KINGS SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).

HC Deb 02 February 1904 vol 129 cc106-48

* MR. HARDY (Kent, Ashford)

In rising to undertake the responsibility that falls on me to-day, I will not ask for that indulgence which has so often been asked by Members standing in a similar position, because during the twelve years I have sat in this House I have never received anything but courtesy and kindness from all sides. But, as in this year of climatic disturbance we have often found moments of calm and quiet, so after the tempestuous controversies of the recess it may be hoped that in this House my hon. friend and myself may enjoy a few moments of quiet sympathy. The Speech from the Throne itself leads us to a somewhat similar feeling, because in its opening paragraph it breathes of peace and goodwill. Used as we have been, alas, on many occasions in recent years, in the Gracious Speech from the Throne to references to wars and to the consequences of war, we must now feel a great sense of satisfaction when we find paragraph after paragraph pointing out other ways of settling international difficulties. It suggests a hopeful augury for a future when peaceful arbitration will take the place of the dread arbitrament of war. In this I think a right note has been struck in the first paragraph, which alludes to our relations with our neighbour the great country of France. That personal note is raised by the allusion to the King's recent visit to that country, and I must say that when we look at this and other paragraphs one cannot doubt that we owe much in this regard to the tact, bonhomie, and diplomatic powers of His Majesty himself. There is reference also to another exchange of international courtesies. We have been accustomed to visits between the heads of great States, but for the first time there has been an interchange of visits between the legislatures of the two countries, thereby helping to cement a friendship which I trust may continue. We heartily welcomed those who came to us as guests from France, and we in our turn were welcomed with equal warmth. We may trust that the people of the two great countries so contiguous to each other may long remain on terms of amity and of friendship. We have to remember that if we seek these new ways of deciding international disputes, there must always be those who get their way and those who are unsuccessful. In the next paragraph we find an allusion to that tribunal which has been dealing with questions of great difficulty and delicacy which had arisen between Canada and the United States. While we may congratulate ourselves that at last these ancient controversies have been put an end to, we have to remember that the adverse decision tried peculiarly our kinsmen across the sea, and we cannot withhold our admiration of the Canadian people for the calmness and good sense with which they received a decision which was undoubtedly unpalatable to them.

I pass on to the next paragraph dealing with affairs in the Far East. We all know that the fear of war is brooding over a vast area of country. We ourselves have in late years had bitter experience of the sacrifices of life and treasure involved in war. But that experience was only in connection with a land war, and we do not know what would be the result of a war by sea as well as by land, fought between the ancient Empire of Russia and the newer Empire of Japan. I think we may feel satisfied, however, that the Government —with its own experience of what war-means—will do their utmost to maintain peace. Our interests in those distant countries are very great, and deplorable would be the effect of war upon them—commercially, politically, and in every other way. Whatever the issue of the war might be, we cannot but feel that any alteration in the balance of power in that part might lead to results which might be far more deplorable than even any attack on our trade would be. At all events, as long as there is peace there is hope, and trusting in the good sense of the Emperor of Russia and our allies, the Japanese, we may still hope for a peaceful outcome of the negotiations.

I now pass from foreign matters to those which affect our colonies. I think it must be a matter of great satisfaction to us that the Commonwealth of Australia and the Colony of New Zealand, following up what occurred at the Colonial Conference in 1902, have now expressed their willingness to take up their responsibilities, to some extent, in connection with Imperial defence, and I think we ought to note that the acceptance of responsibility on their part is at the same time an acknowledgment of the necessity of unity of policy in this connection rather than a mere selfish interest. They are willing to contribute to wards Imperial defence in an Imperial manner. I think, too, we may feel very glad that the Legislature of New Zealand, following the example of Canada and of South Africa, has given sanction to a tariff which gives preference to the produce of the Mother Country in the markets of New Zealand, and I hope that this example may be followed in other parts of the Empire. With regard to the mission to Thibet, the Papers which are to be laid shortly before the House will, of course, explain its objects, and here again it must be a matter for satisfaction that it is a political mission, undertaken by the concurrence of the Suzerain Power, to enforce treaty obligations, and that it is in no sense aggressive or caused by any desire to push forward the limits of the Empire. It is, in fact, a peaceful mission for the promotion of our interests, and we hope that like many which have gone before it may remove difficulties which have been a constant source of friction on our borders.

Next I come to the Estimates. The paragraph as to these has been framed in a rather different form as compared with previous Speeches. Undoubtedly economy must be the ideal which we put forward in connection with our financial responsibility. There can be no shirking of the burdens which fall upon us in consequence of the necessity for defending this Empire, but I am sure, judging from the criticisms which have been delivered, that the national interests are closely connected with the question of defence, and we must be prepared to meet a very considerable expenditure in connection with our two great defensive forces. Only lately the Government had to purchase two battleships, the acquiring of which by other nations would have entailed very great expenditure on ourselves in order that we might maintain that standard which is absolutely necessary to secure our supremacy on the seas. We have obtained those vessels, and I do not doubt the House will acknowledge as a patriotic duty that they must be paid for. In reference to the Navy there is one critic whom we shall very much miss—one whose frank presence, rugged eloquence, and transparent single-mindedness always made his contributions to our naval debates most welcome. We shall always miss such critics, because we know that their criticisms are levelled against what they believe to be actual defects by which the supremacy of the Navy is impaired.

I do not think it would be wise to dwell to-day upon the other side of our defences. It was only yesterday the country had the advantage of learning the opinion of experts on the question of War Office reform, but it undoubtedly points to the fact that great expenditure must be incurred, though we may also hope that in future the return will be a little more worth the money. One paragraph in the Report of the War Office Reconstruction Committee seems very appropriate to the occasion. They say— The experience of the South Africa campaign has clearly shown that the system of administration prevailing was not adapted to the requirements of war, and an examination of the methods and regulations of the War Office strengthens the impressions that the real object for which this Department exists—the preparation of the military forces of the Crown for war—has not been attained. If we have not attained that object, I am sure the House, backed up by the country, will insist on it now being attained.

In the later paragraphs of His Majesty's Gracious Speech, there is promised legislation of a social character, dealing with matters which have been thoroughly inquired into by Committees and Commissions in the past few years, and I hope that those matters will receive the careful consideration of the House. During the last two or three years we have passed measures dealing with the sale of intoxicating liquors in England and Scotland, and one characteristic of those Bills was that they were debated with good temper and a serious desire to remedy actual defects in the law without any unnecessary opposition or obstruction. May I appeal to the House that in further amending the law we should approach the matter in the same spirit and with the same desire to remove defects and so bring about real temperance reform? We cannot expect such a matter to be uncontroversial, and when we attempt to deal with such questions as the permanency of licences, compensation, the restriction of the number of licences, and the discretion of the licensing authority, we are certainly in rather deep water. But is it not our business to find some solution of a question which, even in the opinion of those who have been most devoted to temperance reform, is a very real difficulty and a stumbling block in their path? I need not use my own words, as fortunately I can refer to words written by an expert in this matter which are better than any I could use. In a recent pamphlet the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division of Yorkshire uses these words— The necessity for abolishing and the right to abolish licences in the public interest is fully admitted, but the difficulty and hardship which are involved in selecting the individuals upon whom the loss shall fall is felt to be so great that it blocks the way both to the efficient administration of the present law and to the passing of the reforms that some of us earnestly desire. He goes on to say— Some of our friends have been so long and, to a large extent, so exclusively engaged in conflict with the liquor traffic that they have come to act and talk as though they and the liquor people were the only parties to be consulted. They almost entirely overlook and ignore that great middle element in the community which is not identified with either the temperance or the liquor party, but which is the majority of the nation and is the element in our midst with whom the ultimate decision will really rest. It is to that middle element we have to appeal, for if it is difficult for the Legislature to take upon itself the duty of deciding between licensees, it is also a somewhat arduous duty to throw upon the licensing authorities. Since the question of compensation was last fully discussed in this House, there has been a growing feeling on every side that some form of compensation must be devised if ever you are to have a settlement of this difficult problem. Surely, then, we ought to approach it this year with a desire to find a solution. The Royal Commission, both in its Majority and its Minority Report, decided on compensation, either in value from public funds or from the trade, or by a time limit. Last year, by a majority of two to one, this House decided in favour of compensation, and during the recent recess a great temperance manifesto has been sent out, appealing to the common-sense of middle class opinion, in which it is said that some form of compensation is necessary. Public opinion being thus formed, I trust we shall approach the question with a desire to remedy the immediate grievance caused by the action of certain licensing authorities in the country, and, at the same time, devise some means by which licences may be restricted without doing injustice to individuals, so that eventually we may approach a settlement of the question which hinders all true temperance reform.

As a county Member I must say a word as to the Bill for dealing with the valuation authorities. Long as we have been promised the reform of local taxation, certain as it is that that reform is as necessary as ever it was, there is one step which must be taken before we go into that matter; we do require a strong valuation authority, and we want one basis of valuation in connection with rating. Therefore I welcome the intention of the Government to deal with the matter; first, because it is a crying grievance in itself, and secondly, because I trust it will lead to that further reform of local taxation which is one of the most important subjects of legislation. We in agricultural parts have received a certain form of relief, but it has been only of a temporary character, and when the time comes for a thorough revision of the matter the agricultural interest will again have to ask from the hands of Parliament consideration of their special grievances—grievances which still bear heavily upon them, and which always come more and more into evidence as the burden of local taxation increases.

There is one other matter, and that is the announcement that a Bill is to be brought forward to remove a somewhat curious anomaly which exists in the recollection of Members on the acceptance of office. This is a self-denying ordinance, inasmuch it will not apply to the present Parliament. Doubtless there will be found some persons on the other side who love bye-elections so much that they will object to forego the chance of having one; but surely if the matter is looked into it will be seen that this is a case for reform. Is it not somewhat ludicrous that in the reconstruction of a Ministry the battle should fall not on the leading Ministers, because they change from one office to another without the necessity of seeking re-election, but with the youngest members of the Ministry who, perhaps, have not held office before? In other cases just when Ministers ought to be devoting themselves to the details of their work they are thrown by this necessity into the midst of an election. Then there is the further fact that the requirements of re-election must at times influence the decision of the Prime Minister in I selecting the best men he can find to direct the affairs of the country. The whole thing is anomalous and obsolete, and I am very glad that the Government have announced their intention of dealing with it at an early date. There is one thing which I do not notice in the Gracious Speech with which I am personally interested, having been connected with the Committee which sat on the Bill—I mean the Port of London Bill. Although not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne I may remind the House that the Bill still exists, and will come before us again this year. I do trust that another session may not be allowed to elapse before we deal with such an important matter as the port of the greatest city in the world, a measure which is necessary in order that we may regain our commercial supremacy. With regard to the last words of the Address in which His Majesty asks for guidance from on High, I cannot disguise from myself the fact that there are subjects which are not included in His Majesty's Gracious Speech, which have undoubtedly created much controversy in the country and amongst Members of this House. I cannot look around these Benches without noting this fact. Although these words of His Gracious Majesty may appear to be purely formal, yet I feel that there can be no occasion more than the present when this House should more desire some guidance in its great debates, some higher sanction in order that we may still maintain before the face of the world an acknowledgment as the oldest legislative assembly in the world, that we can still carry on our debates in a manner worthy of a great Empire, giving to each other that credit for substantial common-sense which has been the characteristic of our people. I do trust, whatever may be the issue of this controversy, that this House may still deserve to rank amongst the greatest deliberative assemblies in the world. I beg to move.

* MR. PLUMMER (Newcastle-on-Tyne)

I rise to second the Motion which has just been so fittingly proposed by the hon. Member for the Ashford Division, and if in so doing, I, like him, do not commence with the customary appeal for the indulgence of the House, it is not because I do not fully recognise my need for such indulgence, but simply because whatever else my experience here may have failed to teach me, it has at any rate taught me that, to those who endeavour to secure the goodwill of their colleagues, the House will always prove to be that friend in need who is, after all, the friend indeed. One is glad, moreover, to remember the sympathy which is extended on these occasions to those called upon to perform a duty which has been described by the Prime Minister—whose absence, I am sure, the whole House regrets—as one of the most difficult and delicate duties which a Member of this House can be called upon to perform. It is, I venture to say, all the more difficult because we are assumed to have special private and privileged information on the one hand, while on the other hand we are "cribbed, cabined, and confined" by those twin tyrants of custom and precedent, which always enter so largely into the debates of this House, and which particularly govern the debate on this Motion, which I have now the honour to second.

One of the rules ordained by custom upon this occasion is a rule which, I think, will meet with general approval, and it is that the mover and the seconder of the debate should, as far as possible, divide the subjects mentioned in His Majesty's Speech, and that the seconder should refrain again, as far as possible, from dealing with those matters which have been dealt with by the mover. I shall, therefore, leave comparatively untouched those subjects which the hon. Member for the Ashford Division has dealt with, and I will pass to other subjects, some of equal importance, and some, possibly, of greater importance. What are sometimes called the foreign relations of this country must ever be of great importance to Parliament and particularly to the House of Commons as being that body upon which constitutionally rests the responsibility of voting those supplies which are inevitably required in the event of any unfortunate interruption of those foreign relations. It must, therefore, be a matter of congratulation to the House and the country that His Majesty is able to assure us of our peaceful relations with foreign Powers. Like the mover of this Motion, I agree that this result is greatly due to those State visits which His Majesty has already paid, and proposes to continue, to the Capitals of Europe, as —may we not say it in a special sense—the Great Ambassador of the Nation. The desire to maintain those peaceful relations is shown in the I numerous references in this Speech to arbitration and arbitration treaties. With regard to these I would only make one remark —the hon. Member for the Ashford Division having already dealt with it—and that is that it is an old saying, the truth of which ought never to be overlooked, that "Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war," and whilst to gain a victory in a war which has broken out is no doubt a great thing, to be able honourably and consistently and in accordance with our obligations to the Empire to prevent a war from breaking out is undoubtedly a greater. Unfortunately arbitration is not always possible, and when, as in the case of Somaliland, it has been found necessary to resort to force, it is particularly desirable that the support of this House should go out to those who are fighting amid great difficulties of climate and transport a half civilised foe numerically superior to us. I am sure the sympathies of this House will go out in no less a degree to the relatives of those who have fallen in the recent successful engagement, and particularly to a noble Lord attached to the Party opposite, because they have bravely met their deaths in one of those little wars which are inevitable to this Empire rather than in a great and conspicuous campaign. Sir, such a campaign is unfortunately looming largely in the far East, and I am sure the House will regret the strained relations which at present exist between two great Powers, and will re-echo the hope expressed in the speech that even at the eleventh hour a peaceful solution may be found for the difficulties which now exist. If we turn from the far East to the Near East we find similar cause for concern and anxiety, and though for a time that anxiety has been allayed it is scarcely possible for even the most optimistic observer of recent events to regard it as permanently removed. It is difficult in view of the lessons of experience that have been taught us from that part of the world to express confidence, but the House will observe with satisfaction that in connection with one reform European officers, including officers of the British Army, are to be employed to assist in carrying it out, and we must hope to ensure its performance.

Now, sir, I turn to a question nearer home; we find a reference in His Majesty's Speech to the danger which is threatening one of the great industries of this country, namely, the cotton industry, in the imperilled supply of that raw material upon which, of course, depends not only the prosperity of that industry, but also the welfare of a large population in Lancashire and elsewhere, which is in turn dependent upon its continued prosperity. I believe the House will welcome the concern expressed in His Majesty's Speech on behalf of a great national industry, and will endorse the hope that by the efforts now being put forward that industry may be placed in a less dependent position upon other countries, and that the position which it now occupies may be considerably relieved. Sir, a self-contained and self-sustained Empire may be but an idle dream or a visionary ideal, but at least it is a worthy ideal, and though it may prove difficult and slow of accomplishment that is no reason why this country should rest content with a greater dependency upon other countries than is absolutely necessary either in this matter of the cotton industry or in other matters.

With regard to the defences of the country the House, I am sure, will welcome any economy that can be effected, provided that it is effected otherwise than at the expense of efficiency, whilst in connection with what has been,' described as the general problem of Army and War Office reform, I venture to express the hope and belief that the Volunteer Forces will receive that greater support which I am persuaded is the wish of the country generally.

With regard to the promised legislation for the session, the hon. Member for the Ashford Division has largely dealt with it but he has not referred to one measure, which I am sure the House and the country considers has been delayed too long—I mean the question of alien immigration. However diverse may be our views—and we all know they are very diverse upon that question which, to the detriment of the English language, has come to be described by the classic phrase of "dumping"—I am quite sure none can be found to contend in favour of the continued "dumping" on our shores of pauper and criminal aliens at the expense of the country generally, and too often at the expense of a large number of our fellow-countrymen in our great cities, who find it difficult enough to secure employment in some of the trades effected, at reasonable rates of remuneration and under reasonable conditions of labour.

The other measures referred to in the Address which my colleague has not dealt with are those relating to the Workmen's Compensation Act, the Hours of Employment in Shops, and the Public Health Acts, all of which indicate that what is sometimes called social legislation is to have its due share of the time of the House and that Home questions will not be overlooked amid many pressing Imperial problems. Sir, I have used the phrase "Imperial problems," but I will content myself to-day by adopting the words of the late Sir John Mowbray, who by his many years valued service in this House was well entitled to express the opinion that— The spirit which animates the House of Commons as a body is much the same as it ever has been, namely, a patriotic spirit conscious of the great traditions which it inherits and anxious to work for the good of the Empire. Sir, the Government have no doubt been the subject of much criticism, but that is the fate of all Governments, and, indeed, of all responsible and not a few irresponsible bodies. It is an old saying that a man must serve his time to every trade, save censure, critics all are ready made; whilst Lord Beacons field, who for many years was so conspicuous a figure in this House, used to declare that it was always much easier to be critical than to be correct.

Now it only remains for me to thank the House, and I do so most sincerely, for the patience and attention with which they have listened to what I hope have not been unworthy remarks, and in conclusion, may I add, that in my humble judgment it is well that we should be reminded—lest we forget—well that we should be reminded as we are reminded in His Majesty's Gracious Speech from the Throne, that our deliberations here ought to be carried on with a conscious sense of our obligations to Him who after all is the source of all authority and power, and by whom alone Kings reign and Princes decree justice.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth—

"Most Gracious Sovereign,

"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament"—(Mr. Hardy.)

* SIR.H. CAMPBBLL-BANNEPMAN (Stirling, Burghs)

Sir, the first thing that I will say to the House, with the certainty of having with me its full concurrence and sympathy, is to give some expression to the sincere regret with which we note the absence of the Prime Minister, and above all our regret on account of the cause of that absence. We all trust that the cause of his absence will soon disappear, but I think it is peculiarly to be regretted on this particularly occasion because I for one shall find it to be my clear and urgent duty in the course of my remarks to examine into the position of the Government upon that great fiscal question which so largely occupies the attention of the country, and to address to the Government some very plain and direct questions in regard to it. We should have all preferred that we should have the answer to these questions from the Prime Minister's own lips rather than from any other lips, but after all it is not the Prime Minister's policy; it is the policy of the Cabinet, and the Cabinet Minister whom he has deputed to represent him to-night will no doubt be perfectly competent to give us all the information we desire.

I shall not be contradicted when I say that seldom has the opening of a session of Parliament excited such keen interest as that in which we are now taking part. The personal presence of the King, accompanied by His Gracious Consort, is a source of pleasure and satisfaction to all His Majesty's subjects It enhances the dignity of the occasion, expressing it partly by the imposing ceremony which attends his presence, and it also marks in proper constitutional fashion the high importance of our duties. But when I speak of the interest attaching to our proceedings I do not refer to the form, but to the matter and substance of those proceedings. How we stand is this. In one of the most vital spheres of political opinion and action, a revolutionary movement has been instituted and pursued with zeal, insistency, and profusion during many months, directed against the accepted and established fiscal policy of the country. In fact we are told that there are two policies of departure, and not one only. But while there are some who can detect a difference between the two policies, there are others who maintain that they are in essence implicitly one and the same, that the one is ancillary to the other, and that they are not exempt from the ordinary natural law which controls all terrestrial things, I and according to which the whole is greater than its parts, and the greater includes the lesser. Be this as it may, what I am concerned with is the fact that Parliament has never yet had an opportunity—I will not say of discussing this question—we are not nearly that length yet—but of being informed as to the real nature and intention of the two schemes, if there are two. This House sat for three months after the proposed changes were broadly announced, and was never given an opportunity of discussing them. Our Parliamentary information as to the intentions of the Government was confined to two facts—that a statistical inquiry was to be conducted for the benefit of the Cabinet, and that the Prime Minister had no settled convictions. The lack of settled convictions did not appear to be a very good equipment for a Prime Minister who was setting about furnishing a new commercial system for the greatest commercial nation that the world ever saw. But there we were left, and it is only now, at last, after all this time of delay that we have the means of ascertaining the true position of this momentous matter, and the actual intentions in regard to it of the Executive Government, and the whole country waits with anxious curiosity to hear what the Government have to say. But there are one or two subordinate causes of interest at the present time also. We have practically a new Ministry in power. A turn of the wrist has been given, and there has been a kaleidoscopic change on the opposite benches. Familiar faces are found in strange places, and strange faces in familiar places. Is it a new Government? I said practically a new Government. I thought that was safe although not very definite. Is it a new Government with a new policy, or is it the old Government with a new policy? The old Government may be on the Front Bench more or less, but the old policy is mostly on the Back Benches. But then on the Back Benches also is the leader of the new policy, so that I confess I give it up. The situation is too bewildering, and the only way to cure the confusion is to appeal to the common-sense of the electors of the country.

This leads me to another cause of interest at the present moment. We have seen that remarkable array of new Members who took their seats to-day. The hand of death has been heavy upon this House, and we miss the faces of many friends whose places have had to be filled. I hope it will not be thought out of place if I say that beyond this House there is a great loss to note, which the country has had to meet, and which in all of us who are engaged in politics has excited the most sincere regret. I mean the removal from among living men of Lord Salisbury. We on this side often differed, and differed keenly and widely, from Lord Salisbury, but we had long learned to admire, not only his great intellectual endowments, but his high - mindedness, his devotion to duty, and the sound views, let me add, which he strove to act upon in his conduct of the foreign relations of our country. These losses among us have led to what is often spoken of as a general election in miniature, continuing and completing, with hardly any break, the remarkable series of by-elections we have had during the last two years. Where is now the authority of the Government opposite? It is dispersed to the winds; afflavit it populus el dissipati sunt. From the first we disputed your authority. I will not; go back upon the reasons for that. They are known. We maintained from the first that the result of the election of 1900 was a false result, and the facts that we founded that opinion upon were not the mere snarls of disappointed and vanquished combatants. They were facts which now, in the perspective of three years, have commended themselves to all those who look back upon that time. And yet the Government has gone on very gallantly expending the nation's money; plunging the duty and work of education at the instance of one ecclesiastical body —[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—I do not wish to be contentious, and I withdraw the word instance, and say—for the benefit of one ecclesiastical body; plunging, I say, the work of education into the cauldron of sectarian strife, unsettling many things and settling few. And now the country, in election after election, is knocking at their door. These are the men, Mr. Speaker, with this invalid authority, who would now take upon themselves to remould our whole fiscal policy—not here a part of it and there a part of it, but to alter the whole tone and spirit and intention of it; or who, if they refrain from action, if they have not the courage to make a definite proposal, are using the influence which they accidentally, and, as events are showing, precariously enjoy, which their precarious position gives them, to further schemes which they dare not openly propose. Sir, at this stage, information is what we ask for; and later, before I sit down, I shall recur to this subject, and point out in what respect information is required.

And this is also true of questions which have arisen in many quarters of the world, in the East of Europe, in two parts of Africa, and in two parts of Asia. In all these my task will be, as it has been often since I have held my position—mainly that of interrogating and asking for Papers and claiming, on the part of the House of Commons, and putting forward its right, to be fully informed. I do not remember any time when such serious events have been occurring all over the world with Parliament still in the dark as to their true origin, and as to the part which is being played in our name. Sir, the mover and seconder have—and I think this will be the general opinion—discharged their duty in a manner which redounds to their credit. They have spoken with force and ease and have avoided any undesirable disclosures while rambling round a great many subjects. That, after all, is the principal duty of the mover and seconder of the Address. On this occasion that, I think, the hon. Members opposite have fully accomplished. [Cries of "Oh, Oh" and "Order."] I do not wish to speak disparagingly of the hon. Gentlemen mentioned, but in their praise. I have known, in my time, very indiscreet speeches made by hon. Members in moving and seconding the Address, and that certainly has not been the case on this occasion. Now, the first part of the King's Speech we all listened to with unmixed pleasure and satisfaction. We may all congratulate ourselves on the conclusion of a treaty of arbitration with France and the prospect of similar treaties with other countries. Even more important than these actual instruments between the countries is the spirit of mutual friendship and good understanding which has been established with the chief European nations, the creation and maintenance of which has been largely the noble and worthy work of His Majesty the King, who has not only served the best interests of his own country, but has also set a good example to us all, to all his subjects; and besides that has earned our gratitude and the gratitude of Europe. The visits of the President of the French Republic and of the King and Queen of Italy—the latter visit oddly enough not mentioned in this Address—have done much to cement good relations; and I think it was quite proper that some allusion should be made to those civilities which have been exchanged between the members of the Legislative Chambers of Paris and London,and which have given pleasure to the Members themselves and gratification to both the peoples.

There are other quarters of the world where the outlook is not by any means so cheerful. The situation of affairs between Russia and Japan is so critical that I think it wisest and most in accordance with my duty to refrain from any comment at all. Papers will, no doubt, be laid, and then we shall know what has been done in our name, and also what the grounds of the dispute really and actually are, of which we have no authentic knowledge at present. I trust that they will show that no effort has been spared in the past, and that the good intention and good will of this country is not confined to the future, as the wording of the Address might almost seem to convey. Turning to the deplorable story of Macedonia, I would recognise the benevolent part taken by Lord Lansdowne in instituting and supporting measures of reform and relief in that country. The first scheme of reform put forward early last year altogether failed. The second was accepted in form by the Turks in the autumn, but it may be so delayed and thwarted as to be really ineffective; and the news we have is far from reassuring. At the present there is universal suffering and discontent and suspicion, and the general expectation is that the insurrection will break out again in spring. Sir, I hope the Papers will show that the Government of this country has pursued a strong and definite policy, and that they always bear in mind the peculiar degree of responsibility in which we of this country stand towards the victims of Turkish misgovernment. But even if the Government were to be unmindful of that, the country is not unmindful of it; and it looks to the Government to leave nothing undone for the aid of this unhappy people.

Two military undertakings require notice. There is the little war in Somaliland, which has been so unduly costly in life, and which, to the outward view, does not appear to be very much advanced after all from what it was at this time last year, when I was asking the same sort of question and making the same sort of review. What everybody asks is this— "What are we doing there at all? What do we want and expect to gain by interfering with the interior of that country when our interest is confined to a portion of the coast?" Shall we never be able to curb the zeal—the patriotic and praiseworthy zeal—of the man on the spot? And shall we always continue the evil habit we have acquired of treating contemptuously everyone who opposes us, and setting down every man who stands out against us as being mad, and denouncing as Dervishes all who, after all, do not like an invasion of human imports into their own country? The other case, Mr. Speaker, is that of Thibet. Papers are greatly called for here, and until we receive them, again I say, we can hardly judge of the case. We are sending a large force in mid-winter into a country, perhaps the most inhospitable on the face of the earth—a country also which is of all least accessible from the quarter from which we apparently suspect danger. We hold that a case which justifies such action would need to be a strong one, but in our present ignorance of it, as I have said, we cannot judge it.

Sir, since the House rose, the Report of the Commission on the War has been issued, and I think the universal opinion of the country gives the highest credit to Lord Elgin and his colleagues for the manner in which that inquiry was conducted. The Report contains much that is startling, and much that is instructive, and well deserves the public attention that has been given to it. And now, yesterday, we were able to read in the papers the recommendations of the small Committee of eminent and capable men who have been inquiring into the organisation and administration of the War Office. Well, these recommendations must be quietly and carefully scrutinised. There is general agreement everywhere as to the creation of an Army Board, or an Army Council, to give the Secretary of State for War the best military advice in the best form. But as one who has long held that view—I have tried myself, with my own hand, the forming of such a council—I welcome that step in advance. The principle is sound; and the precise form which the council is to take, and the details of its composition and work, can easily be adjusted. But one thing which I should like to say and to impress on the House is this: by far more important than any form or system of administration is the maintenance of loyalty, good feeling, and confidence between the Secretary of State, the civilians at the War Office, and the military men at the War Office, and among these different classes I have just named, themselves. That is the secret of the whole position. I would not go so far as to say that "Whate'er is best administered is best," but certainly the most important thing of all is that, whether you have a board or council, or whatever you have, it should be such as to encourage that spirit I have mentioned.

With regard to the Army itself it is difficult to know how it stands. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, who has been so persistent and acute a critic, has now taken it in hand to administer and build up. Perhaps he may discover from the inside real difficulties which when he viewed the matter from the outside seemed to him imaginary. I can only hope that he may succeed in combining all that was good in the old system with all the advantages he is going to confer upon us under the new system. He tells us that he sees what ought to be done—in which he is exceptionally fortunate—but he asks for time. Let me assure him—and I think I may do so in the name of the House and the country—that we shall not be impatient; because we know that he deserves consideration from the House of Commons, which fully appreciates his earnestness of purpose and his assiduity and intelligence.

Now I wish to call attention to one of the most singular facts in connection with the Speech—namely, that no reference whatever is made in it to South Africa. Is, then, that country so quiet, so prosperous, its people so contented, its finances so flourishing, that there is no occasion to refer to it? I am afraid that the truth gets through to us with great difficulty from South Africa; but we know enough to be aware that it would be almost true to say that the exact contrary of all this is the case. The promises and expectations of past years, even of last year, have been disappointed. But the outstanding question for the moment, which drawfs all others, is the question of the importation of Chinese labour into the Transvaal. A week or two ago I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him whether he did not agree that there should be no definite or final step taken by the Government either on the spot or at home in this matter until Parliament had an opportunity of con- sidering the question. He has not favoured me with any answer to my letter; but I saw the other day that the Colonial Secretary stated in a speech or a letter that an opportunity would be given to the House, and nothing would be done until that opportunity had been used. Therefore I would now venture to ask the Government, in the first place, that all the Papers connected with this subject should be presented to us as speedily as possible, including the Report of the Labour Commission, and the ordinance itself, and all other documents relating to the question; and then, when hon. Members have seen and had an opportunity of considering all these documents, a day should be given for the discussion of the question. That is the only satisfactory way in which we can deal with it, and I think it is a fair and reasonable claim to make. In that case I would advise hon. friends of my own who are anxious to move an Amendment or Amendments to the Address on this subject not to do so on the understanding that the opportunity I have spoken of should be given us in the future. I will not discuss, therefore, to-day the question itself; but I will only say this, and dwell upon it for a little time, because I think it is an important matter that the House should say clearly—and I believe it will attract a large degree of agreement—that the inhabitants of the colony ought not to be committed to a line of action which must irrevocably affect their future without their undoubted and express assent. Now what the Colonial Secretary says is— The policy of the Government is to treat the Transvaal as though it were a self-governing colony, unless a distinctly Imperial interest is concerned. Putting aside that question, and supposing the importation of indentured Chinese labour is not an Imperial question—which is a large assumption, if we have regard to the doctrines affecting trade and labour which are now in circulation —how on earth is a Crown colony to be treated as a self-governing community? I much prefer the words of the late Colonial Secretary on this point, because he said he had informed Lord Milner that— Before I assented to any introduction of Asiatic labour, whether Chinese or Indian, I must have reasonable proof that it was a policy which the Transvaal, if a self governing colony, would approve. This puts it very much better, above all when we are dealing with a Crown colony of the type of the Transvaal. It has a Governor and a hierarchy of officials; it has a council to assist the Governor composed of fifteen officials and nine nominative members. But besides that, consider the laws which are in force in that colony—under which any man whose act or word is unpalatable to the Government can be deported out of it without being tried. How can you say that you have freedom of opinion in these circumstances? Every man carries on his business or employment at the mercy of the Government—the tender mercy, I hope and believe—but still he does not enjoy full independence, especially in a matter like this, on which the Government may have taken a particular line. That is the country which is said to be treated as self-governing. It is said in the newspapers that there has been a sort of referendum. I have read also that a referendum has been refused, and that what has happened is merely that a certain memorial has been put out under the auspices of a committee who are anxious for this importation. But under those influences to which I have referred I do not think the signatures to such a memorial are of great value as an indication of the genuine feeling of the inhabitants of the colony. Therefore the conclusion I come to is that, so long as these colonies are Crown colonies, so long the responsibility of governing rests upon the Imperial Government and the Imperial Parliament, the use of Chinese labour is therefore a matter for us to consider. It is not merely that we are in an offhand way, after a casual debate, to approve or; disapprove of it. It is on us the responsibility in this matter rests, and we can only judge of it when the opportunity is given to us. I am content to leave the merits of the question to the promised opportunity. I trust that in the course of this debate a statement will be made as to the financial position in South Africa, as to the instalment of £10,000,000 in the loan of £30,000,000, and as to the progress and work of repatriation and compensation, for which the House has sanctioned the expenditure of huge sums of money.

I turn to the domestic programme. The first and most obvious remark is that so meagre a list has seldom been submitted to a Parliament. The only conclusion we can come to is that the Government do not anticipate a very long or protracted session. The Government are going to stop or to control alien immigration, to the great delight of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield. It is a curious coincidence that, just at the time when it is proposed to introduce Chinamen into one of our colonies with the effect of ousting from employment our own countrymen who live there, a Bill is to be introduced by the Government to prevent the immigration of foreigners into this country because of their undue competition in labour. Another very curious fact is that a large proportion of these destitute aliens whom it is desirable to keep out of this country come from the very high-tariff countries in which we are told the workmen are so much more happy and prosperous than here. This is a Bill which we must see before we say anything about it. Then there is to be a Licensing Bill. All I would say of that is, that any restriction on the discretionary power of the magistrates will be hotly and pertinaciously resisted. I turn to a more sentimental question with me, that of Scottish education. I trust that whatever the right hon. Gentleman does will be done in harmony with Scottish traditions and providing amply for popular control. But I must confess to the House that I am subject to a most improper sentiment in regard to this matter, because I have great confidence, which I ought not to have, in the right hon. Gentleman whom I am glad to see, and every one is glad to see, in the position of the Secretary for Scotland. He is a real Scotchman; he knows Scotchmen and is known of them; and I hope also, apart from his own very proper and wise intuitions, he will take counsel with the Scottish members; and I would particularly advise him to take counsel with the four Scottish Members who have been returned to the House during the last year, who from their fresh contact with the people must know more about the subject than some of us.

There is to be no English Education Bill. There were rumours in the newspapers, as usual wrong, to indicate that there was to be. Sir, there will be no peace or success until those parts of this new system of education are removed which infringe the rights and hurt the consciences of large masses of the people.

Now at last I come back to this great fiscal question, which, like the subject of South Africa, is, in the old phrase, made conspicuous by its absence from the Speech. In the past history of this controversy, what are the salient facts? One fine day in May the right hon. Gentleman that Member for Wet Birmingham breaks loose, declares against free trade and in favour of preference with a tax on food. He comes to the House, and, having apparently consulted nobody, makes a great declaration of policy. Thon ho waits to see what will happen. This was an unusual way for a Minister to proceed. If a Minister has a policy to propose he generally goes to the Cabinet first. If he dissents from a policy, and tells the House that it is so, he resigns. The right hon. Gentleman did neither. The next thing would have been respectfully to invite him to resign. I have been looking up the text-books on this question, and I find that this is how it is laid down— If a Minister differs from his colleagues he must resign or else he must be held responsible for their action. He cannot be allowed, like Lord Camden, to retain office and the emoluments of office, and after wards repudiate the action of Those with whom he has been associated. Again, it is said— The Prime Minister must manage as well as rule his subordinates. When we say that a Prime Minister can dismiss a colleague we mean no more than this—that a strong Premier can say to the Queen, 'He or I muse go. That is the state of the law as laid down in Sir William Anson's "Law and Customs of the Constitution." Fortunately for the right hon. Gentleman, if not for Parliament and the country, an extraordinary conjunction of favouring circumstances awaited him. He discovered, in the first place, that on this question of the reversal of the fiscal policy of the country and of the constitutional relations and the fiscal relations of the Empire, the Prime Minister possessed no settled convictions. That was a most auspicious discovery for him. Then the question arose in the Cabinet—How are we to meet Parliament and conduct affairs of State with a Prime Minister who has no policy, and a Colonial Secretary who has a policy of his own and who will not keep quiet with it? Here, again, see how fortune favoured the right hon. Gentleman. The Cabinet decided to treat the question as an open one, on which their lips were sealed, and if they could have compassed it they would have liked to seal the lips of the House of Commons as well; and as an apt, candid, and correct description of this resolve they agreed to come here and tell us that a solemn inquiry, in which the whole nation was invited sympathetically to take part, was to be undertaken—an inquiry which, as they hinted, only the blind partisan or the intolerant fanatic could fail to respect. Meanwhile, outside, not a word was to be said. That leaflets covered the country under the auspices of one of the Ministers, did not matter. We know now that a Cabinet crisis was raging the whole of this time; and what I now say is that the whole thing was one of the greatest impostures ever foisted upon Parliament and the country. The climax came in September, when the Government was remodelled. I should have had a great deal to say if the Prime Minister had been present as to the part which he played in this matter; but in his absence I prefer not to make any personal allusions to his conduct, because he is not here to speak for himself. Perhaps we shall have some other opportunity. Well, now outturn for inquiry has come. I notice that some members of the Government, by the way, have been saying how delightful it is that now at last the opponents in this quarrel will speak in each other's presence in the House of Commons. I should have thought that members of the Government were the very last persons to like that condition of things, because they have been for months taking different lines on this subject, some ardent and staunch for free food, and others extreme preferentialists; and it will be very awkward for them to get up one after another in a debate. We may also have some sympathy with any one, if such there be, whose method of controversy leads him to use impressive but untenable arguments, garnished with startling but inaccurate statistics, and when the argument is refuted and the errors are exposed to take no account of the correction but go on repeating them. We may imagine how such a one in this House will sigh for the sweet insulation, immunity, and autocracy of the platform. Now the larger policy, which has been so clearly expounded with so much energy, and, let me add, with so much variety, by the right hon. Gentleman the late Colonial Secretary—that is a clearly intelligible policy. The plan has been greatly altered from time to time; that one would have expected from the natural adaptability of its author; but it is always clear. But my questions to-night refer, not to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, but to the policy of the Executive Government opposite, and on a future occasion in this debate my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose will move an Amendment which will raise both these questions, and include, in fact, the whole subject. He would have moved this Amendment immediately, or as soon as convenient, in this debate, but out of consideration for the fact that the Prime Minister is necessarily absent it has been arranged that he should defer his Motion.

The great advantage of this movement is that the House and the country can find out now what the Government really means. The difficulty of appreciating their position has two main causes. In the first place, the extreme vagueness of the Prime Minister and others in their statement of the official policy; and, secondly, uncertainty as to its real and avowed relation with the major, and unofficial or quasi-official policy. This Government policy of retaliation has never got beyond the stage of phrases and generalities and formulas. These are no good at all. You can discuss retaliation and reciprocity and freedom to resume negotiations in the abstract for months, and get no further. As far as we can understand it, there is to be some method of dealing with outrageously unfair competition. The dumper is to be come down upon when his commodity is too cheap, and the foreign tariff is to be taken in hand when it is too high. How are you going to do it? The whole thing turns upon that. We do not know. The inquiry has taught us nothing. There is not a single case in the concrete except the Sugar Convention, and there the result is not encouraging. In the first place it was hoped that it would help West Indian sugar. But notwithstanding four months of Protection, the imports have fallen off in a year nearly by one half. Also the Indian tea trade has been retaliated upon by Russia, as the penalty of excluding her sugar from our ports. So far as it goes, the experience suggests that blows may be delivered very much at random—sometimes you may hit yourself, and sometimes you may hit the wrong man. The Government should come down from the clouds and tell us what are the machinery and procedure that they contemplate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon —it requires a lesson in geography to describe these retired Cabinet Ministers—in his letter of resignation complained very properly of having been kept in the dark. He wrote— I would gladly give consideration to any practicable scheme for obtaining access to foreign markets or for meeting evils of which we complain; but we have had no scheme placed before us. Let us see your practicable scheme. But there are some points on which explicit information can be given, this retaliatory policy, does it mean Parliamentary or merely Executive action? Is it intended that Parliament—that this House especially, with its power over its own duties—should hand them over to the Executive to impose or alter as it chooses? If that is intended, then I am afraid that is a very wide issue, and one quite apart from the question of tariffs and duties. This must be made quite clear. As to the procedure in the case of dumping, I would ask, is there to be a sliding scale of tariffs regulated by the price of imports, or is it to be simple prohibition, as under the Sugar Convention? Then, again, how is this thing to be worked as a defence against foreign tariffs? Other countries go into commercial negotiations with a full tariff, sometimes with two scales, a higher and a lower, according as they are met by the other country. But this country always obtains entrance under the lowest scale. We are not to have a full tariff. How then are we to proceed? Supposing the United States is said to be shutting out Bradford woollen goods, or Russia shutting out bleaching powder, and there appear to be grounds for taking action. The Government have, no doubt, thought out the line of action. They have thought of the imports on which retaliation in those two cases might take effect; the consequences to traders and consumers, who are in no way responsible for any high tariff, but who will nevertheless be pawns in the game. Have they reflected that some traders may secure protection by a side wind, and that others are bound to suffer from restriction? Do they realise all the confusion, all the clamour for protection from other trades, and the difficulty of abolishing a tariff, established for retaliatory purposes, when that purpose has been secured? Have they considered the case of those protected countries, where, if we are to retaliate at all, it must be upon either food or raw material? Well, those are a few of the points which want elucidation from the Government. Some of us have asked about it in the country, and we want to know what the Government's plan is. It is only by considering these practical questions that we can come to a right conclusion. The answer to them will show the country whether, quite apart from high theory and principle, the policy of retaliation is a practicable policy; and they ought to have been cleared up before the Government assumed to themselves the title to revers, annul, and delete at their pleasure the principles upon which the fiscal policy of the country is based. Again, there is some doubt—and to this point I would invite the attention of the House —as to whether this policy, this formula, is to be put into operation, or whether it is meant only for show. But it must be a real policy, because we have had the resignation of Ministers on it; and the precedent of the Sugar Convention bears substantial testimony to the reality of what is certainly in itself a somewhat flimsy-looking thing to be called a policy. Besides, I hope the House will notice this. What did the Prime Minister say in his letter to the Duke of Devonshire, written, if one may judge from external evidence, under circumstances of some tension? He said this— I see no difficulty in successfully carrying out the policy which for a fortnight you were ready to accept, by the help of the Administration which for a fortnight you aided me to reconstruct. Surely the charm of this balanced sarcasm can hardly have carried the Prime Minister out of his depth and induced him to make an admission which he did not intend. He, at least, could see how it can be done. He says— I see no difficulty in successfully carrying out the policy, and he contemplates this Administration doing it. But here we only get another contradiction and anomaly. Here is the President of the Board of Trade. He opened to us the most—I will not say charming vista; ugly vista, possibly, according to our ideas, of years and years, Parliament after Parliament—a perfect ladder of Parliaments up which we are to climb before we attain Protection, and therefore there was no harm done by whatever people said now. The country would not be committed until all these years are over. But here is the Prime Minister, on the other hand, implying that it is a thing on purpose for which the present Government has been reconstructed. It has renewed its youth for the express purpose of putting into effect a given policy. Well, then, why is that policy not mentioned in the King's Speech? If you can palliate the blows of the foreign plunderers, why do you not do it, and would it not be a much better thing to do, after all, from your point of view—I do not want to do it—than to deal with the drink trade, which is neither a languishing nor a slaughtered industry, and to which you are going to give another dose of protection?

The second point on which we seek light is the relation between the minor and the major, the official and the quasi- official policy. We have documentary evidence as to the origin of what may be called the co-ordinated policy. It occurs in the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham's letter of resignation. He says— I suggest that you should limit the present policy of the Government to the assertion of our freedom in the ease of all commercial relations with foreign countries, and that you should agree to my tendering my resignation of my present office to His Majesty and devoting myself to the work of explaining and popularising those principles of Imperial union which my experience has convinced me are essential to our future welfare and prosperity. Which are the most important and significant and characteristic and illuminating words of that passage? The first two, "I suggest." So that this halfway house does not mark the natural limit to which the Prime Minister and the Government would go, it is an artificial structure suggested by the late Colonial Secretary to calm the fears of the nation, and to preserve a safe appearance and cover up the ultimate designs. To this suggestion the Prime Minister, with the utmost docility, agreed; and as he explained in his further letter—although he did not explain it, as it would appear, to the uninitiated members of his Cabinet—he and the Government accepted the duty imposed upon them, and agreed that the work should be specialised. What does the difference between the two amount to after all? It is but a pure matter of expediency. At heart they were united about the preferential policy, and they both felt that the times were not ripe for imposing the food taxes which alone could give effect to it. The whole transaction has the look of a mere affair of Party accommodation. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet were to remain at the base until the moment came for a general advance, while the late Colonial Secretary moved forward to survey the field, maintaining his lines of communication. That seems to have been the understanding; and colour is given to it by the proceedings of Ministers themselves in their subsequent speeches, and, above all, by the presence at the Treasury and in the Cabinet of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who accepts the Birmingham policy in all its branches. Now we are left asking why did the late Colonial Secretary resign at all? He would have been quite comfortable in his old place. Half the Ministry have declared for him. Look at the President of the Local Government Board. He is never weary of proclaiming his adhesion to the right hon. Gentleman. He supports a Tariff Reform League candidate in Wiltshire, against a Conservative free trader. Why, any day another letter may come "suggesting" that the time is ripe for the Member for West Birmingham to take formal command of the position that he dominates from the outside. Any day the signal may be given for a move forward from the trenches and the abandonment, bag and baggage, of the makeshift policy. What wonder if we regard the declared policy of His Majesty's Government as a mere hors d'œuvre, as trumpery as it is indigestible, to whet the appetite for bigger dishes—a mere lever de rideau, designed to prepare the minds of the audience for the full five-act tragedy of protection? Why, Sir, I come to The Times of to-day, to the political weather prophet of The Times of to-day-we always read his prophecies, although we do not always agree with them—he says— That a General Election may be looked for"— this is accidental on this subject— at no distant date may be inferred, from the preparations for the conflict which are being made by both Unionists and Liberals. So far as the Government are concerned, there appears to be no desire to precipitate affairs until — until what?

until Mr. Chamberlain's Tariff' Commission has completed its Report. Sir, what I say is, that the time has come for clearing up the situation. That is why I take the very first moment open to me, avoiding as much as possible personal references to the Prime Minister, as I have said, but dealing with the Government as a Government. After all, it is not a one-man Government. I do not know how many men are in it; and we are entitled to plain answers to plain questions. Let me, in one or two sentences, recapitulate. We want to know, in the first place, something more as to the character of the declared policy, and the time and manner of its coming into operation; and with regard to the larger policy we want to know whether, severally and collectively, the Government associate themselves with it, or disassociate themselves from it. There are preferential duties, and there are the taxes on food. Yes, but there are also the ten per cent. protective taxes on manufactures. We have never had an authoritative announcement from the Government of the light in which they view that part of the proposal, which, if I may say so, has, like Aaron's rod, eaten up the rest in the recent course of this discussion. The Government and its members have spoken with two voices long enough, and it is high time that they should put themselves in order before Parliament and the country by reverting to the theory of Ministerial responsibility and utterance with which we are familiar. That is all I am going to say, and I thank the House for listening to me on this great question. If I have spoken at length it is because I wish to bring the whole of the matter of inquiry fully before the House.

But now I will trouble the House only with one or two sentences on another subject, and it is the supreme importance of it which must be my excuse. It is a subject in which I suspect may be found at once the key and the cause and the cure of any real uneasiness that exists as to fiscal policy, and as to the condition of trade. What is causing serious embarrassment to the country, and bringing, more perhaps than anything else, discredit to the Administration, is the difficulty of finding the money to carry out the policy to which they have committed the country. We cannot expect any sudden relief from taxation, for they have spent and borrowed and taxed and committed the taxpayers during these prosperous years for some time to come. If lean years are before us, the expenditure of these vast sums of money is at once in a great degree the cause of them, and has largely increased the difficulties attending them. And, unfortunately, much of the expenditure to which we are committed is of a progressive nature; and here is a point I would urge upon the House. It is a point which is within my memory and the memory of those much younger Members of the House than I. am. The grip of the spending services over the expenditure has greatly gained of late years on the control of Parliament and the Executive. Some of the most taking administrative schemes which have been put forward, whatever their merits may be, have the secondary effect—I mean schemes for organisa- tion, or for increasing the facility of managing those Departments —have the secondary effect, if it is right to call it secondary, of weakening Departmental responsibility as well as Parliamentary control. In the Address there is a little ray of hope—oh, such a little one—through a narrow chink. It says— The possibility of diminishing the burden is being carefully considered They have got to the stage of consideration! Why, the stage of action ought to have begun long ago. Consideration, however, is, at least, an improvement on last year. If I remember rightly, the Government then mentioned this great and growing expenditure without a word of indication of any means being taken to stop it. What is wanted—and to this I would invite the assistance of all Members of the House on both sides, for this is surely not a Party question—is to direct public attention to this vital matter, and that this House and the Executive alike should set their faces towards frugal administration and the reduction of taxation, satisfied that nothing will bring greater advantage to the national industries and the welfare and happiness of the people.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTIN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.)

In the unfortunate absence of the Prime Minister, the responsibility has been imposed upon me of discharging the task which he would naturally have discharged of replying to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has just addressed to His Majesty's Government. Let me, in the first place, thank the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of my friends on this side of the House, for the reference which he made to the Prime Minister's illness. His absence from the House, still more the cause of it, is, I am sure, universally regretted. His scrupulous fairness to opponents, his constant courtesy to all, have endeared him to friends and opponents alike. My next duty is to discharge the task, which no one would have performed more gracefully than the Prime Minister himself, of complimenting my hon. friends the mover and seconder of the Address on the success with which they achieved what is, I believe, one of the most difficult tasks that can be imposed upon any Member of this House. They brought to bear upon it a tact, a consideration for the feelings of the House, an avoidance of controversy in dealing with controversial subjects, and a knowledge of the subjects they treated which, I think, make their speeches memorable even among those delivered on these occasions.

As regards at any rate, the opening paragraphs of His Majesty's Speech we are all at one. We note with gratification the reference which is here made to the cordial relations established by recent Royal visits, and fostered by subsequent international civilities between ourselves and the neighbouring Republic, and between ourselves and other nations. I think the whole country feels that we are indebted in a very special manner to His Majesty for the part he played, to use the fine phrase which has been applied to him, as a great Ambassador taking upon himself a mission of peace and goodwill towards our neighbours.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the serious state of affairs now existing in the Far East, and said that he felt that in the complicated situation before us he had better make no comment on what was proceeding. I think I shall do well to follow his example. This is not a moment at which I think I could usefully say anything upon this subject, nor is it a moment at which His Majesty's Government have to lay Papers before the House. There will be no desire to withhold information from the House when the moment at which it can be given comes; but, for reasons which I need not mention, I think the House will see that the present is not a suitable moment for the presentation of information to Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that Papers would be laid on the subject of Macedonia, and that when they were presented it would be found that His Majesty's Government had acted with a due sense of their responsibilities to the people of that unhappy country, and had used their influence to promote the scheme of reform which it is known the Powers have been pressing upon the Forte's acceptance. I understand that a Blue-book on this subject is being prepared and will be laid before the House. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that when they see that Blue-book they will find that the efforts of His Majesty's Government have been uniformly exerted to the best of their ability to impress upon the Porte the urgent need for reform, and to promote such an amelioration in the administration of the country as may remove the evils under which it has suffered. We have felt that in so doing we could best act in concert with and through those two Great Powers who are most immediately interested, and who from their geographical position have the best opportunities for carrying these reforms into execution. I am glad to think that some progress is being made, and the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we shall be wanting in no endeavour in order to increase it and secure relief for that country. I am bound to pass rapidly over these important matters.

The right hon. Gentleman made some inquiry about Somaliland, and the remarks he made seemed to show a very imperfect acquaintance with the circumstances which have led to the present operations. He appeared to regard them as an unprovoked attack on the part of His Majesty's Government upon a deserving ruler in rightful possession of the country, who was only anxious to prevent the dumping of foreign populations—I think that was the right hon. Gentleman's phrase.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

An invasion of human imports.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Who was only anxious to prevent an invasion of human imports into his territory. That is not history. It does not bear the remotest resemblance to it. There are certain tribes in the neighbourhood whom we have undertaken to protect as long as they live in peace and amity with us, and it was not our human invasion of this peaceful potentate's dominions, but his attack on these protected tribes which forced His Majesty's Government to act. Let me say that no one could regret the necessity for that action more than His Majesty's Government. We did not enter into an undertaking of this kind with a light heart; we knew the enormous difficulties which the character of the country imposed upon any military operations. We would gladly have remained within our own territory if we could have secured those to whom our protection was due. That was not possible. We have learned by bitter experience that you cannot afford to allow one of these fanatical Mahomedan Powers suddenly to spring into existence and obtain great proportions in these territories. We felt that we were bound, both for the immediate protection of those under our care and for the future safety of that portion of the world, to take steps to crush the Mullah's power. I trust that the brilliant successes gained by General Egerton in this campaign—which is one of extraordinary difficulty—have greatly advanced the objects which we have in view, and I hope when the operations in which he is now engaged are concluded he will have obtained complete success, and that we shall be able to retire again within our own boundaries.

The right hon. Gentleman asked for some information about Thibet. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for India has prepared Papers, and they will be laid before Parliament in the course of the next few days. In the meantime, let me say that this political mission hardly, I think, justifies the language in which the right hon. Gentleman has spoken of it. The Government of India has been singularly patient in its dealings with Thibet. For years we have been subjected to difficulties with that country, culminating in infractions of the frontier of Sikkim, a protected State, and in the return unopened or unanswered of communications which the Viceroy addressed to the Dalai Lama. In regard to these matters of complaint, and with the concurrence of the Chinese Government, this mission entered Thibetan territory. There has been great and unfortunate delay in the arrival of the Chinese representative, who, with the representatives of the Thibetan Power, was to meet our representative. I hope that he will hasten his arrival, and that we may yet attain the objects of the mission—a peaceful settlement of our trade relations, the protection and maintenance of our undoubted Treaty rights with that country, and an agreement as to the proper boundary between that country and Sikkim. I think I have traversed over the questions of foreign affairs to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded.

As regards South Africa, the importance of the questions which are there arising is recognised fully by the Government The right hon. Gentleman asks—as is usual and very necessary on these occasions in order that the House may be able to form a judgment—for Papers. I hope that these Papers will be circulated to-morrow in time for any discussion which hon. Members think desirable. I think the Report of the Labour Commission is what the right hon. Gentleman asked for.

SIR H. CAMPBBLL-BANNBUMAN

Will the papers contain the evidence given before the Labour Commission, which is most necessary?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

No, I am afraid not. The Report is what was asked for before.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

In talking of the Report of a Commission we usually include in that phrase the evidence, which in this case is most necessary.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I have not made myself familiar with the evidence, which, I understand, fills a bulky volume. On that matter perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with the Colonial Secretary. The Papers to be circulated to-morrow will give very full information as to the labour difficulties and as to what has taken place, and will, I think, include all that the right hon. Gentleman has asked for specifically.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

—Will they include the debates in the Legislative Council?

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

Yes. The right hon. Gentleman also made some reference to the financial position of the Transvaal. It is true that the progress of the Transvaal towards prosperity has not been as rapid as we had hoped and believed would be the case. I should have thought that was not a matter for congratulation.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I did not say it was a matter for congratulation. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of what the Government "believed," and I said "Hear, hear."

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman said anything at all. My remark had no reference to him; if he chooses to apply it I can have no objection. I was saying I thought it would not be a subject of congratulation or jubilation in any quarter of the House. After all, it is upon the people of the Transvaal that any temporary distress or any postponement of the return of prosperity first falls, and whatever be our view as to events which are past, we must all desire that the healing effects of prosperity may make themselves felt in that country as soon as possible.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND (Clare, E.)

Chinese labour!

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

In the meantime it is, of course, the case that, having regard to the situation of the finances of the Transvaal and the Orange River Colony at the present time, and to the position of our own money market, His Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that this is not a proper time at which to raise the first instalment of the War Contribution Loan.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT (Monmouthshire, N.)

Hear, hear.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

The right hon. Gentleman cheers that sentiment. I am well aware that it is one of his most cherished convictions that under no circumstances shall we ever receive any contribution from the Transvaal on account of the war. I differ from him. I see no attempt on the part of the people of the Transvaal to escape from the obligation which they are under, and I am confident that at the first moment when either they or we think that the operation can be successfully and properly carried out they will be anxious to take the share which they undertook to take in the expenses of that war. As regards repatriation, I may say the work has been most successfully concluded. As regards compensation, I think the right hon. Gentleman must formulate in more definite terms the question which he wishes to put Now I turn to the more controversial part of the right hon. Gentleman's observations. His speech was, indeed, of a peculiar character. I do not remember ever to have heard a speech from the Leader of the Opposition on an occasion of this kind of such a character as that which the right hon. Gentleman has thought it right to make.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

There never was such an occasion.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I confess I think the speech bore traces of that change which the right hon. Gentleman himself indicated in that he had intended to attack the Prime Minister warmly, but that in his absence he omitted his name from a large portion of his remarks. What was the result? Instead of addressing himself in the main to the policy of His Majesty's Government, or to the conduct of the Prime Minister or his colleagues, the right hon. Gentleman delivered an attack upon my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. He very generously and kindly substituted the name of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, who is present to defend himself, for the name of the Prime Minister, who is unable to be present. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says that these are different policies.

SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN

They profess to be.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

I was talking about persons for the moment, not policies. I say that a large portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech dealing with this matter was devoted to an attack upon the Member for West Birmingham—to his conduct first in remaining in the Government and then in going out of it—and not upon the policy of the Government at all. I think that is a very extraordinary and unusual proceeding. I am not aware that there is any precedent for interrogating a gentleman who is no longer a member of the Government as to the course he intends to pursue. As regards the Government, what is the right hon. Gentleman's complaint? He complains that the House of Commons has had no opportunity of discussing this question; that during all last session they were silent. I thought we had several debates. But if we did not have the question more definitely and directly put before us, whose fault was that? The Prime Minister, on behalf of the Government, again and again offered the right hon. Gentleman a day for any Motion of Censure upon the course which the Government took which the right hon. Gentleman could find the courage to produce. The Motion was never produced, and we still await that Motion, which we are now informed will be moved in the course of the next few days. The right hon. Gentleman alleges that the Government has no business, as I understand him, to continue in office. He challenges us to at once take the decision of the electorate on this subject. He denies our competence to frame any policy, or oar representative capacity. Yes, but he took exactly the same line previous to the election of 1900. He and his friends of the Opposition repeatedly in this House challenged our representative capacity before that election, and invited us to go to the electors for their verdict. We went to the electors; we took their verdict. [Mr. DALZIEL You said the war was over then.] The Leader of the Opposition has ever since been trying to find some reason to explain that the electors did not mean what they said upon that occasion. The appeal to The electors on our policy will come in good time. In the meantime, I think the right hon. Gentleman should make up his mind exactly as to what line of attack he wishes to adopt. He says we are shrinking from an appeal to the electors. If that be so, why does he and other gentlemen opposite accuse us of attempting to rush a verdict without due consideration? He cannot have it both ways, he must choose one accusation or the other. If I might venture to say so, it is desirable, if possible, that at any rate the leading Members of the Opposition should agree upon the same line of argument. In the absence of the Prime Minister I am not going to deal with the history of what happened in the Cabinet. I have no authority to do so and I understood the right hon. Gentleman himself to wish to reserve that question until the Prime Minister is in a position to be present. But this I say, and I say it without fear of contradiction, that no man was ever more loyal to his colleagues, no man was ever more generous to his supporters, than the present Prime Minister, and whatever misunderstanding may have arisen, none of those who served with him will ever accuse him of having wilfully or deliberately deceived them.

The right hon. Gentleman passed from his fancy picture of Cabinet proceedings to a series of interrogations as to what the policy of His Majesty's Government was. That policy has been explicitly and clearly stated by the only man entitled to pronounce as to the policy of the Government—by the Prime Minister himself. The right hon. Gentleman asks me, in reply to a series of detailed inquiries, to say how, when, why, and where each fiscal change is to be carried out? There is a question which has to be decided before we enter upon these details; that is whether you want fiscal reform or not. The right hon. Gentlemen wishes to know how exactly we propose to lower the tariffs, and how exactly we propose to prevent "dumping" at unfair prices. There have often been requests for information of that kind far in advance of any practical issue, but I venture to say that they have never been conceded, and that the person to resist the demand for information of this kind in regard to future legislation would have been Mr. Gladstone himself, who had not infrequent opportunity of showing how rigidly he was opposed to the declaration of detailed methods of carrying out a policy until the time came for the policy to be placed before the country. There is a question to be decided before that, and it is "Are you in favour of fiscal reform?" The right hon. Gentleman pretends to be less informed as to the fiscal question than I can give him credit for being, for he has been talking of fiscal reform at many meetings, yet he still pretends not to know what it is. I should have thought that it would have been well for him to have acquainted himself with it before he undertook to pledge himself and the country to objections at the threshold to any kind of reform whatever. The first question for the House and the country is whether they desire to reform the fiscal policy. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to prevent "dumping?"1 should be glad of an answer. [MINISTERIAL cheersand laughter]. But perhaps before he gives it he will consult the Member for West Monmouth, who, to this portion of fiscal reform at any rate, has promised his careful consideration.

SIR WILLIAM HAECOURT

I said I would consider any plan dealing with dumping which was proposed by His Majesty's Government.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBEELAIN

I venture to think the right hon. Gentleman has not in his mind what he stated in South Wales. I think he said that it was a very serious question, particularly to his constituents.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I remember perfectly well what I said. I said I should be ready to consider any plan dealing with dumping which was proposed by His Majesty's Government, or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.

MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN

If that was exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said, then I am bound to take his account of it. But it must have been cold comfort for his constituents and for the representatives of certain South Wales industries who waited upon him on this subject when he assured them of his willingness to consider any plan dealing with dumping. In due course we are promised an opportunity of a wider discussion of this question, and I do not propose to go further with it now. I think we must wait until that opportunity offers. I altogether deny that there is any doubt about the attitude of the Government, or that there is any difficulty, for those who wish to ascertain, to make sure of what it is. As to the particular methods by which that policy is to be pursued, I think we are entitled to maintain our freedom. It is not wise in matters of negotiation to go into details too closely, and it has never been the practice of this House to bring forth detailed schemes in advance. What we ask the House to say is that our fiscal scheme stands in need of absolute reform and change; that it is a policy that has bound us hand and foot, and left us helpless in the face of these high foreign tariffs, and that it has failed to secure for us that open door which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose tells us is so vital to our existence; that our fiscal policy has failed to guard those great interests on which the prosperity of the Empire depends.

MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, East)

rose at 7.28 to continue the debate, but, his utterances were lost in the noise made by Members leaving the House.

And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.