KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).

HC Deb 09 February 1904 vol 129 cc807-40

Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [8th February] to Main Question [2nd February],"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

"Most Gracious Sovereign;

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

Which Amendment was— At the end of the Question, to add the words But it is our duty, however, humbly to represent to Your Majesty that our effective deliberation on the financial service of the year is impaired by conflicting declarations from Your Majesty's Ministers. We respectfully submit to Your Majesty the judgment of this House that the removal of protective duties has for more than half a century actively conduced to the vast extension of the trade and commerce of the realm and to the welfare of its population; and this House believes that, while the needs of social improvement are still manifold and urgent, any return to protective duties, more particularly when imposed on the food of the people, would be deeply injuriousto our national strength contentment, and well-being."—(Mr. John Morley.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. RICHARD CAVENDISH (Lancashire, North Lonsdale)

said as one of the Members who had consistently supported the Government during the whole period he had been in the House, and who had without hesitation followed the bidding of the Whips, he felt he could not support the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite without giving the reasons which prompted him to take that step. It might be said that after the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on the previous day it was hardly necessary for a free-trader to give any reason for voting in favour of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. It was not possible, now that this issue had been raised, for any hon. Member to stand aside and not take a decided part on one side or the other. It might be said by some that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade had completely disposed of the allegation that the Government were moving in the direction of a protectionist doctrine. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman had repudiated any idea of protection, and he went on to say that the Government, as a Government, refused to associate themselves with the policy of the right hon. Member for Birmingham. That was a declaration which many hon. Members who were free-traders considered sufficient to enable them to support the Government, but there was one very serious omission from the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Gentleman had not dealt with the condition the country had been in during the last four months, and never attempted to explain the attitude of the Government during the recess, from the opening of the right hon. Member for Birmingham's proposals and the present time. Some better explanation of the action of the Government ought to be given than had been vouchsafed. The House ought to know clearly and distinctly if the Government were going to take their part in the crusade against this doctrine of protection. It was impossible to support the Government unless the House heard that they did not propose to maintain a quiescent attitude on the subject, but were prepared to take a public part in destroying this vicious doctrine which had come amongst them. He would not enter into the complicated questions which had been discussed that afternoon by experts from opposite sides of the House, which a layman could not be expected to do, but it was not difficult for a layman to form a true estimate of what was right and what was wrong. Speaking for himself—and he believed a large number of Members who could not be expected to have a great technical knowledge of this subject—he based his opinion on primary operations. What they had to consider was what had been the result of this system of protection when it was in force; what had been the benefits derived from its abolition, and what were likely to be the results if it were reimposed. He was absolutely opposed to any of the protectionist proposals that had been advocated by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and he was also opposed to the policy of retaliation. Retaliation might not do the country any harm, and it was conceivable that in some cases it might possibly do good, but, having heard the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, did any one believe, if they assented to the proposals of the Government, they would not have imposed upon them in a very short time a complete set of protective tariffs? A retaliatory tariff on one or two articles might do good, but when it was eventually extended to all the articles imported into this country they would be at once brought face to face with protection. If the House once assented to this policy of retaliation it would not be able to withstand protection later on. In this case it was of the highest necessity that they should prevent the thin end of the wedge coming in at all. Holding these views, he did not see how he could conscientiously oppose this Amendment, and he did not see how the Government, if their views had been accurately and justly expressed by the President of the Board of Trade, could conscientiously oppose it. If it were possible to have a clear issue on the merits and demerits of free trade and protection, he was convinced a majority would go into the lobbies in favour of the system under which they now lived.

In July last, in a speech delivered at the Constitutional Club, the Prime Minister distinctly declared that a difference of opinion on the great fiscal problem should not be held to be against Party allegiance; that it should not be for one side to question the loyalty of the other. But that declaration had not been acted up to in the last few months. Those who had adopted the free-trade platform had been held up as disloyal to their Party, to their own constituencies, and their own supporters, and had been subjected to every conceivable kind of annoyance; and determined efforts had been made to get the local organisations to adopt resolutions against them. They ought to have a specific declaration from the Prime Minister and the Government that they were content to abide by what he believed would be their wish if they were really a free-trade Government. The Government ought to extend to the free-traders the same consideration and support as they had extended to the Unionist candidates at the recent by-elections, who, while they advocated their loyalty to the policy of the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party, had stated their willingness, when the time came, to support the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. He felt it was impossible for anyone who believed in the principle of free trade to take the declaration, of the Government on free trade and not believe there was some hidden meaning in the background. He did not think it was intended to put them in a better position in the future, and until he had some better explanation from the Government he could not extend his support to them. It was impossible, with the views he held, to support a Government, which he believed were taking a wrong course.

MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)

said he regretted to find himself in disagreement with an hon. friend with whom he had worked in harmony for many years, but his views did not coincide with those of the hon. Member who had just sat down. He was not a free-trader; on the contrary, to use the picturesque language which had been used in the debate, he was a "whole-hogger," and as he had supported the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in the country, he was not ashamed to support it in this House. The Amendment was divided into two parts, the first referred to the so-called conflicting statements of Ministers. In a case of this kind he regarded the statements of Ministers as somewhat of the academic order, because Ministers had publicly stated that they did not mean to introduce any change in the fiscal policy during the present Parliament. No doubt fiscal reform would come, but at the present the Government were advocating a policy called retaliation. One would have thought everybody might have agreed on retaliation. Even the Free Food League, he thought, would have supported retaliation, and he was rather surprised to hear that the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken was going to vote in favour of the Amendment and against retaliation on the present occasion. While he accepted retaliation, he accepted it as a stepping-stone and in no other sense, because he did not believe that retaliation alone was a possible policy. He did not understand how there could be retaliation without a general tariff. The manufacturers would never allow a temporary retaliatory or protective duty to be put on some articles which they did not manufacture and not on others which they did manufacture. Besides which, retaliation would not meet the principal evil with which they wished to deal. At the present moment the principal thing with which they had to deal, is was shown by the remarkable speech of the Secretary to the Board of Trade, was not hostile tariffs but dumping, and how was retaliation to deal with dumping, which was the act of a private individual, firm, company, or cartel—whichever it might be called. He, for one, did not see how they were going to retaliate on private enterprise, or on the great evil of clumping. Again, dumping was confined to manufacturers. Did any hon. Member suppose that the agriculturists of this country would allow a system to be adopted which would benefit and temporarily protect a particular manufacturer and which would do nothing for agriculture? He did not believe it. And, lastly, the system of retaliation alone left out of count altogether the colonial position. He knew many people in the country, who, although they were free-traders economically, did not regard this question from an economic point of view, and were prepared to abrogate their free-trade principles on account of the enormous political advantages that would be derived from a preferential tariff between the Colonies and the mother country. Retaliation left out of consideration colonial and Imperial sentiment, and for that reason he did not believe it could be a permanent policy. He emphatically supported the Government so far as they went, because their action on retaliation alone marked a transition from, and a break with, the Cobdenite tradition of the last sixty years. The Prime Minister at Sheffield asked himself the question, "Do you wish to break with the tradition of the last half century," and answered the question emphatically in the affirmative "I do." That was the impression left on his mind after that speech, and he. as a tariff reformer, welcomed the break, and would be glad to think some alteration was to be made in the laissez faire attitude that had prevailed in this country for so long.

The second part of the Amendment spoke of the great advantage free trade or free imports had had upon the trade of this country for the last half century, and proceeded to warn them against any alteration in the system. He was prepared to admit that the system of free imports had contributed to some extent to the prosperity of the country; he admitted that there had been an enormous development in our prosperity since the abolition of the Corn Laws. But, in his opinion, supporters of that policy attached an over-rated importance to the fact that that was due entirely to free imports. At the time the Corn Laws were abolished railways were being constructed in this country, gold was being discovered, and we were engaged in building railroads all over the world; steam was being applied to machinery of various kinds in a way in which it had never been applied before, and because there was a large development of trade, it did not follow that post hoc was propter hoc and that all our prosperity was due to the duties abolished at that time. In 1846, when the present system was introduced, we were the workshop of the world; we had an absolute lead and were ahead of every foreign nation. We had progressed since then, but had not protected nations progressed much more than we? We were no longer the workshop of the world. The proportion of manufactures which we exported as against that which was exported by other countries was far less every year. We were now told that we were prosperous because our exports had increased last year by £7,500,000, but in the case of Germany, a protected country, their exports had been increased in nine months by £12,000,000. So that their exports had increased by £5,000,000 more than ours in three months less. It was absolutely true as years went on that the proportion of British exports, as compared with the exports of the whole world, grew less, and were it not that there had been a large increase in the exports of this country to the Colonies, he did not doubt that they would possibly show a decrease. The increase of the colonial trade had to a large extent concealed for a time the decrease in trade between this country and foreign countries. The Colonies had stepped in at the very moment when foreign nations by a high tariff had been refusing to accept British goods. That was not all. His hon. friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in his extremely able speech, pointed out how the character of our trade had altered for the worse, and how we were exporting more and more raw materia land importing more and more manufactured goods. On the other hand, the imports of raw materials were declining and the imports of manufactured goods from foreign countries were increasing. Was that a good thing for this country? They might be extremely rich, they might have an enormous volume of trade, but they were employing foreign labour instead of English labour, and were sending capital abroad instead of employing it at home.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose Burghs said he would be told that circumstances had entirely changed since free imports were introduced in 1846. He himself ventured to say that that was absolutely the fact. He was not one of those who went about the country abusing Cobden, and he did not know whether he would be considered as one of those who were unworthy to loose the latchet of Cobden's shoe. He had never held any other opinion of Cobden than that he was an exceedingly patriotic man and that he did what he believed to be the best at the time. He went further and said that he believed that Cobden's policy was not a bad policy at the time it was adopted. Cobden's object was to increase exports by throwing our ports open to raw material and food from abroad, so that the foreigners who sent us these articles should buy our manufactured goods. We were the workshop of the world at that time and did not fear hostile tariffs. Foreigners manufactured so little themselves that they were bound to buy from this country. This country then did not fear dumping because foreigners had nothing to dump. Circumstances had now, however, entirely changed. Foreigners did not see why they should continue to send this country food and raw material and take British manufactures, and they said that they would manufacture themselves. They now not only supplied their own markets but dumped goods on this country, to its great injury. Surely it was a wise policy to look at the effects of the changes which had taken place, and if an alteration in policy were inecessary, then to make it. He could not agree that because Cobden's policy was a good policy fifty years ago it was a good policy at the present time. He had heard a great deal the other day about dumping from an American. They did not call it dumping in America; they called it "making a slaughter market." It was said that dumping was bad for the country that dumped, but it was not necessarily bad if, as his hon. friend had pointed out, it enabled the country to increase its output, and thereby manufacture more cheaply. Then it was said that dumping was good for this country, because goods could be sold more cheaply than would otherwise be the case. If such cheapness were to be permanent it might be good. Hid his hon. friend the Member for the Isle of Wight believe that that cheapness would be permanent or that industries were not destroyed by dumping? His hon. friend the Member for King's Lynn said that industries would revive, but what about the employés during the period of revival. They would be walking about without work and on the verge of starvation, and would possibly have to emigrate to other countries. Even then what would be the use of their returning, as if dumping recommenced the industry might be again destroyed. Already the glass and chemical industries had been very seriously injured. His hon. friend said that those industries were destroyed by foreign competition, but if goods were sent to this country at less than cost price then it was dumping and nothing else.

MR. MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)

asked if the hon. Gentleman said that Belgian plate glass was sent into this country at less than cost price?

MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN

said it was impossible across the floor of the House to answer questions about particular industries.

MR. MOULTON

said that the profit on the Belgian plate glass industry was derived from exports.

MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN

said that if the price were not below cost now it was possibly because the English plate glass industry had been destroyed and that the Belgians held the market. He had heard a great deal about the transferability of labour. A more heartless doctrine had never been pronounced in this House. It caused a vast amount of misery, and if there were any case where it was justifiable for the Government to interfere, it was the case where men were turned out of work by foreign dumping. Even if transferability were possible, a vast amount of suffering was absolutely inevitable. They were told they should have more technical education. Let them suppose that a man was technically educated to be a tinplate maker, and that owing to dumping that industry was temporarily destroyed. What was the use of technical education to such a man, brought up to a particular trade, when his work was taken from him, his trade destroyed, and he was told to seek other employment. He yielded to no hon. Member in his desire to see more technical education in the country, but they should supplement technical education by some means which would enable them to look after their own industries. They had, of course, heard of the old argument of the cheap and the dear loaf, and of the large and the little loaf. He quite agreed that that was a very effective argument to put before the electors; but it was a very misleading and a very unfair argument to suggest that a small duty of 2s. on foreign corn was going to raise the price of bread or reproduce the conditions that existed under the old Corn Laws. After all, there was a great deal to be said for the argument that cheapness was of no particular value unless a man had money to buy, and that employment was more important than cheapness. What they should aim at was more employment, and more regular employment, at better wages. He had heard it stated that under protection wages would be lower. He did not hold that view for a moment. He believed that any system which would be to the advantage of the home producer would have the inevitable effect of increasing wages, and if wages increased, even though there was a small increase in the cost of commodities, the position of the working class would be better off than it was now. He would give one illustration. Germany was a country which had tried both free imports and protection, and he had been able to trace in the case of one great firm—Krupps at Essen—what the wages were under both systems. From 1854 to 1873 there was a system of moderate protection in Germany, and the average wages in Krupp's works during that period was from 1.33 to 3.39 marks per day. From 1873 to 1878 there were free imports and wages fell from 3.39 to 3.31 marks per day.

MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)

said it was obvious that wages would fall when the sudden demand for guns ceased after the conclusion of a very great war. Other-conditions came in later.

MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWEN

said it was very remarkable that the other conditions were free imports. In 1879, when protection was introduced, wages rose from 3.02 marks in that year to 4.52 marks, which was the rate of wages last year; and during that period the cost of commodities had fallen, and the purchasing power of the German workmen had largely increased. He did not say that that was a conclusive argument; but he did say it justified them in the confident expectation that a system which secured their own markets, would have the effect of increasing wages and the purchasing power of the working man.

With reference to the colonial or Imperial side of the question the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose suggested that it was dead, or at any rate, that it had retired to the background. He wished to say so far as he and his friends were concerned that was not the case in the least. The colonial side of the question appealed most to him, and he was prepared to take the opinion of the House and the country on it. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to point out that this country would stand to lose very heavily by a system of colonial preference, and he said that the Colonies had very little to give. He himself disputed both propositions. He did not believe that if they developed the wheat fields of Canada the price of corn would be one penny more than it was at present. His right hon. friend the Member for Ealing said that the amount which their foreign rivals had of colonial trade was very small. But if they established a system of preferential trade with the Colonies, they would vastly develop colonial trade, and instead of sending capital to foreign countries they would be able to develop Canada and Australia, increase the population in those colonies, and increase the demand for British commodities. The Premier of Ontario speaking of Mr. Chamberlain's policy—he was in favour of it like every other public man in Canada—said the other day— The only thing is, that this policy ought to have been adopted some years ago. If it had been adopted twelve years ago, the population of Canada, instead of being 6,000,000, as now, would be 20,000,000. Canada rook per head of British goods £5 worth per annum. If there were fourteen additional millions of Canadians at the present time the export of British goods to that country would be £70,000,000 more per annum than at present. He had no doubt that the policy which had been proposed would greatly develop the Colonies and be the very best thing that could happen for manufacturers at home. He was astonished at the attitude some hon. Members took up on this question of colonial preference. Cobden himself wished to get rid of the Colonies, and thought that free trade would get rid of them. Fortunately that prediction was proved to be false. Let them take the case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. No one would for a moment suggest that he was animated by anything but the highest spirit of patriotism and Imperialism, and yet he seemed absolutely afraid of colonial preference. He seemed to think that if we came to some sort of arrangement with our colonies we should begin breaking up instead of consolidating the Empire. If we tried to force preference on our Colonies against their desire we might be going the right way to destroy the Empire, but the demand for preference came from the Colonies themselves and not from us, and no one would for a moment suppose that the unanimous resolution of the Premiers of the self-governing Colonies was forced upon them by the ex-Colonial Secretary. Not only had the Colonies requested preference, but several of them—Canada, South Africa, and New Zealand—had already given it, and the main issue between political parties in the last Australian elections was the refusal of the Government to go as far in this direction as their opponents desired. This offer, too, was being made to us at the very time that every foreign nation was closing its doors to our trade. Markets in nearly every part of the world were being shut to us, and were we to be such slaves of economic pedantry as to refuse to consider the arguments now put forward Were weat the time that our trade was being diminished all over the world to lose the only opportunity of extending it? This question might be misunderstood, it might be overlaid with catch-penny phrases, such as free food, but he felt sure that when the time came for a clear issue to be laid before the country the policy of change so ably and so enthusiastically advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would be bound to succeed.

* MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)

said the last speaker had left them in no doubt as to his position, but he need be under no fear that the question would be misunderstood; the longer it was discussed the better the people at large understood it. They all welcomed the plain, straight forward and manly speech of the hon. Member for North Lonsdale, a member of a great historic family. If anything were needed to justify the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose in bringing forward his Amendment it was to be found in the course the debate had taken. They had had some most interesting speeches. The discussion was absolutely necessary, and it would have been a dereliction of duty if the Opposition had not challenged the opinion of the House on this subject. They had already had four speeches from members of Cabinet and ex-Cabinet rank. First there had been the remarkable declaration of the President of the Board of Trade; then they had had a no less remarkable speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol; next they had had the contribution of the noble Lord the late Secretary of State for India, and finally they had had the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton, raising important points to which as yet no reply had been given. This House was the grand inquest of the nation; it was its duty to investigate this matter, and he was astonished at the entire absence through long periods of Cabinet Ministers. Such conduct in former days would have been held to justify a Motion for Adjournment. More explicit information was required from the Treasury Bench. The Secretary to the Board of Trade, whose intervention was delightful in everything that made speech attractive, had appeared as a full blown protectionist, and yet, on the previous night, his chief repudiated any doctrine of the kind. He had said with great truth that some of the questions of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton could only be replied to by the Prime Minister, but surely, even though, unfortunately, the Prime Minister was prevented from being present, there was some Minister who could speak with the voice of authority and declare the position of the Government? Could not the Cabinet meet and draw up a Memorandum and entrust it to the Home Secretary to read? Let some one be empowered to state explicitly and clearly the position of the Government. Still it was not with the Government that they had to deal for the moment. Everyone knew that the real protagonist was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He (Mr. Ellis) had always recognised that he had ideals on the subject of Empire, and he had never thought that he put forward these doctrines and left the Cabinet from any but high motives. But he did think the right hon. Gentleman had been mistaken, and that some of his ways had been most reprehensible; still the right hon. Gentleman no doubt believed himself to be the missionary of truth and had indulged in what had been termed a raging tearing propaganda. He noticed one curious incident on the first night of the session. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to find fault with the Leader of the Opposition for alluding to the author of this policy, and said he did not know it had ever before happened on the opening night that so much attention had been paid to a private Member. But the matter was not to be brushed aside in that fashion. The Times had remarked— Mr. Chamberlain's policy is not a Parliamentary question at all. Some of us sympathise with his efforts to convert the country, but until he does convert the country no one can give effect to his sympathy. Surely the first place in which this subject should be discussed was the Commons House of Parliament. Hon. Members were bound to maintain on the floor of the House what they had said outside.

The first fault he found with the policy propounded by the late Colonial Secretary was want of recognition of history. The last speaker, like so many, seemed to think that the matter began and ended with Richard Cobden. Long before Richard Cobden lived the principles of free trade were enunciated, and it was not because Cobden believed that other countries would follow our example that he agitated for the abolition of the Corn Laws; it was because he believed it would be for the benefit of these islands. Let hon. Members devote a little more time to the study of Hansard, and they would find that long before Cobden's day the principles of free trade were advocated by statesmen, and it was a policy accepted by both political Parties from the great debate and division in 1852 down to May last year. The onus therefore rested on those who wanted to put back the hands of the clock, and who believed in proection, to prove their case. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham appeared to forget that every single argument he had used was demolished over and over again in the debates which occurred in that House a generation or two ago. Whenever the arguments advanced were reduced to specific instances and definite calculations it was at once seen how illusory they were. He understood the President of the Board of Trade had rather given up the theory of decaying trades. [An HON. MEMBER: Where is he?] Here and there they might find in certain industries a particular concern which was not very flourishing and not paying a high rate of interest to its shareholders, but that arose from a cause which had not been sufficiently recognised. That cause was the operation of the Companies Acts, by which the old individual personal management had been lost. The new management had not improved in quality. The boards of directors, many of them composed of gentlemen not brought up to the business, but who had simply invested their money with a view to getting a higher rate of interest, were not in close touch with the business or the employ's. Besides that, many of these concerns had had their capital inflated to an absurd extent. He believed that company management was responsible for a good deal of the complaints of bad trade. He had a curious illustration of that the other day. A clergyman came to him and said, "I think there must be something in this scheme of Chamberlain's for I am going to get 10 per cent. on my investment instead of 5 per cent." On inquiry he found that the money was invested in a concern which he knew very well. It dealt in a commodity in universal demand, and formerly belonged to a family which made great fortunes; but it had now passed into the hands of a company, the capital in it had been quadrupled, it had a very inefficient board of directors, and, of course, could not pay a good dividend. It was that sort of concern which it was hoped the Birmingham scheme would benefit. The only people who had been bitten by this scheme of 10 per cent. duties were a number of manufacturers who, here and there, were not in the first rank of their industries, and some of whom, he knew, were on the Tariff Commission. He remembered sitting as a youth in the gallery and hearing the introduction of the Budget of 1860, when Mr. Gladstone said— We are all without exception free-traders, but none of us are free-traders without an exception, and the exception is always in favour of ourselves. These gentlemen all thought they were going to get something out of the scheme, but when they came to the question of what each was to pay, then would arise the difficulty.

It was also said that there was to be some advantage to agriculture. Certainly the agriculturists were not going to allow a tax to be enjoyed by manufacturers unless they got something out of it also. But he would like the right hon. Member for Sleaford, for example, to say what the farmer was going to get, to show a balance-sheet setting out what the duties would bring him and what he would have to pay for enchanced price of commodities, how much the landlord would get, and how much the increase of wages would be which was given to the labourers. In his judgment the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman was crude to the last degree. It had not been carefully thought out, and it changed like a chameleon from day to day. But all the vices to which he had referred faded into insignificance beside the one great vice that it gave no recognition to the manifold variety and the enormous and delicate complexity of our commercial system. He had been astounded when responsible years ago as chairman of a bank at the delicate web and net-work which our commercial system had assumed. Why was it that not a single banker of repute sat on the Tariff Commission. The Times of that morning remarked that banking only deals in the "exchange and distribution," but surely those elements were a large and vital portion of our commercial life? All the speeches which had been made, from the right hon. Gentleman downwards, were lacking in the accent of personal responsibility and experience in affairs. Business firms with which he was connected had received the list of questions the Commission were asking, but was it to be supposed that replies would be sent to persons of no authority, and who had no right to put the questions? The whole thing was more or less of an imposture. What lay at the root of this whole scheme of fiscal reform was the artificial enhancement of the cost of living of the people of this country. He regretted the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, but it was necessary to consider at whose instance the scheme was put forward. The right hon. Gentleman's public career was not such as to give authority to the pledges he had offered.

Coming back in conclusion to the Government, the President of the Board of Trade had left something to be desired in the matter of clearness by constantly interposing among his declarations as a Cabinet Minister his individual personal opinions. The House and the country were entitled to and must have, before the debate closed, some authoritative utterance on behalf of the Cabinet as to the precise position of the Government on one of the greatest matters that had arisen in our day. There were only two roads in connection with this question—the ancient road, which was forsaken sixty years ago, which entailed disaster and untold difficulties and hardship upon the people of this land, and the road along which, by the universal agreement of both Parties, the country had travelled since then. As a free-trader by conviction, and to a certain extent by heredity, nothing would induce him to consent to a scheme such as that which had emanated from Birmingham in so unprecedented a manner, and which he believed would conduce to nothing short of national disaster.

LORD HUGH CECIL

expressed his profound regret that the debate on this question was held for the first time on such an occasion. It was impossible not to feel how much the Unionist Party, how much the Government itself, would have been spared if they had consented to give them what they asked for last session—the opportunity of debating without dividing, of merely interchanging opinions upon this great question, of eliciting from all sides the varying judgments of different shades of opinion upon the subject. They would have avoided, he was confident, the wide, the painful divisions which now tormented the Unionist Party. He suspected they would have been still a united Party, following a united Cabinet, instead of divided, listening to different voices and trying, amidst the confusion of an unprecedented situation, to find out what was the guidance of their leaders and what was the path of their own duty. In the present circumstances it was impossible not to speak to some extent for one's self, because when opinion was in its present state of flux, no one could tell whether they accurately represented the opinions of any one except themselves. Therefore, speaking strictly for himself, might he say one word as to the position he occupied in regard to this Amendment and in regard to the policy of the Government? He approached the subject, let him say at once, as a Conservative heart and soul. He was afraid some of his hon. friends would think it disloyal, or at least an undisciplined, avowal when he said that he held precisely the same political opinions to-day as he did twelve months ago. If we had, as the French had, the custom of describing things by a particular year, he would say he was a Conservative of 1895. He held to the full all the principles that were then maintained by the Conservative Administration which was returned to power in that year, and he was satisfied that those principles were still, as they were then, consistent with the doctrines of free trade. The second salient point of the position from which he was bound to approach this subject was that he was altogether convinced of the truth of the doctrines of free trade. He was assured by many people that his position was an impossible one—that nowadays one must be either a Radical or a protectionist, that there was no place in politics for those who did not fall into the one category or the other. It might be so, but he could not help that. He could not conceive anybody desiring to remain in political life except on their own terms. His terms involved, as an indispensable requirement, that he should be implicitly faithful to the principles both of Conservatism and of free trade. That being his point of view, what was the position to which it led him?

Though he agreed with almost everything the President of the Board of Trade said, he was not able to agree with him when he said that the policy proposed by the Member for West Birmingham was not the main issue before the country. He thought it was. It did not rest with the Government, it did not rest with any individual, however eminent, to decide what was the issue before the country. The Government could not make a thing an issue by saying it was the issue. They could not prevent a thing being an issue by denying that it was one. The question that was occupying the attention of the great mass of the people outside the House was, "Is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham right or is he wrong? Is his policy the salvation of the Empire and of British industry, or is it hurtful to the Empire and ruinous to British industry?" It was futile to pretend that anything else really occupied the mind of the country. When he addressed his mind to the policy of the Government, as it was stated by the President of the Board of Trade, his misgivings were not altogether removed. It was true that, as that right hon. Gentleman stated, the policy of the Government there was little if anything in it to which he objected on economic grounds. He did not object at all to the principle of retaliation, and he saw no reason for adhering to the maxim of a tariff for revenue only, supposing they could get the same good by a tariff for any other purpose; but he thought with his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol that so far as retaliation went, it would have been very much better and more convenient if the Government had made any positive proposal which they had to make, now at once. He did not understand why they were to have a solemn novitiate before they entered upon this new policy. If it was for the sake of its heterodoxy he was afraid that his right hon. friend was perfectly aware that the Government two or three years ago took a step which, in point of heterodoxy, was a much stronger order than retaliation. Retaliation received honourable mention from so orthodox a writer as John Stuart Mill. The Government, with his full support, did a much more heterodox thing than retaliation by imposing an export duty on coal. But they never announced beforehand that they were going to reverse the fiscal system of the country. They simply proposed the duty: it was argued on its merits, and, a majority of the House having been convinced that it was a good proposal, it was adopted. Why could they not have done the same thing in regard to retaliation? Retaliation was a much greater reversal of the traditions of sixty years than an export duty on coal. As described by the right hon. Gentleman, retaliation was only a small modification of our fiscal traditions of sixty years ago. But there was another policy which was a reversal of those traditions. Was it possible to rid one's mind of the suspicion that this more moderate policy was called a reversal in order to use a term which would cover the two policies together, confuse the matter, and draw together into one scheme of political action free-traders and protectionists, who, though they disagreed, might, it was thought, co-operate for the success of the Government and their policy? He thought the Government were fairly exposed to that suspicion. He felt it all the more when he studied, not merely what they had said, but their words and actions during the past three or four months.

What distinction had been made between the policy which was now repudiated by his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham and the official policy of the Government? What had anybody gained by being an official fiscal reformer, and what had anybody lost by being an unofficial fiscal reformer? How many people had made speeches; from which it was quite impossible to infer whether they were official or unofficial fiscal reformers? He really thought that the only strictly loyal adherent to the Leadership of the Prime Minister was the Duke of Devonshire, for he had drawn a distinction between the official and the unofficial policy which was perfectly logical in its character. What was the effect upon the public mind if they saw election after election taking place and the organisation selecting a candidate who maintained the unofficial, the unauthorised, and now the repudiated policy, and if they saw that candidate blessed by the Prime Minister, given a watchword, and the whole force of the political organisation devoted to his return, while all the time he was advocating a policy to which the President of the Board of Trade, and, they presumed, the Prime Minister, were opposed? If such a candidate became the typical member of the Party of the future, both his right hon. friends must retire from office, or they were landed in this paradoxical situation—that they had all the official resources of the Government used to further a policy which would imply the retirement from official position of the leaders of the Party to which that Government belonged. But there was an instance of something stronger than paradox. That a Minister should go down and oppose a Conservative Member for the sake of a policy which his Leader had not adopted and which his colleague had now repudiated—should oppose one who had been a supporter of him so long as he was loyal to the faith of the Party; that, indeed, was a violation of all the traditions of Party government and of the best reputation of public life. Yes, and he saw his right hon. friend still sitting upon that Bench. Ho had not gone forth into the wilderness to preach a crusade in favour of the principles he upheld; he was content to stab in the back—[Cries of "Oh!" and OPPOSITION cheers]—those who were honestly trying to maintain their own opinion within the limits which the Prime Minister, whom he served, had declared to to be sufficient. Grateful as he was for the declaration of the President of the Board of Trade, and heartily as he agreed with almost every word of that declaration, he did not think it altered the main lines of the political situation. After all, what would happen supposing things went on as they had gone on during the last three or four months? He really thought his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade would be more uneasy than he was if he were less confident that the Opposition were going to win the next election. Supposing the policy of fiscal reform received the support of a majority of the next House of Commons. According to his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade the present Government would be precluded from proposing a preference or imposing a tax on food; they would be opposed to the policy of putting a 10 per cent. duty on manufactured goods; even in respect of retaliation he admitted that he saw difficulties in putting it into operation against Russia or the United States. What sort of enthusiasm would that kind of Government excite in the minds of the then majority of the House of Commons? He did not think such a Government would last long; he thought it would inevitably have to give place to another Government. Then, did we net-reach this sort of conclusion—he did not see his hon. friend the Member for Bradford in his place, but, in the absence of that clear-minded creator of crystals he would say that a vote given for the Birmingham policy was a vote for driving the Prime Minister, the President of the Board of Trade, and all their colleagues who agree with them out of the Government. The Party organisations were choosing candidates in favour of the Birmingham policy; and if the Party under that régime achieved a success, the success would have as its immediate re-suit the destruction of the Leader of the Party. That was a position so paradoxical that it embarrassed the Party to a point which must make it weak for all purposes of electoral fighting, and which must involve grave injustice to those who were honestly trying to take a course according to their consciences, but were not able to agree with the unauthorised policy. Not only pressure, but actual exclusion, had been practised, not only against free-fooders, but against those who were altogether supporters of the Government policy. His hon. friend the Member for Portsmouth he saw was unable to stand again for that constituency because he was not a supporter—not of the Government policy, but of the policy of the Member for West Birmingham. If the Birmingham policy, then, was not the issue, what was an issue? What had the Government done to prevent these things happening? He quite agreed that the speech of his right hon. friend was a new thing, and it marked, he hoped, a new step in the career of the Government; but previously even the most free-trade members of the Government thought it necessary to begin by sneers at Cobden, to talk about the necessity of reviewing our policy after an experience of sixty years, which might be true, but meant exceedingly little, conveying to listeners and readers the general impression that the Government were, after all, in their hearts thoroughly with the Member for West Birmingham, and all the time were ready to carry out his policy whenever they got the opportunity.

Turning to the question of how he ought to vote on the Amendment, he asked what would have been said if any other question than free trade had been treated in this ambiguous manner—for instance, Home Rule or disestablishment. His right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade had spoken of pious opinions. He might have taken as an illustration the opinions which the Member for West Birmingham, he understood, entertained in favour of disestablishment. Nobody complained of that view in the circumstances; but if the right hon. Gentleman had carried on a great mission in favour of disestablishment, if the Prime Minister had adopted a doubtful and ambiguous policy on Church reform, if the members of the Government had said they were heartily in favour of Church reform, but looked forward at no distant date to going on to the greater and wider policy of disestablishment, if one of the members of the Government was found on a Liberationist platform against some person who was a supporter of the Establishment—what would have been his feelings? Could any one doubt that he would have voted for anything and everything that would have expressed disapprobation of the attitude of the Government? He could not in any circumstances vote against the right hon. Gentleman whose Amendment was now before the House, because he agreed with every word of that Amendment. He did not attach much importance to the preamble, and the rest of the Amendment was merely a very moderate statement of the doctrine of free trade, of which everybody who called himself a free-trader must be a supporter. Therefore he could not vote against such an Amendment as that. Nor did he think the technical doctrine that the quality of the Amendment as a vote of censure was more important than its wording, could be allowed to stand in the way of a great issue like this. Members of Parliament must think of the impression this would produce. In the House they understood the value of those technicalities, but outside people did not know what was meant by an Amendment to the Address, but they understood if a proposal was put forward it was a proposal in favour of free trade, and they would say to their representative. "If you are a free-trader, why should you not vote for free trade." They must beware of being too subtle in these things and take one side or the other. They must adopt the natural straightforward course which would commend itself to plain people outside the House in carrying out the functions of a Member of the House of Commons. There remained two courses, that of abstention and that of voting for the Amendment. He did not intend to decide with actual finality at that moment between those two courses. He could not conceal from the House that abstention was a course very uncongenial to his temperament. He did not like to halt, or to seem to halt, betweeen two courses. He had often seen, in the case of persons very much more distinguished, the danger of doing so. He had watched the very skilful manœuvres of the Prime Minister during the last session, and he could not say he thought they were to his advantage or that of his Party. He had also watched the unskilful manœuvres, two years ago, of the Leader of the Opposition, and in his case also he thought they were not to the right hon. Gentleman's advantage. If he knew that the Government were really going to fight the battle of free trade against the Member for Birmingham and would act to the full up to the declarations of the President of the Board of Trade; if all through the Government would use the whole resources of Party discipline and Party organisation in order to retain retaliation and no more, then certainly he would be inclined to abstain from any course which might embarrass the Government.

With regard to retaliation, though he recognised the great difficulties in the way, he admitted that there was a strong case to be made in its favour. He was not what his right hon. friend felicitously called a Quaker in these tilings and he saw no reason for peace at any price. But he thought it would be well to have it known that we were prepared to retaliate if we were very badly treated. He was bound, however, to say that if the instances in which it had been used were examined, it did not seem to have produced very important results for good, and it had unquestionably done a great deal of mischief. He was told that those who supported the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were I called "whole-hoggers," while those who supported the Prime Minister were called "little-piggers." He believed that the Prime Minister's taste for pork was very delicate, and he thought he would probably have only a pig of the smallest dimensions; so that he could honestly say that he was a supporter of the policy of economic orthodoxy professed by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister was one of those persons who liked to themselves out a great deal more protectionist than they were, just as some people were always telling one, "What a devil of a fellow" they were in their youth. The right hon. Gentleman liked to have his gibe at old Cob-den and the rest, but in point of fact he was a very steady-going, respectable citizen at heart. He wished in a more serious vein to say that if he found himself in the Opposition lobby when a division was taken, it did not indicate that he dissented from the general policy of the Government, or even from their economic policy as explained by his right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade, and, least of all, that he had the slightest intention of modifying in any sense whatever his adherence to Conservatism as he had always understood it.

Passing to the merits of the policy put before them by the Member for West Birmingham, one rough observation applied to the industries which were supposed to be dying. It was that if one competent critic said an industry was in a bad state, and another that it was in a very-good state, they would not be far wrong in assuming that it was really doing pretty well, but not so well as everybody might wish. Had the industries been really dying, the agitation this would have occasioned would have been so great that they would not have had to wait the return of the right hon. Gentleman from the illimitable veldt in order to know it. It was the highest compliment to his right hon. friend to say that his heart was really in the Imperial side of the subject, and it was only when he looked into the matter with the bias which the policy of preference suggested to him that the industries of England appeared to him to be in such a critical condition. They might, therefore, without unreason, be a little sceptical of this theory of ruined industries, which no one ever thought of until his ingenious, interesting, and important Imperial policy was put before the country.

MR. DISRAELI (Cheshire, Altrincham)

was understood to say these trade proposals were thought of twenty years ago.

LORD HUGH CECIL

said that was very true. They were thought out long ago, very carefully considered, and altogether rejected. They were elaborately developed twenty years ago, and it was the right hon. Member for West Birmingham who, with his very distinguished talents, destroyed the agitation and maintained the fabric of free trade.

He turned therefore to the Imperial side of the question. What was it that was put before them? What end was it to serve? They were told that it made for the unity of the Empire, and they were asked whether they were willing to make sacrifices for so great an object. Certainly he would be, and all would be, willing to make important sacrifices for the unity of the Empire. The question therefore resolved itself into this, was this policy really one that made for the: unity of the Empire. He regretted that in the speeches advocating the policy very little was said to show how that object would be effected by it. Would it prevent secession? It was said that was one of the objects it might lead to. He could not conceive of anyone supposing that the Colonies should be so excited and angry that they would break their sentimental ties and the associations of common patriotism which now bound them to the Empire, and that at the very moment of secession they would change their mind when they remembered that they were getting 2s. a quarter from this country on their wheat. Those who knew the history of the world knew the deep passions which alone produced these secessions, and they must be aware that if passion did rise to the height which would make secession a possibility, no preferential tariff would for an instant stand in the way? It would be like trying to bridle a great stream with a wisp of grass. It would be swept away and carried down into the sea by the resistless flood. Would this policy make for the unification of the Empire? That was what many people believed. He had tried to consider what history said on the subject. Was there any case in history in which such an arrangement had made for unification which could at all be compared with the present case? The case of Germany was often instanced, but after all what made the unity of Germany was not the Zollverein. The history of the unity of Germany depended upon a great many historical subjects. The highest patriotic sentiment was excited, but even then unity was not produced. Unity was finally produced not a little by the blood and iron of the Prussian Monarch. The unity of Germany was built round the ascendancy of Russia. There was no analogy between that and the present case. We were in a different position, and anything resembling force or coercion would be out of the question. How did the Zollverein in their case operate? it operated by taking away the barriers which stood in the way of a natural unity. Here there were natural frontiers, and a Zollverein was not proposed. The cases were so different that they could not argue from one to another. The instance of Scotland was also instructive. Scotland was undoubtedly made a contented country eventually by the fiscal terms which were arranged at the time of the Union. But the Union was not very successful from the national point of view, because it was so unpopular that it was directly the cause of two rebellions in fifty years. What made the Union successful was that its fiscal advantages were so great that it raised Scotland from poverty to great riches. Was anything like that likely in the case of the Colonies? Every one admitted that the Colonies were already highly prosperous, and whatever might be effected by the proposals of his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham would make but slight difference to them. If they desired to see how slight the effect would be, let them consider the case of Ireland. Such was the force of racial, religious, and agrarian differ- ences that Ireland was not united to England, despite all the preferential treatment in her interest. The truth was that these arrangements were in the nature of a bargain, and a bargain always led to disputes and hardly ever to unity. The case of Canada was also worth considering. Were we going to ask Canada to accept a larger number of British imports at a time that we were declaring that German imports into Great Britain were a curse? Was it intended to inflict upon Canada the sorrows which this country suffered from German imports? Were they going to deprive the Canadian people of their industries so that they would have to go into the workhouses, or migrate to the cold Western territory to till the fields. One might indulge in much rhetoric of the same kind if one had the time of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to deal with it. Thus, by the application of protectionist principles, they would have created a machinery which would promote Imperial disunion although it was done in the name of Imperial union. The proposal was that we should impose imports on Canada while we resented them in our own case from the foreigner. We were at the same time to keep open ports for the Colonies. It was obvious that the English producer would very soon come to resent colonial imports. He would very soon begin to think that colonial imports were all that foreign imports were supposed to be. This would irritate and divide, and therefore the argument of unification could not stand. Then there was the argument of the colonial demand. But even that was not very strong. He should like to draw attention to a statement which had appeared in The Times of 2nd February from its correspondent in Australia in an account of the Australian elections. It was very remarkable coming from a source rather in favour of the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birminngham. The correspondent said— It must be apparent that a community so much in earnest about its fiscal tat are would not have withheld a single vote for free trade even if Mr. Chamberlain's preferential proposals had been before it for acceptance or rejection. But it was felt in New South Wales, as well as in the other States, that the preferential trade proposals of Mr. Chamberlain have not at present come within the range of practical politics. When the proposals do come up for separate consideration and decision the freetraders of New South Wales and the other States are much more likely to meet Mr. Chamberlain half-way than are the protectionsts. Notwithstanding Mr. Deakin's assurances that he will give a return to the mother country for preferential treatment of Australian products, the prospect that any reductions of our present duties will be made in favour of British manufacturers is extremely remote. Mr. Deakin may be willing to do this, but will the protectionist party support him? So far that party has not shown the slightest disposition to do so. We found that our colonies were lukewarm on the subject, and that had removed from us the very last argument that could be made of Imperial sympathies in favour of the policy which was recommended.

He should like to ask finally what were we to think of a doctrine that had been put forward, notably at the Guildhall, as to the decay of Empire, and Spain and Holland had been mentioned. Certainly those countries had not fallen through free trade, and Spain retained her colonial empire till the beginning of the nineteenth century, long after she had lost her position as a great Power. One might make a contrast between England after she lost her American colonies, and Spain after she lost her position as a great Power. The true explanation was that the life at the centre remained unimpaired in Great Britain, but was gone in the case of Spain. Powers did not die from the circumference, but from the centre, and it was of what threatened the centre that we ought to be most afraid. He maintained that the policy of protection threatened the central life of a country in three ways. First, it led to extravagance, be cause it veiled the taxation necessary to meet growing expenditure under the pleasing guise of protection for home industries. Secondly, protection promoted profound social discontent, which was so notable a feature of almost every country on the Continent, and from which we were happily free. We had almost forgotten what it was like, but we knew it once. There was a time when the Chartist agitation was just the same to us as the Social Democratic agitation was to Germany; and the Chartist agitation, curiously enough, disappeared just about the time when we adopted free trade. Did anybody suppose that any benefit to the Empire could equal the evil caused to the whole Empire by the growing up of a revolutionary party in Great Britain? The third danger to the life at home was corruption. He had always supported reasonable and fair treatment to the great licensed victualling interest in this country; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that a highly organised trade, having its pecuniary interests intimately bound up with the decisions of Parliament, was a very bad thing for political life. There was the instance also of a very large body of Government employés exercising pressure on Members of Parliament. If protection were adopted every trade, knowing that its wealth or poverty depended on the decisions of Parliament, would put all the pressure in their power on Members of Parliament to do them a good turn. He did not know whether corruption would take the extreme form of giving bribes, but corruption might be just as real and destructive to national life when it was a matter of log-rolling, pressure, and lobbying, which was so familiar a feature in protectionist countries.

There was behind this controversy another which had hardly come fully into the open, he should perhaps say a difference of opinion, which he believed to be very deep-seated, and to lie at the root of a good deal of the passion imported into the present discussion. There were, he believed, two Imperialisms. There was the Imperialism which looked only to profit, and that which had its spring in duty. The former looked on the Empire as a gigantic profit-sharing business, losing sight of those aspects of Empire which were its justification in other eyes. He should be sorry if we lowered our ideas of Empire. He repudiated from the bottom of his heat the counsels of those who would have us shrink from the necessary sacrifices, or from bold and even heroic courses when they were necessary. He believed Empire to be not merely a possession, but a sacred trust; and he liked to watch, as in Egypt and the Soudan, how the English brought good things to those who had been less blessed than themselves. But if the Empire were to be great, must we not wish that its great power should be exercised without the taint of corruption; that if its dominion were long, and its heart bold to endure all sacrifices, its mind also might be pure and its hands clean; and that it might go upon its path serene and majestic, driving before it all the evil things of anarchy and barbarism, and carrying in its train justice and civilisation and religion? So, indeed, we might justify Empire and believe that its part was a divine part—its sceptre the sceptre of righteousness, and its power the instrument of Heaven.

SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON (St. Pancras, E.)

said he listened with very great interest to the remarks made by the hon. Member for the Colne Valley Division. In that speech he described the complaints which were made by ironmasters as to the evils resulting from the importation of goods to be sold below cost price. He did not profess to have the long experience of his hon. friend, but he hoped he had sufficient knowledge of the subject to speak with a certain degree of authority upon it. The hon. Member for Colne Valley had spoken of the improved appliances made use of in Germany for the manufacture of iron and steel. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that in the works of which he was himself a director in the district of Middlesborough, and in which they manufactured the very goods which were being so heavily dumped at the present time, every one of these improvements had been carried out; and yet with the very best management possible they had not been able to manufacture their goods at the same price as the Germans. The same held good in Wales, where last year no less than 200,000 tons of steel bars were imported. In the North of England and the Midlands, as well as in Wales, they were able to manufacture these materials just as well as the Germans. They had the coat under the ground on which they stepped, they had the ironstone, and all the other raw materials, and it was incredible that they were not in as good a position to manufacture these goods as the Germans. The enormous amount of material coming into the Midlands, the Northern Counties, and Wales, would not be imported there if the local manufacturers had not made up their minds that it was impossible to compete with this dumping. The matter was as simple as possible. If they looked at the German papers they saw that the price of steel bars delivered in Wales was £4 per ton, while the price for the home market in Westphalia was £6 per ton.

MR. LOUGH

There is a duty on pig-iron in Germany.

SIR THOMAS WRIGHTSON

said that there was a very heavy duty against British pig-iron, but the Germans could deliver the manufactured iron in England duty free, and that enabled them to charge a high price to their own people. In fact the Germans manipulated their prices in such a way as to get underneath the English market, and that was the real reason why dumping could take place. The question was—could the English manufacturers be expected to go on manufacturing at a loss? They would be very foolish if they did. They must go into another branch of trade or give up altogether. In his own particular work they had gone into another branch of trade, and in doing so they had to put down a large amount of capital, which came in before the ordinary share capital. There was considerable disorganisation of the trade in consequence of the change, and there was, therefore, great loss. These were some of the results of the dumping system. It was pretended by certain members of the community that the cheapness which was the result of the importations from Germany and America was a compensation to us, because it was a benefit to the consumer. It might be a benefit to the consumer temporarily, but what were the causes of the rise and fall of prices which alternately benefited the consumer and the producer? Those causes were obviously automatic in their action. If the manufacturer produced too much, the prices went down; if the prices went down so low that the manufacturers were discouraged from manufacturing more' the prices went up again. But the whole of this automatic action was altered if they allowed the introduction of articles at below cost price. To allow the foreigners to supply our markets and keep the price at an unremunerative rate was disastrous to the local manufacturer. The interest of the producer and the consumer should be identical. What would be the effect after the Germans and the Americans had taken entire possession of our markets? People said "Oh, there is no difficulty in that; if a lower grade trade is taken possession of by the foreigners, let our own manufacturers take possession of the higher grade." But if the foreigner was in possession of the lower grade, the native manufacturer of the higher grade would be entirely in the hands of the former, and the foreigner would immediately put up his price upon the manufacturer of the higher grade. In this way we would soon cease to be the great manufacturing nation that we now were, and we would look back with regret that we had not sooner adopted a policy to protect our industries. The policy of the Government meant that we should look after our own interests, because the greatness of our country was owing to our industries on which our commerce was based. It was on these grounds that he upheld very strongly the policy of the Government for the protection of our manufacturing industries, and the provision of employment for our working people.

Motion made, and Question, "That the debate be now adjourned"—(Sir Charles Dilke) —put, and agreed to.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.