have spent over a scheme, but that 16 out of the 40 days given by Government as a security and guarantee against bad administration on the part of the Commissioners had been taken away. The Government must provide some remedy against the recurrence of such delay if the terms of the Act were to be honestly carried out. LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH wished to say a few words on the matter of the Endowed Schools Commission which had had to do with those schemes. The Chairman of that Commission was detained in Scotland by his judicial duties; and he had requested him, in consequence of this matter being brought forward, to state the facts of a few of the cases mentioned in the Motion. He need hardly say that no Member of the Commission would have thought it consistent with his duty to bring such a matter before the House, because, although they were always glad when the Reports which they had to give in were agreed to and acted upon, still it was a public duty they had been discharging, and it was in no degree a personal question whether any of the recommendations they made were given effect to or not. But there was one point in connection with the way in which these recommendations had been dealt with he should like to bring under their Lordships' notice. They, as a Commission, had never in any single instance received any intimation as to whether their recommendations were to be given effect to or not; and, therefore, they had been wholly unable to give any information to parties promoting those schemes, whether or not those schemes would obtain the sanction of the Government and be laid on the Table of the House. In a matter of this importance, he submitted that the Commission appointed to inquire into these schemes and to make recommendations was not quite fairly treated when they were never informed, either by the Home Office or any other Government Department, whether their recommendations were to be given effect to or not. In the case of Burnett's Trust, for example, their Lordships would remember how a scheme not only not the same as the scheme which the Commission gave their sanction to, but utterly inconsistent with it on many important points, was laid on the Table without one whisper of infor mation that the Commission had dealt with the matter at all, and not a hint was given that an alternative scheme much more in consonance with the Founder's will had been transmitted by the Commission to the Home Office. With reference to the case of Donaldson's Endowment, Stonehaven, of which the annual revenue was £85, it was his opinion that if a Commission could not be trusted to deal with such small sums, it was very little use indeed appointing the Commission. In this case there was no opposition, and no now remit was made to the Commission; although a whole year had passed since the Commission had reported, yet the order was refused. Now, certainly, in such a case, the Governing Body had not been very fairly used. In the case of the Kellae Trust, Haddington, the net annual revenue of which was £37 68., their recommendation was to vest the fund in the School Board, for the purpose of founding bursaries for children in Haddington, to be competed for by open competition, to be held within the leading school of the town, the sole surviving trustee, who agreed in the proposal, to be associated with the School Board in the discharge of the trust during his life. That recommendation was made on the 6th of August, 1880; no further communication of any kind had been made to the Commission, and yet this Order had been refused. Now, he had seen it stated in the public prints that effect had been given to certain opposition on the part of the Provost and Magistrates of Haddington, who disapproved because no special provision was made for clothing; but he could hardly believe such a thing possible, and he should be very glad to hear from the Government that that had not been the ground of their refusing this Order. He felt it his duty to himself and his Colleagues on the Commission to press, in accordance with what the noble Duke had said, for a full explanation of the principles which had governed the Home Office in refusing their consent to those schemes. EARL SPENCER said, that, as the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) had observed, the Education Department had no responsibility for the action finally taken in regard to those schemes. That Department, however, was consulted, as the noble Duke well knew, on the schemes when they were submitted to the Home Office. As to the point which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) had pressed on his noble Friend who represented the Home Office, he had to say that Her Majesty's Government regretted exceedingly that the Papers were not circulated immediately after they were presented. They were not presented, as the noble Duke seemed to think, in "dummy," but were presented entire; and he confessed that it was a matter of regret that they had not been circulated sooner. His noble Friend would inquire into the reasons for the delay; for he admitted that it was highly inconvenient that after those Papers had been laid on the Table they should not have been immediately circulated. With respect to the scheme generally, he would point out that out of the 10 to which the noble Duke had called attention, one of them was dealt with completely under the late Government. The noble Duke said he was not aware what the answer was as to the scheme having been ultra vires. No doubt, he was quite right in that. But that scheme was entirely disposed of by the late Government. Of the remaining schemes, as his noble Friend had said, some of them had not been proceeded with because there was a strong local opposition. As to the others, the Education Department held that there were various objections, in some cases of greater, in others of less importance, to them. Those objections were sent to the Home Office, and in one case the scheme was remitted again to the Commission. But when the Home Secretary found that there was a considerable difference between the Education Department and the Commissioners, and that there was not time for the proper consideration of the subject, he thought that the much more prudent course would be not to deal with it this year. It was not fair to say that there were 10 schemes, because in regard to the case of Wilson's Schools there was a desire evinced on the part of some of those concerned to amalgamate those small funds; and as there was no power under the Act which regulated those matters to make that amalgamation, it was thought desirable to defer the consideration of those subjects to another time. He was glad that the noble Duke had stated that he would not press his Motion as it stood on the Paper, because he (Earl Spencer) believed it would be un Earl Spencer paralleled that the reasons why schemes had not been passed should be presented to Parliament. THE SUGAR INDUSTRIES-PETITION THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY, in rising to present a Petition from merchants, planters, and others connected with the Island of Barbadoes, said: My Lords, I have taken the unusual course of giving Notice of an intention to present this Petition in order that I might preface that step with a few observations, not only because the Petition is from a distant Colony, and is, therefore, deserving consideration and attention at your Lordships' hands, but also because it expresses the feelings of a portion of Her Majesty's subjects who, like many others at the present moment, are complaining that their interests are adversely affected, and that their industry is being destroyed, by the fiscal action of foreign Powers. The growth of this feeling in the country must be familiar to your Lordships, and it is not necessary that I should dilate upon it. A very remarkable change of feeling has taken place in many centres of industry, and complaints or proposals are being made which, 10 years ago, would have been held impossible. But I will not propose to enter upon that portion of the commercial discontent of the present day which deals with the question of adverse fiscal duties, and which claims retaliatory duties as a protection. It is not necessary that I should discuss that subject; it is one of exceeding difficulty, and I should be sorry to say anything that might be interpreted to be at variance with those principles of commercial policy which this country has deliberately adopted. But the particular case which the planters and merchants of Barbadoes wish to bring before your Lordships, and before the English public, does not deal with the particular class of proposals which are commonly known under the name of Reciprocity. The fiscal measures of foreign Governments give advantages to their own subjects in two ways. They impose duties of protection which exclude our goods from their markets. In that case they give a bounty to their own traders at the expense of their own consumers. The case I have to bring before you does not | collected evidence and considered the belong to that class. It is the case of matter with great care, and made, last foreign Governments, by direct bounties Session, a very exhaustive and able Redrawn from the resources of the tax- port on the subject. The Prayer of the payer, cheapening products of their own Petition, and the considerations which manufacturers and driving the manu- I shall urge on the Government, do not factures of other countries, and espe- go beyond the proposals of the Commitpecially of this Empire, out of the tee. I only ask that due attention should market. Now, the particular country be given to these proposals, and that whose legislation in this respect has they should not be entirely neglected. given cause for the complaint of the The Committee said, and said in very West Indian planters is Austria, and the distinct language, that very serious daway in which the sugar industry is ad- mage is being done by the policy of versely affected is this. In Austria a foreign Governments to which I have tax is raised on the native beet-root referred. It appears from the Report sugar, which is largely exported, and a that much of the sugar industry of drawback is then given to the exporter; the West Indies has been destroyed, but the drawback is so calculated that it and that 50 sugar-growing estates have gives a large bounty to the exporter, been abandoned; while, in 1879, 36 such giving him back a great deal more than estates were advertised for sale without he had paid to his own Government, and purchasers being found for them. All so enriching him that he is able to go to the witnesses on this branch of the subother markets with sugar at a much ject agree in looking for the general cheaper price than those producers who abandonment "of sugar cultivation " if have not received similar advantages the present state of things continues. can afford to sell at. The result is that If this is the consequence of the action the Austrian raw sugar has been sup- of any foreign Government over whom ported by the taxes of the Austrian sub. we have any influence, the matter is one jects, and has been able to compete more for the grave consideration of Her Maand more with the sugar grown by our jesty's Government, and ought to be own planters, who have not such an ad- dealt with before it is magnified into a vantage to support them. So keen, ap- very great grievance. It is impossible parently, has the Austrian Government to mention such a state of things withbeen in this policy that they actually out bearing in mind a similar grievance at one time paid back in drawbacks which exists with reference to sugar remore than the whole of the duty they fining. It is exactly the same complaint, received from beet-root. The results applied to another branch of the same have been very severe on the West trade. The French Government gives Indian planters. The consumption of a drawback to the sugar refiners who sugar in this country has, as your Lord- export the produce of their industry. ships know, grown enormously during That drawback is calculated too high, the last 10 years, owing to the in- and the result is that a very considercrease in wealth and population and the able bounty is given out of the French abolition of our duty; but, notwith- taxes to those who export it, and the standing that fact, the import from the French refiner is able to sell at a price West Indian planters has been almost which utterly undersells and destroys absolutely stationary, while the advan- the profits of the English manufacturer. tage of the State subsidy on the part of The consequences have been, in the Austria is shown by the fact that within same way, most lamentable. the last few years the export of beet- six years ago there was a very flourishroot sugar has increased from 600,000 ing sugar-refining industry in this countons to more than 1,500,000 tons. The try. The competition of the French resugar bounty question has engaged the finer, supported by the bounty out of consideration of successive Governments; the French taxes, has driven the Engand, after much negotiation with foreign lish refiner out of the English market, Powers, it was thought by the late Go- and all the establishments which existed vernment that the best course would be five or six years ago have now been to allow the matter to be referred to a closed, and the trade is absolutely deCommittee of the House of Commons. stroyed. Now, do not tell me we are It was so referred, and that Committee bound, by the principles of Free Trade, Five or inquiry into the matter, and, in the event of its being found impossible to arrive at an International agreement for the suppression of bounties, they were prepared to recommend the adoption of such a course had it been practicable under our existing Treaties; and they were of opinion that on the renewal of those Treaties the opportunity should be taken of making such alterations as would leave Her Majesty's Government at liberty to deal with the question. With reference to the negotiations which are now going on with France, I think Her Majesty's Government are bound to see that some arrangements are made to look on coldly and calmly and see | manufacturers and Government have to this destruction of British industries contend. It is well known that one of accomplished, because if you lay down the great difficulties-as was pointed that principle broadly and strongly, and out in a memorable speech delivered by say that nothing shall induce you to in- the Earl of Beaconsfield some years ago terfere when a foreign Government is is the network of Favoured Nation destroying British industry, you may Clauses which now exist, and which be quite sure that these undertakings would hinder us from taking any which have been hitherto so successful isolated action. The reason why I will be imitated in other industries, and wish to press this subject on the industry after industry will be destroyed Government at the present moment by the co-operation of the foreign Go- is because the Committee, at the close vernments with the foreign manufac- of their Report, make some important turer, against which the British manu- proposals. They recommend Her Mafacturer is absolutely powerless. The fo-jesty's Government to institute careful reign Government, practically speaking, is illimitably rich. It enters into partnership with its own manufacturers. It invests its property in the promotion of their industry, and the British industry, undefended as it is, must necessarily go down. If it really is the case that considerable benefit to the consumer results from this policy, that will, no doubt, be a very material consolation, and grounds for hesitating very much before pronouncing an adverse opinion; but the benefit to the consumer is, in reality, transient. It is always open to the foreign Government to enter into partnership with its own manufacturers to destroy British industry altogether-if they do make a Treaty-for reand make British capital unproductive, and then, when that is done, there is no necessity that the bounty should be continued. Capital will not be invested in industries of this kind unless there is some prospect of stability of conditions, and if industry is always liable to be destroyed by a sudden incursion of a foreign Government using the taxes of its own subjects for the purpose of destroying that industry, the British capitalist will not risk his capital by sinking it in the machinery | and buildings necessary for carrying on the trade. I cannot pass on without remarking that the French Government have made a further step along this path already. There is already a bounty given upon ships, sailing and steaming, and it is given in proportion to the amount of tonnage they actually carry. I do not know what effect these new measures will have on the British industry of shipbuilding; but it is looked on with considerable alarm, and I mention it as an indication of the policy which is guiding foreign Governments, and as a danger against which our own The Marquess of Salisbury dressing this great injury under which a once flourishing British industry and a considerable number of workmen are now suffering. But they may go further. If they agree with the French Government in this matter of the sugar refiners I have very little doubt that Austria will be disposed to come to terms. The matter is one for negotiation, and, if advocated by England and France combined, there will be a greater chance of success than if urged by England alone. I earnestly trust Her Majesty's Government will not simply neglect the matter and pass by on the other side. There is a cry arising for remedies which may perplex the ablest statesman to discover and apply. I know that a great authority, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster-the same authority who, 30 years ago, was so fond of telling us that all nations were likely at once to adopt Free Trade-now tells us that a demand for measures of a reciprocal or retaliatory character is a sign of lunacy. I have no wish that any action should be adopted inconsistent with sound Free Trade; but I should hesitate to apply the name of lunatics to those not of my own opinion, because I fear we should be in the awkward position of finding there are more people lunatics in the world than sane-an observation which always exposes to some doubt the sanity of the person who makes it. I do not think that by calling people lunatics Her Majesty's Government will stop this cry or apply any real remedy to the evils which exist. If they neglect it, if they do not take some pains to remove such grievances as these, I fear they will find themselves confronted, before long, with a political problem with which they will have some difficulty in dealing. Petition for countervailing duties upon foreign sugar imported under bounty into the United Kingdom; of Planters, Merchants, &c. of Barbadoes-Presented (The Marquess of SALISBURY). Petition read. and insinuated that the time would come when it would be wise to embark on a course of Reciprocity and Retaliation. I wish the noble Marquess had stated more fully what policy he was in favour of, because if he were in favour of Reciprocity and Retaliation, he might have indicated how that policy was to be pursued, and whether he would be prepared to introduce the system. I, for my part, think it is a great error to blame persons who happen to differ from me and others on the subject of Free Trade, because it is undoubtedly true that a very large number of educated men are still in favour of the policy of Protection; and we ourselves, not a very long time ago, thought it was a sound system. But if we are to discuss this question, let us discuss it face to face, and not on such a Notice as the noble Marquess has given. I have not lost faith in Free Trade, and I believe it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to form a practicable Tariff on this subject which can be submitted with any confidence to any body of men, and by which the Reciprocity system can again be introduced. The difficulties of the West India planters are of old standing. They are connected, as is well known, with the system of industry in that region and with many other causes. I sympathize with them, but I confess, as a consumer in this country, I am not altogether in favour of a movement which seems to be directed to taxing the consumers of sugar in this country, and especially to encourage the production of West India sugar. The noble Marquess has not given your Lordship any figures, but I understand him to say that there is a considerable decrease in the production of sugar in the West Indies. THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Marquess gave a Notice which I will venture to read::-"To present a Petition from merchants, planters, and others connected with the Island of Barbadoes." Well, I wondered what might possibly be the subject which the noble Marquess intended to bring before us, because there are a good many different questions connected with Barbadoes. I then obtained the information that the subject had some connection with the sugar bounties. It seemed to me that upon a matter of such importance as one connected with Free Trade and Reciprocity, Notice should have been given that that was the subject which was about to be brought forward. I do not complain of the course taken by the noble Marquess so far as I am concerned; but, no Notice having been given, your Lordships were not prepared for the speech which the noble Marquess made. The noble Marquess said he would not go into the question of Reciprocity, or say anything which would be inconsistent with the principles of that commercial policy THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: The which has been adopted by this coun- impression made on my mind during try; but the greater part of his speech, the speech of the noble Marquess was I thought, was intended to encourage that there had been a great decrease in those who wish to see those principles the production of sugar. However, the departed from. He attacked my right Petition presented to the House is from hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy the planters of Barbadoes, and I will venof Lancaster, one of the principal Eng-ture to ask the noble Marquess whether, lish advocates of Free Trade principles, in the face of the figures which I will read THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, what I said was that the importation of sugar had, during the last few years, practically stood still; and whereas the importation of beet-root sugar was formerly 600,000 tons, it was now 1,500,000 tons. |