that any farmer who believes that the change would be good for the country as a whole has no right to vote against us on account of the changes we are going to propose I think that is elementary. In what way is the farmer going to be injured? So far as I can see—I have tried to understand it—he will be injured only by the higher price—if he has to pay a higher price for what he buys, in consequence of the industrial tariff. That is the only injury. What does that amount to? The Solicitor-General laid down a doctrine which, I think,, unintentionally, he inverted. He said the price must rise if it is regulated within a protected area. I suppose he meant the opposite, because, does anyone really maintain that the effect of such a tariff would be, on the whole, to raise the prices of articles in this country to the extent of the tariff? Where do the goods come from? They all come from countries with a higher tariff by far than we propose. If they are able to come, why is it? It is because, as I believe, owing to the security of their own markets they are able to produce on a bigger scale and cheaper than we can, and therefore they are able to send their articles here in spite of the tariff. Is it not reasonable to suppose that the same result may happens here; that there will be still competition within this market, and that the greater production will tend rather to enable the article to be produced more cheaply, and therefore in itself tend to prevent rise in prices what would have been charged? Look at it even from the point of view of what the Solicitor-General said. Take one of the articles—let us say agricultural implements—which come now from abroad. How is the price regulated?
    The people who send them from abroad are not philanthropists; they regulate the prices by what they can obtain in those markets, and what they can obtain depends upon the competition in the home market, and that competition will still remain, and if they find that the tariff of 5 per cent, or 10 per cent. can still be obtained, while it is worth their while to send the goods here they will send them, and there will be no rise in the price. But I do not wish and never have tried to put the case too high. It is quite possible there may be sonic slight rise in price in consequence of such a tariff.

    721
    Is it not possible to compensate the farmer for that, and to do it perfectly fairly? There are some people who think—I daresay some Members of this House belong to that number—that Protection consists only in imports. Nothing of the kind! Any use of State money to foster a particular industry is Protection just as much as an import duty. That is elementary. In Belgium, Denmark, and America agricultural industries have been fostered by spending money to develop that industry in different ways. I see no reason why the same thing should not be done fairly in this country. I am hopeful it will be done. For three generations agriculture has, I think, been worse treated in this country than any other industry. Well, there is a chance of a change now. Both political parties are tumbling over each other with benefits to agriculture, or at least, as regards one of the parties, with promises of benefits to Agriculture, and I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that something may at last be done to directly assist what is the most important industry in this country. But it is not merely that Parliament has done nothing to help agriculture; it has done something a great deal worse. It has deliberately added burdens to agriculture. Parliament after Parliament has imposed new burdens for national purposes which fall with excessive pressure upon agricultural industries. We have promised, and I think it is a perfectly fair promise, that simultaneously with the imposition of the tariff we shall use part of the revenue to relieve the unfair burdens which are now imposed upon agriculture. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that that promise is not of much value, or something to that effect. He is judging of us by himself.
    I think it is seven years ago since I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer say something must be done, and done immediately, to remedy that unfair burden. Immediately, for them, means seven or eight, years, and, perhaps, another seven or eight years before anything is done. I think there is reason to hope, without being too sanguine, that we may not take quite so long. It may be for one reason, if no other, we shall not be so much engaged in destruction as this Government has been, and shall have more time to devote to constructive measures. They say they will do their best with the farmers. I am afraid of it for one. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is their apostle. I am sorry he is
    722
    not here; he is a very versatile, if not a very great, actor. In his time he has played in any parts; be is engaged now in producing a new comedy, in which he acts the role of the farmers' friend. It is a new role, but I do not think he has been very successful. As I said, for three generations Parliament has done practically nothing to help agriculture. In all that time there was only one Bill, or, at least, to be fair, the most important Bill for the benefit of the farmer, that was the relief of agricultural rates.
    What was the attitude of "the farmers' friend"? He was so consumed by burning zeal that he was actually suspended in the House, but he was suspended, not because of the ardour of his advocating, but because of the venom of his hostility to the one measure that has been brought forward in relief of agriculture. I shall try, if I can, in the short time that is left—it must be briefly, but as clearly as possible—to state the grounds on which we advocate this change. We advocate it, first of all, as a means of raising revenue. That is the first ground on which we advocate it. Our proposal, after making all allowances, will bring in in the first few years at least, at the very lowest, £10,000,000 sterling of additional revenue per annum. The Attorney-General, I believe, used to question it, but the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Northants (Mr. Chiozza Money) behind him, has at least this advantage—and I could not say the same of any other Member who has taken part in the controversy—that whatever use he may make of theories he generally contrives to state facts accurately, and he has admitted that there is no doubt about getting the revenue. I can imagine no way by which revenue, if it is to be raised at all, can be raised more fairly than by such a system. Among the manufactured goods imported into this country, there are something like £30,000,000 per annum which are articles of pure luxury. By putting a rate comparatively heavy on those articles, but still far lower than is imposed in any other countries, it would be possible to keep an average of 10 per cent, for the value of revenue and yet get a very largo amount from those articles and make the rate lower on all articles which are necessary. I can imagine no method of taxation which is fairer than duties which are imposed upon articles of luxury of that kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will they continue to be imported?"] I can only say this, that the experience of

    723
    every other country with a tariff such as we propose does not prevent the continued importation of goods of that character.
    I do not say that revenue is our only object, but I do say that if this question had not become purely partisan I am absolutely certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be proposing this year precisely the same system that we are recommending to the country. He would come down to the House and advocate these duties on imported manufactures. I can imagine his speech. He would say, "A tariff for revenue is a very different thing from a tariff for Protection. There is nothing contrary to Free Trade in a tariff for revenue." It was precisely in accordance with the revenue laws of Egypt and India to-day. He would say, and it would be perfectly true, that "there would be nothing contrary to real Free Trade principles in imposing such a tax." I confess—in fact, I glory—that we do hope for another object as well as revenue from the duties, and that object is that by the security we thus give, to our home market the volume of total production will be increased here, and, by increasing the total production, we shall increase employment and tend to benefit the level of wages all through the Kingdom. I know I cannot convince the Attorney-General, but it is a very old and simple method. How can you get both revenue and protection at the same time? "If the goods come in you will get the revenue, but you will not get"—well, the House knows the argument. That in theory may be all very well, but what is the use of setting your theory against the experience of the whole world which you have before your eyes? Every country in the world that has adopted a tariff has found that they do get the revenue, and that they do get additional security for the home markets as well. Take, for instance, Germany. I have not looked at the figures recently, but I used to be familiar with them. In the last fiscal Blue Book published by the Board of Trade it is shown that in the twenty years, ending. I think, in 1908, the German revenue from manufactured articles had risen 50 per cent. Does anyone doubt that they got some sort of protection on their own markets? It is certain they got the additional revenue. What is the reason to suppose that what has been the experience of every country in the world will not be our experience too. I wish to ask the House really to consider the experience of
    724
    the world from every point of view of this question. Remember we stand alone in the fiscal system which prevails in this country. Every other country has rejected it. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ayrshire (Sir W. Beale) accounted for that very simply: "We will take these views when we are immature; we get rid of them when we are old." These foreign countries are taking a long time to become old. They have tried them, and at this moment there is nowhere in the world a Government which proposes to return to the system in effect here, and, what is more, there is no opposition in the world which recommends that there should be such a return to such a system. Surely that on the face of it makes it probable that we are not right, and all the rest of the world wrong, but probable that there is some reason for the change they have made.
    I will only say one word as to the effect on the home market. I am not advocating Protection. We never have done so. All we advocate is that a preference should be given to our own people, our own workmen, and our own manufacturers on our own home market. That is all we advocate. Just look at what has been done since this Government came into office. Look at the way they have increased the intensity of foreign competition by adding to the cost of production of everything which is made here. Look, for instance, at the minimum wage for miners, at the Insurance Act! Every one of these Acts, whatever good they may have done, has had this effect, that it has added, and added largely, to the cost of production of everything made in this country. Before these changes were made foreign competition was severe. I put it to any hon. Member of this House: Is it reasonable that every effort we make for social reform, which means a rise in the cost of production, should have the effect of still further stimulating foreign competition on our own market and with our own workmen? Surely common sense would tell us, if nothing else, that if we do raise the cost of production from that cause the least we ought to do is to put a corresponding duty upon the goods from abroad which compote with us, and thus prevent the increase of foreign competition on our markets. We advocate it also for the sake of preference. The value of preference is admitted by everyone. First, when this controversy began it was in doubt. Now, everyone

    725
    admits it. We advocate it on the ground of trade, apart from other considerations. If everyone admits that the trade is of enormous value to us are we or not more likely to keep it if we give the Colonies preference in our markets, or if we refuse to give it.
    The argument used by the hon. and learned Member was precisely the argument used by the Prime Minister hundreds of times. He says, "You cannot give any preference by giving it on existing duties." The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, if he has not forgotten it, knows quite well he used the same argument at the Colonial Conference in 1910. He used the very argument now brought forward by the Solicitor-General. He said, "To treat one Colony better than another is unfair." What was the answer to that. The Prime Minister of one of the self-governing Dominions said, "Do you suppose we are such dogs-in-the-manger that we should object to a system which we desire, because one Colony gets more out of it than we do?" Take the whole case. Suppose it is true—which I utterly deny—that we can give them no effective Preference. I deny it for this reason: that the statistics you give us are based on what the trade is now. But Preference affects the whole course of trade, and if any hon. Member wishes to know how greatly it is affected, let them consider what effect it has had on Porto Rica, Cuba, and the Philippines since the change was made in America.
    Take the position in Canada. It is becoming rapidly an industrial country.
    Her cost of production is not very much lower in many industries than our own, and I think it quite possible if the system of Preference were once adopted, we would gradually come—probably in the lifetime of many of those I now address—to a position in which Canadian manufacturers will content themselves with a protection which is natural owing to the cost of carriage, and we may have complete Free Trade between Canada and the United Kingdom—an ideal everyone will consider worth striving for. Suppose the hon. Gentleman spoke truly and that the Prime Minister is right when he said there was nothing in it. Who are the best judges? The Colonies think there is something in it. We will give them, the moment we are in power, precisely what they ask, and we will give them everything they have asked for. At the Colonial Conference the Prime Minister tried to make the same case as the Solicitor-General has made to-day. A Colonial Prime Minister carried a Motion in favour of the very system we propose to adopt. What was the answer of the Prime Minister when driven to give one? It was, "I cannot grant a different system to the Colonies from that which we give to the rest of the world." There is the vital difference between us. We shall see that every part of the Empire is treated on better terms than those which are given to the rest of the world.
    Question put, "That those words be there added."
    The House divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 283.

    Division No. 5.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

    Boyton, James

    Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

    Amery, L. C. M. S.

    Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell

    Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major William

    Bridgeman, William Clive

    Craik, Sir Henry

    Archer-Shee, Major Martin

    Bull, Sir William James

    Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

    Ashley, Wilfrid W.

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Croft, Henry Page

    Baird, John Lawrence

    Butcher, John George

    Dalrymple, Viscount

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

    Campbell, Captain Duncan (Ayr, N.)

    Dalziel, Davison (Brixton)

    Baldwin, Stanley

    Campion, W. R.

    Denniss, E. R. B.

    Balfour, Rt.Hon. A. J. (City, Lond)

    Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred

    Doughty, Sir George

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

    Duke, Henry Edward

    Baring, Major Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)

    Cassel, Felix

    Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.

    Barlow, Montague (Sallord, South)

    Castlereagh, Viscount

    Falle, Bertram Godfray

    Barnston, Harry

    Cator, John

    Fell, Arthur

    Barrie, H. T.

    Cautley, Henry Strother

    Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert

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

    Cave, George

    Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

    Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.

    Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

    Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Beckett, Hon. Gervase

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

    Forster, Henry William

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Chambers, James

    Gardner, Ernest

    Beresford, Lord Charles

    Clay, Captain H. H. Spender

    Gastrell, Major W. Houghton

    Bigland, Alfred

    Clive, Captain Percy Archer

    Gibbs, George Abraham

    Bird, Altred

    Clyde, James Avon

    Gilmour, Captain John

    Blair, Reginald

    Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham

    Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.

    Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue

    Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole

    Goldman, Charles Sydney

    Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-

    Courthope, George Loyd

    Goldsmith, Frank

    Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)

    Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)

    Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)

    Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)

    Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

    Sanders, Robert Arthur

    Goulding, Edward Alfred

    Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston)

    Sanderson, Lancelot

    Grant, James Augustus

    MacCaw, William J MacGeagh

    Sandys, G. J.

    Greene, Walter Raymond

    Mackinder, Halford J.

    Sassoon, Sir Philip

    Gretton, John

    Macmaster, Donald

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Guinness, Hon. Rupert (Essex, S.E.)

    Magnus, Sir Philip

    Smith, Rt. Hon, F. E. (L'pool, Walton.)

    Guinness, Hon.W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)

    Malcolm, Ian

    Spear, Sir John Ward

    Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)

    Mason, James F. (Windsor)

    Stanier, Beville

    Hall, Frederick (Dulwich)

    Meysey-Thompson, E.

    Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

    Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)

    Middlemore, John Throgmorton

    Starkey, John Ralph

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

    Mildmay, Francis Bingham

    Steel-Maitland, A. D.

    Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Stewart, Gershom

    Harris, Henry Percy

    Moore, William

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Harrison-Broadley, H. B.

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

    Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)

    Helmsley, Viscount

    Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)

    Terrell, George (Wilts, N.W.)

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Mount, William Arthur

    Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)

    Henderson, Sir A. (St. Geo., Han. Sq.)

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)

    Herbert Hon. A. (Somerset, S.)

    Newdegate, F. A.

    Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)

    Hewins, William Albert Samuel

    Newman, John R. P.

    Tobin, Alfred Aspinall

    Hills, John Waller

    Newton, Harry Kottingham

    Touche, George Alexander

    Hoare, S. J. G.

    Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)

    Tryon, Captain George Clement

    Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy

    Nield, Herbert

    Tullibardine, Marquess of

    Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

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

    Valentia, Viscount

    Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

    Walker, Colonel William Hall

    Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildtord)

    Paget, Almeric Hugh

    Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)

    Houston, Robert Paterson

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

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

    Hume-Williams, William Ellis

    Parkes, Ebenezer

    Watson, Hon. W.

    Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk.

    Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.

    Weigall, Captain A. G.

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Perkins, Walter Frank

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, East)

    Peto, Basil Edward

    Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud

    Jessel, Captain Herbert M.

    Pole-Carew, Sir R.

    Wills, Sir Gilbert

    Joynson-Hicks, William

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

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

    Kerry, Earl of

    Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.

    Wilson, Captain Leslie O. (Reading)

    Keswick, Henry

    Randles, Sir John S.

    Winterton, Earl

    Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

    Ratcliff, R. F.

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

    Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford

    Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Lane-Fox, G. R.

    Rawson, Colonel Richard H.

    Worthington-Evans, L.

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

    Rees, Sir J. D.

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

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

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

    Lee, Arthur Hamilton

    Roberts S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

    Yate, Colonel C. E.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Rothschild, Lionel de

    Younger, Sir George

    Lloyd, George Ambrose (Stafford, W.)

    Royds, Edmund

    Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord

    Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Edmund Talbot and Mr. Pike Pease.

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

    Samuel, Samuel (Wandsworth)

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)

    Elverston, Sir Harold

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Byles, Sir William Pollard

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Addison, Dr. Christopher

    Carr-Gomm, H. W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

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

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Essex, Sir Richard Walter

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)

    Falconer, James

    Alnsworth, John Stirling

    Chancellor, Henry George

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Alden, Percy

    Chapple, Dr. William Allen

    Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)

    Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

    Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson

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

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Field, William

    Armitage, Robert

    Clough, William

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Arnold, Sydney

    Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

    Fitzgibbon, John

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    France, Gerald Ashburner

    Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)

    Cotton, William Francis

    Furness, Sir Stephen Wilson

    Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)

    Cowan. W. H.

    Gelder, Sir William Alfred

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Crooks, William

    George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd

    Barnes, George N.

    Crumley, Patrick

    Gill, Alfred Henry

    Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)

    Cullinan, John

    Gladstone, W. G. C.

    Beale, Sir William Phipson

    Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Glanville, Harold James

    Beauchamp, Sir Edward

    Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

    Goldstone, Frank

    Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Greig, Colonel J. W.

    Black, Arthur W.

    Dawes, J. A.

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Boland, John Plus

    De Forest, Baron

    Griffith, Ellis Jones

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Delany, William

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

    Bowerman, Charles W.

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

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

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Brace, William

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Hackett, John

    Brady, Patrick Joseph

    Dillon, John

    Hancock, John George

    Brocklehurst, William B.

    Donelan, Captain A.

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Brunner, John F. L.

    Doris, William

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Duffy, William J.

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)

    Burke, E. Haviland-

    Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)

    Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

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

    728

    729

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)

    Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Millar, James Duncan

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Hayward, Evan

    Molloy, Michael

    Roberts, George H. (Norwich)

    Hazleton, Richard

    Molteno, Percy Alport

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Helme, Sir Norval Watson

    Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred

    Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Robinson, Sidney

    Henry, Sir Charles

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Mooney, John J.

    Roche, Augustine (Louth)

    Hinds, John

    Morgan, George Hay

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Morrell, Philip

    Rowlands, James

    Hodge, John

    Morison, Hector

    Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.

    Hogge, James Myles

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Holmes, Daniel Turner

    Muldoon, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Holt, Richard Durning

    Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

    Scanlan, Thomas

    Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

    Murphy, Martin J.

    Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)

    Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)

    Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.

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

    Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

    Nannetti, Joseph P.

    Sheehy, David

    Hudson, Walter

    Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)

    Shortt, Edward

    Hughes, Spencer Leigh

    Nolan, Joseph

    Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook

    Jardine, Sir John (Roxburgh)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    John Edward Thomas

    Norton, Captain Cecil W.

    Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)

    Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea)

    Nugent, Sir Walter Richard

    Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert

    Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)

    Nuttall, Harry

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)

    Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)

    Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Sutton, John E.

    Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)

    O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

    Tennant, Harold John

    Jones, William S. Glyn-(Stepney)

    O'Doherty, Philip

    Thomas, James Henry

    Jowett, Frederick William

    O'Donnell, Thomas

    Thorne, G. R., (Wolverhampton.)

    Joyce, Michael

    O'Dowd, John

    Thorne, William (West Ham)

    Keating, Matthew

    Ogden, Fred

    Toulmin, Sir George

    Kellaway, Frederick George

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

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Kelly, Edward

    O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

    Verney, Sir Harry

    Kenyon, Barnet

    O'Malley, William

    Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)

    Kilbride, Denis

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

    Walters, Sir John Tudor

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

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    O'Shee, James John

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Lardner, James C. R.

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Wardle, G. J.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)

    Outhwaite, R. L.

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Palmer, Godfrey Mark

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Ciackmannan)

    Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

    Parry, Thomas H.

    Watt, Henry Anderson

    Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)

    Webb, H.

    Lundon, Thomas

    Pearce, William (Limehouse)

    Wedgwood, Josiah C.

    Lyeil, Charles Henry

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

    White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)

    White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)

    Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Whitehouse, John Howard

    Macdonald, j. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

    Pointer, Joseph

    Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

    Maclean, Donald

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

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

    Pratt, J. W.

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    Macpherson, James Ian

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)

    M'Callum, Sir John M.

    Pringle, William M. R.

    Williamson, Sir Archibald

    McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

    Radford, G. H.

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

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

    Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)

    Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Reddy, Michael

    Young, William (Perthshire, East)

    Manfield, Harry

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Yoxali, Sir James Henry

    Markham, Sir Arthur Basil

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Marks, Sir George Croydon

    Rendall, Atheistan

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—?

    Marshall, Arthur Harold

    Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

    Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Main Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    It being after Eleven o'clock, and objection being taken to further proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed to-morrow (Tuesday).

  BY-ELECTIONS.

    GOVERNMENT PROMISES.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Illingworth.]
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to call the attention of the House to the re-
    730
    cent vagaries of one or two of His Majesty's Ministers. There is a kind of electoral bribery which has been going on for some time past, and it is rather desirable that this House should have a opportunity of expressing an opinion whether it agrees with me or not. I am not, of course, going to mention the case which was referred to this afternoon—the case of the Lord Advocate—for that has been disposed of, and handsomely disposed of, by the apology tendered by the Prime Minister. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will equally handsomely apologise for the action of Mr. Masterman. There are many cases I would like to call attention to. It began in

    731
    1908 at Dundee in an announcement affecting the Sugar Duties. It went on in Cleveland, where the present President of the Board of Trade produced very opportunely a telegram stating that a new Bill was going to be introduced. I well remember that during the Budget Debates in 1909 it was stated that there was to be a concession to small-holders in Derbyshire. Then there was a concession with regard to the outworkers of Yeovil. All this is going on in exactly the same way with regard to the pending by-elections. I do not complain for one moment of the concessions. We like the concessions, but we would like them to be made honestly. There are two by-elections pending at the present moment in which this curious kind of concession is taking place. Only recently Lord Lincolnshire, speaking at Wycombe, in South Bucks, said there was a real grievance, inasmuch as small-holding tenants had not only to pay the rent, but to contribute to the Sinking Fund. I agree that there is a grievance. Lord Lincolnshire said that he wrote to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it is always the Chancellor of the Exchequer to whom everybody writes when they want an electoral bribe—asking whether he might state at that meeting of the Land and Housing Council that after June of next year—a long ahead bribe—if the Liberal Government was in power, they would bring in another Land Bill to remove that grievance.
    Mr. REMNANT: He opposed it in the House of Lords.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Everybody knows that Lord Camperdown brought in a Bill to effect this very purpose, and that Lord Lincolnshire, on behalf of the Government, opposed it. At that moment there was a by-election pending. Lord Lincolnshire goes on to say:—
    "In his request to the Chancellor of the Exchequer he hoped this charge would be removed from that worthy body of men, that hard-working body of people of whom England might well be proud, and just before he came into the hall he had put in his hand a message as follows: 'On His Majesty's Service'"—
    the Chancellor's telegrams are always on His Majesty's Service—
    "handed in at Whitehall, and stating 'Lord Lincolnshire. High Wycombe. Yes, Lloyd George.'"
    I suppose that that is the common form of the Treasury. Whenever anybody sends a telegram during a by-election they send a, reply, "On His Majesty's Service. Yes,
    732
    Lloyd George." They hope that it will effect their purpose in regard to the by-election. That is obviously a very gross attempt on the part of His Majesty's Ministers to allow concessions which the Government opposed last year in order to influence by-elections. I come now to the by-election which was the subject of discussion this afternoon—the by-election at Bethnal Green. Mr. Masterman, on Friday night, according to the "Daily News," said:—
    "We are going to launch a scheme under the Insurance Amendment Act, dealing with casual labour at the docks"'—
    A most excellent idea, and a scheme which might have been launched some time ago—
    "This scheme is now being considered by the masters and leaders of the trade unions concerned. As soon as they have made up their minds about it, it will come into effect. If the masters and men accept it, it will be introduced as a voluntary scheme; if not, it goes before an arbitrator. I presume if the arbitrator decides it will become compulsory. We prepared it during the Autumn."
    The Government have had the whole autumn and the winter, when casual labour is in its most anxious condition down at the docks, during which they could have said: "We have prepared a scheme that will alleviate the hardship existing with regard to dock labourers." But they keep this scheme bottled up and do not tell these unfortunate men anything about it until a member of the Cabinet is fighting for his life at Bethnal Green. The "Westminster Gazette" says:—
    "No doubt the scheme will give great satisfaction in these constituencies."
    That is the only reason for this scheme. It is an electoral bribe. I am not at all sure that it is not a fraudulent bribe, because the scheme is not in existence at all. It is by no means certain that the scheme will be in existence. It is before the masters and the men at the present time for their consideration. They may not agree to it. We have schemes put forward by a Cabinet Minister which may prove to be no scheme at all, in order to influence votes. The first is bad enough, but the second is worse. The Prime Minister met another point exceedingly fairly this afternoon, and I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to meet me equally fairly this evening. I want him to say to us in reference to this scheme, whether it is a good scheme or a bad scheme—we want it carried just as much as he does; we are just as keen on behalf of the casual labourers as he—that they are not to go down to the electors of a constituency and bribe them at the moment of a contest by

    733
    putting before them a scheme which may not come to pass. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been the leader in these electoral bribes. He has now the opportunity to justify himself.
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I think it requires a good deal of audacity for an hon. Member on the other side of the House to talk about bribes in connection with insurance. There have been a few elections recently in Scotland and elsewhere. There has not been a single election where there were not promises that amounted to at least £10,000,000 a year upon the taxes of this country as electoral bribes—[Interruption.] Clearly you can bribe if you are not in office. There was also a promise of voluntary insurance, although they never meant to put their promises into operation. The hon. Member has been good enough to refer to something that I said, and I think, at any rate, he might have given me notice or called my attention to it. He read my telegram to High Wycombe. He seems to suggest that this is the first time I ever made that statement. On the contrary, when unfolding my scheme with regard to land weeks ago, I made that statement. I never knew that an election was in contemplation at High Wycombe, and when the hon. Gentleman says that on behalf of the Government I had made that statement merely to influence the election, he is saying something which is not accurate.
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: Why did Lord Lincolnshire write about it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: My own recollection is that I made the statement to my Constituents in a speech I delivered at the end of last year. [Interruption.] When a charge of bribery is brought against an absent Member of the Government at least hon. Members should listen to the reply to it. I come now to what is much more important, the charge against a Member who is not here—[An HON. MEMBER; "He is not a Member"]—a Member of the Government, who is not here to reply. The charge is that for the first time in order to influence an election in his constituency he made a statement on behalf of the Government. It was never made before by him or by anybody else. There is not a shadow of truth in the statement. What is much worse, it is a charge brought against an absent man. If the hon. Gentleman had devoted as much time as he has devoted
    734
    to the preparation of his speech in looking up the Debate of July 15th last he would have understood that it was untrue. There were complaints about casual labour in the East End of London. The men said when they were only working a day they had to pay the fourpence; and the second charge was that because they were afraid that they would not be employed they not only paid their own but the employer's contribution as well. Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that this is the first time that my right hon. Friend talked about this matter? On the 15th July my right hon. Friend (Mr. Masterman) used these words relevant to the charge. He first called attention to the grievances, and said:—
    "It is to provide such schemes as that for the London docks that. Clause 7 is introduced as a result of the experience of schemes which have already been adopted at Cardiff, Liverpool, Manchester and other places by voluntary effort between employers and employed."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, col. 1111, Vol. LV.]
    In July, standing at this Table, he said that this Clause was introduced to provide this scheme, which the hon. Member calls an electoral bribe. Let me come to what my right hon. Friend said upon this subject in the Committee upstairs:—
    "Mr. Masterman: We know that the employers in East London are very anxious to try and see if some such scheme "—
    That is this scheme—
    "can be obtained, So are the employed. We shall certainly consult both employers and employed, and we hope at least that some scheme may be made to deal with a problem of extraordinary difficulty"
    That was on 24th July, 1913. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Nothing done since."] My right hon. Friend has been addressing meetings in his constituency during the autumn, and so have all the East London Members on both sides. They all referred to this scheme without exception. I telephoned to Mr. Masterman immediately after the statement made to-day, and he said to me that in almost every speech which he delivered he referred to this case, because it was a grievance that particularly affected his constituents. That was during the whole of the autumn months. What happened? In September the Insurance Commissioners put themselves into communication with the employers and employed and every employer in the docks of London. They discussed the whole question of the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, who had no knowledge of the facts, said the scheme was not in existence. It was, and submitted and sent in December for preliminary discus-

    735
    sions by employers and employed, of the representatives of both parties, and they are discussing it at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that when you are dealing with the greatest seaport in the world, you cannot put a larger scheme of this kind through in a few weeks. Unless I am mistaken, it took years for the Port of Liverpool to do so, which is a much simpler business than the Port of London. Here is a scheme which has been in hand since the end of last year, and the hon. Gentleman comes down and brings a charge of corruption against an absent Member of the Government, without even taking the trouble to inquire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] If he had inquired of any great employers in the Port of London he would have known that it was untrue. If he had inquired of any trade union leader dealing with the docks he would have known that it was untrue. Why did he not do it? He thought it was worth while bringing a charge of this kind to influence an election without taking the trouble to find out the facts. What
    736
    answer did my right hon. Friend Mr. Masterman give at the meeting? My hon. Friend the Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison) was present. A question was put to Mr. Masterman, and he gave an answer which was strictly true. He gave an answer which was read out that the scheme had already been prepared, and had been submitted to the leaders of the employers and employed—an answer which was given at the meetings repeatedly held before the election. Why is he challenged upon that ground? The hon. Member (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) asked me, on behalf of Mr. Masterman, to express regret. I say that it is clue from him to express regret to Mr. Masterman. [Interruption.]
    Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not answered or dealt—
    It being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
    Adjourned at Half after Eleven O'clock

NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT.
  GOVERNMENT WORKERS.
  GOVERNMENT WORKERS.
  DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
  DEPOSIT CONTRIBUTORS.
  NUMBERS OF DEPOSIT COSTRIBUTORS AND VOLUNTARY INSURERS.
  NUMBERS OF DEPOSIT COSTRIBUTORS AND VOLUNTARY INSURERS.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES DEFICITS.
  APPROVED SOCIETIES DEFICITS.
  NOTTINGHAM LACE WORKERS.
  NOTTINGHAM LACE WORKERS.
  DOCKYARD WORKERS.
  DOCKYARD WORKERS.
  EXCESSIVE SICKNESS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  EXCESSIVE SICKNESS (DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE).
  Special Marriage Licences (Ireland).
  Special Marriage Licences (Ireland).
  Local Taxation.
  Local Taxation.
  Customs and Excise Officers.
  Customs and Excise Officers.
  House Rentals.
  House Rentals.
  Herefordshire Teachers (Pay).
  Herefordshire Teachers (Pay).
  Valuation Office, Dublin.
  Valuation Office, Dublin.
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Royal Irish Constabulary.
  Dublin Police.
  Dublin Police.
  Audit of Public Accounts (Ireland).
  Audit of Public Accounts (Ireland).
  School Holidays.
  School Holidays.
  Marlborough Street Training College.
  Marlborough Street Training College.
ROYAL NAVY.
  RECRUITS.
  RECRUITS.
  BATTLESHIPS AND BATTLE CRUISERS.
  BATTLESHIPS AND BATTLE CRUISERS.
  CHIEF PETTY OFFICER BARTLETT.
  CHIEF PETTY OFFICER BARTLETT.
  CADET SERVANTS (OSBORNE).
  CADET SERVANTS (OSBORNE).
  Military Forces (Recruits).
  Military Forces (Recruits).
  Quartermaster-Sergeants (Pay).
  Quartermaster-Sergeants (Pay).
  Third Army Division (Married Officers).
  Third Army Division (Married Officers).
  Redford Barracks, Edinburgh.
  Redford Barracks, Edinburgh.
  Royal Horse Artillery (Captains).
  Royal Horse Artillery (Captains).
  Foreign-Grown Oats.
  Foreign-Grown Oats.
  Home Army.
  Home Army.
  Troops for India and Colonies.
  Troops for India and Colonies.
  Army Statistics.
  Army Statistics.
  Cruelty to Animals Act.
  Cruelty to Animals Act.
  Combined Leave (India).
  Combined Leave (India).
  British East African Frontier.
  British East African Frontier.
  Somaliland Protectorate.
  Somaliland Protectorate.
  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Milk and Dairies Bill.
  Necessitous Sick Women and Children.
  Necessitous Sick Women and Children.
  Public Abattoirs (Local Loans).
  Public Abattoirs (Local Loans).
  Seaview Foreshore Rights.
  Seaview Foreshore Rights.
  Black wood Station, Monmouthshire (Footbridge).
  Black wood Station, Monmouthshire (Footbridge).
  Trade Unions (Political Levies).
  Trade Unions (Political Levies).
  Post Office Service (Dismissal).
  Post Office Service (Dismissal).
  Crown Foreshore, Llanelly.
  Crown Foreshore, Llanelly.