SECOND READING. (Hansard, 14 February 1890)

§ DR. TANNER (Cork Co., Mid)

I really must object to this Bill being brought on at this time of night. The measure must be received by the House with grave suspicion. The hon. Member has been for a very long time identified with the opposition to Free Trade, and any ordinary observer can 402 easily see at what he is driving. One of the favourite methods of procedure adopted by the hon. Member and his Friends is that of attacking Foreign Merchandise imported into this country. Last year I had not the opportunity of seeing many of the measures that were brought before the House, because, owing to the method of procedure adopted in Ireland, I, like many a better man, had to do my six months. At all events, I see what this Bill proposes. It provides that no goods which do not bear a legible and conspicuous mark of origin shall be imported. The measure seems to be loosely and imperfectly drafted. The hon. Member who moved the second reading has not given us the slightest explanation, and I should like to ask some of the hon. Members whose names appear on the back of the Bill—I see there are no less than seven of them—to explain its proposals to the House I conceive it to be a very insane proposition that any restriction should be placed on the importation of goods of foreign manufacture into this country. If foreign goods are of such a character as to command a market, they ought to be introduced. Every restriction you place upon imports must of necessity be disadvantageous to the major portion of the consumers. I believe this small Bill covers a deep and insidious design to introduce the thin edge of Protection. Why should you have a mark of origin on the cheap tobacco that comes from Hamburg, and the butterine sent here from Holland and elsewhere? The effect of restricting the introduction of foreign goods would be to increase the cost of similar goods to the purchaser.