in rising to call attention to the importance of conferring upon the people of India some measure of representation, either in the Legislative Councils, or otherwise, in order that the Indian Government may have greater facilities than those at present existing for ascertaining Native opinion upon public questions, said, he brought forward the question in redemption of a promise he had made, that if ever he again had a seat in the House he would lay it before Parliament. Last year he had no opportunity; but this Session had been more fortunate, and he was seeking now to redeem his pledge. He would not endeavour at that moment to extract a promise from the Government; nor did he intend to take the opinion of the House on the question. He should also wish in every way to deprecate Party bias, for he had, at every opportunity, asserted to the people of India that they had good and sincere friends on both sides of the House. At one time it appeared to him that a fair method of conferring representation upon the people of India would be to confer upon a few of the great centres of population in that country the privilege of sending Representatives or Delegates to that House; but although that method had, doubtless, a good deal to recommend it, it was beset with many peculiar difficulties; and, upon mature reflection, it appeared to him that the most practical method would be to have representative Native Members in the Legislative Councils of India. It was, after all, these Legislative Councils—which must not be confounded with the Executive Councils—that made the laws under which India was governed. At present these Councils were of such a nature that the representative element was excluded from them; and although the Native element was not entirely excluded the Natives were not elected by the people. Perhaps he might be permitted to state briefly what the constitution of the Legislative Council of Bombay was. It consisted of 13 Members. Of these there were nine officials, eight of them being Europeans, and comprising the Governor, the Commander-in-Chief, two of the Members of the Executive Council, the Chief Secretary to the Government, the Advocate General, and two Heads of Departments. These, with one other gentleman, constituted the European element. There were also four Natives, one of whom was a Native official. Of course, a Council so composed could not be regarded in any way as representative. Nevertheless, the non-official Members expressed their opinions, and occasionally an interesting and instructive debate arose. He held in his hand a Report of a meeting of the Bombay Legislative Council which took place in April last. Nine Members were present, two of whom were Native non-official Members. The debate was a long one, and the Native gentlemen, who took a very active part, stated a great many important facts in regard to the opinion of their countrymen on the question before the Council, which was that of irrigation. They moved as many as seven Amendments; but he regretted to say that, owing to the great preponderance of the official element, they met with no support, and every one of them was lost. Indeed, they were only supported by the Native unofficial Members. He could not help thinking that if there had been a few more of the same class in the Council the debate would have been more valuable and instructive, and that some of the Amendments incorporating the Native view would have been adopted. On the other hand, he would cite the case of the Municipality of Bombay, where the representative principle had been thoroughly adopted. The Corporation of Bombay was, he believed, most popularly constituted, and consisted of 64 Members. Of these, 16 were nominated by the Government, 16 were elected by the Bench of Justices, and the remaining 32 were elected by the ratepayers who paid above a certain sum in direct taxation. Both Europeans and Natives were fully eligible to be elected upon the Corporation; but the affairs generally were in the hands of the Town Council, which was composed of 12 members nominated or elected from among the members of the Corporation. The power of initiating as well as of executing the decisions of the municipality was in the hands of the Municipal Commissioner. There were two classes of municipality—one known as the City Municipality, and the other as the Town Municipality. These two classes together had control and management of revenues, which amounted to a total of nearly £2,000,000. In Bombay, where the municipal constitution was more popular than in any other part of India, he had the highest authority for stating that the system had worked admirably well. A late Municipal Commissioner assured him that he only observed one failing in the working of the system, and that was a tendency to abstention on the part of the electors from voting—a failing, however, which would, doubtless, be cured by the lapse of time, and as the people became more accustomed to the arrangement. Two successive Governors of Bombay—the only two under whom this municipality had existed—had spoken in very high terms of its influence for good. Sir Richard Temple, in particular, said that in Bombay the municipal institutions would never fail, knowing, as he did, the public spirit and self-sacrificing spirit of the Members. In the case of these corporations and municipalities, it seemed to him (Sir David Wedderburn) that there already existed constituencies which might be made use of in extending this sort of representation to the Legislative Councils, and they might be fairly intrusted with the duty of electing a certain number of representatives. One of the principles of the Government of India Bill of 1858, as introduced by the present Prime Minister, was to give Representatives to the principal centres of population. Under that Bill, it was proposed to have in the India Council five Representatives elected by the principal cities of the United Kingdom, and in the same spirit an arrangement might be made to give two Members to each of the Presidencies, and to some of the principal cities of the Empire. He thought the criticism and opinions of Members so elected would be of the utmost value on questions of finance when the Budget was submitted each year. He might quote many authorities for the belief that in matters of finance they ought to have authoritative expression of the feelings and wishes of the Natives. Sir Bartle Frere had drawn up with considerable elaboration a complete system of representation, with Local Councils, Municipal Councils, and arrangements for electing Members to send to the Legislative Council. After explaining the system at considerable length, Sir Bartle Frere went on to say that—

"If two elected Members were sent up from each of the Provincial centres—of which I propose to make five altogether—to the Local Legislative Council, they would in every way greatly strengthen the Council, and give additional weight to its proceedings."

A Commissioner of the Punjaub, in a letter toThe Times,pointed out that the conviction was deeply implanted in the mind of every Native of India who thought at all on the subject, that if the principle of representation in the Legislative Councils was fairly conceded, it would tend, in regard to expenditure, to introduce a more healthy tone than at present existed. A very learned and distinguished Native, speaking on the subject, said the Natives were prepared to understand the general working of the representative system; and he declared that double the amount of the deficit might be raised by the Natives if their prejudices were not affected, and if the taxation were arranged in a way more consistent with their feelings. In this way, he (Sir David Wedderburn) certainly thought the Government would find their hands greatly strengthened by the establishment of the representative system. Throughout India the people were fully alive to the difficulties under which the Rulers of that country laboured, and their inability to understand and realize the feelings and requirements of those whom they were called on to govern. It was upon this practical difficulty, rather than upon any abstract question of justice to the taxpayers, that he would base the plea of giving them, without loss of time, representation in some modified form. The authorities on the subject whom he could quote were of the very highest class. Lord Minto, the Governor General of India, so long ago as the year 1807, spoke of the mutual ignorance of each other's motives, intentions, and acts in which Europeans and Natives were contented to live. According to Lord Minto, the chief impediment to the improvement of the Native races, and the chief disadvantage under which their European rulers laboured, was to be found in ignorance of each other's language and modes of thought. One of the first objects of the Government should be to assist them to understand each other. Another Governor General, Lord Mayo, said there were large districts in which men of sufficient ability and intelligence were willing to assist the Government, and what was wanted was to recognize that the principle of associating with each other whenever it was possible was for the interests of the country. Lord Mayo had also given an opinion on the subject that wherever possible the Natives should be consulted. Those were two Governors General belonging to opposite Parties; but in respect of their opinion as to the Natives of India in the conduct of affairs they were completely unanimous, as would be found in the case of nearly all the great Rulers of India. He should not attempt to sketch a scheme for the Government as to the mode of election further than to say that, to some extent, arrangements seemed to have been made already for such a purpose. The hon. Member concluded by quoting a passage from an address by Sir Charles Turner, Chief Justice of Madras, when presiding over the anniversary meeting at Presidency College, Madras, favourable to the principle of consultation with the Natives, and the raising of their condition to the stage which would enable them to take part in the responsibilities of government. He impressed upon the House and the Government that the time seemed to have come when, at least, they might make a commencement by con- ferring the privileges he had indicated. There were Natives who had shown their complete power to appreciate what had been done for them in the use of the powers of self-government, and he thought the time had come for a wider extension of those privileges. As he had before intimated, he would not ask the House to express its opinion on the Resolution; but he hoped the Government would give that due attention to the subject which it deserved.

said, that there was no question that representative institutions were dear to all Englishmen, and that they were all desirous of extending such institutions wherever it was possible to do so; but when they came to the case of India they had to remember what India was. It was not a country of one people, but a conglomeration of many peoples, differing in caste and religion, and having no cohesion whatever. Indeed, the only possible unit was the unit of the family. Therefore, as a basis of representation was altogether wanting, it would be impossible, taking India as a whole, at any rate for many years, to extend representative institutions to that country. Still, when people could be congregated in large masses, the case might be different; and there were municipalities in India, like that of Bombay, which were cases in point. In such instances the Natives had become associated with Europeans; they had become accustomed to European ideas, and had, so to speak, been educated into a condition which was pretty nearly ripe for some sort of self-government. He ventured to say that, so far as it was possible to extend their representative institutions, the Government of India, in what it had done of late years, was endeavouring to do so. That they would be glad to extend it further there could be no doubt whatever; because every extension of that principle tended to diminish the responsibility they themselves had to bear. He had been looking into the matter of municipalities, and found that there were 894, and within the limits of those governing bodies there were 12,000,000 people who were governed by them, and those bodies contained no less than three Natives to every one European. In a large number of cases the Natives were elected, and they did good work. In the Presidency towns there was also a large proportion of Native Members in the municipal bodies. No doubt, those towns had come to partake very much more of a European character, the people being brought together, being engaged in common pursuits, and he thought the Natives had not shown much interest by voting, yet they selected good members who were zealous for the prosperity of the places in which they were resident. He believed in one case—that of Luck-now—only seven voters came to the poll. In Bombay, which town was the most favourable instance in India, it could not be said that a great number of the electors came forward to the poll; but it was said that, on the whole, they did elect good men, and those men undoubtedly did very good work in the Government. But when they wont beyond those large populations, when they went outside those Presidency towns and other municipalities, they got to people who were governed by the headmen of their villages, who did not know anything about Councils, and were pretty well content to be let alone, so long as they were not too much taxed. The great object the Government must bear in mind, therefore, for many years to come was this—that although they could not hope to introduce generally representative institutions in India, they should endeavour by every means in their power to get at the real feeling of the people of the country. One of the steps always taken for that purpose was this—whenever a Bill altering the law was brought in, it was published, translated into the Native languages, sent to the different Local Governments, and distributed to the district officers, who received instructions to elicit the Native feeling on the subject of the measure. A great step in advance was taken by the East India Council Act of 1861, by which it was provided that there should be official and non-official Members in each of the Legislative Councils. The Act did not say anything about the non-official Members being Natives; but, as a matter of fact, a large proportion of them were Natives. In the Legislative Council of Madras, out of seven non-official Members four were Natives. In the Legislative Council of Bombay, out of six non-official Members four were Natives; and in Bengal, out of seven non-official Members, five were Natives. In the Legislative Council of the Governor General for India, out of seven non-official Members four were Natives, so that it might be said among the non-officials the Natives were very well represented. The hon. Member had made a suggestion—and it was the only practical suggestion he had made—that the municipal bodies should send representatives to the Legislative Councils. Well, he ventured to say at once that that was a proposition which was worthy of consideration. It was one he knew that had frequently been brought under the attention of the authorities in India, and it was one that he should not for a moment think of condemning; but, at the same time, there were certain practical difficulties that occurred to one in the way of carrying the proposal out. Very often the chairman of the municipal bodies in the Presidency towns was already a Member of the Legislative Council, and in that capacity had an opportunity of expressing the views of those over whom he presided. But if they were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, he was not quite sure they would attain all they desired to attain. On the one hand, there would be great difficulty in selecting. If they chose the most prominent men they were likely to have a Europeanized Native who would not represent the Native ideas. They would have a man with European ideas, but without sympathy with the great mass of the population. He would look at things with European rather than with Native eyes. On the other hand, if it were attempted to elect a simple Native, one or two practical difficulties presented themselves. He understood it was very often found that a Native selected in that way had the very greatest possible dislike to being called upon to leave the place where he was residing and to go to live in the Presidency towns. It was a change of climate which he disliked to make; and when he went to take a seat in the Council with the Governor General or with the Provincial Governor there was something a little abhorrent to the Native mind in opposing the authority of the Government; and when the Governor General said one thing the Native had the greatest possible difficulty in not saying that he agreed with him. In course of time that attitude of the Natives changed; he found that his opinion was invited, and after a time such Natives were found very useful men for the purpose of consultation. To that extent the Government had already gone; further than that he doubted whether they could safely go. They would proceed in this matter, undoubtedly, by tentative steps. There were some who thought the Government had already proceeded too far. At any rate, they were careful not to press the matter beyond the point they thought they could reasonably aim at; and it must be recollected that the Natives in India, unlike those in many other countries, had freedom of speech and meeting, and, so long as they did not use decidedly seditious language, had perfect freedom of the Press, and they had thus many ways of making their views known to the Government. Therefore, he thought the hon. Member had exercised a very wise discretion in only throwing the subject out for discussion in the House, and not pressing his Resolution; but his suggestions, like all others that might be made by the House, would receive the careful attention of his Colleagues and himself.

said, that although it would be very desirable to have the assistance of Natives in the administration, yet he was very much in doubt whether we had it in our power to get at the real feeling of the people. At all events, he could see difficulties in the way of a formidable character. Educated Natives were very much apt to caricature European ideas and to exaggerate the notions of freedom. He thought, as a rule, that those opinions were not the real opinions of the Natives. That applied to the Presidency towns, and he had no doubt it applied to other places. There was no part of India which contained more energetic people than the Punjab; but their representations were too frequently only the opinions of a very clever and active gentleman—a German Jew—who had set himself up at Lahore. In that respect it was really the case that they might be very much misled if opinion was represented more largely than it at present was by the class to which he alluded—the more educated and Europeanized Natives. However, there was room for improvement. He thought better representatives of the Natives might be found for the Council of the Governor General; but as regarded the local Councils of Bengal, Madras, and Bombay, the Native Members were very active and very practical men, and they really exercised very considerable influence in the Council. So far it could not be said that the Native opinion was not to some degree represented. Then they came to the question of Native assistance in the government of the country. He himself had been educated in the school of paternal despotism; and he supposed that when there was a paternal despotism exercised by persons without prejudice, and who were under some control as to their action, that Government had many merits. But, on the other hand, the more they had experience of paternal despotism, the more he felt that it had its limits—the hand of the paternal despot could not be everywhere and do everything. In the course of ages they might have to hand over the government of the country to the people of India; and it was very desirable, therefore, he thought, that in anticipation of the change some preparation should be made in the way of the establishment of local self-governing institutions of a representative character—such institutions as were shown to have existed in the course of Indian history. Those institutions were existing in the Punjab when Alexander invaded it, and they were still to be found in some villages and towns. What he complained of was that they had not cherished those institutions as they might have done. The Mahomedan polity was of a democratic character, placing before all other principles the equality of man; and the old Hindoo States partook, to a great extent, of the character of European States some centuries ago, their Rulers not being absolutely free from the control exercised by their knights and foremost warriors. It seemed to him they might do a great deal in the way of recognizing and improving those popular institutions of the country which had existed until they were suppressed by our law. It was quite true that those institutions had developed a great many abuses, and a good many objections could be raised to them; and it was, no doubt, upon that account that by introducing their law and methods they thought they were making an improvement. Well, he thought they were wrong. Foreigners as they were, he did not think they had it in their power completely and tho- roughly to administer the country in the way in which they desired; and he would much rather have imperfect local self-acting institutions, even if there were some imperfections, than attempt to govern by machinery stretched too far and attempting to do everything. A great many of the towns in India were administered by Municipalities, and many of the Natives of those places were intelligent and capable of managing their own affairs. As regarded the great Municipalities of Calcutta and Bombay, his impression was that the administration had not been very successful; up to a certain point he had thought it better to avoid any direct representation, and since that had been granted the elected members had not always been of the best character. As far as local institutions were concerned, their success had been tolerably good when tried upon a small scale; and when they were found to be unsatisfactory when tried on a large scale, surely it was their duty not to begin from above and to go downwards, but to begin at the bottom and gradually creep upwards. He believed they had in India the germ of institutions of a very superior kind. In the villages they could obtain a self-governing body, and in that respect there was a good work to be done by the Natives in India. The sphere of self-government might be gradually enlarged. Of late years the Natives in many districts had made their own rates, and provided themselves with roads and schools and introduced various modern appliances by means of local and district bodies; and what should be said to them was that there was no desire to take more money from them, but to give them greater facilities for raising money for themselves and further improving their districts. In several parts of the country with which he was acquainted the Natives gave an earnest of still further success; and, consequently, there was every reason to hope that the wishes expressed by his hon. Friend (Sir David Wedderburn) might be gradually realized in the future. It was absolutely necessary, however, that they should look to the whole of the people, and not to a small section. They might obtain their representatives from the richer class entirely; but if that were the case, it would, undoubtedly, be a great misfortune: therefore, great care should be taken. What he desired to see was a representation by which the real body of the people were represented, and where justice might be done by all classes; and in that respect he hoped, from time to time, they would take a step in advance.

rose to move for a Select Committee—

"To consider the Commercial Relations at present existing between England and Foreign Nations, especially with regard to the import of Manufactured Goods from Abroad, as well as the effect caused by our system of one-sided so-called Free Trade, with a view (if possible) of ameliorating the position of the wage classes of this Country,"

saying that no one could be more alive to the grave interests involved in the subjects to which he was about to draw attention than himself, for, living among commercial communities for a long time, and then having had the honour of representing for now upwards of 10 years one of the largest and most important mercantile constituencies in England, it had been his duty and pleasure for many years to consider what could best serve the interests of those great commercial communities, and to study their wants and requirements. His only regret had been that he could not introduce the subject earlier, because he felt that, so long as the dark cloud of national distress was overhanging their own horizon, it might have been charged against him that he was endeavouring to seize something like an unfair advantage of a state of affairs that he, in common alike with employer and employed, could not but too deeply deplore. In his opinion, the so-called principles introduced into the country and carried out under the name of Free Trade had been clearly proved to be productive of unlimited evil. He might say, in the outset, that no one would have, in all probability, been a greater Freetrader than himself, had he been able to obtain real Free Trade—that was, freedom of trade between all the nations of the earth. But, in the very inception of this movement, he was one of those who knew that such an idea was merely visionary. He no more believed in universal Free Trade than he did in uni- versal peace, however ardently he might desire them; he knew hut too well that they were, in fact, each equally unattainable. The late Mr. Cobden, to whom he had pointed out the possibility of other nations not following our example, and the very grave danger of foreign countries finding it to their interest some day to repudiate Free Trade principles, replied—"Well, at all events, Free Trade will last my time, and probably yours." To that observation, he (Mr. Wheelhouse) then replied—as respectfully as he could—that such a remark was not an argument, and there, for a time, the matter ended. But the evil he had feared and foreseen had come upon us. The foreigner, now that he had obtained our machinery, our coal, and our skilled labour, had raised up a barrier against our manufacturers. As long as he required our goods as models and patterns, he was glad enough to admit them into his country duty free; but now that he was able to make them for himself, he laughed at the doctrines of Free Trade and excluded our goods from his markets. Thus, while years ago we were the great exporting country of the world for all hand or machine made articles, for the last 10 years our manufacturing trade had been going from bad to worse, and we had now altogether been deprived of our prestige. Even in our own country we had lost the command of the market. Our watches came from Switzerland, our cambrics and silks from France, and our velvets from Germany. All these articles we admitted duty free, while we ourselves were met by prohibitory tariffs almost everywhere abroad. The results upon the industries of this country had been most disastrous. Where now was Spitalfields as an industrial community? The silk trade of Coventry and Macclesfield had been utterly destroyed. It was, perhaps, a grim satisfaction to those who supported these so-called Free Trade doctrines to learn that while the nails came from Belgium our coffins came from abroad also. The effect of this system upon our wage-earning classes had been to deprive them of millions of money. Look at the condition of the once great sugar industry of the East of London, which formerly gave employment to some 50,000 persons. It was now utterly ruined in consequence of the bounties given by foreign nations upon the export of manufactured sugar, and because the Government would not, as it might, impose any countervailing duty upon the article. Not only had Free Trade handicapped the workmen of this country, but it allowed salesmen and shopkeepers everywhere out of Great Britain to extract from the wage-pockets of our people means and money to any extent. There was no use in saying, as had been said, that England could stand against anything in the shape of the manufactures of foreign lands. The broad patent fact was that she was not standing against them. Instead of holding our own, our trade was day by day falling off. Every man almost who lived by labour was calling out loudly and justly that he was unfairly dealt with by the legislation which had taken place on this subject. They were told, 35 years ago, that the principles by which the Government of that day was guided were correct; but that was a ruinous error. It had proved to be fallacious; and were they, he asked, to go on watching their own ruin and seeing their trade cut up to nothing in all directions? He did not expect, nor was it reasonable for any Government to suppose, that any class in this country would submit to needless deprivation because an Administration chose to insist upon a fallacy commercially considered. If this were a small question—a question of a moment—a question of bad times, one which might be remedied hereafter, he could understand that it might be well to wait a while longer, even yet, and see whether—although the hope had by this time become Micawberlike—something might not turn up; but he believed they could not afford to wait, and the time was coming apace when every single individual handicraft carried on in the country would be taken from us. While, on the one hand, he was not prepared to deny that, possibly, some part of the vast development of British trade might be attributable to her commercial legislation, it still remained an open question whether that development would not have been safer to the best interests of the country, on the former lines of our national policy, even though it should have been slower in its operation; and he ventured to assert, notwithstanding a statement recently published over the name of a right hon. Gentleman of high authority in this House and in the country generally, that it was by no means so clearly proved as he considered it to be that our national development was wholly, or even nearly wholly, attributable either to so-called Free Trade, or our railway system. Thousands of causes, with which neither the one nor the other had any concern, had united to promote, not only her development, but that of the world at large, and it was very difficult to fix the relative proportions of those several agencies. Progress must and would be continuous. While some English writers were unceasingly insistingad nauseamthat the entire edifice of our national commerce was the result of so-called Free Trade exclusively, on the other hand the Americans—if we followed Mr. Welsh in his very able reasoning—had demolished that theory as utterly illusory, alleging that the "development" of their commercial prosperity had far exceeded ours, though carried out on the lines of a strict protection. America was beating us in cotton cloths, for she had I her cotton close at hand; she had put a duty of 50 per cent, therefore one practically prohibitive, against our cotton goods; and great mills, such as those which were to be found in England, were now to be seen at the other side of the Atlantic. A premium was thus given to foreign manufactures which enabled them to beat us not only in our own, but in foreign markets; and, seeing this, he said that it was time to hark back upon the lines on which our legislation had proceeded. But it was alleged that it was impossible to go back in the case of certain principles, and to a very limited extent that was true; but with respect to commercial matters and to dealing equitably with other countries, they could go back from lines which had proved to be fallacious. Russia saw she had gone a little too far, and had given away advantages unduly, and she retraced her steps at once. So also did Prussia and many other countries, as well as Canada. American statesmen were astute enough to know their own interests. They knew that their protective duties, policy, and legislation had made their country what it was. In this pamphlet recently published, Mr. Welsh said that while England prided herself on her manufacturing power and expan- sive trade, America had raised her trade from $22,000,000 to more than $118,000,000. If, therefore, we were on the right track, it was a wonderful thing that America should thus be able to outstep, and soon, possibly, to overwhelm us. The question was a very grave one. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham stated not long since that our trade amounted to £600,000,000; but he ought to have added that of that sum no less than £450,000,000 consisted of imports. The question was really one between imports and exports, and in considering the subject it should not be forgotten that our imports greatly exceeded our exports. Within the last few years the whole phase of matters had undergone a serious change. Take France as an example; while, even so lately as 1874, our imports from that country were just under £3,000,000, our exports were £3,700,000, not very far from equal. But, in 1878, four years later, the tables were wholly turned against us; our imports being close upon £4,000,000, while our exports had dwindled down to something less than £3,000,000. But he did not wish to confine the observation to France. Taken as a whole, our imports to this country for 1878—the last available "Return"—showed to be to the value of upwards of £368,000,000, while our exports—even including our foreign and colonial trade—only amounted to something less than £250,000,000, thus leaving a balance against Great Britain of no less than £118,000,000. When the House came to consider that this enormous sum represented, what ought to be, for the most part, the wages of our British working population—because the price of raw materials formed comparatively but a small item in the purchase—the dead loss and everlasting drain upon our national purse and resources, in favour of the foreign artificer, were something almost incredible. And what was the consequence arising out of all this? English manufacturers were building mills and investing capital in foreign countries, since they got the necessary labour cheaper, and could produce their goods from looms in Suabia and Silesia at a less cost than they could make them here. At that very moment, he knew of one large firm which was packing up its business and takingits machinery abroad, because it could obtain the means of production cheaper there than in this country. Again, it must be remembered that the shopkeeper or salesman here never inquired where the article he wanted or bought was manufactured—with him it must always necessarily be a mere question of price. "How much?" settled that matter at the first instant of the negotiations; and, of course, in that sense of the word, it was impossible that patriotism could ever enter into trade. But when this happened, as it did now every day, British capital thus employed went to the benefit of the foreign artizan, and the wage-earning classes of this country suffered in a proportionate ratio. He had mentioned some trades which had suffered greatly, and he could name many others. The velvet trade was almost gone; so also was that of lath-rending, owing to the great imports from Sweden at a price less than that at which laths could be obtained in this country. England received, duty free, ships, foreign-made locomotives, implements, furniture, flowers, carpets, clocks, and innumerable other articles, a list of which he held in his hand, but through which it would be wearisome to travel entirely. The timber trade was fast going—not the raw material, to the import of which he had no objection—but the manufactured articles. In fact, no one who saw the mass of correspondence which had poured in upon him since he gave Notice of the present Motion could doubt that this so-called Free Trade had injuriously affected almost every industry in the country. It was not a matter as to what was best, but it was a question of what they could actually get—what they could save—because that there was a tendency to wreck and to ruin was beyond all doubt. That the shopkeepers of London and the country would feel the pressure in time was certain. They might not feel it now—to-day, or tomorrow—but it was following fast on the sufferings of the wage-earning classes during the last four or five years. Men had been speaking of commercial depression, attributing it to all sorts of notions and ideas except the correct one. They had been talking of the glut of the markets. But although there might be a glut lasting over a few weeks or months, it could not—as had been the ease—be attributable to that. It was the endless stream of foreign-made goods and commodities which, were now being forced upon us. There might have been glut of the markets; but how was that glut produced? In this way—America and Europe had sent their surplus manufactures into England, in the hope that at least they would realize a fair price for them, and to foreigners a fair price was very often less than the sum for which the handicapped British labourer could produce the article. There might be a glut every now and again; but a glut in the market never lasted for four or five years. The glut did not come from their own manufacturers; it came because the English people were willing to buy articles which were sent here from abroad, and, because they could not consume all that was sent, came the glut. If there were a fair and equitable tariff—equal, say, to that of America upon cotton goods—then the working men of this country, notwithstanding the shorter hours of labour, would have been able to hold their own. But, as the matter stood, it was impossible. He had yet to learn why, with reference to foreign-made articles, the wage-earning classes in this country ought not to be put on a level with the same classes in foreign lands so far as the fiscal regulations of this country would allow it. If we put on a duty which was equivalent to the Revenue charge in another country, that country could not complain of our so doing; and it was idle to say, if that were done, we should make the article dearer to the so-called consumer. A greater fallacy than that was never propounded. It must always be remembered that the producer and consumer were often the same people, or so closely allied as to be virtually the same. An article was only cheap according as it was wanted, and as there were the means wherewith to purchase it. It was no use offering a 4d.loaf for 3½d.,if a man only received 2d.wages with which to buy it. He maintained it was time some such Committee as that which he asked for was given. He did not wish to trouble the House further with statistics; but hon. Members might rely upon this, a cry would be raised all over the country on the subject. An attempt might be made, and for a time, possibly, successfully made, to stifle that cry; but although it might be but a murmur now, it might hereafter be heard as loud as thunder from the wage-earning class. Surely there was great reason in what he asked. If it should be shown that he was wrong—and he did not think that likely—the inquiry might have the effect of satisfying the working classes that, at any rate, there was someone alive here and there to their wants and their desires, and who would see that those wants and desires would not be causelessly ignored. Whatever we did, there was one advantage left to England, of which some thought too little, and that was the bond that existed between our Colonies and ourselves. In them we had large areas of wheat-growing land, which could supply us, not only with corn, but also with the raw material for our manufactures, and, if need be, with manufactured goods. Let us cultivate our colonial relations. Let us unite with our Colonies on the general principles of a Zollverein; let us adapt those principles to the countries that would arrange their monetary, fiscal, and commercial affairs upon the same basis as ourselves. Then, within the British Zollverein, commercial relations would act harmoniously; we should derive from foreign countries exactly the benefit they derived from us; and then, if we could not have Free Trade wholly and entirely, we should not have that kind of business for which "Free Trade" was but a delusive misnomer; we could do away with the so-called favoured nation clauses; and we should put our commercial relations on a fair and just basis with reference to foreign countries; and should it be discovered—although he did not think that possible—that the new arrangement pressed with undue severity upon any particular class—say, for instance, that of agriculture—it would be a very easy matter to follow out a suggestion recently made, and devote some portion of the taxation thus extracted from the pocket of the foreigner to the removal of the burthen so pressing upon that class of the community. He trusted the Government would see the time had come when that which had been well described—though the epithet was not his—as the "bastard Free Trade" of this country should be replaced by fair and honourable duties on both sides, if it were impossible, as he believed it to be, to break down the Customs barriers of different countries. He would conclude by moving for the Select Committee of which he had given Notice.

in seconding the Motion, said, he entirely concurred with all that had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) on the general question. He would, therefore, confine himself to making a few remarks on a special industry in which his constituents were interested, and with which he had been connected the greater part of his life. It had been exposed to such terrible disasters by the operation of the French Treaty of 1860, that the simple statement of the facts ought to justify inquiry before that Treaty was renewed. If there was to be another 20 years of such trade as they had just experienced the silk industry of this country would be entirely removed, and those who remained in it must inevitably be ruined. The best way to realize the disastrous effect the French Treaty had had on that industry was to compare the amount of raw silk consumed in this country before the operation of the French Treaty with that consumed since. In the 10 years before the Treaty the average annual consumption of silk was 6,000,000 lbs., and in the 10 years since the Treaty it had been reduced to 2,800,000 lbs. Before the Treaty the average annual value of the importation of silk manufactures was £6,000,000, and it was now increased to upwards of £13,000,000. In Coventry, in 1859, there were upwards of 80 silk manufactories doing a satisfactory trade; but in 1861 and the two following years there were not more than 12 whose owners had not been bankrupt or arranged with their creditors. The weekly wages in 1859 amounted to about £12,000, and now he was assured on the best authority they had so far fallen as scarcely to exceed £3,000. Manchester, Macclesfield, Nottingham, Leicester, Derby, and many other places had suffered in like manner. Such facts and figures ought to justify the demand for a Committee to inquire into the causes of the depression of trade, particularly in the textile manufactures. The effect of its continuance on the large mass of our working population must sooner or later demand the serious attention of the Government. Therefore, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not refuse the inquiry.

said, he had the interests of the working classes at heart as much as the hon. and learned Member for Leeds or the hon. Member for Coventry; but, in his opinion, their proposal was totally untenable, and some of the facts which had been stated were totally misleading without explanation. A little while ago it was said we had sent our last ton of iron to the United States. This was said to be owing to the prohibitory tariff of the States, and it was somewhat surprising that Parliamentary inquiry was not asked for. From 1873 to 1878 the United States suffered from commercial depression. All the money raised by the sale of their produce was required to maintain the people. There was a surplus in 1876, which was increased in 1877, 1878, and 1879; and at last, in spite of the tariff, 29s.4d.per ton, and the heavy harbour and storage dues, they were taking our iron and steel by thousands of tons. They had been told that America was entering our market with their cotton goods. He would give an instance illustrating the manner in which the American cottons came to this country. Four years ago he met a gentleman, who was a manufacturer, at a public meeting, who confessed to him that for 14 months he had been imitating American cotton goods and selling them. That man was regarded as a shining light in a church; he was also a magistrate; yet he was practising fraud and deceit on his fellow-countrymen, making them believe that we were inundated by American cottons. He said it was impossible for America or any other country to compete with us—that could only be done when all the conditions were equal. There was no evidence to show that we need fear any country, whatever its tariff, if the people had only money to purchase with. They were told that Belgium was going to enter into the race against England. From the Trade Returns it would be found that we had sent more coal and iron to Belgium than we had ever done before, during the last year. They would do so this year. Two years ago he found the pits idle in Belgium, while the people there were burning English coal. What we wanted was a fair field and no favour. Our manufacturers and workmen could stand against the world. But we had been passing through a state of things for the last three years which was quite unparalleled. In India, where our cottons were consumed, famine had been stalking through the land, and where famine was manufacturers were not wanted. America had no surplus for three years, and could not buy our goods. The crops had fallen off in England, Scotland, and Ireland to the extent of £100,000,000. Had they had all this it would have been better for them though worse for America; the farmers, therefore, could not buy our manufactures. It was the elements we had had to contend against. Let there be two good years, as he hoped there would be, and with peace. If they wanted trade they must tie up the dogs of war. They must let Zulus rule themselves, and give up all theatrical gas about scientific boundaries. They had nothing to fear. A Select Committee was quite unnecessary.

said, he could not possibly view with indifference the Motion which had been submitted to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse), especially when he found that it was seconded by the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Eaton), a city which was situated within the county that he (Mr. Newdegate) had the honour to represent. He was sorry to say that he could testify to the depression of trade which the hon. Member for Coventry had described, and he thoroughly concurred with the hon. Member as to the cause to which that depression was to be attributed. The city of Coventry had lost, at least, onehalf, he believed two-thirds, of its staple trade under the operation of the Treaty with France. The hon. and learned Member for Leeds had led the way among the Representatives of the commercial and manufacturing centres in calling the attention of the House to the state of our trade, and the fact that year by year the imports of foreign manufactured goods increased, owing to their being produced under such advantages of cheap labour abroad, and he believed there were Members of that House representing manufacturing constituencies, who were largely interested in, and applied a considerable amount of capital to, the encouragement of manufactures in foreign countries. That, to his knowledge, was a result of the present commercial system, dominated as that system was by the Treaties into which this country had entered. Under these circumstances, he could not be surprised at finding that out-of-doors the opinion was rapidly increasing that we were not trading under favourable conditions. It was only on the 19th of May last that he brought under the attention of the House the fact that the French Treaty, which was the foundation of all the other modern Commercial Treaties into which this country had entered, had been denounced—to use the French expression—by the French Government, who declared that France would no longer abide by that Treaty; and, if they might judge by the information which reached us from all quarters, France was about to bring that Treaty to a termination, with the view of obtaining conditions under a new Treaty or by the operations of her own commercial policy, still more to her own advantage. Last Session the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs replied to the Motion which he (Mr. Newdegate) had ventured to submit to the House, that negotiations were going on; and, had not the hon. and learned Member for Leeds anticipated him, he had fully intended to request that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would lay before this House some further information with regard to the progress of the negotiations to which he referred on that occasion. In the course of the last Session his hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth (Mr. Sampson Lloyd) induced the House to adopt a Resolution to the effect—

"That it was desirable that a Minister to superintend our commercial relations should be appointed, and that that Minister should also have the superintendence of the condition of agriculture with a view to the information of this House."

The Session of 1880 had just opened, and yet they had no information of Her Majesty's Ministers having taken the slightest notice of that Resolution. He felt sure, then, that the House, as sometimes happened early in the Session, had not such information before it with regard to the condition of the negotiations for the renewal or abrogation of the French Treaty of Commerce, or such information before it with respect to the intentions of the Government in reference to the creation of a Ministry of Commerce and Agriculture, as would justify this House—and he spoke the sentiments of a great number of hon. Members—in taking another step in the direction which the hon. and learned Member for Leeds had, he thought, very wisely indicated. Feeling, then, that the House—and he knew this to be the opinion of other Members—lacked the requisite information on the subject, he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

seconded the Motion.

hoped that the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) would not be acceded to. He (Sir Henry Jackson) did not think that any inquiry could alter the views of his hon. Friend or of other hon. Members on the subject raised by the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse). Indeed, demands for inquiry had of late become suspected as being cloaks for demands for some particular results of such inquiry. For his own part, he could not but feel that the House and Her Majesty's Government were in as good a position now as they were ever likely to be for forming and expressing an opinion on this question. He had no intention of intruding upon the House on this subject, upon which so many hon. Members had better means for instructing the House than himself, were it not for the surprise with which he had heard some of the statements made by his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Eaton), which certainly conveyed an impression of the condition of their constituency which was quite new to him. The House might not find it the most edifying spectacle to see the two Members representing the same constituency expressing different views as to its position; but he supposed the divergence was to be accounted for by the fact that, sitting on opposite sides of the House, each of them was in the habit of meeting among their constituents those who entertained similar opinions to his own. So far from thinking that Coventry was a fallen and ruined city, which seemed to be the impression of his hon. Colleague and of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, he should describe it, from an acquaintance now of many years, as an industrious and frugal, and, until the last two or three years, on the whole, a thriving place. It had suffered, like every other place, from the recent depression; but it was a place which desired nothing but peace and quietness, and to be allowed the chance of paying its way. All knew that the French Treaty did produce great calamity in Coventry. That a protected industry, which up to 1860 had flourished like a hothouse plant, should fail, when suddenly, and without warning, left to itself, was, under the circumstances, not surprising. No one could be ignorant that great suffering and poverty were the immediate results of the legislation at that time. The whole country had felt and manifested the deepest sympathy with those who had suffered, and it never could be re-called to his own recollection without exciting a feeling of deep pity; but even in Coventry the memory of that sad time had nearly passed away, and he was happy to say that if the silk industry had fallen off other industries had taken its place; that neither the population of the town nor its rateable value had diminished; that if any hon. Members would pay the city a visit they would find that its houses had not fallen into decay; that new houses were taking the places of old ones, and that important public buildings were springing up and adding a charm to the streets of that ancient and venerable city. As to the general question, this was really the first occasion, as far as far as he remembered, on which Protection had avowedly raised its head and said its say in that House. Last year, they had a Motion on the subject of agricultural distress; and, no doubt, there was a certain tone and indication ofarriére penséeabout the debate which suggested that some day or another they might be regaled by another Protectionist banquet. But he did not know until today that anyone would rise in his place to say that in the re-introduction of protective duties was to be found the salvation of the country. His hon. Col- league had expressed his entire concurrence in every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for Leeds; both hon. Members, therefore, were perfectly honest in demanding Protection; but their theories seemed to be the theories of 35 years ago. Indeed, they came out so fresh and so little affected by what had happened in the meantime that one could not but imagine that they had been preserved and immured in one of those duty-free coffins which had excited the indignation of his hon. and learned Friend. What was really wanted was, not extra duties and enhanced costs, but that which, if and when we got it, would make us all contented—and, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew, good Freetraders too—a little increased buying power in the country. What would produce that? Good trade. And what would produce good trade? In the first place, good harvests abroad; and, in the next place, good harvests at home. For some years at least the earth had not given forth her increase; a good harvest in America had already told upon us, and should we have but one or two good years again, we should all have money to spend and be spending it, and nobody would have a word to say against Free Trade. His hon. Colleague had said that everyone engaged in the silk trade was on the high road to ruin, and would soon arrive at his destination. His hon. Friend knew the perfect respect he entertained for him; and he would, therefore, only say that he hoped his hon. Friend would not be among the number. His hon. Friend had referred to figures, and had stated that whereas we used to import only £6,000,000 of manufactured silk we now imported £13,000,000. What did that show? Nobody gave us the manufactured silk; we had to pay for it; and the money did not grow. How did we make it? By our own industries, by our coal, our iron, our cotton, by the profits we made upon every article we manufactured; by the course and volume of trade, which had fertilized the country and had found work for hundreds of thousands. What their fate would have been without Free Trade he did not care to think. He hoped the Government would speak out soon, and plainly, upon this question. It was one upon which, neither in that House nor at the hustings, should there be any weakness or misunderstanding. Let it be known at once that both Parties were agreed to treat it as an economical, and not as apolitical, question; as a question affecting the well-being of millions of people whose destinies were committed to their charge. For his own part, he had no misgivings as to the Government action in this matter. They had often to blame the Government, but never for their treatment of this question. He had no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was as firm a Freetrader as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham himself. They knew the importance of the question, and they knew this—that whatever might have been said, if the thing were new, it was now too late to re-consider it. We had a population larger than our soil could support, and were therefore committed to a policy which could not be reversed, and upon which he hoped the Government would express their views in a manner which would finally put the question to rest.

Sir, I will say but a very few words, because I wish to address myself to the question before the House—that of the adjournment of the debate. I wish distinctly to say, on the part of the Government, that they, of course, recognize the importance of this question; but, on the other hand, they think it would be wrong by any doubtful proceeding, countenanced especially by them, to raise a false idea or to produce a wrong impression as to their commercial policy. We are perfectly prepared, if the debate continues, to state reasons for not assenting to the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leeds, and to examine that Motion thoroughly and respectfully. I fully recognize his right to bring the Motion forward; but I shall state reasons why we are not able to support him. One reason is that the appointment of such a Committee would seem to imply a change of opinion on the part of the Government, which, I think, would be injurious. Then comes the question of adjourning the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) says this Motion has been brought forward very early in the Session, and that it has not attracted the attention of many hon. Members; indeed, there are many Members who are not in possession of in- formation which they would like to have; and my hon. Friend says that an adjournment of the debate would enable them to discuss the question more fully. The same difficulty which applies to the appointment of a Committee applies also to an adjournment of the debate. It seems to me that if at this hour of the evening we were to assent to the adjournment, when really we have plenty of time to go on with the discussion, it would, to some extent, be delusive, and might produce an incorrect impression. But, besides that, I have an objection to an adjournment of a debate upon the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, because such a proceeding affects the granting of Supply, and leads to considerable confusion in the conduct of the Business of the House; and, therefore, I cannot consent to the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. But, on the other ground, I could not agree to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Leeds. As to the time of bringing it forward, that is a matter for which Government, of course, are not responsible.

said, that, though the hon. and learned Member who had moved for a Select Committee represented a great commercial community, he had made many observations which had surprised him, and with hardly any of which he was able to agree. His hon. and learned Friend had begun by deploring the fact that Free Trade had altogether proved a failure, and that its principles were founded on fallacious grounds. He had not expected to be called upon to prove to the House the error into which his hon. and learned Friend had fallen; but, perhaps, the best way of disposing of the statement that Free Trade had been a failure was to give a few figures showing the results of the adoption of that policy. He would take the same test applied by his hon. and learned Friend—namely, the exports of the United Kingdom. He found that in the year 1839 the value of the exports was £53,000,000, in round numbers, and that a few years after the repeal of the Corn Laws it amounted to £63,000,000. There was a very marked increase in their value during the 10 years 1849 to 1859, at which latter time it had more than doubled itself, and had risen to £130,000,000. In 1869 it was £189,000,000, and in 1877 it had further increased to £199,000,000. In 1872 the exports were £256,000,000 in value, and although since that time they had decreased in value they had not decreased in quantity. Again, taking the value of the exports per head of the population, he found that that value was in 1829 £1 10s.6d.,in 1859 £4 11s.2d.,and in 1877 £5 18s.11d.There was, moreover, an increase, in much the same proportion, in the tonnage of our merchant shipping, the total of which in 1840 was 2,000,000 tons, and in 1878 16,000,000 in round numbers. Another good test of the prosperity of the country was the Income Tax, the assessment of which amounted to £251,000,000 in 1843, and to £535,000,000 in 1875. In the same way, the deposits in Savings Banks had increased from £53,000,000 in 1840 to £70,000,000 in 1876. Lastly, he might mention that in 1841 the percentage of paupers was 8.2 of the population, and that in 1876 the ratio had fallen to 31 Now, there could be no doubt that those figures alone would be sufficient to show that his hon. and learned Friend was in error in asserting that the Free Trade policy had been a failure in this country.

Will the hon. Gentleman give the House the imports?

said, he would come to that presently; but it was quite another question. His hon. and learned Friend, however, had not given the imports, but had based his case on the exports, and he had taken them as the comparison instituted by his hon. and learned Friend. His hon. and learned Friend had told the House of the gloomy impression made on his mind when he walked in the City and saw the vast number of articles that had been brought from Germany, France, Switzerland, and other countries; but if he had pursued his examination of that circumstance, and had asked himself the simple question why these goods had been imported, he would have arrived at a fact which, he thought, comprised pretty nearly the whole of the Free Trade doctrine. Those goods were there because the people wished to buy them, and if the people could not afford to buy them they would not be there. The reason they could afford to buy them was that they had been making profits in their respective trades, and were able to become customers of the whole world, very much to their own advantage. It was rather difficult to review all the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend, because the case admitted of no compromise whatever. It was impossible for him to go one inch with his hon. and learned Friend in his sympathy for what he had called the distressed, industry of this country, arising out of Free Trade principles. For his own part, he could not trace that distress, in the least degree, to the action of Free Trade. His hon. and learned Friend had spoken of the excess of imports over exports, and here he gave expression to one of the primary fallacies in this case. There could be no doubt that an excess of imports over exports had occurred in this country; and the theory was that we had, therefore, paid the difference in specie. That, however, was a fallacy, and it was not only a fallacy in theory, but it was capable of disproof, because it could be clearly shown that in the very years when we were exporting the most goods we were also importing most specie, and during the four years 1870–73 we received from abroad in gold and silver bullion or specie £19,000,000 more than we exported. They were told that this was one-sided Free Trade. They all admitted that it was, and they all wished that foreign countries would open their markets to us; but his contention was that one-sided Free Trade was better than no Free Trade at all. It was true, no doubt, that many markets might be opened to English goods if the tariffs were altered; and it would be the constant endeavour of the Government to use every effort they could in order to make foreigners see it would be to their advantage, as it had been to our own, to lower their tariffs. He trusted the House would not adopt any Resolution showing that we had lost faith in the least degree in the principles of Free Trade. It was by persuading foreign nations that it had produced enormous results for us that we must endeavour to induce them to follow our example. He was happy to say that we had a good deal of encouragement; for although the Governments of Europe did not evince any hope at the present moment of being able to reduce their tariffs, yet among the commercial bodies of Europe there was evidently a misgiving in the soundness of the course they were pressing on their respective Governments; for, although they were stout Protectionists, they never approached their own Governments without admitting in principle that they were staunch Free-traders. Accounts from Germany and France showed that each commercial body pressed on the Ministers of State the expediency of protecting its own interests and of giving Free Trade to all the rest of the world. It was just the same in the Colonies, as appeared from a most amusing account given inThe Timesthe other day. In one instance an umbrella-maker, the only one in the Colony, maintained that he ought to be protected; but, at the same time, he was a staunch Freetrader with regard to cotton, silk, iron, sticks, and the other materials of which umbrellas were made. His hon. and learned Friend had mentioned the French Treaty. The negotiations respecting the Treaty of Commerce with France were suspended in consequence of the French Government declining to proceed with them until the general tariff was decided upon. Consequently, we came to an arrangement with France that things should remain as they were for six months after the tariff was agreed upon. It was very easy to show what great advantages had arisen from the Treaty made in 1860 with France, although he at once admitted that Coventry had been a very great sufferer from that Treaty. When Free Trade was introduced, Sir Robert Peel, no doubt, hoped that it would be unnecessary to resort to Commercial Treaties, and that foreigners would see it was to their advantage to adopt Free Trade. But although this was his opinion, Sir Robert Peel was not in theory opposed to Commercial Treaties, for both he and Lord Melbourne, between 1838 and 1843, attempted to make a Commercial Treaty with France, and they only failed in doing so in consequence of M. Guizot saying it would be impossible to carry such a Treaty through the French Chambers. In I860, after 15 years of experience, Mr. Cobden thought it was no use waiting any longer for foreign nations to follow our example; and he succeeded in negotiating a Treaty which vastly increased the trade, not only of this country, but of Europe. Subsequently a great many other Treaties were made, which affected the trade of the whole world. That was one of the objects Mr. Cobden and the late Emperor Napoleon had in view, for they perceived that, if they once made a Treaty between this country and France, other countries would make Treaties among themselves; that in this way a network of Treaties would grow up; and that we, by the "most favoured nation" clauses, should be able to take advantage of all the Treaties which were negotiated. The result of the French Treaty had brought about a vast increase in the trade of France; and he believed that one of the great causes which had enabled France to pay her great Debt in the way she had paid it, and to bear the enormous burden thrown upon her by the late war, was the fact that, apart from her good harvests since 1870–71, and apart from her enormous productive power, she had between 1860 and 1870, by reason of the Commercial Treaty with this country, attained to a pitch of commercial prosperity which she did not enjoy before. Thus she was enabled to bear the tremendous trials which came upon her. Of course, his hon. and learned Friend had based his case in a great measure on the depression of trade in this country during the last two or three years. But other countries had suffered a great deal more. Austria and Germany, for instance, had suffered a great deal more, and these were highly protective countries. Again, the United States had, up to last year, suffered quite as much as we did, and perhaps more. Looking at the result in a general way, the protective system had greatly injured the United States, whereas the reverse system had enabled us to do a great deal more of the Ocean traffic than America did. Some people said that this country took more from other countries than they took from us; but this country took what it wanted, and it was only common sense to buy in the cheapest markets. He would not weary the House by saying more upon the subject. His hon. and learned Friend represented a very important constituency, composed in a great measure of working men engaged in various industries, and it was desirable that such a class of constituents should know beyond all question that Her Majesty's present Government, at any rate, had no doubt what- ever about the commercial soundness of our policy of Free Trade. His own relations with foreign Powers and foreign statesmen made him see the thorough hollowness of their protective system. He had also come to the conclusion that they saw it themselves, and if it were not for the very great interests which were represented in the foreign Legislatures and Governments, he believed the whole system of Protection would fall about their heads like a house of cards. It was, as his right hon. Friend had already said, quite out of the power of the Government to grant this Committee. He therefore hoped his hon. and learned Friend would try and convince his constituents that, after all, the best thing for the working man was to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the dearest.

said, after the admirable speech of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, he felt it was unnecessary to say more than a very few words. Every word of that speech he was prepared to endorse, and still more strongly could he endorse from personal experience what the hon. Gentleman had said in regard to the United States. He had seen a good deal of that country during the five years of its deepest commercial depression, and he could say without hesitation that, to a large extent, the commercial trials of the period from 1873 to 1878 were due to the adoption of the rotten system of Protection. But, after all, was it really worth while to refer such a question as this to the consideration of a Committee? Why, the House might just as well set a Committee to examine the Multiplication Table. If there was one thing on which nineteen-twentieths of the country, speaking of those who had read something of political economy, and knew the rules that should guide man and man in their commercial relations—if there was anything on which the country was thoroughly agreed, it was this very Free Trade principle which had been now adopted so long, and with such highly beneficial results. Of course, there were some few persons who held a contrary opinion, just as there were some persons who denied the rotundity of the earth—no arguments persuading them it was not fiat; but to ask for a Committee to convince these few would be as ridiculous as to ask for one to consider whether the earth was not fiat, or whether twice two really made four. One suggestion he hoped the hon. and learned Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) would act upon. He hoped he would not be persuaded to withdraw his Motion or not to take a division upon it, for it was important that the country should know, after all that had been said about Protection and Reciprocity—which was Protection in disguise—it was right the country should know how many Members there were in the House who were prepared to go back to Protection. If the hon. and learned Member for Leeds had the courage of his opinions—and, without affectation, he might say he knew no man more willing to defend the opinions he held than he—he asked him to allow the question to go to a distinct division, that the country might know how many Protectionists or advocates of Reciprocity the House contained. He thought that would put an end to the agitation for Protection.

referring to the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), that a man who denied the doctrine of Free Trade and Reciprocal Free Trade was like a man who denied the rotundity of the earth, said, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the whole civilized world was against Free Trade. Europe and America, to whose opinions we were taught to bow down and worship, were against Free Trade. Although he (Sir George Bowyer) had been brought up in the doctrines of Free Trade, that fact so far shook his belief in it as to make him think that inquiry was desirable. There were no people so dogmatical as political economists. Questions of political economy were subject to great modification from collateral subjects. A political economist told you that wherever there was a demand for labour there was a supply, and that the labourer would always carry his labour to the best market. He would do so if he could. We were all taught in the school of Mr. Cobden that Free Trade was the great panacea and the great secret for the prosperity of mankind, and since that time any man who denied that doctrine was looked upon as a man who deserved to be burnt, as out of the faith. But the country was finding that there were many things that tended to throw a doubt on the doctrine of Free Trade. If all countries would give up their protective duties, he thought Free Trade would work very well. But, when he regarded all the circumstances which had interfered with the working out of the Free Trade principles, he thought it was a subject for inquiry and consideration. Even our own Colonies were turning against the doctrine of Free Trade. Canada had adopted protective duties against England. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) was excessively indignant at her doing so, and would almost wish us to declare war against Canada to compel her to alter her commercial policy. But the Canadians knew their own business. They had acted with a view to their own interest, and they had so far declared against the doctrine of Free Trade. There was, he believed, a strong feeling in this country that the question of Free Trade required re-consideration, at least in cases where there was no Reciprocity. Whether right or wrong, that feeling was gaining such strength that by-and-bye it would become a serious matter, because many of the working men, the manufacturers, and others concerned in the industry of this country believed that we ought not to allow Free Trade except with those countries which acted on that principle themselves. As to the assertion that Reciprocity was Protection in disguise, that was only one of those phrases which were intended to gull people. Reciprocity was a principle apart from Free Trade. Mr. Cobden always argued his theories on the assumption that other nations would be so convinced of the truth of Free Trade that the whole civilized world would be governed by his doctrines. But Mr. Cobden had been proved to be wrong in that assumption, and a state of things now existed which he had not contemplated. Therefore, that question might properly be examined by a Select Committee, which could take the opinions of various classes in this and also in foreign countries, thus obtaining a body of evidence which would much assist the deliberations of the next Parliament. He was himself still a Freetrader, provided Free Trade was carried out fairly; but he could not be insensible to the fact that no other country followed the commercial policy we had adopted; and, therefore, the time had come when the examination of the question was extremely desirable. If the hon. and learned Member for Leeds pressed his Motion to a division he would vote for a Committee. At the same time, he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman would act more wisely by not dividing, and should be content to rely on his own able speech, and also on the debate he had originated, which would, no doubt, be considered by the country.

said, that his hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. Wheelhouse) had been spoken of as a very popular man, particularly so in his own constituency. He was deservedly popular; but his popularity was not owing to the views he entertained upon this question. He (Mr. Barran) desired to speak upon this Motion, in order that his hon. and learned Friend might not be considered the exponent of principles which were held by the large body of the electors of Leeds. He was confident that if Leeds were polled upon the question of Free Trade the majority would very largely preponderate against his hon. and learned Colleague, who claimed that he did not advocate Reciprocity in the interests of the rich. Now, the very class whom that hon. and learned Member professed to represent to-night were the very class who had profited most by the introduction of Free Trade. In 1842, before Free Trade was established, there was great depression of trade, and one out of every eight of the adult male population of Leeds was a pauper; the working men were not earning more than two-thirds of the average wages now paid to them; and although wages and profits were then low, and work very scarce, bread and other articles of food were dear, starvation being much more common than it had been ever since Free Trade was adopted. The recollection of these circumstances was very vivid in the minds of many thousands of the people of Leeds, and this would lead them to think very seriously before they ventured to support the views of his hon. and learned Friend. By Free Trade they not only had food cheaper and labour more abundant, but luxuries were enjoyed by the people to an extent that was unknown before that system came into operation. It was said that trade was now in a deplorable state; but it must be remembered that they had had three successive bad harvests, and that on a fair computation the loss to the nation through the bad harvest of last year was between £25,000,000 and £30,000,000, the effect of which could not but be injurious to various branches of industry. If, under those circumstances, flour, instead of being 2s.4d.per stone, had been 4s.4d.,as in former days, and the people had little employment, the distress must have been severe. It was said that other countries adhered to Protection; but if they went to Austria, Germany, Italy, or even to France, they would find that in proportion as their restrictive tariffs were developed the earnings of the people diminished. There was no other country, save America, where the people earned such large wages, and enjoyed so many luxuries, as they did hero. Such being the case, the House would carefully consider before they reverted to a system which had proved in the past to be prejudicial to the best interests of the nation. An improvement in trade was visible; and although, at present, the circumstances of the country were not as satisfactory as we could wish, he did not think the position in which we found ourselves was one which ought to strike us with terror and dismay. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would divide the House, for he was satisfied that the division would be such as would so far satisfy his hon. and learned Colleague and his constituents that the principles which he held were not principles which were acceptable to the House or likely to be endorsed by the nation.

said, it was with great satisfaction that he had heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer state that he was not in favour of the Motion, inasmuch as a return to Protection would, in his opinion, be one of the greatest calamities which could befall the country. Forty years ago every article which we imported was subject to taxation of some kind or other, and trade was really reduced to a minimum; but during the 34 years which followed, the prosperity of the country, the accumulation of large fortunes, and the comforts of the working classes had increased in an unparalleled degree. And, although the last two or three years had been a period of depression, trade had begun to show such evidences of revival that we might hope for a return of that prosperity which the country had so long enjoyed. The iron and cotton trades had greatly revived. With respect to the decay of the Coventry and Macclesfield trades, it was altogether a thing apart from Free Trade, being the result of fashion. If to-morrow the ladies of England took into their favour silks and ribbons, as formerly, that trade would revive. When the hon. and learned Gentleman complained that our import trade was three times as large as our export trade, he forgot that the people of this country derived as much profit from the former as from the latter. A large portion of it originated with our countrymen in India and the Colonies; it came to this country in English bottoms, paying freight to English shipowners, and harbour and dock dues to English proprietors; and if it were not for that trade we should cease to be what we were—a great producing people. As to the recent depression in trade, it was to a considerable extent attributable to the repudiation of foreign loans, to reckless speculation, and not a little to the prevalence of strikes. The great rule to adopt was to buy in the cheapest market, and that could only be done if we had Free Trade. The artizans and labouring classes of this country were never so well clothed, housed, and fed as they now were. If we could not produce an article of the same quality and at the same price, we ought by all means to buy it from abroad. He considered that the time spent by the Committee of last Session on the question of the sugar bounties was time wasted, and since then the rise in the price of sugar had been enormous—as much as £5 per ton; and, although it had since fallen about 50s.,the sugar refiners of this country had reaped an immense advantage. He was quite sure the House would not let Protection, under any shape, interfere with the well-established principles of Free Trade.

said, that after a long experience of Free Trade, not only the working classes, but all classes of society, had suffered from the mistaken financial policy which had been adopted by this country; and the working classes had suffered most. Adverting to what fell from the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran), he denied that the number of paupers in this country had been diminished by the action of Free Trade. The fact was the very reverse; the number of paupers was larger now under Free Trade. He entirely disputed what was so constantly said on the question of dear bread. We had had an experience of 60 years—30 years before the repeal of the Corn Laws and 30 years since. Now, 30 years was ample time to judge of the effects of a policy, and he had no hesitation in saying that the price of bread had been higher under the system of Free Trade than it had been under that of Protection. He was an old Protectionist; but they were not discussing the question of Free Trade and Protection—he meant the question so far as it related to countries in a high state of cultivation; but they were discussing the question whether the position of Free Trade without Reciprocity was a tenable position. He was sorry to say that he was old enough to recollect that the early advocates of Free Trade used to put it forward that their policy would be so beneficial to the human race that when once England set the example that policy would be adopted by all foreign nations; Free Trade would become the practice of the whole world. Had that been the case? Thirty years was long enough to judge of the effects of a financial policy. So far from that having been the case, the whole tendency of the financial policy of all the chief European Powers, of the United States and of our own Colonies was to the imposition of protective duties. There was no inclination to try Free Trade. It was a policy which must be ruinous to every class in society with the exception of one class, which formed but a small proportion of the whole; he meant the class of annuitants who were dependent on fixed incomes—the non-producing class. Thus the result of Free Trade was that it fed the drones and starved the working bees. The policy of Free Trade was based on the argument that it would cheapen the food of the people; but he held that this argument was a delusive one, and further, that the principle of Free Trade was brought forward under false pretences. He remembered the day when members of the Anti-Corn Law League were looked upon as patriots, and when they were able to produce what was tantamount to a political revolution. He ventured, however, to repeat, being careful to avoid the strong language not seldom resorted to by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the whole movement was brought forward under false pretences. He might mention one fact in support of this opinion. One of the most distinguished members of the Anti-Corn Law League, when asked—"Why are you so adverse to the land interest, so indignant against the owners who produce the food of the people; why do you vituperate them and parade them before the country as men who are responsible for the sufferings of their fellow-countrymen?" replied, "You quite mistake us; we have no antipathy to the land, or to those connected with it; we only want one thing—namely, food at the price of the world, that we may get labour at the price of the world." This was a very natural view for men who had much capital embarked in commercial pursuits to hold; but it was not the professed object of the League. The members of the League endeavoured to persuade the people that they were trying to reduce the taxes on food, when they were, in reality, trying to obtain cheap labour for themselves. He could say without fear that there were two great glaring fallacies in the doctrines of Free Traders. The first was comprised in the words "cheap food." If he could believe that the doctrine of Free Trade tended to cheapen the food and increase the comfort of the people, he should be a Free Trader; but it was his strong conviction that the real effect of the doctrines of Free Trade was to decrease the wages of the working classes and increase their miseries. The words "cheap food" contained a fallacy, for this reason—food should not be considered dear or cheap according to the price of the quartern loaf, but according to the ability of the working man to earn sufficient wages to purchase what food he required. If then, as he asserted, the doctrines of Free Trade led to a decrease in the wages of the labouring man, its supporters were, in reality, making his position worse than it was before. The other point to which he wished to draw attention was the confusion which existed in the minds of a great number of very distinguished persons as to the difference between consumers and producers. The advocates of Free Trade always contended that the object of their policy was to benefit the condition of the con- sumers on the assumption that the consumers included the great mass of the community, and that, therefore, while improving the position of the consumers, they would be improving the position of the majority of the human race. He denied the truth of this assumption altogether, for the great mass of the community was formed by the producing class, consisting chiefly of the labourer and artizan, who, as he had shown, derived no benefit from Free Trade. There was another fact which had probably never occurred to many of those whom he was then addressing. They had heard a great deal about the Corn Laws being a tax upon the food of the people. Even if they assumed the truth of this, was the House aware that the Corn Laws as they existed in 1846 increased the price of a 4lb. loaf by only one-fifth of a penny? But he went further, and maintained, from a comparison of the price of bread in the 30 years preceding and the 30 years succeeding the repeal of the Corn Laws, that the average price of corn in this country was lower during the former period. The effect of the duty on corn, therefore, was not to raise the price; but, in any case, the amount of the increase was not more than one-fifth of a penny upon the 41b. loaf. How was that argument to be answered? The real effect of the sliding scale duty was to regulate the price of corn by inducing speculators to hold a large amount in bond ready to meet the requirements of the market. One result was that the price of corn was kept at a much more steady level. Another result was that during the operation of the duties there were always two years' consumption of corn stored up in the country, whereas, now, we were living from hand to mouth, with only two or three months' consumption in reserve; and, therefore, any sudden emergency might reduce us to starvation. We heard a great deal about the taxpayer, who was always crying out and giving annoyance to everybody. By a stroke of the pen they might derive a large income of many millions a-year from the pockets of the foreigner, and enormously relieve the taxpayer of this country. But there was one great obstacle to such a course. There were a great many very distinguished, very able, and very eloquent men on the Treasury and front Opposition Benches, who, while on other matters they maintained an attitude of the most hostile antagonism towards one another, were, unfortunately, agreed upon the subject of Protection and Free Trade. Many of them had been in former times strong advocates of Protection, and had suddenly been converted to the doctrines of Free Trade. This change had been brought about by political considerations, and not from conviction. These Gentlemen, naturally, were not inclined to recant all they had said, and admit that they had yielded to political necessity. This was the real difficulty of the case, and how it was to be got over he was not prepared to say. But it would have to be got over somehow, for he believed it was the feeling of the country that Free Trade without Reciprocity was national ruin, and must lead to the most disastrous results. The pressure would become so strong through-out the length and breadth of the land that resistance would be impossible. He wished to add one word with reference to a remark that had fallen from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He had understood the hon. Gentleman to say that the excess of imports over exports was no proof of the failure of the national policy in this matter. He had heard that statement with the most profound astonishment. He wished to make every concession to the high character and great ability of his hon. Friend; but he was utterly at a loss to understand how any man occupying the distinguished position of his hon. Friend, and filling it with so much success, could put forward a doctrine which appeared to him, not only untenable, but monstrous. It was a simple question of arithmetic. If you were always giving half-a-crown and taking a shilling, however long your purse might be, where would your position be at the end of a certain number of years? As far as he had been able to collect the facts, the balance of trade against the country during the last five or six years had been somewhere about £150,000,000 a-year. The question was one of fact as well as one of policy. They were paying so much and receiving so much. They were paying a great deal and receiving very little—a financial policy which must lead to irretrievable national ruin. He warned the House that they could not persevere in a policy which was draining the resources of the country, and the effect of which would be to deprive the masses of the people of the means of earning their livelihood.

said, he would not occupy the attention of the House for more than a few minutes, as he had not come down prepared with a speech. At the same time, he was pleased to hear the declaration of Her Majesty's Government that they were undoubtedly in favour of Free Trade. At present there was no question of Reciprocity. That word might be whispered when a Cabinet Minister visited his constituents, or be heard occasionally in the agricultural districts; but it could not in the House of Commons. He should have imagined that a very short discussion would have disposed of this question, and when he heard the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) move the adjournment of the debate he was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not inform him that he was guilty of obstruction to the Business of the House. Nothing could have been dearer to the heart of a Freetrader than to hear the way in which Protection, sitting behind the Treasury Bench, had been thoroughly castigated by a Conservative Minister, and he did not think that for some time it would dare to raise its head. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had declared that, in his opinion, those who advocated the repeal of the Corn Laws were not so much desirous of cheapening the food of the people as of getting cheap labour for themselves. He could not but consider that to be a monstrous accusation. As a matter of fact, labour had been cheaper before the repeal of the Corn Laws than it had been since. The hon. Gentleman would not say that corn was cheaper before the duties were abolished than it was now. Would the hon. Gentleman assert that it would be for the advantage of the working classes that we should go back to the state of things which existed before the Corn Laws were repealed? For his part, he believed that it was not in the interest of working people that Reciprocity was demanded; it was in the interest of land. Those who were in favour of Protection did not want to impose a duty upon manufactured articles, but upon raw materials, and, of all raw materials, they wanted to tax corn. ["No!"] What was it then? What did hon. Gentlemen want to tax? What else could they tax? They talked about silk and watches, and such luxuries of life; but these formed but a small portion of the great total of our imports. The great total of our imports consisted of hides, tallow, cotton, and corn. How would they tax America? Would they tax its cotton or its corn? What else had America to tax? [Mr. MACDONALD: Mops and pails.] Mops and pails; well, they might as well try to mop out and pail out the ocean of public opinion as expect to carry the object they had in view. The proposal was really so absurd that hon. Gentlemen who made it did not know what to say for themselves. Her Majesty's Government were once told by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens) that there was one place they must not go to, and that was between the food and the mouths of the people, and he was glad the Government had recognized that fact. He believed that the employers of labour and the working classes were as true to Free Trade at that moment as they were five years ago—he might say 30 years—notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Member for Leeds had stated that evening. Let the hon. and learned Member go to Blackburn and call a meeting of the working classes, and discuss the question before them, and if he got a verdict in favour of his Motion he (Mr. Briggs) would never in that House speak against it again. They had heard a great deal about Coventry to-night. Nothing could be more curious than the different lights in which the two hon. Members had portrayed that city. He was rather inclined to agree with the hon. and learned Baronet (Sir Henry Jackson) that the position of that city was not so black as it was painted by the hon. Member (Mr. Eaton) on the other side. In all great transitions some people must suffer. It was the case in Lancashire. When they changed from the use of the handloom to the powerloom the small weavers suffered severely, as the silk weavers in Coventry had done. But there was this which was worse in the case of the Lancashire weaver—he had carried on his trade under legitimate conditions; the silk weaver had carried on his trade under illegitimate conditions. The one had suffered under the natural development of a trade, the other because he had been nourished like a hot-house plant, and when the cold blast of Free Trade came upon him he could not stand the robust atmosphere of open-air competition. They could not help being sorry for both of these classes; but if they were to move on in this world they must do so though some people were left behind in the race. It was idle to endeavour to retain an unhappy and illegitimate state of things, because some people might suffer by the introduction of a better. He was glad the Government had spoken out so clearly and definitely on the subject of Free Trade, and he hoped it would set at rest the question. As they had been taken to Coventry so much in the course of this discussion, he might quote some lines which the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who occupied the front Ministerial Bench, remembering the old Free Trade struggles, might use towards Members opposite—

"Not only we.…

New men, that in the flying of a wheel

Cry down the past.…

Have loved the people well,

And loathed to see them overtaxed, hut they

Did more, and underwent and overcame."

said, this question had been a good deal discussed by the working people of Lancashire; so much so, that, in addressing his constituents, he had sometimes to tell them unpleasant truths, such as if they were prepared to adopt a system of taxing their food he should be prepared to advocate Reciprocity, which would enable them to place a tax on foreign manufactures. But he must say he got no decided answer from them. He told them that before discussing the question whether they should place a tax on the import of foreign manufactures they must be prepared for a corresponding tax on food. While there was no tax on corn, the farmer had a right to buy his farming implements and everything connected with the culture of his land as cheaply as he possibly could. The two questions must go together. There were two sides to the question of Free Trade; and if the hon. and learned Member for Leeds went to a division he should go with him, for the very purpose of having it understood in the country that they could not have Reciprocity without abandoning the benefit they received from the free import of food. If they took with one hand, they must give with the other. It was for this reason only he would vote for the Resolution, although he could wish it had been differently worded. If there was an inquiry, the working population of the country would have it in their power to state what they meant, and whether they wished to return to the old system and to tax imported food as well as imported manufactures—for the taxation of the two must go together. They must not expect that the farmer would be willing to compete with all the world, unless he could buy all he required in the cheapest market. It might have been beneficial if we had pursued a different course when we adopted Free Trade; but it was a different question whether we should now retrace our steps. There might have been times before Free Trade when corn was cheap; but it was still true that we had passed through crises in which we should have suffered still more acutely if it had not been for Free Trade. His chief motive in voting for the Resolution was that the public outside should become acquainted with the real state of the case, and should realize the fact that they must consider the much more serious question of what should be done with imported articles of food.

in rising to call attention to the present state of the European Guarantees under the Treaties of 1856 and 1871, said, that he was sorry the pressure of the division which had just taken place should have deprived them of the assistance of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. As, however, the question which he had to ask the Government was not a legal one, they might console themselves for the loss. He wished to ask the Government for some explanation on a matter which he regarded as of the greatest importance. He was sure everyone would feel that it was a matter of great consequence to this country, and to Europe, to know exactly how we stood with reference to our guarantees to foreign States? He himself had always had considerable doubt as to what was our present exact situation in regard to the guarantees to Turkey under the Treaties of 1856 and 1871. He had made more than one attempt to obtain the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject, but not with any very great success or any definite advantage. But he observed that a few weeks ago a noble Lord, a Member of the Government, though not a Member of the Cabinet, whose ability they all recognized (Lord George Hamilton), came forward with a very definite statement upon the subject. The statement was made evidently after careful consideration, and in carefully selected language, and he would ask leave to read it to the House.

"That we have increased our liabilities by the Anglo-Turkish Convention is equally absurd. When we came into office the Treaty of Paris had been renewed by Mr. Gladstone three years before, and by that Treaty and its sequel—the Tripartite Treaty—we gave an unconditional and unlimited guarantee to maintain the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire. At any moment France or Austria might have called upon us to maintain by force of arms that pledge. By the Treaty of Berlin a different arrangement was devised for European Turkey. As regards the remainder of Turkey, we substituted a limited and conditional Treaty—limited to Asiatic Turkey, and conditional upon reforms being carried out. So long, therefore, as the whole is greater than the part, so long will a conditional and limited Treaty, such as the Anglo-Turkish Convention, be a contraction and not an expansion of an unconditional and unlimited liability, such as was contained in the Treaty of 1856."

It was perfectly plain what the noble Lord meant by that statement. It either distinctly asserted or implied three propositions. It asserted, first, what was perfectly true, that before the Treat}' of Berlin there was an unlimited and unconditional guarantee under the Tripartite Treaty; second, it asserted that the unlimited and unconditional guarantee no longer existed, and that in place of it had been substituted the Anglo-Turkish Convention; and, third, as that was not unlimited and not unconditional, and as a part was necessarily less than the whole, therefore our liabilities were less than they were before. He (Sir William Harcourt) wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether this opinion, expressed by a Minister not in the Cabinet, was the view of that Cabinet? He wished the right hon. Gentleman clearly to understand that his object was not to invite him to contradict that statement; on the contrary, he hoped he would confirm it. He did not desire that the Tripartite Treaty should exist. He desired to see every guarantee of the Turkish Empire disappear, and the more they disappeared the better he would be pleased. He wanted, however, to know, on a little higher authority than that of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, whether that was the true view of the situation? If the noble Lord's view of the situation was correct, then at Berlin was achieved a destruction of the Turkish Empire far more complete than anyone believed, because, according to the noble Lord, at Berlin was swept away at once and for ever the whole of the guarantees which had been created in 1856. If that were the true view of the case, then the Treaty of Berlin struck a fatal blow at the maintenance and integrity of the Turkish Empire, because it swept away the whole of the fabric which was created in 1856. He hoped the noble Lord was right, for it would relieve England and Europe of a great embarrassment, and from what, if acted upon, would prove a great disgrace. The Treaties of 1856 had never been operative. Whenever acasus fæderisarose these Treaties had broken down. In the years 1870–71, when the question of the Black Sea Clauses arose, the Treaty did not work. England, in common with France and Austria, had engaged to resist by force of arms any attempt to alter the terms of that Treaty; but neither she nor any of the other Powers did resist such an attempt. Prance could not resist; Austria did not; Germany was a party to the demand to alter it; and England declined to resist alone. England might, no doubt, have acted alone and interfered; he had heard hon. Gentlemen opposite reproach the Government of that day for not doing so; but if England had acted alone she would not have acted with the force of the Treaty of 1856. The Government of 1871 did not act alone, for exactly the same reasons as the Government which succeeded them declined to act alone in 1878–9. In a well-known despatch accompanying the Treaty of Berlin Lord Salisbury stated that, having denounced the retrocession of Bessarabia and the cession of Batoum, which were, of course, a violation of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, they yielded these points because they found that the Powers of Europe would not support them in resisting them. That was exactly the ground upon which Lord Granville acted in 1870 in the case of the Black Sea Clauses of the Treaty of 1856. Hon. Gentlemen opposite blamed him for not acting alone then; why did they not themselves act alone in the case of Bessarabia and Batoum? Why, because all England would have condemned them, just as all England would have condemned the late Government in the case of the Black Sea Clauses. He referred to these matters incidentally, only to support the proposition that whenever acasus fæderishad arisen the shield of the Treaty of 1856 had utterly broken down. Not one of the Powers to those Treaties had ever called upon the other parties to carry them out; and for a good reason, probably because they knew they would call in vain. When, in 1877, the Government received notice that Russia was going to war—that she was going to attack the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire—they did not call upon any one of the parties to the Treaty of 1856 to act upon it. It seemed idle, therefore, to attempt to revive the operation of the Treaty of 1856 when two successive Governments had not, when the occasion arose, called upon any of the parties to this Treaty to act upon it; and when none of the other Powers called upon England, they might look upon it as a dead letter. He wanted to know whether we could regard them as documents which had no force in Europe? If, however, the Tripartite Treaty still existed, then everything the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council had said was wrong, because, in that case, their liabilities were not diminished; on the contrary, they remained, and the Anglo-Turkish Convention was superadded. He wanted, therefore, to know if the noble Lord was right in saying that all these guarantees had been replaced by the Anglo-Turkish Convention? If all the guarantees given by the other Powers were gone, there was no guarantee by any Power in Europe of Turkey in Europe, and there was no guarantee by any Power in Europe of Turkey in Asia, except England under the Anglo-Turkish Convention, which, Her Majesty's Government would admit, had not yet been fulfilled. If Armenia, or any part of the Turkish Empire, were attacked to-morrow, there would be no Power in Europe that was under any obligation to defend Turkey, because he did not think the reforms of the Turkish Government were such as would enable it to call upon England to fulfil the Anglo-Turkish Convention. Of course, there was all the difference in the world between a Treaty of guarantee and a Treaty not of guarantee. The Treaty of Vienna, for instance, was a Treaty of settlement; but it was not a guarantee. The Government might make a settlement which they did not bind themselves to support by engagement. Whether the Treaty of 1856 was a Treaty of guarantee or not had been very much in dispute. In the 7th clause there were the words—

"Their Majesties engage each on his part to respect the territorial independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire guarantee in common the strict observance of this engagement; and will regard its violation as a question of general interest."

There were no words of that kind in the Treaty of Berlin. But the Tripartite Treaty was far more express. It was in every sense a Treaty of guarantee—

"The High Contracting Parties guarantee jointly and severally the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire in accordance with the Treaty of Paris."

In the Second Article it was stated—

"Any infraction of the stipulations of the said Treaty will he considered by the Powers as acasus belli,"

and so on. That was a guarantee. He would like, therefore, to ask how the obligations under that Treaty were terminated? The noble Lord used language of a not very accurate description. He said—"We substituted for those engagements the Anglo-Turkish Convention." "We" could not do anything of the kind. Everybody knew that the Tripartite Treaty did not leave it to one Power to go and alter it without the consent of the others. The first question, therefore, he (Sir William Harcourt) would ask was, Did the Tripartite Treaty still exist since the Treaty of Berlin? Was it an obligation upon the parties? Could we call upon Austria and Prance to fulfil it? And could Austria and Prance call upon us to fulfil its obligations? The noble Lord the Vice President of the Council said we could not. He (Sir William Harcourt) wished to have the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the noble Lord was right. If that was so, he would like to know at what period, and in what documents, those obligations were cancelled? Nothing was said about the Tripartite Treaty in the Treaty of Berlin. The document referred to in the Third Article of the Treaty of Berlin was the general Treaty. If that were the case, he would like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it would be taken generally that the effect of the Treaty of Berlin was to dissolve the obligations of the Treaty of 1856, and to substitute in their place, as the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council said, the Anglo-Turkish Convention? If, again, that were so, he would like an explanation of what was the particular view taken in the 63rd Article of the Treaty of Berlin, by which it was thought desirable to recite the Treaties of 1856 and 1871—that was to say, the general Treaty of 1856 and the Treaty of 1871—and to say that except so far as they were modified by that Treaty they would still apply. Of course, those words were susceptible of one construction, and that was the construction denied by the noble Lord. A lawyer would understand them to mean that they were a saving clause of the Treaty of 1871. The noble Lord knew better than that. He (Sir William Harcourt) had supposed that, though the Turkish Empire had been diminished, still it was intended that the old guarantees should be revived and applied to what remained. He need not say that a view of that kind would be entirely inconsistent with the statement of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council. This was a question of most serious importance; it was a question of peace or war, and affected the well-being of this country in relation to other States, and it was therefore necessary that they should know whether the Treaty of 1856 and the Tripartite Treaty were in force or not. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer would tell them that the Government accepted the statement of the noble Lord, he, for one, would be satisfied; because then, at last, they would get rid of those European guarantees in which they had been embarrassed with reference to Turkey in Europe, with reference to our engage- ments in regard to Asiatic Turkey and the Anglo-Turkish Convention. He (Sir William Harcourt) had never been anxious about the last, because the conditions had never arisen under which we should be compelled to it. He took this opportunity of enabling the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with the matter, because he thought it of too great importance for a simple question and answer. He did not appeal to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, or, in other words, from one Member of the Government not in the Cabinet to another Member of the Government not in the Cabinet. He wished to know whether or not the Cabinet accepted the noble Lord's view of the Treaty? That was a question of the highest politics. It was a question of where England stood as respected her liabilities under these Treaties, and how Europe was affected by them. He therefore trusted that he might have an answer which could be accepted as the view of the Government.

said, he could assure his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) he was not particularly desirous of taking the responsibility from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but, as it appeared to his right hon. Friend that this was essentially a legal question, and depended upon the construction of legal documents, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had done him the honour to ask him to answer the question. And, first, he must express his regret if his absence from the House had occasioned his hon. and learned Friend the slightest inconvenience, as it was not intended in any discourteous sense. Now, whatever they might think of this question—whether it was useful and opportune at that moment to raise it or not—they must be filled with admiration at the great industry and diligence of his hon. and learned Friend, who, among his multifarious avocations, could find time to read all the speeches of Members of the Government, whether Members of the Cabinet or not, delivered in or out of Parliament. He could only come to the conclusion that his hon. and learned Friend did that because he was sincerely and honestly desirous of obtaining considerable information. He dared say, also, that his hon. and learned Friend had a lurking idea that from some of those speeches he might extract not only information, but matter which would enable him to achieve a triumph, if only a temporary triumph, either over the person who had delivered the speech, or Her Majesty's Government. He (the Attorney General) could quite imagine the delight which filled the heart of his hon. and learned Friend when, having got from the speech all the information he could, and it was abundant, he hit upon the idea that, perhaps, there was something in it not precisely accurate, upon which he would be able to found the basis of a discussion in Parliament. What did his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council say? His noble Friend was not speaking as though he was arguing in a Court of Law; he was addressing a Conservative association, and, no doubt, intended to speak in a practical manner. There were certainly Treaties made with reference to Turkey, and guarantees were given of the integrity of the Turkish Empire. One of these Treaties was very difficult of construction—the Treaty of Paris of March, 1856—and there was another Treaty of 1856, to which the "Three Powers" were parties, called the Tripartite Treaty. Afterwards, in 1871, when circumstances altered somewhat, all the Powers thought it right to annul portions of the Treaty of Paris, and, by mutual consent, to allow portions of that Treaty to be disregarded altogether. Now, let the House consider what had been the opinion of the great Liberal Party with respect to those Treaties; because when people made speeches before Conservative associations or audiences, they had a right to bear in mind not only the arguments of the Government, or Members of the Government, but also what had been said on the other side. He had observed that his hon. and learned Friend, for whose knowledge of the law generally, and especially of the law relating to our relations with foreign Powers, he had the greatest respect, had studiously avoided expressing any opinion of his own on the subject, and had contented himself with attacking the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council. He would have been delighted to hear his hon. and learned Friend on that question. He had commented on the views of the Government; but so far from expressing his own opinion on the subject—and no man was more competent to form an opinion—he had been wholly silent. However, the other Members of the Liberal Party had not all of them been equally reticent. They had declared, over and over again, that the Treaty of Paris and the Tripartite Treaty had gone long ago; that circumstances had altered; and that the alteration of circumstances had dissipated the Treaties. When Russia thought proper, in the year 1876, to make war on Turkey, there were several considerable discussions—most interesting and animated discussions—in the House. Some hon. Members had, indeed, ventured to suggest that there were Treaties in existence; but the reply of the other side was that the circumstances of 1876 differed from those of 1856, and that the operation of circumstances had obliterated the Treaty. That was the argument put forward by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of great experience and knowledge—in fact, by the Liberal lawyers—and listened to by his hon. and learned Friend with the utmost complacency. Dealing with the question as a lawyer, he (the Attorney General) should have thought that such doctrines, coming even from his associates, would have made the hair of his hon. and learned Friend stand on end. But it had been asserted broadly, by Member after Member of the Liberal Party, that, owing to the operation of circumstances, the Treaty of Paris and the Tripartite Treaty, and the Treaty of London into the bargain, were all entirely done away with, and that view had not been dissented from by the hon. and learned Gentleman, nor did they hear even the faintest groan of discontent from him. That was the view taken in Scotland as well as in England and the House, and represented to the world as the correct one. If that was so, could they find much fault with an hon. Member who, not being a lawyer, took not the strictly legal, but the practical view of the case, which had been assented to by the Liberal Party? It seemed to him that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council, when he delivered his speech to the Conservative Association of the University of Edinburgh, took the view that, practically, the Tripartite Treaty was thrown into the shade, and that, for practical purposes, the Convention between Great Britain and Turkey had taken its place. No doubt, there had been alterations in circumstances; and if there had been such alterations before the war of 1876 as would abrogate a Treaty—if such a doctrine could prevail—there had been plenty of such changes since. He (the Attorney General) did not say or think, however, that that was a correct view of the case, but in dealing with such a subject he was bound to treat it in a lawyer-like manner; and, treating it so, the position of things was exceedingly plain. No Power having entered into a Treaty could abrogate it, except with the consent of all the other Powers. That was the doctrine recognized in 1871, when, as some people thought, very unfortunately for us, the Treaty of Paris was altered or abrogated, and it was regarded as a sound doctrine in law that without the consent of all the contracting Powers a Treaty could not be altered. So with regard to the Tripartite Treaty, which existed with the consent of Austria, France, and England. It might be, perhaps, not probable that either of the contracting Powers would be called upon to fulfil its provisions; but, as far as the law was concerned, he said, without fear of contradiction, that that Treaty was still in force—was still in existence. As far as the Treaty of Paris was concerned, the matter seemed even more abundantly clear; because, when the Great Powers who were parties to it in 1856 came to make the Treaty of Berlin, they studiously preserved by the 63rd Article the Treaty of Paris in all its provisions, except only those which had been abrogated or altered expressly by the terms of the Treaty of Berlin. Practically, then, the noble Lord was not very far wrong when he came to the conclusion that the Tripartite Treaty had been thrown into the shade, although, as a matter of law, it was evident that it still existed; and he, for one, repudiated the doctrine that Treaties could be altered, when entered into by the Great Powers, simply by circumstances, and without the consent of the high contracting parties.

said, that, in his opinion, the reply of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General was scarcely satisfactory. There were one or two apologies contained in it to which the attention of the House might very well be directed. In the first place, it should be observed that according to the Attorney General a Minister, however careful, usually need not be accurate in addressing a Conservative Association. In the second place, he told us that a statement affecting a most important Treaty, on which the affairs of Europe in the East hinged, might be legally incorrect, but practically correct. He wished, therefore, to learn from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the view of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council having been pronounced by the hon. and learned Gentleman to be practically correct, though legally incorrect—whether it was politically correct or not—that was to say, whether the Tripartite Treaty was or was not looked upon as binding by the Government? That was the important point; and, putting aside the nice distinctions between the practical and the legal, he wished to be informed what the actual political obligations of the country were held to be by the Cabinet.

said, he must apologize to the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) for not having responded to his very pointed challenge to him to answer the questions which he had put to him. It seemed to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), however, without any disrespect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that those questions really turned on the legal construction of important documents; and that it was, therefore, desirable that they should, considering the nature and importance of the subject, and the Assembly in which the question was put, receive an answer from one who was much better qualified than he could pretend to speak with authority on legal matters. His hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had accordingly given what must be accepted as the legal view as to the present position of those important instruments, and done so, he thought, in a manner more advantageous to the House than if he himself had replied to the questions of the hon. and learned Gentleman. With regard to the questions put to him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Childers), he wished to say, in the first place, it was a little hard upon them that an observation should be made as though his hon. and learned Friend had said it was competent for the Ministry to make statements which were practically correct, though legally incorrect. He might, however, observe that his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council was, in the speech to which attention had been called, commenting on the practical effects of certain doctrines, with regard to recent proceedings as to the Treaty of which he was speaking, laid down by high authorities, Members of the Party opposite, who had expressed the opinion that the results of those proceedings had been practically to supersede the Treaties made in 1856, and to put other arrangements in their place, by which the country was involved in greater responsibilities than before. His noble Friend, taking as a basis the statements so made—as was certainly within the scope of his argument—went on in his speech to show that, assuming that to be the case, our responsibilities as a nation were not increased, but in reality diminished. His noble Friend did not pretend to give a legal interpretation—and it was very important that should be borne in mind—because questions of the kind, when they arose, could not be settled by theipse dixitof a subordinate Member of the Government, or by that of any Member of the Government, but by the true and proper construction of the instruments relied on—a construction which must be discussed by all those who were parties to the Treaty, and who might have a word to say and their own construction to put on the instrument. There was no doubt that there had been no formal abrogation of the Tripartite Treaty of 1856; neither, on the other hand, had there been a renewal of it. The Treaty of Berlin, to a very great extent, modified the Treaty of Paris of 1856, and the Tripartite Treaty was a sort of adjunct to the Treaty of Paris. It bound the three Powers who were parties to it to maintain the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and that was recorded at the time in the Treaty of 1856. The Berlin Treaty of 1878, after having largely modified the provisions of the Treaty of Paris, renewed and expressly maintained those portions of that Treaty which had been modified by the stipulations of the Treaty of Berlin. What was the effect, then, of the modification and the confirmation of the Treaty of Paris on the Tripartite Treaty? The Tripartite Treaty was not expressly mentioned in the Treaty of Berlin. He did not know that it could be. It was not expressly abrogated, nor yet was it expressly renewed, in view of the altered circumstances of Europe, and the Turkish Empire in particular, after the settlement of Berlin. Nothing had, in fact, passed on the subject between the three Powers; and the question what was the precise position of the Tripartite Treaty was one which must be determined by legal interpretations, upon which he should be sorry to pronounceex cathedra.But the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract asked him whether the Government, apart from the legal or practical effect of the existing state of things, held the doctrine which was maintained by his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council to be politically correct—that was, he presumed, whether the Government considered that the general effect and upshot of the arrangements of the Treaty of Berlin had been such as to place the real and virtual responsibility of England on the footing which the noble Lord had described. His answer was that the Government accepted practically that view. They considered that the Tripartite Treaty had been, as his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had just said, thrown into the shade by the arrangements which had been made at Berlin. It was, he thought, highly improbable that that Treaty could be appealed to in support of the new arrangements that were made at Berlin; but he was far from saying that it might not be under other circumstances. Much, however, must depend on circumstances which might occur; and he should be sorry, indeed, to say what would be the effect of a Treaty which had not been abrogated in circumstances which it was extremely difficult to foresee. It was, he thought, wrong to call upon an English Minister to make a statement of the kind beforehand. His noble Friend was, in his opinion, however, perfectly right in arguing that the effect of what had been done had been in reality to diminish the liability of England. Instead of an indefinite engagement by which they might have been called upon by other Powers to defend the Turkish Empire in any part, the Government had undertaken a definite engagement, not an unconditional one, but one conditional upon the execution of certain reforms. They had undertaken it with reference to a particular portion of the Turkish Empire, and with the stipulation or condition that it should be in a case in which Turkey should be called upon to defend herself. These conditions did not exist in the Tripartite Treaty. Upon the whole, he maintained that the view expressed by his noble Friend in his speech at Edinburgh was practically and politically correct.

said, the Government had promised to accept this Bill on condition that certain Amendments proposed by them were inserted in it. He proposed, therefore, to insert the Amendment suggested by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the Bill.

suggested that the benefits of Clause 6 should be extended to labourers who tilled small plots of land belonging to their employers. Unless that special provision was made, he was afraid they would hardly come within the strict definition of occupiers.

thought the suggestion well worth consideration, and it was one which, perhaps, would be most conveniently dealt with on the Report of the Bill.

observed, that it would be, of course, quite competent for the Committee to put in some words to that effect, and he would raise the question again at a future stage.

said, that would be the most convenient course; and if the question were so deferred, he would consider it in the interval.

said, that the money Resolutions had not yet been reported, and therefore it would be necessary, for the present, to postpone the next two clauses.

remarked, that he did not remember that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yet stated what the amount of the loan would be.

replied, that the aggregate amount would be about £500,000, and it was proposed that the money should be advanced from the Church Funds.

said, the Amendment he was about to move was the only one as to which he had not come to a definite agreement with the Government. He proposed, at line 6, in page 3, to leave out the word "ten," in order that the word "twenty" might be inserted. He thought it right to say that he had not come to any definite agreement with the Government as to this Amendment; but it was the only one as to which they were not agreed, and he hoped that they might still see their way to accept it. He might add that he had no other Amendments to propose, except such as were already agreed to. When the original Bill was brought in the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to say that the Government accepted the principle of the Bill with one or two unimportant reservations, and he hoped this would not be one of them. The object of his Amendment was to extend the power of the Guardians to sell seed. He know many occupiers between £10 and £20 who certainly would find themselves in distressed circumstances, and would, he believed, be very glad to have power to buy seed. These people would not be able to obtain fresh seed for themselves, because the seed was sent from Dublin or Scotland in waggon loads of six tons at a time—a quantity which was quite beyond their reach. Of course, they might be able to get it from the local seed dealers; but, on the other hand, these occupiers would have far more confidence in the magistrates and Guardians. It would be unwise to give seed to such persons as these; while, on the other hand, they would be the very persons to whom it should be sold in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, because they would be the first to set an example to others how to pay. The effect of a certain number of people in the district paying up readily would have a very good effect; and for this reason alone the Bill might fairly be extended to persons holding land valued at more than £10.

wished to support the Amendment, because he found, on looking over the Agricultural Statistics for the year 1878, that by far the largest number of holdings were of 30 acres and under, while, on the other hand, potatoes were by far the largest crop grown. It was in the proportion of 3 to 1; and, therefore, he thought it was only fair that the Amendment should be accepted.

said, originally a distinction was drawn between occupiers and owners. The Government had now undertaken to re-consider that proposition, in order still further to meet the objects of the Bill. Now, the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) proposed to abolish the distinction between occupiers above £10 and occupiers below it, so that both would stand upon an equal footing. But, surely, the line must be drawn somewhere? While the hon. and gallant Member for Galway drew it at £20, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had last spoken wanted to draw it at £30. [Major NOLAN: No; 30 acres.] Well, that would probably give a value of over £20, and that showed the difficulty of agreeing on a fixed point. Of course, this was not a Party question; but, still, he presumed that they were all agreed that there was some point at which a limit must be placed. Upon careful consideration the Government had agreed that the limit proposed was the most reasonable one; for, of course, they could not undertake to supply seed to the whole of Ireland. He hoped the Committee would see that the proposition in the Bill was a fair and reasonable one.

pressed the Government very strongly to accept the Amendment. There were two or three farmers in his own immediate neighbourhood holding land of the value of between £10 and £20 whoso potato crops had been a total failure, who had no money to pay their rent, and who, therefore, were actually in a worse position than some of their poorer neighbours. He did not think the Amendment would make any great difference to the Government, for the number of holdings between £10 and £20 was not very large; while, on the other hand, the concession would be of very great advantage to these poor people.

observed, that there was one point to which he wished to direct particular attention. Quito irrespective of the relief of the existing distress, any legislation which would lead to the introduction of new potato seed into Ireland would be of the very greatest benefit. The want of fresh seed was the cause of much of the distress and of the blight and bad potato crops; and it was so patent that the introduction of now seed was absolutely necessary, that he hoped that as the question of increasing the facilities for obtaining seed on favourable terms under the Bill was hanging in the balance the Government would be influenced in their decision by the consideration of the enormous advantage that would be conferred on Ireland by the general introduction of fresh seed.

said, it would, no doubt, be a most advantageous thing for Ireland if they could supply the whole country with a fresh stock of seed; but they must measure their actions by what they had the power to do. It must be remembered that they had already, by the propositions contained in this Bill, incurred a liability of at least £500,000. It must also be borne in mind that the effect of purchasing large quantities of seed, to be sold to the people on extremely lenient terms, must be to considerably increase the price of seed to other persons. The further they went, and the more the Government took upon itself the onus of the first expenditure on providing seed, and offering it to occupiers of land on the terms proposed by the Bill, the more the price of seed was likely to be raised against the purchasers of potato seed, on their own account, either in Ireland itself, or in other parts of the United Kingdom. That was a point which they were obliged to keep within view. They knew what they were now proposing to do for the smallest class of owners; and to carry that undertaking further than the real necessity of the case demanded, was to incur a very serious responsibility indeed. In making this provision for the small class of occupiers, who were really not in a position to procure seed for themselves, they were justified in their acts by the facts already known to them. But, on the other hand, he did not think they would be justified in extending the measure further than was at present proposed in the Bill.

said, the Government had met them so reasonably in regard to this Bill, that nothing would be further from their wish than to put pressure upon them. He hoped, therefore, that they would not be driven to a division. There was a great deal of force in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said. This was a Bill for the purpose of helping small tenants and small farmers. Of course, if they went further they would always be sure to find plenty of men in great distress who would be very glad to purchase seed for their land from the Government on these favourable terms. He would, therefore, suggest to the Go- vernment that they should make the limit £15 instead of £10. It would not increase the number of persons benefited very much, nor would it increase, to any considerable extent, the responsibilities of the Government; while, on the other hand, it would in some parts of the country very decidedly increase the benefits of the Bill. In the South of Ireland, for instance, there were a very great many farmers cultivating something between 20 acres and 25 acres of land, the value of which was certainly under £15; while in the West of Ireland, on the other hand, there were a very large number of farmers whose holdings were under £10. He hoped his hon. and gallant Friend would consent to vary his Amendment to the extent he had suggested.

pressed the Government to make the limit £20. There were many persons, to his certain knowledge, with holdings of the value of both £10 and £15, especially in Gal way and Mayo, to whom it would be their duty to give seed, for they would never be able to find the seed for themselves?

This is a subject of very great importance, and, at the same time, of very great difficulty. We have been for some weeks in communication with the highest authorities in Ireland, and with persons well acquainted with agriculture, on the subject, and I should not at all like to make any alteration in the amount at which we have arrived, after very full consideration, without time for consultation with those by whom we have, in a great measure, been guided. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, and allow £10 for the present to stand in the Bill, we will on Monday announce whether we can consent to raise the sum to £15.

hoped the Government by Monday or Tuesday would see its way not merely to a sum of £15, but would also accept his original Amendment of £20. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw), who was better acquainted with the subject than anybody else in the House, had strongly supported the proposal for £20.

declared that the Ayes had it.

Oh! no; I accepted the Amendment.

It is too late now. I declared that the Ayes had it, and no one challenged my decision.

said, it did not matter. He would propose instead, after the word "acre," in line 7, the words "or an acre." Then on the Report they could strike out the words "a half acre."

said, he supposed the intention of his hon. and gallant Friend was that the amount sold to each occupier should not be greater than £5. The clause, as now amended, might read that the total amount which the Guardians were authorized to sell was £5.

said, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had gone over the Bill very carefully with him, and he thought the words would scarcely bear the construction just suggested. If, however, there were any mistake, it could easily be remedied on the Report.

wished to propose, as a further Amendment, to insert before the words "five pounds," the words "together with such quantity of artificial manure as may be considered necessary." He proposed this Amendment, because it would be quite useless to give tenants—in the West of Ireland, at any rate—seed potatoes of a high quality, and not to give them at the same time artificial manure to use with them. There were a great number of tenants who did not require anything like the quantity of potatoes sufficient for an acre, or oven half-an-acre of land; but he would give them such an amount of artificial manure as would really fertilize the crop. He was quite certain that if they gave these people potatoes without any manure the seed would be only wasted, for at present they had no means of really using it to advantage. So long as the amount of the grant was kept within the limit of £5, he did not see why the people should not have that done for them which was most beneficial to them.

Is it, Sir, within the Instruction to the Committee as to the Bill that this Amendment should be inserted? I doubt whether we can insert this Amendment.

The Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member is, after the words just inserted, to insert these words—

"And seed, oats, or other seed sufficient to sow another aero of land, statute measure, provided that the total cost of such seed shall not exceed £5 for any one occupier."

The Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) is after the word "seed" to insert these words—

"Together with such quantity of artificial manure as may be considered necessary, provided," &c.

The objection taken is that there is no provision in the Bill or the Instruction for lending money for other purposes than seed, and that this Amendment is outside the Instruction given to the Committee. The Instruction given to the Committee is one extending the operation of the Bill to other classes of seed only. I think, therefore, that the objection, technically, is correct, and that any proposition to include a loan for the purpose of purchasing artificial manure cannot be entertained. The point is a very small one; but I am obliged to rule in favour of the objection, because there can be no doubt that the object of the Instruction, as well as of the Bill, is merely to provide loans for the purpose of purchasing seed.

suggested that the object of the Bill was not merely to provide seed, but to take care that the seed was vitalized—that it might grow and become reproductive. They did not desire merely to provide potatoes to rot.

Under that construction, we might provide forks and spades also.

I think that I cannot put that Amendment, and that I must put the Amendment originally proposed.

complained that the House generally, and private Members especially, who were interested in this Bill, had had very little opportunity of considering it. There seemed to be some private compact between two or three Members and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the rest were to have no opportunity of considering it. The Bill was only distributed two or three hours before they went into Committee. It dealt with matters of the most extreme importance, and he considered it had not been dealt with properly. On so serious a subject the Irish Members were entitled to have full time to consider the provisions of this Bill. Instead of that being given to them, some private arrangement had been made between one or two hon. Gentlemen and the Chief Secretary.

remarked that, during the recent debate on Free Trade, he saw two Colleagues representing the town of Leeds advocating entirely different views. One proposed one course of policy, only to hear his Colleague and brother Member immediately afterwards pointing out that that policy was entirely wrong. They remained, however, very good friends in spite of that. It was still more important that he and his hon. Colleague who had just spoken should not have any difference of opinion on this point. It was no secret that in the debate which took place a day or two previously several hon. Members declared that a Bill which merely gave a loan to the tenant would be of no use, and that it would be necessary to make them a free gift. If he thought there was the slightest possibility of obtaining a free gift from the Government, he certainly should not have brought in this Bill. He had acted upon what he thought the Cabinet were likely to do. He judged the Government by the acts of previous Governments as well as their own; and he felt that if he brought in a Bill for a free gift there was not the slightest chance of its passing. He therefore brought in one which he thought they could get enacted before the time came when it was absolutely necessary that the seed should be sown. It was very painful for him to have to differ from any Member of his Party, because their objects were the same, and they were both alike anxious to provide seed for the tenants of Ireland in the best possible way. Possibly he and his hon. Friends had formed a different opinion about the means to be employed. He was sorry to differ as to means with any hon. Member on that side of the House, especially with any Irish Member; and he was still more pained that there should be any difference on this subject between himself and his hon. Colleague. He wished to explain, therefore, that he drafted the Bill in Dublin, and brought it in before he had any knowledge of what the Government were going to do, and it was printed before, as he believed, the Government even saw it. It turned out that they were drafting a Bill with the same central idea of lending money without interest through the Poor Law Unions, and of making the Poor Law Unions responsible for it. As to hurrying the Bill on, it undoubtedly had been hurried on; but, on the other hand, it was distributed more than two or three hours ago. It was distributed four or five hours ago; and Irish Members who had been waiting to help it on had had an opportunity of reading it, and it had received very considerable consideration. It was, as they all knew, of the greatest importance that this Bill should be pressed on, for the reason that the planting of potatoes began about the 10th or the 15th of March, and in the South of Ireland still earlier. It must be remembered that they had not merely to finish the Bill, but they had to give the Guardians of the poor time to consider it, and to order potatoes from Scotland. In this case, therefore, speed was not hurry, and there was no reason why they should not get the measure through Committee in four or five hours. He did hope that no Member would delay the progress of the Bill. He quite admitted that if his hon. Colleague had drafted the Bill it would have been much better as a Bill; but he (Major Nolan) thought that his own had a better chance of passing. It was far more important that the people should get the seed than that they should discuss what was the best way in which they should get it, and the question of re-payment was a very small one.

did not see any necessity for this sudden outburst of affection for himself on the part of his hon. and gallant Colleague, for he had no controversy with his hon. and gallant Friend. The object which they all had in view was to make the best Bill possible. It seemed that, according to the Bill, they could not give the small tenants who were to have the seed the fertilizers which would make it useful. The fact that he was defeated in his attempt to move a useful Amendment merely on a technical point was very strong evidence of the injudicious way in which this business had been managed. He would have suggested this Amendment before if he had seen the Bill earlier; but if it could now be introduced in any way it would be quite satisfactory. Would it be possible to move words on the Report which would result in effecting what he desired?

considered this provision for the re-payment by small tenants of the amount of the cost of seeds to be exceedingly injudicious. The clause provided that tenants should make this re-payment in money; but it was well known that they lived upon their potatoes and did not sell them. The seed which would be given to them, and which would germinate, would, therefore, never be turned into money at all. In those circumstances, he was at a loss to know whence the tenants could get the money to repay the loans, which were recoverable, in the most stringent manner, through the Courts of Session, which would subject the tenants to the seizure of their chattels. They were already in debt to their landlords, and still further in debt to the shopkeepers, and Her Majesty's Government were now going to tie another mill-stone of debt around their necks; the result would be that a great many tenants would fail to repay the amounts as they became duo. The Government were inducing chari- table persons to give food to the poor tenants; and why, under these circumstances, they should not give them small quantities of seed potatoes and oats, necessary to supply them with food during the next year, he could not imagine. When seed was sent from this country to France, the French tenants were not asked for re-payment. It appeared to him that the supply of seed ought to be distributed entirely as a gift; and if it were given through relief committees—through clergymen in the various districts, or through landlords who would take charge of it—the seed would not be misapplied, and the tenants would not need this obligation to be placed upon them of re-paying the cost, which would only add to the debt by which they were already weighed down. He quite agreed that the Bill should be passed without unnecessary delay; but he could not see that a few hours spent by hon. Members in consultation would make any difference whatever: for, as it was, the Committee had no opportunity of making the measure such as it ought to be.

suggested that the clause should be amended, so that discretion might be left to the Guardians to consider the circumstances of each person to whom advances were to be made.

said, that, of course, the Boards of Guardians had specific power to recover the amounts due. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry), taking exception to this clause, referred to the gifts of seed mad to the French peasantry. He (Mr. 'J. Lowther) would remind the hon. Member that these were gifts which came from private sources, and stood upon an entirely different footing to advances made by the State. Her Majesty's Government did not propose to pauperize the people; they only desired to afford them some assistance, making, at the same time, provision for the re-payment of the cost.

said, that the provision was simply made in order that persons should not be able to avail themselves of the bounty of Parliament for the purposes of fraud. There was no idea whatever of instituting this wonderful organ of oppression referred to by the hon. Member for Galway.

equally objected to this clause. As a matter of fact, he objected to the Bill altogether, but especially to this clause as it stood, which gave the Guardians of the Union power to proceed before justices of petty sessions for the recovery of amounts claimed. In this case, the sum of £2 was mentioned; but he had already explained to the Committee that the tenants would not have £2 to pay. They had no means of turning their potatoes into money in the West of Ireland, where they did not sell their potatoes at all, but put them up into pits, keeping them for food during the year. They were about to give to the Guardians the strongest power known to the law for the recovery of these debts, and the clause, in his opinion, appeared to be most arbitrary.

was glad to accept the responsibility of this clause. The Committee would remember that the Boards of Guardians had to be persuaded to exercise their powers, and it was therefore necessary to give them the greatest possible facility for recovery. They must have facilities for the recovery of the debts, or they could not be expected to give the seed.

said, this clause involved a financial question to which he desired to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He suggested that a clause should be inserted carrying out the same provisions with regard to the remitted interest appearing as a charge on the Revenue of the year as in the India Bill of last year, when money, as in this instance, was advanced by the Exchequer without interest.

quite understood the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers), which should receive his consideration.

believed that there would exist at all times difficulties with the Boards of Guardians in Ireland as to whether they would carry out the provisions of the Bill. He believed that the provisions of the Bill would not be carried out in many cases, and that the Guardians would not make use of the powers given to them, because the inducements to do so were not sufficient. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Lowther) whether it was proposed to compel the Boards of Guardians to do so?

said, if his Colleague (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would look to Clause 2, he would see that this point had already been provided for, and that the Local Government Board might require the Boards of Guardians to put into force the provisions of the Act. As a matter of fact, this was doubly provided for in the Bill.

wished to utter one word of warning with regard to the seed to be sown. As soon as it was known that seed was wanted, a large number of charitably disposed people would, no doubt, volunteer to sell, at the best possible price, potatoes for seed. Care should be taken that no seed should be purchased except such as was suited to the Irish climate. There was a talk of importing seed potatoes from America. He ventured to say that if that was done the result would be simply ruinous to the next year's crop, and that entire failure would follow from planting such seed. He believed himself that Scotch potatoes were the best suited for planting in Ireland; and it would certainly be the duty of the Local Government Board, in sending out their Circular to the Guardians, to call attention to this very important point. If unsuitable seed was sown, the result would be disastrous; for the farmers would lose their crops, and the Guardians the advances they had made. He hoped the Government would consult persons of experience and knowledge on this point, and take care that no mischief was done by providing seed potatoes not likely to suit the soil and climate of Ireland. It was unfortunate, also, that hon. Members generally had not had an opportunity of looking over and thoroughly considering this Bill. Things done in a hurry were seldom well done. He had not had any opportunity of examining the provisions of the Bill, except during the past few minutes; but it had occurred to him that an indirect result of the measures which the Government and the hon. and gallant Member had brought in might be to disfranchise all those who took advantage of the relief to be afforded. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway should see to the matter so far as the present Bill was concerned, and have it made clear that under the Registration of Parliamentary Voters' Acts the acceptance of relief under the Bill would not be held to disfranchise an elector. He was sorry also that the penal clauses were inserted.

undertook, if the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken would prepare a clause dealing with this last point, to bring it up on the Report. He did not think the matter affected himself personally, because nobody under £10 had a right to vote. Still, the clause would be very useful in preventing any question on the point. He believed it would be necessary to report Progress after this clause, unless there was means of bringing up the Report on the money clauses. If that could be done, of course it would much facilitate Business.

said, that in the Circular now in course of preparation a warning would be inserted to cultivators with regard to the seed that should be sown. Of course, it would be improper, in any suggestions offered on this clause, to advise the use of any one particular class of seed exclusive of others, except with a view of affording facilities for the dissemination of seeds of various kinds. The hon. and learned Member had alluded to American potatoes. This was probably a question upon which Home Rule would not be a very popular cry; for he believed they were all a greed that potatoes other than Irish were what ought to be sown. He hoped the advice given in the Circular would be sufficient to prevent error on this point. He believed it would not be possible to take the Report on the money clauses that night, and therefore it would be necessary to report Progress.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman, or those who were responsible for this Bill, had calculated the quantity of seed potatoes which would actually be required, or was likely to be required? If this Bill was to be made of any practical use, there would be the greatest difficulty in procuring seed potatoes in the proper quantity; and, as a consequence, they would have a series of jobs and speculations as to the supply of seed, which would deprive this measure of half the benefit it was intended to confer upon the tenants. Half the benefit to be derived from this measure was, that it would substitute new seed for the worn out seed which had so long been sown in Ireland. In his humble opinion, when the Government became aware of the great deficiency there would be in the supply of seed, they should, through agents, have purchased in various places, without giving notice to anybody, large quantities of the proper kind of seed. They could have done that in various ways, as on former occasions. For instance, they might have acted confidentially through some of the large seed merchants. |There were many honourable firms, who, without disclosing the name of their purchaser, would have contracted for large quantities of the proper kinds of seed in different parts of the world. Or again, if they had put this matter into the hands of the Director of the Navy Contracts, he could easily have purchased large quantities of seed potatoes, and had them ready for distribution by this time. That was the reason why he objected to relieving the Government of their proper responsibility, which they, as Irish Members, had chosen to do by bringing in this Bill. If it produced evil, or, at any rate, did not accomplish all the good that was to be expected, the natural answer of the Government would be—"Why we adopted your own measure." He maintained that to prepare for this emergency was a duty incumbent on the Government; and that by the hon. and gallant Member rushing in with a ready prepared Bill, which the Government eagerly grasped at and adopted, they had placed themselves in a very false position. For his part, he wished to wash his hands of any responsibility for the Bill.

said, that with regard to the answer of his hon. and gallant Friend, that persons rated at less than £10 were not entitled to vote, he must call attention to the fact that the proposal was to extend the operation of the Bill on Report to persons rated at £15 or £20. Besides, it must be remembered that a person might be rated in respect to more than one holding, in order to qualify him for the franchise. It was necessary, therefore, to take care that people should not be disfranchised by taking advantage of the provisions of this Bill.