FREE FOOD.

HC Deb 18 May 1904 vol 135 cc253-304

*MR. BLACK (Banffshire)

Mr. Speaker. Although by the accident of the ballot the Motion of which I have given notice happens to be proposed from this side of the House, it would come equally appropriately from the other side, and indeed, from the Treasury Bench itself because, in the first place, the germ from which this Motion has sprung was suggested by the Prime Minister himself, the last time he spoke with regard to the question before the House; in the second place, the Motion has been adjusted with, and has the approval of, many of the Government's most enthusiastic supporters on the other side of the House, and in the third place, because both in form, subject, and intention it may be described as a vote of confidence in the Government ad hoc. Indeed, I am not sure that among those who have hitherto occupied a position of some doubt on the great question before the House, this Motion is not also received with some degree of welcome as tending to terminate the period of suspense in which they have been kept by the declarations of the Prime Minister. At least they will now have an opportunity of determining finally what their position is to be in this House, and more particularly with their constituents who, no doubt, are also in a position of some anxiety as to what their Member is to do with regard to this particular question; an opportunity that will be welcomed by many Members on that side who have been compelled, nolens volens, to sit on the fence on this all-important question. But this opportunity seems to have to some extent been snatched away by an Amendment which, at the eleventh hour, indeed, I might say after the twelfth hour last night, was put down in the name of the Prime Minister. One is tempted to ask what good purpose can the Prime Minister possibly expect to serve by pursuing this policy of procrastination in declaring his mind frankly to this House and to the country; what good purpose can be served by the policy, which I may describe as a policy of "sham, shuffle, and shunt," which has been pursued by the Prime Minister, and one or two of his supporters on this important question. If the Prime Minister were here—I do not see him in his place—he seems to have run away from the debate as well as from the Motion—I suppose he would answer, "At all costs I must keep my Party together." That is the kind of reason that up to now has been advanced by the Prime Minister, But Party is one thing and people is another. I agree that if a Party be newly come into power with the full confidence of the country to carry out some great project of nationa reform, some minor differences might be sunk to keep the Party together, but when we find a decrepit Ministry seeking to cling to the honours and emoluments of office by temporising and petty expedients, such as the Prime Minister putting down a Motion of confidence in himself, then I say the time has come when the Government which has to resort to such expedients to keep itself in power had best appeal to the country and get a fresh mandate.

I shall now proceed to read to the House the declarations of the Government on this important subject. On two occasions have Ministers, speaking not as individuals but as the Government, declared quite clearly the Government's policy with regard to the taxation of food. The Home Secretary, speaking to the Motion of my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose Burghs on the 15th of February, gave vent to the following utterance. After laying down the policy of the Government with regard to retaliation, with regard to which the Motion I submit to the House does not commit hon. Members either for or against, the right hon. Gentleman said— The Government have no intention of taxing raw material and their policy does not include the taxation of food; neither do the Government propose the imposition of any taxation for the purpose of fostering a home industry which is subjected only to natural and legitimate competition. Then at the close of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in answer to Questions put to him by two of his own supporters, the right hon. Gentleman stated— I have said that the Government are opposed to any duty on raw material or food.

Mr. MALCOLM (Suffolk, Stowmarket)

Then why this debate?

*MR. BLACK

Then in the House of Lords, four days after, Lord Lansdowne, speaking for the Government, and as the Government was asked whether the Government endorsed the answer given by the Home Secretary, said— I have not the slightest objection to accept that statement also. And he went on to say— I say categorically that we as a Government are opposed to a duty on raw materials or food stuffs. Why is it that we are told that our polity leads inevitably down an inclined plane to the Birmingham Abyss. I think I see what mental image Lord Lansdowne had in his mind when he used that expression. I think he must have had in his mind the case of certain creatures of the same species as those who have assumed the name of "whole-hoggers" who, on one occasion, ran violently down a steep place into the sea. Possibly in the future those who term themselves "whole-hoggers" may with advantage assume the more elegant title of Gadarenes.

Then Lord Lansdowne went on to say with great emphasis— I believe that instead of leading to Birmingham it leads, if anything, in the opposite direction. I must congratulate the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and those who think with him on their taking those declarations of the Government lying down. Those are the declarations on which my Motion is founded. They are very clear and distinct, and no bona fide out-and-out supporter of the Government can do otherwise than support the Motion I submit without involving themselves in the difficulty of showing dissent more or less from the policy so clearly enunciated. With regard to these statements of policy I make three distinct averments—First, these statements are very explicit declarations of the policy of the Government itself as distinguished from the views of individual Ministers undertaken after I full consultation with and with the full consent of the Prime Minister himself. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not present to assent to that statement; but his representative is present, and if it is not denied by the right hon. Gentleman it must be taken to be admitted, and it must be taken to be admitted during the rest of the debate. Second, the declarations applied clearly not to the policy of the Government during the present Parliament. That is expressly repudiated because it was said, "We are not dealing Just now with the policy of the Government during the present Parliament, but the future policy of the Government in future Parliaments and as to the mandate to be asked at the next general election." The third proposition I ask to be either admitted or denied by the Government's representative is that although no Government is bound to make any declaration of its future policy beyond the limit of the present Parliament, if in order to obtain support it makes a declaration as to the mandate it is to ask from the country, then such a declaration becomes part of its fundamental policy and becomes subJect to votes of confidence in the same way as any other portion of the fundamental policy of the Government. That I take it is admitted also. Very well. If these three premises be admitted, every member of the present Government is committed to the declarations made by the Home Secretary and Lord Lansdowne that they were opposed to any tax on food and more particularly to any protective tax on food, and the natural inference of this is that it is mere poltroonery on the part of the Prime Minister or any other member of the Government not to accept this Motion. If these statements have been made by the Government and their supporters ask them to accept the responsibility of these declarations, then it is mere cowardice and poltroonery for the Government to try and evade it. If on the other hand, the Government say they will not accept the vote and repudiate these declarations of Ministers because they do not represent their policy, there is only one other alternative. Either the Ministers who made the declarations must resign or the Prime Minister himself must resign. The Prime Minister has for too long pursued the role of a political Nicodemus. While the right hon. Gentleman has been wobbling, the ex-Colonial Secretary has been working—with the net result that unless some stop is put upon his methods I the Government would come to play an I amiable if not essential part of a political comet, in which the right hon. S Member for West Birmingham would be the real and substantial head, and the Government the large and luminous but; nebulous tail. While then, there has been some difference of opinion as to the degree of support to be given to the Government policy of retaliation, the one thing that the people of this country have indicated is that they will not have a protective tax on food. It has been the experience of Ayr burghs and every other recent election with the exception of that for South Birmingham, that any candidate putting forward the taxation of food as I part of his policy was defeated. Further I it has been necessary for many candidates; who in the main are protectionist to dis- avow in the strongest manner the taxation of food before they could even obtain a hearing. Sir, if this matter were to be looked at from a purely Party point of view I should say that the more Members who voted against the Motion the better for the Party I support. I ask Members to transport themselves in imagination from this House to the platforms of the meetings which they will be called upon to address at the general election. The question will inevitably be put, "Are you or are you not in favour of the protective taxation of food?" If the answer to that question is "Yes" then the course of such an hon. Member is clear. But if the answer is to be "No," how can an hon. Member Justify a vote given against the Motion. I now submit to the House, and will he not, notwithstanding any platform declarations, be faced with the unanswerable question, "Why, then, on the 18th May, 1904, did you vote against a Motion condemning the protective taxation of food?" But the issues involved in this question are greater and higher than mere Party issues. The issue is whether the food of the people, the prime necessity of their existence, shall be made dearer and scarcer, not to serve any great national end but in order to swell the rent-roll of the landed interest. For my part, whatever decision the House may arrive at to-night, I cannot suppose that the country will subscribe to this new doctrine of "ransom," under which the people will have to pay such a price to a privileged caste in order to retain their right to live on the land, which is the inalienable and equal privilege of every subJect of the Crown. I beg to move.

MR. GOSCHEN (Sussex, East Grinstead)

In seconding the Motion I have to ask the indulgence of the House on this the first occasion on which I have addressed it. I do not intend to enter into an economic discussion as to what effect the taxation of food would in the opinion of some of us have on the people of this country, because I believe the interest of the House this evening is centred not in the argument by which such a policy could be pursued or defended, but in the position which some sections in this House assume on the question of taxing food, and especially the position adopted by the Government. The Motion expresses approval of the speeches made against the taxation of food by the Government; and surely they cannot obJect to, or shrink from, such an expression of opinion on the part I of the House, nor can they possibly think that to emphasise their policy by such an expression of opinion could place them in an embarrassing situation. But whenever one of these fiscal debates takes place the House is always liable to surprises, and the situation has been somewhat suddenly changed. On the last occasion the free-fooders on these Benches came down to the House to support an Amendment which they believed would strengthen the hands of the Government. This time they come down to vote against an Amendment. The previous Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Ripon, was suddenly with drawn, and, though the Amendment of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has not been withdrawn, it has taken a secondary position to the Amendment placed on the Paper by the Government. We are somewhat curious to know why this Amendment has been placed on the Paper. Do the Government differ from the Amendment of the late Colonial Secretary, or is it the case only that they prefer their own Amendment to it? Whatever the reason may be and the result of the voting may be, surely we may say that the putting down of this Amendment by the Government is a notification of their conviction that a strong feeling exists against the taxation of food. Our methods of procedure in this House are often difficult to be understood, even by Members of Parliament, and are often unintelligible to people outside, and it is for this reason that I would have preferred that the people of the country should have kept their eyes on the declarations of Ministers against taxation or food as ratified by this House, rather than that they should have to be satisfied with the hypothetical question as to what the attitude of the Government may be on this question at some future date, because constituencies have, I think, come to the conclusion, partly from their own desire and partly from the hints and hopes expressed by others, that the policy of the Government is as it were a thin garment which may be blown away by a hurricane and for which will be substituted a stronger, rougher, and more expensive one woven by other hands. It is because I desire that the hands of the Government should not be weakened by any feeling of this kind that I am anxious to express approval of the speeches they have made against the taxation of food.

I should like to hear from the Prime Minister, however, what is the attitude of the Government towards those members of the Party who have loyally supported them in the past and who have differed from them only on this fiscal question. What is his attitude towards those Members who have not only supported him on other questions in the past, but who were prepared to accept the Sheffield policy though their constituents disagreed with them? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to support them against their constituents who desire the more advanced policy of the late Colonial Secretary? I assure the Prime Minister that it is against the policy of the late Colonial Secretary and not against his, that I and my hon. friends are so determinedly opposed. It is for this reason that we urge on the Prime Minister the fact that there must be no political alliance between him and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, either of a passionate or a platonic nature. I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of a passionate attachment, but of a platonic affection I have some suspicion. I know there are some people who see no harm in a platonic affection, while there are others who see considerable danger, not knowing whither it may lead. I dare not decide between these two schools of thought. But I am convinced that if doubts exist the Prime Minister should be, as I am sure he wishes to be, above suspicion in this matter. Surely at a moment of crisis like this, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, with all the enthusiasm and eloquence which he has at his command, is putting before the country a policy which entirely reverses our traditions, the Government must realise that the country comes to them to seek counsel not as to a Delphic oracle of old for a cryptic reply to be interpreted according to individual intelligence, but with a des re to know what are to be the conditions under which the battle is to be fought— whether the Government intend to assume a position of splendid isolation, relying on their own resources, or whether they have already made any treaty of reciprocity with one of the leaders of the opposing band.

It may possibly be that these debates should be closed in the House of Commons, but I venture to think that it is too late to say that they should be closed in the country. The question is far too important, and the issues too far-reaching, to bring them down to the level of a personal grievance. But if I venture to allude to my own personal position I do so, not by way of complaint, but merely by way of illustration. This is not the first occasion on which I have supported the speeches of the Government against the taxation of food. I did so in my constituency last autumn. What was the result? Two days afterwards a gentleman who supported the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was brought before the constituency, and he is now the accepted candidate. I fully realise that in every campaign there must be casualties and that the life of the private soldier is of little importance. But I should be ready to sacrifice myself if I believed that I was to be inJured in a good cause, and my enthusiasm could only be damped if I had reason to believe that my inJury was caused by want of preparation on the part of my leaders when the compaign began. I wish to submit a definite example of a danger which is overwhelming one or two of the Prime Minister's supporters, and has threatened, and is threatening, a great many of them. I feel sure that it is the right hon. Gentleman's desire to render every assistance that he can give to those who have loyally helped him in the past; and I venture with all submission to say that this can only be achieved by a speech on the part of the Government addressed to the trained intelligence of this Home, as well as to the untrained intelligence of the country. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to assure the country that he will do his utmost to defend those of his Party who are opposed to the taxation of food, who have already suffered and are in imminent danger, and that they may look to him in the future to be their leader in the time of danger.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, believing that the protective taxation of food would be burdensome to the people and inJurious to the Empire, welcomes the declarations of Ministers that the Government is opposed to such taxation."—(Mr. Black.)

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover)

At the invitation of my right hon. friend I rise to move in a few words, almost; formally, the Amendment which stands in his name. He has asked me to perform this small office in order that he may reserve his speech until a period when the debate has developed and is more matured. I am sure my hon. friend the Member for the East Grinstead Division of Sussex will not think I am guilty of any disrespect to him if I venture to suggest that the intervention of the Prime Minister will be more timely at a later hour and a more usual hour than half-past nine o'clock. All hon. Members who have not felt, as the mover of the Motion on the Paper feels, that its purport is so obvious, that it is inspired by such an amiable feeling towards all Ministers and to all the Members of the House as to need no further discussion, that we all ought to vote for it and go home, and that there is no excuse for the Amendment put down by the Prime Minister, will not differ from my point of view. But I wish to point out in a few words that my right hon. friend and the Government invite the House to say that it is unnecessary to discuss the question of fiscal reform, that it is unnecssary to discuss the declaration made by the Prime Minister at Sheffield, with which we are all so familiar. We hold that it is unnecessary to discuss either the question of fiscal reform or the well-known declaration of the Prime Minister at Sheffield on two grounds. The first ground is that no proposals, as hon. Members are perfectly well aware, embodying what is called the Sheffield policy, announced so clearly by the Prime Minister so long ago as October last, are to be proposed during either this session of Parliament or during any session of the existing Parliament. The second ground is that we desire to proceed with the business proposed in the King's Speech. Hon. Members laugh. I derive a good deal of amusement from the hilarity with which hon. Members greet a very commonplace proposition. The proposition that the policy of the Cabinet as embodied in the King's Speech and their administrative action are matters with which Parliament is concerned is always received with shouts of ridicule as an amazing paradox, and we are told again and again that there is a great question before the House. What that question is hon. Members do not seem to be very clear, and there is no reason why they should wish to explain to the House subJects which they have not studied or which they do not understand. The hon. Member who moved the Motion said it was an elucidation of certain declarations of the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister has said that the Sheffield policy is not to be dealt with during the existence of the present Parliament, and that when he goes to the country his policy will be found to be the policy which he announced at Sheffield. All that is familiar to us. But the hon. Member has tried to make that statement far more attractive. He illustrated it with parables, and supposed that we should like it a great deal better than a perfectly plain declaration from the Prime Minister. He is at a loss to understand how any one can be to lacking in sense as to refuse to accept his Motion with effusiveness. We support the Amendment of the Prime Minister because we do not think the Motion put upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Banffshire is an improvement upon the statement that we have heard from the Prime Minister. In the first place it is very ambiguous. There are a number of words used to which different people attach different interpretations. In the second place, it is invidious, and meant to be invidious. Attention is drawn to the declarations of certain Ministers.

MR. BLACK

The right hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the terms of my Motion. It does not attract attention to certain Ministers, but to the declarations of Ministers.

MR. WYNDHAM

I have been following this Motion with some curiosity. Certainly, if it is only intended to illuminate the statement made by the Prime Minister it has caused a good deal of suppressed commotion, and I have seen it stated in the public Press that the word "certain" should be eliminated. The hon. Member has got rid of one, but not of the other. His Motion begins, "To call attention to the declaration of certain Ministers." It is quite true that he may have given instructions which have not been perfectly carried out, for the removal of the word "certain" before "Ministers" in the last line.

*MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)

Fancy making a point of that!

MR. WYNDHAM

My hon. friend the Member for Oldham is pained that I should make a point of that. If the word "certain" had gone in both places I should have drawn attention to their omission at the last moment, and should have asked my hon. friend to hold with me that the intention of a Motion of this kind may be gathered from the phraseology in which it was originally couched. If that phraseology is such that the Motion purports to be a censure on certain Ministers and an encomium passed upon others, then I say it is a censure passed upon the Cabinet as a whole. If it is not a censure, what is it? It is meant to be censure, because we are supposed to have neglected the proper observation of the great doctrine of Cabinet responsibility. Now that is what the hon. Member who moved this wishes the world to understand to-morrow, and we say that there is no vestige of truth in the charge. It is as a vote of censure on the Government that we repudiate it. This is a revival of the piece we had played on the Address— the piece of the two voices. Why, in practice we have carried out the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility to greater lengths than it has ever been carried before. And not only are we all responsible, as we have pointed out, for the measures mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, not only are we at one on all administrative questions, but we have stated what our policy will be in this matter during the whole of this Parliament, and, more than that, the Prime Minister has gone out of his way to state what his election address will be. And now we are told that the question before the House is some impossibility or unwillingness on the part of hon. Members opposite to take the perfectly clear words which have been uttered by every Minister who has spoken upon this question. We do not recognise in this Amendment a mere paraphrase of what the Prime Minister has said. I suppose it is meant to be that sincerest form of flattery, imitation; but when imitation is grotesque, when it is adopted with a wink and a chuckle, it is called mimicry and is considered offensive. Therefore, in holding the Motion on the Paper to be in the nature of a vote of censure, veiled it may be, but none the less a vote of censure, and holding that on many questions we may, if our hopes are granted, be of service to the country and the Empire in South Africa, and in many other parts of the world—hon. Members opposite no doubt hold a contrary view — but seriously believing that, as we do, it seems more important than a speculation as to what we or someone else would say at a general election at some future time. I will not elaborate that, because it is so obvious to any one who listened to the concluding remarks of the Prime Minister last night what the policy is, and those of my hon. friends who support the Government will support the Prime Minister in his Amendment to a Motion which he regards as a vote of censure deliberately moved.

Amendment proposed— To leave out from the word 'House' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'considers it unnecessary to discuss the question of fiscal reforms and the declaration of the Prime Minister at Sheffield on 1st October in regard to which His MaJesty's Government have announced that no proposals will be laid before the present Parliament, and expressing its continued confidence in the present Administration, desires to proceed with the business proposed in the Gracious Speech from the Throne'—(Mr. Wyndham)—instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

I always listen to my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary with delight, but I do not think I ever listened to him with more amusement than this evening, He is in the unhappy position of having to maintain a great many propositions which his own mind is much too clear to make plausible to the House of Commons. I confess that without the aid of thought-reading I could never have read into the Motion before the House so many things as the Chief Secretary read into it, and I am inclined to suspect, as one often is obliged to suspect in cases of thought-reading, some ulterior motive on the part of the medium who operates. The Motion, I confess, seems to me a very plain matter. I am quite sure my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham fully understands it. He quite understands it because he has all the sensitiveness of the person attacked. He knows that this Motion is directed against him and his policy. It is not directed against the Government, and it is rather surprising, I think, that they should suppose it. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, will any one point out a single word in the Motion which is against the Government?

MR. J CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I understand that my noble friend appeals to me. He says that I am the person attacked, and not the Government, and he asks how any one can pretend to show that the Government is concerned. Permit me to say that if I were the only person attacked it would be perfectly easy to have left out all reference—

SIR WILFRID LAWSON (Cornwall, Camborne)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to order, Sir, to ask whether the right hon. Gentle man is entitled to get up and make a speech generally.

*MR. SPEAKER

The noble Lord gave way. The right hon. Gentleman, will no doubt not take undue advantage of the opportunity afforded him.

MR. J CHAMBERLAIN

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that my noble friend challenged me and others who think with me in regard to a particular question. I shall certainly confine myself to answering his challenge, but owing to the interruption I must again repeat what I understand the noble Lord meant. I understand the challenge to be that the Motion is an attack upon myself—that is to say, upon my policy; and is in no sense an attack upon Ministers. I say that that would have been per fectly clear if there had been no reference to Ministers in the Resolution. But as the Resolution, as it appears on the Paper, singles out the opinions of certain Ministers—[Cries of "No" and cheers]—as it appears on the Paper; the notice is probably in the hands of Members. The notice is to call attention to the declarations of certain Ministers. [Cries of "No."] That is the Motion on the Paper. [Renewed interruption and OPPOSITION cries of "Cecil," and "Order."] I cannot presume, Mr. Speaker—[Cries of "Order"]—I cannot, of course, answer interruptions, but I must merely answer the noble Lord. Owing to the form of the notice on the Paper I and many others consider that the Ministry as well as myself are attacked.

LORD HUGH CECIL

I am glad that I have given the right hon. Gentleman this opportunity of making an explanation, and perhaps I may say in general that there is nothing I desire less than that he should not be treated with the greatest respect. But I confess that the explanation does not impress me much. He says that but for the word "Ministers" this would not be an attack upon them. Therefore, his proposition is that, if you refer to Ministers in laudatory terms then you attack them. The only possible way of not attacking Ministers, by his account, is not to mention them. Well, he is a supporter of the Ministry. "Save me from my friends." I confess I think that in his zeal for what he calls "our Government," he is carried beyond the limits of reason. I read this Resolution according to the ordinary meaning of the English language. I do not really care what was the motive for the Motion being put down. What does that matter to me? I care for my motive in voting upon it. I care for its plain meaning, as it will be understood in this House, and as it will be understood from one end of the country to the other; and, looking upon it in that light, I say that it is a Motion which does, indeed, reject in terms the policy with which my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham is associated, but which does not say anything whatever about the action of Ministers, except to praise them for rejecting that policy.

Now, I only ventured to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, for a very few minutes, be cause I desired to say a few words to explain the vote which many of us will be obliged to give. We find ourselves quite unexpectedly in a difficult position. My right hon. friend the Chief Secretary appeared to comment severely on alterations made in the Motion at what he called the last moment. No doubt he has admonished the Prime Minister in private, for down to the very last possible moment he delayed to put down an Amendment of the highest possible importance, throwing every one into a great deal of confusion by so doing. I am obliged to say that I think that course has been taken with less Justification than might often have been urged for it. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has known for ten days past—known privately, without disclosures in the Press—that many of his supporters, feeling that it expressed their views, were disposed to support the Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for Banffshire. He had ten days in which to take any step he thought proper, ten days in which to communicate, if he pleased, with those interested. I believe that he has had frequent communications with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham: but I do not think he has had communication, so frequent at any rate, with those who are interested in this from the other point of view.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

That is quite imaginary.

LORD HUGH CECIL

At any rate, he has had plenty of opportunity for putting down his Amendment, if he wished to put it down, six, or seven, or eight days ago. I am not complaining of my right hon. friend, who has had many other things to think of; but I am obliged to point out the position in which he has placed these hon. Members. I have no doubt he wished to do what was perfectly proper; but inevitably we are placed in an embarrassing position—a subject of gratification to my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. I appreciate that point of view. The policy which he urges is fundamentally opposed to the policy which we advocate. I confess I wish the notice given in the name of the Government had been given somewhat earlier, in order that we might have had a longer time for reflection. How does the matter stand now? The Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has much, no doubt, to recommend it. It is better— if I may say so without any personal discourtesy—both in the circumstances and in its origin, as well as in its natural character, than the Motion that stood in the name of the Member for West Birmingham. We greatly prefer it to that one. But I confess I find it very unnecessary that the question of confidence in Ministers should be dragged into a controversy which has no relation to the confidence of this House in Ministers. We are debating upon a Wednesday evening—a time consecrated by long Parliamentary usage to the discussion of what are called abstract questions—questions of high political interest. We are, therefore, asked to vote upon a Motion which, if the Government had not treated it in this unusual way, would be a Motion to be judged on its natural merits. Why should the Government bring in confidence at all? I confess I do not understand why they should have done it. But so anxious were 1 and many of my hon. friends to avoid voting against the Government on a question of confidence that I made a proposal to the Prime Minister in private which I will repeat in public. I proposed, and propose now, that this debate should be carried over to another day, that we who approve on its merits of the Motion standing in the name of the Member for Banffshire should not press the matter to a division, and, if there were a division, should take no part in it or should vote for the Government, but on a future day, when the Amendment of the Prime Minister became the original Motion, should be at liberty to move an Amendment to that Motion expressing our views —an Amendment which would be perfectly consistent with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that proposal is not acceptable to the Government. I want to point out that we are not to be blamed if, deciding at the last moment and in very difficult circumstances, we elect to make a proposal which seems to me, I confess, a very reasonable proposal, and when it is rejected are driven where we shall be driven.

I am told that this is a question of confidence. I can understand that being said about the second question which will be put, I suppose, this evening unless the debate is carried too far, the question of inserting the words of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. But, on the question of omitting the words of the Member for Banffshire, I do not see that any question of confidence is concerned. We are told that it is a question of confidence. That means that the Government would resign if they were placed in a minority on that question—the question of omitting the words of the Member for Banffshire. Figure to yourselves the picture. The Prime Minister would have to request an audience of the King and say, "Your Majesty, I am unable any longer to conduct the administration of the country because the House of Commons persists in welcoming declarations made by members of Government." I could not have thought that outside "Alice's Adventures through the Looking-glass" such a proceeding would be possible. I do not regard this Motion as in any sense reflecting on the Government. It asserts what is the view of those who have all along opposed the policy of the Member for West Birmingham; and, if it is raised, as no doubt it is, in an inconvenient mode, I cannot help observing that we have often wished to have a debate of a more formal and lengthy character which should raise explicitly the question of the Birmingham policy detached from any other consideration. We have no wish to criticise the Government or attack the Sheffield policy. Many of those who are free-traders are strong supporters of the Sheffield policy; others, like myself, would like to hear it further developed before they commit themselves. But we should have been glad to have an opportunity of discussing the Birmingham policy, and we have been unable to do so, but we have not received in our desire any co-operation from my right, hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham himself. He prefers to discuss this question on the platform. The platform has many advantages. There are considerable facilities for selecting your audience, and there are securities against reply. To persons of my right hon. friend's economic opinions those privileges are dear indeed. I notice that my right hon. friend, commenting on those who only go part of the way which he thinks ought to be trod, describes them as weak-kneed and half-hearted. He himself belongs to the Cromwellian school. I do not think my right hon. friend is very like Cromwell. I doubt whether Cromwell would have shrunk from a debate. I agree, however, that if my right hon. friend means the probable silencing of the House of Commons no one could be more like. But I confess I should rather compare my right hon. friend to Bob Acres in the comedy, who exhibited courage elsewhere than on the field of battle, because my right hon. friend shrinks, like that character, from facing his opponents on the field of combat which is the House of Commons. When Bob Acres found himself in that situation his courage oozed out through the ends of his fingers. I cannot conceive why we should be deprived of the opportunity of debating and voting upon the Birmingham policy without any hiding behind the Government.

Well, Sir, I regret that the Government are not able to leave this discussion open to the decision of the House. I regret that it is so. I think their conduct will be severely commented on outside these walls I think people will fail to understand what are the motives that lead the Government on the path they are treading I am sure those motives are high-minded and magnanimous in their character; but no one can deny that it is impossible for them to give that impression to the great mass of the people of this country. What the people want is to have a fair issue, fairly and squarely decided. No one blames those who are protectionists, no one blames my right hon. friend for maintaining his protectionist views. What we blame him and the Government for is for withholding from the House of Commons the opportunity of expressing a fair opinion one way or the other. [Interruptions, and cries of "Order," "Collings," and "Bowles."]

*MR. SPEAKER

I do appeal to hon. Members to abstain from interruptions and recriminations.

LORD HUGH CECIL

I confess I do not regard this as a Motion in any way reflecting upon the Government, I said it appeared to me to be a statement of the position we have all along maintained. I confess, therefore, that it seems impossible myself to do otherwise than to vote in support of the Motion. [OPPOSITION cheers and ironical MINISTERIAL cheers.] I am glad my right hon. friend applauds that—I can assure him I am accustomed to vote in favour of my opinions and not to shrink from them. At any rate the issue is a plain one. The Motion expresses what we had hoped and believed to be, and what I still believe to be, the attitude of the Government in regard to the taxation of food. As the proper expression of the view of those who resist the taxation of food, among whom I may, I hope, include the Government, I shall support that Motion in the Lobby, voting, as it is my duty to do, in support of my convictions.

SIR M. HICKS BEACH (Bristol, W.)

This is the third time in the course of the present session on which the subject of fiscal policy has been under the consideration of this House. On the first occasion we had a debate in which practically any Member on both sides of the House who desired to express his opinion on the subject was able to take part. That debate was originated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for, Montrose, who desired to express his opinion and the opinion of the House that the removal of protective duties had been of great advantage to this country and that their restoration would be a great injury to the country. On the second occasion the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire asked us to record our disaproval of a protective and preferential tariff. I agree with the abstract opinions which were expressed in both those Resolutions. I agree with them now; but I voted against those Resolutions and I would vote against them again: because both in form and in substance they were votes of censure on His Majesty's Government, a Government which I was returned here to support, and which, in my opinion, has done nothing and said nothing whatever, either in this House or in the country, which justifies the censure proposed by those Resolutions. Well, Sir, now this evening we have a Resolution which is of a different character. It does not propose in its terms any censure upon His Majesty's Government. On the contrary, it expresses a distinct approval, amended as it has been at the last moment, of the opinions which Ministers have expressed on the subject of the protective taxation of food. In that view I entirely agree. I believe that, if we could know the opinion upon that subject of the majority of the present House of Commons, the majority of the present House of Commons would be opposed to the protective taxation of food. But I feel quite certain that the majority of the constituencies of this country would be opposed to the protective taxation of food. Up to this morning we had to decide between this Motion and the Amendment of my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. I should have supported the Motion against that Amendment. I should have done so because I object to the vague terms in which a change in our fiscal policy was alluded to in the Amendment of my right hon. friend, when I couple those terms with the opinions and the action in which he has been so prominent throughout the country. But it is not necessary to pursue that subject now that Amendment is defunct. It may be paired off with a certain other Amendment which had an even briefer life on another occasion, and I will not pretend to shed a tear over its grave. The Prime Minister, or rather the Chief Secretary for Ireland, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, has moved another Amendment to the Motion which is before the House; and that Amendment traverses the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire, and, besides traversing that Motion, it contains what to my mind is a matter of some importance—a reference to the Sheffield policy, a policy with which I agree.

My noble friend who has just sat down asked why, seeing that the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire is a Motion approving the action of the Government, we cannot all support it. Well, under ordinary circumstances it might have been thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire might have been accepted by this House with the tolerant acquiescence of the Government, just as many such Motions of private Members are constantly accepted on a Wednesday evening. But my noble friend is, compared with me, I am sorry to say, a young Member of this House. Cannot he see in the crowded Benches before him, did he not detect in the speech of the hon. Member for Banffshire what this Motion, so innocent, so complimentary in its terms, really means? I do not wish to impute motives to any man, and I cannot judge of the motive of the hon. Member for Banffshire; but it is a little odd that that hon. Member, being as we have always known him to be, and as his speech to-night shows him to be, a very active and very determined opponent of His Majesty's Government, should, when he had the good fortune to obtain by the ballot the last opportunity in the present session on which a private Member may propose a Motion to the House, have chosen—have wasted his good fortune in proposing a vote of approval of the action of His Majesty's Government. Now, does not that invite us to look a little behind the words of the hon. Member for Banffshire in considering the Amendment proposed by His Majesty's Government? But there is another point. I agree, as I have said already, in the terms of the hon. Member for Banffshire, I object to protective taxation on food. Well, but does that cover the whole of the future fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government? It is perfectly clear that the terms of the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire cover only what may be described as the negative policy of His Majesty's Government, and does not touch at all the positive policy of His Majesty's Government, which surely is a matter of some importance in their consideration and in the consideration of this House. If it had been possible that the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire should have been put from the Chair as a substantive question, I for one should have voted for the addendum to the Motion my hon. friend the Member for Clapham has placed on the Paper, which would make it perfectly clear that the Motion was an approval not merely of their negative policy in being opposed to a protective tax on food, but also of their positive policy as being prepared to suggest to a future Parliament a policy of negotiation with foreign countries for the reduction of their high; tariffs, enforced, if necessary, by retaliation in cases where we could not get fair terms. I will put this test to the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire. Suppose his Motion had been so amended as to declare the whole fiscal policy of His Majesty's Government, would he vote for it himself? Is that not another indication of what this Motion really means? I might almost say, "In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird," if my noble friend who has just sat down had not shown so great a desire to jump into it.

Now, after all, what is it that the hon. Member for Banffshire asks us to do? His speech really consisted mainly of a series of quotations from speeches of members of the Ministry establishing the principle of his Motion. He quoted from the Prime Minister, he quoted from the Home Secretary, he quoted from Lord Lansdowne, passages all declaring their objection to protective taxation on food. That is the negative part of the Sheffield policy. Can there be any doubt of it? Does any Member really believe that that is not part of the Sheffield policy? Why, the hon. Member for Banffshire has himself established it. What has the Prime Minister said on the matter? I do not like to trouble the House with quotations, but this is an important point, and perhaps I may read this. Everybody knows that in his Sheffield speech, to which he calls our special attention in the Amendment to the Motion, he said— A tax on food is not within the range of practical politics. And then more recently in this House he said— I do not think public opinion is in a condition to accept any proposition in regard to taxation of food, or fiscal union with the Colonies so far as this depends on taxation of food. Then he went on to say— The Sheffield programme is that which if occasion arose to-morrow, I would set before the country so far as fiscal reform is concerned. Well, I am a supporter of His Majesty's Government; I repose some confidence in the Prime Minister; I accept the declarations of the Prime Minister on that subject. I do not myself believe that any advantage will be gained from passing a Resolution tonight which does no more than embody the declarations which the hon. Member who moved it himself admits have been made by the Government on this subject—more especially when, as everybody knows very well, no one proposes to bring any alteration of our fiscal policy before the present Parliament, and when any Resolution which might be placed on our records on this question of fiscal policy would have no weight whatever upon the judgment of the constituencies who will in the end be called upon to decide the matter.

MR. J CHAMBERLAIN

Like my right hon. friend who has just sat down, I also was a member, a short time ago, and even later than he, of His Majesty's Government. Up to the time that I left that Government I was in absolute accord with my colleagues as to their policy. I am very glad to say that since I have left that Government I have remained in absolute accord with their policy and their professions. Therefore in anything I may say I frankly admit, however much hon. Gentlemen opposite may object to such a statement, that my object is to support the Government, and for the simple reason that in all questions of confidence it is a question of loyalty. If you agree with the practical, immediate, definite policy of a Government you are bound to do your best to support that Government. I have said there exists such an agreement between me and my right hon. friends on that Bench. They have, in my opinion, done a great work in the past, they have undertaken a great work for the future. I believe in that work, I desire to give them every support in carrying it to a successful conclusion. When this question of fiscal reform first arose, it took what I frankly admit were to me unexpected proportions, and I found that my continuance in the Government might embarrass the Government, might even weaken it; and I retired from the Government. I think the other day I was: accused by the hon. Member for Oldham of having exhibited cowardice, because, for sooth, I had relinquished what are called the sweets and certainly the emoluments of office in order to carry out, to promote, my own convictions, and in order not to embarrass my political friends. I am prepared to leave the judgment of my conduct to the House, to opponents as well as to friends. But from the moment I became a private Member, as I have said, I agree with all that the Government has done, but I am not bound to; and certainly they are not bound to agree with me, and they are not responsible for anything that I have said. I have gone out into the wilderness, if you please, as you tell me, on a hopeless expedition, which ought, I think, to satisfy even the most malignant adversary; and I have not asked either the Government or any Members of this House to commit themselves to my policy. There is a division of opinion as to that policy in this Parliament. I do not want to be exceptionally controversial, more controversial than I can help, so I will not talk about the proportions in which that division exists Bat this I will say, that while on the one side those Gentlemen who differ from me are aggressive, and demand that the Government and that this House and that every Member shall pledge themselves in regard to a policy which at present is only in the condition of a policy for discussion, all that we—those who hold my views—askis,that the Government and our friends should say nothing which should I prevent the possibility of that policy.

Well, the fiscal question is to me almost a phenomenon, it has had almost unexpected developments. It seems to me to be like ecclesiastical questions; apparently it affects some minds, and even sane minds, with a kind of extreme bigotry, I might almost say a kind of uncharitableness, which I am not aware of as existing in regard to other matters of controversy. There is my noble friend the Member for Greenwich, the most amiable of men, who entertains a very strong opinion upon this subject, to which he is as much entitled as I am to my equally strong opinion in the opposite direction. But thereupon he gets up, and while he professes respect—Heaven save the mark—for his I opponents, he accuses those opponents of the most contemptible of vices. He explains elaborately, amongst the enthusiastic cheers of, as I suppose, his political opponents, he explains to them that he has the utmost respect for a man whom in the next breath he accuses of the meanest and most contemptible avoidance of his responsibility, Well, I was in public life, I suppose, about the time the noble Lord was born—

LORD HUGH CECIL

I can assure my right hon. friend that I meant nothing disrespectful to him —I meant that he is wanting in what I call political courage. I think he shrinks from meeting this matter in the House of Commons as he ought to meet it.

MR. J CHAMBERLAIN

Sir, my noble friend makes matters worse. Of course I well understood he did not accuse me of want of personal courage. If he thought fit to challenge me to a physical combat in the House of Commons, in spite of my disadvantage of age, I can well understand that he still thinks I should accept the invitation. I have I never considered that physical cowardice is the worst quality in man, but I regard moral cowardice as the worst. My noble friend, who has the utmost respect for me, I has accused me in this House of moral I cowardice. I do not wish to defend my self at any length, and I was saying that I came to public life at a time when the noble Lord was born, and I do not suppose he has had time in his subsequent career to I take any account of the record of my work; but if he had I think that the last thing he would have charged me with was any unwillingness or unreadiness to stating in the plainest terms my views, whether at the time they were popular or unpopular, and to take the consequences. If, therefore, it be the fact, as my noble friend says, that I have shrunk from submitting my views to this House, I venture to submit to his charitable consideration that I might have had other reasons for that than a want of moral courage. I object to the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire. That Resolution, as it appeared on the Paper, selected not the Ministry as a whole but certain Ministers for approval and by implication condemned certain others. It was, in effect, the reverse of the Motion which was made by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire some time, I think, in March. The hon. Member for Aberdeen's Motion condemned certain Ministers. Both hon. Members were either unaware or chose to ignore that constitutional practice which makes the whole Ministry solidaire, which implies a certain corporate responsibility for all their acts and opinions—I mean opinions in regard to practical politics. You cannot, therefore, single out a portion of the Government for praise or censure without involving the condemnation of the Government as a whole, and on that ground alone—it is quite a sufficient objection—I object to the Motion of the hon. Member for Banffshire.

I do not wish, for reasons I am going to give, to raise the fiscal question in this House—for reasons other than those so kindly suggested by my noble friend. I do not wish to raise it, and the Amendment I put down is absolutely colourless. It commits the House, if it were carried, only to confidence in the Government, having regard to the statement which the Government have made. No Member voting for my Amendment could possibly have been committed to any view I hold. I spoke as a supporter of the Government and of the Government policy, and I did not go one atom beyond it. It seemed to me that was the proper and natural answer to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Banffshire. I am very glad that the Government have intervened in their own defence. I do not presume to intervene any longer. The Amendment which is proposed on behalf of the Government, I should have said myself—I am not going to discuss it—is a paraphase of the Amendment I proposed. At all events, it conveys exactly the same idea, or, perhaps, I had better say exactly the same two ideas. The first idea is that we have confidence in the Government, and the second is that we, as far as we can, relegate the discussion of the fiscal question which has now been raised to a future Parliament. If the sole object of the hon. Member for Banffshire had been; to discuss my policy, my argument would have been different. That was what I ventured to explain to the hon. Member; for Greenwich. In that case, if it had been a bonâ fide desire to discuss a new fiscal policy, the hon. Member for Banffshire would have omitted all reference to the Government and have treated the question in the shape of an abstract Resolution, condemning on the part of this: House the policy I have put forward That would have been quite legitimate. Whether I should have taken any part in the discussion of my policy, or whether I should have shrunk for reasons of cowardice or any other, I really do not know. All I say is that the the time will come, as it comes to every private Member who propose? a policy, when he will choose to submit it to the House of Commons. As far as I am concerned, and as far as this present movement is concerned, when I spoke twelve months ago on 15th May, I admit I had no idea that so great a storm would have been raised; because my view was that I was raising an important question which deserved the fullest consideration, and which could not be at the moment decided; when I raised it, I distinctly said that I asked for no immediate decision, but the fullest discussion upon it, and that it might be an issue at the general election. I have acted upon that all through. I have not appealed to Parliament because I myself would not be inclined to appeal to Parliament until I thought the question was ripe for its decision. I never have, during the thirty years or so that I have had the honour of a seat in this House, cared much for what are called abstract Resolutions. I have never cared much for that sort of debating-society discussion which after all leads to no practical result. When discussion in the country has shown that the matter is ripe for settlement, then, as it seems to me, is the time to bring it to the great representative Council of the nation and to ask them to give practical effect to what has been shown to be the desire of their constituents. And so I frankly admit to my noble friend I did not desire a discussion in this House, and did not court it, and did not think it would be of the slightest advantage either to my opponents or to myself, that I do not think that a decision either for me or against me would have the slightest influence upon the ultimate decision of the issue, and that, therefore, I do prefer the platform to debate in the House of Commons. It is not that I shrink from debate in the House of Commons, but that I think it is time and labour thrown away. For the moment it seems to me to be entirely premature.

Now, Sir, before I sit down I wish again to make clear to the House what I understand when I vote for this Amendment. I understand that, following the repeated statements of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, and following also what has always been my own opinion with regard to the propriety of this matter, we do not desire that the question should be discussed, and we do not believe it could be practically discussed, in the present Parliament. We say you may raise the fiscal question if you please, and you may say what you will about it upon a private Member's abstract Resolution; but the Government have pledged themselves not to raise it in any form. The other day my hon. friend the Member for Durham, in a speech upon the Budget, admitted that the Budget was a Budget which might have been proposed by what he called a free-trade Ministry. That is perfectly true. I think he went on to say that he recognised in it evidence of a conviction which had come to my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, Sir, I do not attempt to interpret the views of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I confess that I regarded the Budget, not as proof of altered opinions, but as the carrying out of a definite pledge which, as I understand, has been given, as I certainly should have been willing to give it, if I were still a Minister—that during the present Parliament we should regard this question as only a question for public discussion, and that until public opinion had ripened we should not propose it as a matter for practical statesmanship. If this pledge has been given, as undoubtedly I think it has, I do not know how my hon. friend the Member for Durham could have possibly expected a Budget on any other principles than those of the present Budget. Of course, I reserve to myself the right upon platforms and in those selected audiences which the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich thinks it so easy to obtain, but which he finds it so difficult to meet with himself. I reserve my right in these family parties to explain that if the policy which I recommend had been adopted a very different Budget might have been presented; that there might have been no increase in the tea duty, no increase in the income-tax, and that there might have been an alteration of taxation which might have greatly benefited and increased our trade. But that, Mr. Speaker, is by the way; that is for another audience. When, in my judgment, the proper time comes—and I think it will come sooner than my opponents imagine—my noble friend will, find that I shall not in the least shrink from any discussion of the question in this House, for the intelligence of which, the judgment of which, and the representative character of which no one could possibly entertain a higher opinion than myself. Meanwhile I shall reserve myself for my proper duty. I find it heavy enough and my noble friend must forgive me if I refuse to add to it more than is necessary. For the moment I am satisfied with this—that the actual practical policy of the Government which we are called upon to decide is a policy which has my hearty cordial approval, and I most earnestly desire that it should have given to it the time necessary to carry it out. As to the future, however, I may regret that they have not gone further than they have. I do not press them to move a step forward for the moment. All I ask is, as I should ask of any Government of sensible men, that they should not pledge themselves beforehand against circumstances which they cannot foresee. If circumstances are as they were at the time when I left the Government I should not be the one to blame them for remaining absolutely tied to the programme they have put before the country. But if circumstances have changed—not to be controversial, I say they may change—then I think it would be foolish of them, as it would be foolish of anybody else, that they should find their hands tied by expressions of opinion which those who are not too friendly towards them are endeavouring prematurely to extract from them.

*LORD GEORGE HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing)

I should not have taken part in this debate if it had not been for an expression which fell from my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. He informed the House and the Unionist Party that for the next year or two he would avoid the discussion of the fiscal question in Parliament, and devote himself to discussing it upon the public platform. Very well If my right hon. friend is going to devote his ability and energy, and what, I admit, is his immense interest, to the discussion of this question, I want the Prime Minister, and, above all, the Unionist Party, to have a few moments reflection upon what that means. I am a very humble member of the Unionist Party. I left the Government at the same time as my right hon. friend, and I left it because was confident that the agitation which my right hon. friend was promoting, if it attained certain dimensions, must lead to one of two results— either this country would be committed to protection or else the Unionist Party would be smashed to pieces. I have always regretted that hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Radical Party generally have chosen to associate my right hon. friend's action in this matter with low, personal, or sordid motives. I give my right hon. friend credit for the highest motives, both National and Imperial. He has been animated throughout by a sincere desire to do his best for the Empire generally, and for that part which, for the time being, was under his personal control. But it is perfectly clear to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister that the country will not have protection. There always has been a strong protectionist element in the Conservative Party. No men knew that better than Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury; and both of those distinguished predecessors of the Prime Minister kept those tendencies in order. Now my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham has lit a flame which he cannot quench, and which the Prime Minister cannot quench. And the result is that from top to bottom of the Unionist Party there is discord and dissension in almost every constituency in the country. I venture to say—I have spent a great part of my life studying this question, and I have not often been wrong in my forecasts — in all seriousness to my hon. friends behind me that if this agitation is pursued on the lines on which it has been carried on during the past year, whenever the general election takes place the heaviest defeat on record awaits the Unionist Party. And, I ask, who will be responsible for that defeat? We, who throughout have endeavoured to warn the Government of the dangers which were ahead, or those who have recklessly led them on to the path which can but end in the almost total annihilation of our Party? Then, assuming there was, as I believe there will be, this heavy defeat of the Unionist Party, if protection is hung around the neck of that Party after defeat it will be a millstone on it for years and years.

My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham says this Motion is a censure on the Government because it only alludes to certain members of the Government. Of course it only alludes to certain members of the Government; because everybody knows that the Government is composed partly of protectionists and partly of free-traders, and the Prime Minister has done his best to hold the balance because he, naturally impressed with the responsibilities of his position, wishes to keep his Government and his Party together. But though my right hon. friend the Prime Minister professes himself a free-trader, in every controversy which has arisen since the beginning of the session the bias of the Government has always been thrown in on behalf of the protectionists. In the first debate that took place on the Address, an admirable speech was made by the President of the Board of Trade. Practically all his his conclusions were contradicted by three speeches subsequently made by three members of the Government. In the next discussion that took place the hon. Member for Ripon tabled an Amendment which was distasteful to my hon. friends the protectionists, and it was withdrawn. And now to-night a Motion is made which seemed to be absolutely immaculate, though I cannot apply the same phrase to the speech in which the hon. Member opposite introduced it—a Motion in which there was not the slightest sound or note of censure on the Government; a Motion which expresses all my right hon. friend's Sheffield policy. [HON. MEMBERS: No.] I say "Yes," because the Sheffield policy was composed of two parts—the negative and the positive. The negative part was a perfectly clear and distinct repudiation of the taxation of food. The positive part was somewhat obscure. It was some particular form of retaliation, which no doubt, in the course of time, my right hon. friend will be able to develop.

I wish the Government to remain in office provided that their continuance of tenure of office is not associated with the dissemination of protectionist principles among the Unionist Party. It has been my pride to be associated with that Party for many years past. I came into the House of Commons at a time when the Conservative Party was at a very low ebb; but under the judicious leadership of Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury it gradually became a prominent Party a National Party, and finally an Imperial Party. I do not want to see that, Party shattered to pieces. But while we are to have peace and no discussion in this House, what is going on in the constituencies? In these constituencies, no matter what the services of the Member may be, no matter how loyally he may have served his Party or done work for the Unionist cause, if he will not accept wholesale these new heresies he is "shunted," with the result almost in every case that the seat will be lost to the Party to which he belongs. In this House the reverse tactics are adopted. When a Motion is brought forward on fiscal questions the merits of it are not to be considered, but the political opinions upon other questions of its promoter; and so two absolutely antagonistic principles are in operation, one in the constituencies and one in the House of Commons. I know what the Prime Minister's troubles are, and the worries he has to contend with. I know the singular complications and difficulties against which he has had to fight his way, but I do implore him to speak out plainly and to tell us what is his policy, what it is the Government will support and what it is they will not support. Depend upon it, unless he adopts this policy, though these devices and delays may give to the Government an increased tenure of office, they can only result in smashing to pieces the Party of which he is the head.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My noble friend has made an appeal to me which seems to come strangely, as far as I can form an estimate of the matter, from his lips or from the lips of any man who has taken the trouble to make himself acquainted with the utterances, and I am afraid the somewhat lengthy utterances, I have made in the country on the subject of fiscal reform. I may be unfortunate in my method of expression. I can only say that I have done my best to make myself clear. If I have not been understood it must be either owing to a fault on the part of those to whom I have addressed myself or from want of capacity of lucid exposition on my own part. I need hardly say that I accept the more polite and the second of these hypotheses. I am not quite ready to acknowledge that I may have failed to convey my meaning on this subject to a large number of Gentlemen who profess: to have studied my speeches and writings. I apologise to them for my shortcomings: but how, may I ask, when the difficulty arises from this initial defect, am I to cure it? My noble friend has asked for a further exposition of my policy in addition to what I have written and what 1 I have said at Sheffield, at Bristol, Manchester, on at least two occasions; during the course of the present session, and to what I said in certain speeches last session. In spite of these utterances my noble friend is still unable to understand my point of view. I am sure that it is not his fault; but I am also sur that where I have tried so persistently and with great expenditure of time and: trouble on my part to make my meaning plain on these numerous occasions, it is hardly likely that the sixth or seventh effort will be more successful than the others. I can only assure my noble friend that the policy which is commonly described as the Sheffield policy is still my policy. I have seen since that speech was made no reason to add to it, no reason to detract from it, and it still represents the advice which I would give to the country were I called upon to-morrow to frame an election address. I cannot expect an to feel satisfied with the substance of that observation; but I hope he will feel that I have made all the response it is in my power to make, and that if there is an obscurity in defining the doctrines, it is an obscurity which my unfortunate deficiencies make it impossible for me to correct.

I do not mean in the brief observations that I intend to address to the House to deal with the fiscal problem beyond what I have already said—and for this reason, that the chief object and motive of the Amendment which I have put upon the Paper is to express my individual opinion and the opinion of my colleagues that these discussions on the fiscal question are discussions on purely abstract questions, which may be innocent, which may possibly be beneficial, but which I do not think excite much interest unless there is an attack either upon the Government or upon an individual behind me. I do not think hon. Members understand me; I will express what I mean. Unless there is some attack on the Government involved in a Motion, as my right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol stated with unanswerable truth, you would not see these Benches packed, they would be as empty as they were during our discussions on the great question of national economy. Now, Sir, I think the only person who has made any case for the suggestion that this Motion does not affect His Majesty's Government is my noble friend the Member for Greenwich. He tried to make out that the Government had, with great want of tact, intervened in the lists in which there was going to be a duel to the death between himself and my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham. I do not agree with that statement of my noble friend's; but I cannot pass from his speech without expressing my profound regret at the quite unnecessary methods which he introduced into his treatment of what I understood was a scientific and economic question. Nobody has, I think, ever accused my noble friend of want of courage. I do not know that this House is lacking in men of courage, but certainly there is no man of greater courage than my noble friend in this House, and it h as usually been thought to be an attribute of those who possess courage that they are prepared to recognise that great quality in others. Many accusa- tions have been made against my right hon. friend the Member for Birmingham. To attack him appears always to be regarded as in order and relevant to any debate, on any subject, Imperial or local, foreign or domestic. The utmost ingenuity of hostility, which sometimes. I grieve to say, has risen to malignity, has been used to vilify him, and yet, in all the vocabulary of attack which I have ever heard levelled against him, I have never until this evening heard it even whispered that the quality that he was lacking in was courage.

I had hoped to be quite uncontroversial in the remarks that I was going to make to-night, but in what I have just said I have been provoked by the course of the discussion, not to go beyond the proprieties of debate, but to be more controversial than I contemplated when I came down to the House to listen to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Banffshire. [A VOICE: You did not listen to him.] The House does me gross injustice. I may have missed the exordium of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I can assure him that I was not so far lacking in Parliamentary manners as to put down an Amendment to his Motion without taking pains to listen, at all events, to the major part of his address. I am only sorry I was not observed. It may be asked why a course which I admit to be unusual has been adopted by the Government in this case; and I will frankly tell the House that it is because, in my opinion, this was not a Motion—couched in the terms which we saw upon the Paper and supported by the speeches which have been delivered in its favour—to which the Government could regard themselves as indifferent. If we were not to regard ourselves as indifferent it was desirable that we should take an opportunity of expressing our views as to the inexpediency of these constant efforts, made from motives quite natural, pardonable, and even praiseworthy on the part of hon. Gentleman opposite, to embarrass the Government and to invent differences even where differences do not exist among their opponents—efforts which are based upon a view of Parliamentary government which would absolutely destroy that government if it were allowed to lead to its natural and almost inevitable conclusion. After all, here we are in this country governed on the Party system and by Cabinet government. That inevitably involves the cooperation of a large number of independent individuals who if they do not act together are perfectly impotent, but who, if they do act together, must necessarily make concessions one to the other, and must not present themselves before an astonished country as isolated units with opinions never to be modified in practice by any considerations of the greater common object which binds them all together, and by the necessities inevitable to any free form of institution which is not to fall to pieces amid universal derision. If that be true what does it involve? That you must not ask a greater degree of unanimity among any body of men acting together than is required for their common action. It is impossible that on all subjects, human and divine, religious, political, connected with domestic policy, foreign policy, and all the infinite complexity of questions that come before this House, every individual belonging to one Party or to one Cabinet is always to have not only the same general outlook, but precisely the same shade of opinion. You cannot work the system on that theory.

Well, what do all these discussions of fiscal policy point to? Do they point to anything which has to be done this session? Or to anything which has to be done next session, or in any succeeding session of the present Parliament? By common consent they have no relation to anything which we have been elected to this House to carry out. Have they any relation to the next Parliament? I understand from my noble friend that he anticipates that the general election will not only lead to a reversal of the present balance of political power, but that the Unionist Party will receive a smashing and a crushing defeat. Well, then, it will not be heard of in the next Parliament; so that we are actually asked, not for the first time, for the second, or for the third time in the course of the present session, to pass what is practically equivalent to a vote of censure upon the Government in respect of a question which is not to be dealt with by the Government in the present Parliament, nor in the next Parliament unless that Government is to be returned to power—which, you tell us, it will not be. Well, supposing this smashing defeat takes place to which my noble friend so confidently looks forward, and to which I gather hon. Gentlemen opposite look forward with more satisfaction and with equal confidence, another Government will come in—a great united Government—which will last for five or six years. I take their own estimates, and I think I am moderate when I say six. Very well. There remain then the present session, let us say the next session, two year. Add six to that and we have eight year. Then we have been occupied four or five times in the course of the present session in passing votes of censure upon the Government for what that Government is going to do eight years hence.

Well, I do not merely quarrel with that, because I think it is extremely ridiculous. I quarrel with it for a much more serious reason, and one which truly ought to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite much more than to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. They will admit—I do not want to put a controversial edge on anything I say—but they will admit that through many generations divisions in the Liberal Party have, for reasons well known to all who have studied the subject, been more profound than all those which divide our Party. Both Parties, of course, have had very serious divisions. We were broken up temporarily upon the Catholic Emancipation Act in 1828, which had a very important bearing on what subsequently happened in the great Reform Bill. We were again broken up over the Corn Laws in 1846; and there have been no doubt other oases, though not, so far as I remember, of equal magnitude. But a condition of division of opinion is chronic with hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not mean to say it to their discredit, but a couple of generations or more ago the Whig element and the Radical element were always fighting like cat and dog within the Party and the Cabinet, and since then there have been new divisions to which I will not refer, but which are not of less magnitude and importance, and seem to me likely to be as permanent in their character. Now if this House is going to say there shall not be a Party acting together during a Parliament, nor a Cabinet allowed to sit together to manage the affairs of the country unless every member of that Party and every member of that Cabinet are going to say not merely, "We support this or that practical policy," but "for all time we pledge ourselves to this or that particular dogma; for all time we pro- mise this and we promise that; for all time we are to be bound by principles going to the root of every public matter, varying not a shred," why, then, I do not believe that you can manage any Party on those principles, but I am quite sure you will never manage the Liberal Party. Therefore I would respectfully give the advice to the House which I have endeavoured to embody in the Amendment which stands in my name.

That Amendment, Sir, asks no man to express an opinion one way or the other, and is deliberately intended to ask no man to express an opinion one way or the other on the fiscal question, for the simple reason that the fiscal question is not before the present Parliament and that it will not matter one jot either to the constituencies or to the next Parliament what view this Parliament happens to take on the subject. But it does suggest that we ought to refuse to discuss matters like these which are either abstract and relatively academic—I do not object to their being discussed so long as they are academic, but we ought not to discuss them so long as to their academic character there is added something, as there undoubtedly is on the present occasion, in the shape of an attack upon the Government or any section of the Government's supporters. I understand that the hon. Gentleman prides himself on having expressed, in more felicitous language, the same doctrines as I endeavoured clumsily to embody in the Sheffield speech. I do not know that I prefer his redaction to mine, even in the matter of the importation of food; but I would remind him that the views expressed in the Sheffield programme on the importation of food were but a small part of the views which I then laid before the country, and the hon. Gentleman has entirely refused to make any reference in this laudatory Motion of his to the scheme as a whole. He has isolated and not very happily expressed a particular portion of it. He has combined that with an attack by implication, a wholly undeserved attack, on many of my colleagues; and we are, therefore, forced to take part in dealing with the matter; and, in my opinion, the only part which we can take with dignity is to say that Motions like this, discussions like this, upon a question not before the House during the present session, not to be before the House in the next session, not to be before this House in any session at all, should be in the interests of Parliamentary government as a whole left on one side. I do not speak simply in the interests of the present Government. Of course, I do speak in their interests, but I say I do not speak solely in their interests. I believe the whole method to be wrong, and that if we are really to remain what we have been, a great assembly, worked upon the Party system with Governments which can rely upon a majority to support their policy as long as that policy is approved, then the methods of the hon. Gentleman are wrong, and those who support him on this side of the House are, as I think, inflicting not merely an injury upon the Government which many of them at all events desire to support, but an injury upon Parliamentary government as a whole. Those observations I address respectfully, but most sincerely and earnestly, to both sides of the House.

The only remaining topic interests, I admit, my friends on this side and them only. We have put down a Motion asking the House to do two things, to put aside these vain controversies which affect this Parliament not at all, and to express their confidence in the Government and in the policy which the Government are endeavouring to pursue. If we have that confidence, if the measures that we have introduced at home, if the administrative reforms which we desire to carry out, for instance, in the Army, if the colonial policy and the foreign policy—of course they do not approve themselves to hon. Gentlemen opposite—but if they approve themselves, as I believe they do, to hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, then we ask them to give us that support without which of course it would be vain for us even for twenty-four hours longer to endeavour to carry on the business of the country. If they do not give us that support, willingly do we give up the responsibilities and the labours of office. But all those on this side of the House who think that there are still useful functions that we can perform, who think that a change of policy either at home or abroad might be fraught with disaster to what we, at all events, consider the dearest interests of the nation would surely be acting the most foolish of all parts if, because years hence, as it may be, they differ from something which may be proposed by a possible future Government, they were to bring to a summary conclusion labours undertaken in their interests, and, as we sincerely hope, not in their interests alone, but in the interests of the Empire and the nation at large.

MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)

We have witnessed to-night an interesting domestic discussion; and those of us who do not belong, as I do not, to the happy household opposite have been content, and I think wisely content, to occupy for the most part the position of silent, though interested, spectators. I do not profess myself to be solicitous for the union of the Unionist Party; but I am solicitous—as I hope most of us on this side, and some, at any rate, on the other side, are—for two things; for the cause of free trade and for the credit of the House of Commons. And it seems to me that, in the speech which the Prime Minister has just delivered, he has entirely ignored both those points. He has completely underrated the magnitude of the issue which his Amendment raises. We, on this side, at any rate, cannot look on the proposal of this Amendment as an isolated proceeding; we recall the successive stages of a long and, as we think, not very creditable game of shifts and surprises which has been played upon us during the last twelve months. The time at my disposal is short, but I am going to make use of very plain language. I tell the right hon. Gentleman, speaking for this side of the House, that to our minds this is only the latest of a series of steps by which he has sought—he, the Prime Minister of this country and the Loader of this House—to evade Parliamentary discussion, to shuffle off Ministerial responsibility, and to degrade and flout the House of Commons.

In order to substantiate that statement, let me review very briefly one or two of the landmarks on the road we have traveled. When this controversy arose a year ago, the Government, being then in exclusive possession and control of the time of the House, refused to allow any debate upon a vote of censure. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] Yes; censure of what? Censure of a policy which in the same breath they told us they had not yet framed, because at that time they were engaged in trying to make up their own minds. I will not refer to the events of the autumn because they do not affect Parliament; but when we reassembled here at the beginning of this year we hoped in the debate on the Address to come at last to a clear understanding of the Government policy. What happened? Minister after Minister rose from the Treasury Bench, and they presented in turn every conceivable view of the fiscal question, but they all relied on the unfortunate absence of the Prime Minister as an excuse for giving no intelligible definition of their general and corporate opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has said that the Sheffield programme is plain enough to any man in the street. All I can say is that not one of his colleagues could understand it, if by understanding you mean not merely intellectual apprehension, which is a thing that goes on inside a man's head, but the capacity for articulate expression. I agree that at the close of the debate there was a flash of welcome light shot across the scene from a wholly unexpected quarter. On the very eve of the division the Home Secretary, who had delivered not the least cryptic of the Delphic utterances from that Bench, in response to an appeal from an anxious and undecided supporter, told us in plain terms that the Government was opposed to any duty on raw material or food. But it soon appeared that in making that statement he had reckoned without his host; for when a few weeks later it was embodied, as we supposed, with the knowledge and connivance of the Government in a celebrated Amendment, that Amendment was mysteriously smuggled out of existence at the instance of the friends of the Member for West Birmingham. That same declaration is repeated in the Motion of my hon. friend to-night; and the question I want to put to the Government, to the House, and to the country, is this, Why is it not accepted by the Government? This is not a vote of censure, unless, as ray hon. friend said earlier in the evening, it be a vote of censure to select for approval a declaration made by a responsible Minister, ostensibly on behalf of his colleagues. It is a tribute such as the House of Commons rarely offers. It is a spontaneous tribute, an unsolicited tribute, a tribute which proceeds from both sides of the House.

If it is not accepted by the Government, what is the reason? I think I can supply the answer. There is one reason, and one reason only. It is because the Government are afraid to accept if. They are afraid, in the first instance, to define any policy at all. They are still more afraid to approve of what may be construed as a declaration in favour of free trade; and they are most afraid of all to seem even by implication to condemn the Birmingham policy. The only inference I can draw is that it is for the same reason and in deference to the same influences that my hon. friend's Motion is to be burked to-night, as the bowstring was secretly applied to the Wharton Amendment a few weeks ago. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—and I am afraid it is the only part of his speech with which I do agree—that there is no real or substantial distinction between the Amendment of the Prime Minister and the Amendment which he himself put on the Paper. They are both suterfuges. They are expressed, I agree, in language of varying ambiguity; they proceed, I agree, by more or less devious routes; but they have one common object, and that object is once more to prevent this House of Commons from declaring itself against the protective taxation of food. Speaking, as I said I would, first of all in the cause of free trade, I object to this Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask the House to reject it, because it is a capitulation to the Birmingham policy. But I speak also, if I may venture to do so, for the credit of the House of Commons; and I assert in all seriousness and with all deliberation that this Amendment of the Prime Minister's is an affront to the House of Commons. It is an act of nothing less than arrogance for any Minister—I do not care who he is—to come down here and propose that this House should by its own declaration disable itself for the whole term of its natural life—for that is what the Amendment amounts to—from taking any cognisance of that which has become an issue of paramount importance to this country and the Empire. Yes, Sir, and by whom is; this claim made? The claim is made by the Leader of the House of Commons, the man who before all others ought to be sensitive to its rights and its duties, and jealous of its powers. ["He is."] Is he? What is he doing? He is asking that upon a capital question of domestic and Imperial policy this House shall for the rest of its existence sit here with muzzled mouth, fettered hands, and paralysed authority. And why? Is this claim made, is this proposition put forward for any great or worthy purpose? Is it in the defence of any high principle? Is it in pursuit of any noble cause? Nothing of the kind. It is put forward for no better and no more respectable reason than to keep together for a little longer in nominal and ostensible unity, men who are fundamentally divided in opinions, and to postpone in the interest of a discredited

Ministry during a few more ignominious weeks or months the inevitable judgment of the nation.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 251; Noes, 309; (Division List No. 127.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.)	Donelan, Captain A.	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Doogan, P. C.	Joicey, Sir James
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea
Allen, Charles P.	Duffy, William J.	Jones, William (Carnarvonsh)
Ambrose, Robert	Duncan, J. Hastings	Jordan, Jeremiah
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Dunn, Sir William	Joyce, Michael
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Edwards, Frank	Kearley, Hudson E.
Atherley Jones, L.	Elibank, Master of	Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George
Barlow, John Emmott	Ellice, Capt E C (StAndrw'sBghs	Kilbride, Denis
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Elliot, Hn. A. Ralph Douglas	Labouchere, Henry
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.	Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)	Lambert, George
Beckett, Ernest William	Emmott, Alfred	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.
Bell, Richard	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Langley, Batty
Blake, Edward	Evans, Sir F. H. (Maidstone)	Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.
Boland, John	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Bowles, T. Gibson (KingsLynn)	Farquharson, Dr. Robert	Leamy, Edmund
Brand, Hon. Arthur G.	Farrell, James Patrick	Leese, Sir Joseph F(Accrington
Brigg, John	Fenwick, Charles	Leigh, Sir Joseph
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Leng, Sir John
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Field, William	Levy, Maurice
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmund	Lewis, John Herbert
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Lloyd-George, David
Burke, E. Haviland-	Flynn, James Christopher	Logan, John William
Burns, John	Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Lough, Thomas
Burt, Thomas	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	London, W.
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lyell, Charles Henry
Caldwell, James	Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cameron, Robert	Fuller, J. M. F.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)	Furness, Sir Christopper	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert J.	M'Crae, George
Carvill, Patrick Geo, Hamilton	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Causton, Richard Knight	Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon	M'Kean, John
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Grant, Corrie	M'Kenna, Reginald
Cawley, Frederick	Griffith, Ellis J.	M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Channing, Francis Allston	Hain, Edward	Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Churchill, Winston Spencer	Harcourt, Louis V. (Rosendale)	Markham, Arthur Basil
Clancy, John Joseph	Harcourt, Rt Hn Sir W (Monmth	Mellor, Rt. Hn. John William
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Harwood, George	Mooney, John J.
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)	Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Cremer, William Randal	Hayden, John Patrick	Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Crombie, John William	Hayter, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur D.	Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montr'se
Crooks, William	Healy, Timothy Michael	Moss, Samuel
Cullinan, J.	Helme, Norval Watson	Moulton, John Fletcher
Dalziel, James Henry	Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.	Murphy, John
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan	Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers E	Newnes, Sir George
Delany, William	Holland, Sir William Henry	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Devlin, Charles Ramsay(G'lw'y	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	Norman, Henry
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)	Horniman, Frederick John	Norton, Capt. Cecil WilliamW
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)	Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	O'Brien, Kendal (TipperaryMd
Dobbie, Joseph	Jacoby, James Alfred	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)	Runciman, Walter	Thomson, F. W. (York. W.R.)
O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.	Russell, T. W.	Tillet, Louis John
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Toulmin, George
O'Dowd, John	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
O'Kelly, James (Roscommon N.	Schwann, Charles E.	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
O'Malley, William	Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)	Wallace, Robert
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight	Walton, John Lawson (Leeds, S.
O'Shee, James John	Shackle ton, David James	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Palmer, Sir Charles M(Durham)	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Partington, Oswald	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Paulton, James Mellor	Sheehy, David	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Weir, James Galloway
Pemberton, John S. G.	Simeon, Sir Barrington	White, George (Norfolk)
Philipps, John Wynford	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Pirie, Duncan V.	Slack, John Bamford	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Power, Patrick Joseph	Smith, Samuel (Flint)	Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
Price, Robert John	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Priestley, Arthur	Soares, Ernest J,	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Rea, Russell	Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R.(Northants	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Reddy, M.	Steventon, Francis S.	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk,Mid.
Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Strachey, Sir Edward	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Rickett, J. Compton	Sullivan, Donal	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Rigg, Richard	Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersfd
Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Younger, William
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Tennant, Harold John	Yoxall, James Henry
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Robson, William Snowdon	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Black and Mr. Goschen.
Roe, Sir Thomas	Thomas, David A. (Merthyr)
Rose, Charles Day	Thomas, J. A (Glamorg'n Gower
NOES.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derybshire)	Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Aird, Sir John	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Duke, Henry Edward
Allhusen, Augustus Hy. Eden	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir William Hart
Allsopp, Hon. George	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J.(Birm.	Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (W'rc	Pardell, Sir T. George
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton	Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r
Arnold-Forster, RtHn Hugh O.	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry	Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Arrol, Sir William	Chapman, Edward	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Charrington, Sponer	Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne
Aubrey-Fletcher, RtHnSir H.	Clare, Octavius Leigh	Firbank Sir Joseph Thomas
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Olive, Captain Percy A.	Fisher, William Hayes
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Coates, Edward Feetham	Fison, Frederick William
Balcarres, Lord	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E	FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r)	Coddington, Sir William	Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Coghill, Douglas Harry	Flannery, Sir Fortescue
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds	Cohen, Benjamin Louis	Flower, Sir Ernest
Balfour, Kenineth R. (Christch	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse	Forster, Henry William
Banes, Major George Edward	Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John. C. R.	Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S.W
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor)	Colston, Chas. Edw. H Athole	Fyler, John Arthur
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benj'min	Compton, Lord Alwyne	Galloway, William Johnson
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas	Gardner, Ernest
Bhownaggred, Sir M. M.	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Garfit, William
Bignold,, Arthur	Cox, Irwin Edw. Bainbridge	Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.
Bigwood, James	Craig, Charles Curtis(Antrim,S	Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn)
Bill, Charles	Cripps, Charles Alfred	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)
Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)	Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'r H'mlets
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith-	Cross, Herb. Shepherd(Bolton)	Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby- (Linc.
Bousfield, William Robert	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile	Goulding, Edward Alfred
Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex	Cust, Henry John C.	Graham, Henry Robert
Brassey, Albert	Dalrymple, Sir Charles	Gray, Ernest (West Ham)
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Davenport, William Bromley-	Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury
Brotherton, Edward Allen	Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham	Greene, Sir E W (Bury S Edm'nds
Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh)	Dewar, Sir T.R.(Tower Hamlts	Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)
Brymer, William Ernest	Dickinson, Robert Edmond	Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)
Bull, William James	Dickson, Charles Scott	Grenfell, William Henry
Butcher, John George	Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C.	Gretton, John
Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ	Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Carlile, William Walter	Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Greville, Hon. Ronald
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Doughty, George	Groves, James Grimble
Cautley, Henry Strother	Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers-	Hall, Edward Marshall

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	McIver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-
Hambro, Charles Eric	Majendie, James A. H.	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Kamilton, Marq of(L'nd'nd'rry)	Malcolm, Ian	Samuel, Sir Harry S (Limehouse)
Hardy, Laurence(Kent, Ashf'rd	Manners, Lord Cecil	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos.Hyles
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Harris, Dr. Fredk. R.(Dulwich)	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Saunderson, Rt. Hn. Col. Edw. J.
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E (Wigt'n)	Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Haslett, Sir James Horner	Maxwell, W. J. H (Dumfriesshire	Scton-Karr, Sir Henry
Hay, Hon. Claude Georgo	Melville, Beresford Valentine	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Heath, Arthur Howard(Hanley	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Shaw-Stewart, Sir H-(Renfrew)
Heath, James (Staffords, N.W.	Middlemore, John Throgmorton	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Heaton, John Henniker	Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.	Skowes-Cox, Thomas
Helder, Augustus	Mitchell, William (Burnley)	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.	Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Smith, Abel H.(Hereford, East)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Montague, G.(Huntingdon)	Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.
Hickman, Sir Alfred	Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants	Spear, John Ward
Hoare, Sir Samuel	Moore, William	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich)
Hogg, Lindsay	Morgan, David J.(Walthamatow	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Morpeth, Viscount	Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)
Hornby, Sir William Henry.	Morrell, George Herbert	Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.)
Horner, Frederick William	Morrison, James Archibald	Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Hoult, Joseph	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Stock, James Henry
Houston, Robert Paterson	Mount, William Arthur	Stone, Sir Benjamin
Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C	Stroyan, John
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Muntz, Sir Philip A.	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Hozier, Hn. James Hen. Cecil	Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hudson, George Bickersteth	Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Ox'fdUniv.
Hunt, Rowland	Myers, William Henry	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Hutton, John (Yorks, N.R.)	Newdegate, Francis A. N.	Thornton, Percy M.
Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Nicholson, William Graham	Tollemache, Henry James
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.	Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Jessel, Capt.. Herbert Merton	Barker, Sir Gilbert	Tuff, Charles
Johnstone, Heywood(Sussex)	Parkes, Ebenezer	Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Kennaway, Rt. Hon.Sir JohnH.	Pease, Herbert P. (Darlington	Valentia, Viscount
Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh	Percy, Earl	Vincent, Col. SirCEH (Sheffield)
Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W.(Salop)	Pierpoint, Robert	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Kerr, John	Pilkington, Colonel Richard	Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H
Keswick, William	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Kimber, Henry	Plummer, Walter R.	Warde, Colonel C. E
Knowles, Sir Lees	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Webb, Colonel William George
Laurie, Lieut.-General	Pretyman, Ernest George	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (Taunt'n
Law, Andrew Roger (Glasgow)	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.)
Lawrence Sir Joseph (Monm'th	Pym, C. Guy	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert	Whiteley, H. Ashton und. Lyne
Lawson, J. Grant (Yorks. N.R.	Randles, John S.	Whitmore, Charles, Algernon
Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham	Rankin, Sir James	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage	Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.	Ratcliffe, R. F.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.)
Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Rattigan, Sir William Henry	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Reid, James (Greenock)	Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Remnant, James Farquharson	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath)
Long, Col. Charles W.(Evesh'm	Renwick, George	Wolff, Gustar Wilhelm
Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S)	Richards, Henry Charles	Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge	Wortley, Rt. Hon C. B. Stuart-
Lowe, Francis William	Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Gr.	Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Lowther, C. (Cumb., (Eskdale)	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)	Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.
Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Robinson, Brooke	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter
Macdona, John Cumming	Round, Rt. Hon. James	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Maconochie, A. W.	Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
McCalmont, Colonel James	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Question proposed, "That these words be there added."

And, it being after Midnight, and objection being taken to further Proceeding, the debate stood adjourned.

Adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.