PREFERENTIAL TRADING WITH THE COLONIES.

HC Deb 08 March 1905 vol 142 cc805-55

*MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL (Oldham)

I have to ask the indulgence of the House to enable me in the shortest possible time and in the fewest possible words to discharge the duty which the caprice of the ballot has imposed upon me. The Motion which I have placed upon the Paper refers to the proposals of the right hon. Member West Birmingham, proposals which were declared by the right hon. Gentleman to be urgent two years ago, and have ever since agitated the country, the Cabinet, and the House of Commons. I will not take up the time of the House in arguing whether this is a Party question or not. I have noticed that whenever a distinguished politician declares that a particular question is above Party, what he really means is that everybody, without distinction of Party, shall vote for him. But I think it is incumbent upon me, as the mover of this Motion, at the very outset to acknowledge the admirable temper and calmness with which the great self-governing Colonies of the Empire have watched the development of this controversy, and also to acknowledge with gratitude and respect the correct attitude which has been maintained under very difficult circumstances by colonial statesmen, and particularly by those who are concerned with Australia and Canada. They have made it clear that, they wish Great Britain to decide this question upon its merits and as may be found good for the people of this country. They have shown the strongest dislike of being drawn into the arena of British politics. They do not intend to allow themselves to be made counters in the game of any political Party. They repudiate altogether the unworthy suggestion that they wish to make a profit out of the wages or the sufferings of the poorest classes in this country; and they have made it plain that the decision of this country, whatever it may be, will not influence, in an adverse sense, that Imperial sentiment of comradeship and loyalty which has marked the happy development of our colonial policy during the last two generations.

The Motion refers specifically to the protective taxation of food. It does not make any special mentionof—though, of course, it does not exclude—the taxation of raw material. That is because the right hon. Member for Birmingham has complained frequently that he is misrepresented when it is suggested that his plan would involve the taxation of raw material. I have no wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman. But I submit to the House that there is no logical or scientific distinction between the raw material of manufacture and food, which is the raw material of human life. No scheme of colonial preferences could be a scientific scheme unless it applies equally to food and to raw material. That is equally true whether the question is argued from a free-trade or a protectionist point of view. Every argument, moral or material, that can be advanced in favour of the preferential taxation of corn, meat and dairy produce holds good, even in a stronger degree, in favour of the preferential taxation of timber, leather, and wool. Any system of Imperial preference which includes the one and excludes the other must be lopsided and illogical in its conception, and whimsical and unfair in its operation. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has spoken scornfully of the attitude of the Opposition with regard to the proposed Colonial Conference. The right hon. Gentleman has declared that to invite the Colonies to join us in a Conference, and to tell them beforehand that we are not prepared, whatever may be the result of their deliberations, to propose protective taxation on food is an insult to those great Colonies. Yet, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman himself invites the Colonies to join in a Conference, and tells them beforehand that, whatever may be the result of their deliberations, he is not prepared to propose to this country protective taxation on raw material, and that it is a gross misrepresentation to suggest that he is. The right hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be that, if the Conference was called, prejudiced beforehand in respect to the taxation of food, it is an insult; but that if it was called, prejudiced beforehand in respect to the taxation of raw material, it is a wise and prudent act of Imperial statesmanship. Really, the right hon. Gentleman should give the country a better argument that that.

I venture to draw the attention of the House to another point which is, in my opinion, fatal to the symmetry of the proposal that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. He has forgotten India. Nothing reveals more clearly the genesis of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme than the neglect, in his argument, of the great dependency of India. I have always believed that it was not an Imperial but a Departmental plan; it comes from the Colonial Office in Downing Street. It springs, not from the perception of any natural principle, but from the reflections of a Minister who has been called upon over a number of years to deal with those particular duties which happen quite arbitrarily to be allocated to the Colonial Department, If, for instance, we hid followed a different arrangement, if we had grouped together in one great Department all the duties which concerned the King's dominions beyond the seas, which would be a perfectly scientific and logical method, instead of splitting them up into India Office, Foreign Office, and Colonial Office, and if the right hon. Gentleman had been the head of that consolidated Department, it is inconceivable that in the scheme he puts forward India would not have occupied a much larger place. The right hon. Gentleman could not then have forgotten that India takes of our goods two-thirds as much as all the self-governing Colonies together, that she imposes no hostile tariffs—[An HON MEMBER:5 per cent.]— no hostile discrimination against our goods, which is vital to Lancashire, and that she contributes so vastly to our Imperial defences. The right hon. Gentleman could not have forgotten, if I may quote words which have been used in this House before— That most truly bright and precious gem in the Crown of the King, the possession of which more than of all your other Colonies or great possessions raises the reputation of these small islands above the level of the majority of nations and of States, and places them in a position of equality with and possibly even of superiority over the greatest empires of ancient or modern times. We have to face the concrete proposals which the right hon. Gentleman, with all his candour and precision, has placed before the country. I would remind the House that they consisted in a 2s. duty on corn and 5 per cent. on meat and dairy produce. I am not going to argue this evening as to who is likely to pay those taxes if they were imposed; the very word preference means better prices, and if it does not mean that it is a sham. And if it does not mean that, and if concessions are to be obtained from the Colonies upon it, it is a fraud on those Colonies from whom concessions would be obtained under false pretences. But the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and those who act with him, a more or less numerous body in the House—[a cheer]—not a very stentorian response—has admitted that the taxes he proposes would have the effect of raising the price to the consumer of corn and meat in this country—he admitted it when he neglected to include maize and bacon in his proposed fiscal taxes. The right hon. Gentleman showed by that surprising admission what his own opinion was of the real incidence of these taxes, and he showed also that he would make a very much better free trader than he is ever likely to make a protectionist. But the main argument against these preferences is not the prices resulting from them. If the taxes are large the rise in price would be very large, and if they are small the rise would be small; and these are very small taxes. They are not large enough to alter the social and agricultural conditions of this country. They do not touch the fringe of the grave problems of rural depopulation and physical degeneracy; but they are large enough, perhaps, to somewhat increase the severity of existence upon the very poorest of the people, and they might, though that is doubtful, put small and fleeting profits into the pockets of some landowners and substantial farmers. [''No."] Not even that?

The main argument against these taxes is based on a great principle, which is that this country should be free to purchase its supplies of food wherever it chooses and whenever it chooses in the open markets of the world. That is a principle greatly valued in the House of Commons, for which on this side every Member is prepared to make the greatest exertions, and for which on the other side of the House some Members have already made, and are still prepared to make, sacrifices, for which, I believe, their countrymen will not be ungrateful. It is a principle of special importance to Lancashire Members, who, travelling from one great city to another, see in every valley of that undulating region towns and townships which are the homes of a vast thriving population living on a soil which could not support in decent comfort a twentieth of their number. I have been told that within thirty miles of the Manchester Exchange—I might say of the Free Trade Hall—there is gathered together the greatest concentration of human beings on the surface of the globe. This mass of people are absolutely dependent for he food they eat and the material they employ upon supplies which reach them mainly from foreign lands. They are dependent on the condition of a crop at one end of the world and the state of a market at the other; and yet, upon this artificial foundation, through the inestimable advantage, of unfettered enterprise and of unrestricted sea communication, they have been able to build up a vast industrial fabric which, it is no exaggeration to say, is the economic marvel of the world. They have had lately rather an unpleasant experience in Lancashire, a shortage of cotton and a "corner" following thereon. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham has reminded us piously that that shortage was due to the act of God; it is not, like the Sugar Bounties Convention, due to the wisdom of a paternal Government. But what is the remedy proposed for that state of things? It is to vary and multiply the sources of cotton supply so that, when there is a bad harvest in one place, good crops in another may repair the deficiency. But if your preference is effective, and in so far as it is effective it must tend to limit and localise the sources of supply, and to make them more and more dependent upon a single source of supply.

At present we stand on very firm ground in respect to food. With the telegraph and with steamships there is hardly a food-exporting country in the world that is more than sixty days from Liverpool. The harvests of the world are at our disposal, and by the system which averages climatic risks we secure not merely a low but a fairly stable price. With that marvellous operation by which the crowded population of this island is fed we cannot take the responsibility of interfering. There will be good years and there will be bad years. Great fluctuations must necessarily occur from time to time in all commodities which depend upon climatic conditions; they have occurred in cotton, in corn, in sugar; and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham reminded us the other night they are now occurring in onions. It is quite true that the workings of nature are beyond our control. There are many factors in prices—harvests, freights, speculations—which do not recognise the authority of the House of Commons. Taxes alone are absolutely in our own hand. These fluctuations have occurred in the past; no one can doubt that they will occur in the future. Whatever rise may take place in the future the preferential duties, if imposed—although, perhaps, only a small contributory factor to the rise—will have to bear the brunt of public indignation. It is upon these very links of Empire so laboriously and expensively forged that the direct impact of public displeasure in times of scarcity must inevitably descend. If there is an unpopular tax to-day we are in no great difficulty. If public opinion is sufficiently incensed a pliant Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, failing that, a vote in the House of Commons, will remove the cause of offence and gratify the national will. But these preferential duties, if they are imposed, will not be taxes which the House can remove at its pleasure. They will be fixed by treaty with every self-governing colony scattered all over the surface of the world. In consideration of these taxes this country will have received concessions—though that is not a part of the argument we hear much about—with regard, say, to certain classes of manufactured goods. Upon the basis of these mutual concessions industries will have grown up, and, however fierce the demand, you will not be able to alter your preferential duties without the consent of the other party to the bargain. In that day there will, indeed, be a shock to the permanent unity of the Empire which may well excite the concern of those who care about it. In that day, when a British Ministry with taxes which it cannot remove with out a long delay is confronted by the imperious demand of a hungry and an angry electorate, you will realise the truth—perhaps to be denied to-night— that it is a grand and cardinal error in Imperial statecraft to lay the foundations of a democratic Empire upon the protective taxation of food.

It is a sober fact that the British Empire produces within its limits every commodity which luxury can imagine or industry require. I do not wonder that many hon. Gentlemen have been captivated by the idea of creating a self-supporting and self-contained Empire. I frankly admit myself the fascination of the idea—until you look into it. Then it is apparent—though this, of course, is disputable— that it rests on no moral, logical, or scientific foundation. It does not make for prosperity, it does not make for international peace. The dangers which threaten the tranquillity of the modern world come not from those Powers that have become interdependent upon others, interwoven by commerce with other States; they come from those Powers which are more or less detached, which stand more or less aloof from the general intercourse of mankind, and are comparatively independent and self-supporting. Quite apart from the economic argument, which on this side we regard as sanctioned, we do not want to see the British Empire degenerate into a sullen confederacy, walled off, like a mediæval town, from the surrounding country, victualled for a siege, and containing within the circle of its battlements all that is necessary for war. We want this country and the States associated with it to take their part freely and fairly in the general intercourse of commercial nations. We do not mind even if we become dependent on foreign nations, because we know that by that very fact we make foreign nations dependent upon us. These, Sir, in brief and scanty outline, are some of the heads of a few of the principal and more obvious arguments which may be adduced in support of the merits of this Motion.

Before I sit down I wish to say a word or two on its terms. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has raised this great new controversy. He has declared that it is urgent and that it is vital to the future of the Empire, and he has announced that he will devote to the prosecution of this cause the life and strength which we all, without distinction of Party, hope he may abundantly enjoy. This is not the first time the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned great office and high authority for the sake of the opinions he has held. Those who disagree with him most flatly, who feel bound to meet him with the most unrelenting and most unwearying oppose- tion, do not undervalue the advantages which such conduct in public men confer upon the dignity and standards of our Parliamentary life. But we have a right to hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adopt methods that are worthy of the high motives with which he is generally credited. I appealed to the right hon. Gentleman some days ago privately, and I now urge him publicly, to use the influence which he possesses with the Government to secure for the House to-night an unprejudiced decision upon this great question. I can only regret greatly that the right hon. Gentleman does not take that view of his obligations. At any rate, the position of the Opposition is perfectly clear. This Motion has been drafted with one object and one object alone. It has been drafted to encounter in terms not of prejudice but in terms of candour what we conceive to be the main proposition of the policy of Imperial preference. The Motion contains no censure, expressed or implied, upon the Government. It cannot injure the Government unless they, in defiance of their pledges, place themselves directly in the path. It is not aimed at the Government; it is aimed there. [The hon. Member indicated Mr.CHAMBERLAIN. [The Prime Minister has declared that he will not propose the policy of Imperial Preference until it has been ratified by two successive victorious general elections. Why then does he now intervene with the previous Question. Is he not a little late, with his previous Question? Would it not have been much better to have moved it, not in the House, but in the Cabinet two years ago, when the right hon. Member for Birmingham first raised these new and sudden proposals? We are, of course, in the hands of Government. If they chose to invade what is really a discussion between private Members on both sides of the House by the influence of the Party Whips, we, at any rate, cannot be accused of moving a vote of censure upon them. It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham does not agree with the Government. He resigned because he did not agree with them. He knows perfectly well that the word "Conference" will not unite him to the Prime Minister, because the Conference which the Prime Minister proposes is a two-general-elections Conference, and the right lion. Gentleman has declared that he does not approve of that, and that he thinks that one victorious general election ought to decide the battle. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman declared as recently as Friday last that the policy of Major Noble, which was the policy of His Majesty's Government, was marked by excessive timidity, and he intimated that he regretted it as injurious not merely to the Unionist Party, but to the fortunes of the British Empire. With what consistency then, not to use a provocative word, can the right hon. Gentleman shelter himself on Wednesday night behind that very policy of delay and ambiguity which he criticised so strongly on Friday? How can the right hon. Gentleman expect a poor wretched candidate in the country, who wants to get into Parliament, to face the storm—and it is a storm—when the leader of the movement, the man who has announced that he will devote his life to the cause, does not hesitate to take refuge on every occasion when there is an attack in this House behind the Government breakwater, which in fair weather he despises? I go further, and say—after all, these are matters which concern Gentlemen opposite—that large causes can never be advanced by small Parliamentary manœuvres, and no man can hope to convince the conscience and intellect of the nation when his first step must be to paralyse and to prejudice the judgment of the House of Commons.

The decision which we would take tonight, I suppose, cannot in any case be regarded as final. The present Parliament has witnessed the raising of this controversy, a controversy which has divided friends, broken up a Cabinet, and has, I am assured, though perhaps this will be denied, inflicted some injury upon a great Party. Our responsibility as a Parliament in respect to this controversy is real and grave. Courage and honour alike forbid us to repudiate it. It will be a reproach, and an abiding reproach, upon us if we melt away to the constituencies without having had the pluck or honesty to give a plain and candid answer. It may not be in our power to undo the harm that has been done; it may not be in our power to knit again what has been sundered; we cannot expect to end this long campaign in a single engagement; but it is within our power, and it is certainly our duty, by our vote to-night to erect and establish a sign-post of warning I and instruction for the guidance of Parliaments to come. On these grounds, Mr. I Speaker, I beg to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the permanent unity of the British Empire will not be secured through a system of preferential duties based upon the protective taxation of food."

*MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR (Liverpool, East Toxteth)

The Resolution which has been submitted to the House in the brilliant speech to which we have just listened has my support for more than one reason. In the first place, it has my support because Members on this side of the House can speak and vote on this particular issue without the slightest impeachment of Party loyalty. That has been made perfectly apparent recently by correspondence affecting the seat of my noble friend the Member for Greenwich. Then this Resolution has a primary merit in that it offers to the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham a direct challenge. Of course, that challenge may be evaded, other circumstances may intervene, but as long as it is on the floor of the House and holds the field it is a challenge to the policy which has emanated from Birmingham. What is that policy? I have studied the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman with some care for the last two years, and as far as I can interpret them the right hon. Gentleman says to his fellow-countrymen, "Unless you are prepared to don the livery of the commercial bargainer and say to the rest of the Empire, 'We will put on something that we may take off something, that we may give you something, that you may give us something'' why hen we cannot reckon upon the permanent cohesion of the British Empire." That is a position which I, for one, desire to see absolutely shattered at the earliest possible moment.

Then, Sir, a second merit which this Resolution has in my eyes is that it takes us back to the very root of the fiscal controversy. It plants us at the point and on the plane from which the controversy originally started. It lifts us out of the region of what I may, perhaps, without offence, call the merely parochial side of this question, as it effects the internal industries of the country, and rivets our gaze upon its wider and Imperial aspect. That ought to make it exceedingly grateful to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and his followers. I welcome it because, though on that side it is infused with considerations of Imperial sentiment which to a certain extent may confuse the judgment, yet the issue is perfectly plain here between free trade and protection. There is no question here of the abatement of high and hostile protective tariffs by retaliatory duties. The object sought by this policy cannot with any accuracy be described as freer trade, but rather as a transfer of trade. What is aimed at is, to transfer the trade now done between the Empire and foreign counties and to convert it into terms of inter-Imperial trade between the component parts of the Empire. From that point of view these hostile tariffs are a blessing in disguise. If we had not got them we might have been confronted with a great deal more foreign trade than we have to-day. What an alarming prospect from which we have been delivered by America, Germany, and France! All that we have to do now is to emulate these countries by an Imperial tariff which will further assist in strangling the trade of the Empire with foreign countries, and then the task which the right hon. Gentleman has set himself will be more easily accomplished. The object aimed at by the right hon. Gentleman is not freer trade; it is monopoly. We have great free markets in the British Empire. I do not allude to India, Hong-Kong, the Straits Settlements, Ceylon, the West Indies, or West Africa, because the position of these great markets in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman has never yet been accurately defined. But England, the great free market of the world, is no longer to be free. It is to be a monopoly of the Colonies, and the Colonies on their part, by raising their tariffs against the foreigner, are to become the preserves of the mother country. There is one great factor in; the problem which has always troubled me, and that is that one-half of our mercantile tonnage is exclusively engaged in trade between one foreign country and another. From the right hon. Gentleman's point of view that is obviously a nefarious proceeding; it is really engaged in a clandestine trade; but if we abandon free trade, and with it our power of cheaply constructing mercantile tonnage, that is a problem which will shortly cease to trouble us.

There is one other point in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman which also has given me great searchings of heart. No one will deny the extreme lucidity of speech possessed by the right hon. Gentleman, but on one point I have not been able, and I think others have not been able, fully to fathom his meaning. Is what he proposes a series of commercial bargains, or is it a covenant of mutual sacrifice? At times the right hon. Gentleman has spoken in one sense and at times he has spoken in the other. One day we are exhorted to make great sacrifices for Imperial sentiment, and the next he regrets that there are no sacrifices he can call upon this country to make. But it is perfectly apparent that in the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the rôle of the mother country is to perform a function towards the Colonies akin to that which the Central Governments in Austria, France, and Germany have performed to the growers of beet sugar. We are to have a bounty upon the production of cereals, live stock, and dairy produce in the Colonies, because a tariff is a bounty, but in a more vicious sense. In the case of a tariff the consumers pay, and in the case of a bounty the people pay through the Government of the country. De facto there is no distinction. Having got rid of restricted areas of sugar supply by means of the Sugar Convention, as a free trader I intend to vote against a scheme for the creation of restricted areas of wheat supply in the British Empire. The growth, culmination, and decay of great empires is a subject of surpassing, and sometimes melancholy interest. Sometimes they have had their origin in a moment of religious enthusiasm, sometimes they have developed along the lines of peaceful and commercial intercourse, some have been carved out by the sword, and welded together by blood and iron. It has been reserved for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to conceive the idea of unifying a great Empire by the simple expedient of a corner in wheat.

If on free-trade principles I am against the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, I am also against it on the ground of practical expediency. The British Empire is a maritime empire. That is a fact which is sometimes conveniently ignored by the advocates of tariff reform. They seem to think that the British Empire, like Antœus, derives all its strength from contact with mother earth and its industries. In reality it draws its vitalising energy from the sea—the high road of all nations, yet the peculiar domain of one. Therefore, in considering questions of Imperial policy, surely our Navy the commerce it guards should be the objects of primary consideration. These islands form only one per cent. of the area of the Empire, but to-day they bear all but one per cent. of the cost of the Navy. I submit that, if it is open to the Colonies to say they will not advance along the path of Imperial union by shouldering the burdens common to Imperial defence, it is open to us in this country to say, without being subject to the charge of disloyalty to the Empire, that we will not advance along the path of Imperial union by running the risk of impairing our productive efficiency. I trust we shall be allowed to-night to take a direct vote "Aye or No" upon this simple issue. The wish of the Member for West Birmingham is that the country should be consulted as to whether it is for or against the taxation of food before negotiations are entered upon with the Colonies. That, at any rate, was his opinion on May 28th, 1903, and I assume it to be his view to-day. If the country is to be consulted, why not the House of Commons? The only reason I can imagine is that the House of Commons does not represent the country, an argument which will hardly be advanced from the Ministerial side of the House, and which, in so far as it affects me personally, I entirely repudiate. The question is—are we to go to our constituents with our minds unmade up upon this question? Are we to go to them with the words of the Eastern poet upon our lips— There was a door to which I found no key; There was a veil past which I could not see; Some little talk a while of me and thee There seemed; and then no more of thee and me. I think that that is an attitude unworthy of a great representative Assembly. We shall be dealing truly and fairly with our Colonies in letting them clearly understand what we think upon this question. Their attitude has been scrupulously exact. It is for us to define ours; and it is because I wish it defined by the only Assembly which has authority to define it that I second this Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the permanent unity of the British Empire will not be secured through a system of preferential duties based upon the protective taxation of food."—(Mr. Winston Churchill.)

*THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOB THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington)

The brilliant speech of the mover of this Resolution described the attitude of the Government as timorous, and complained most vehemently that the Government and my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham would not look into the proposals which have been before the country for a considerable time. I venture to think that that is not a correct description of the attitude of the Government. The attitude of the Government in this House, as the result of a long and fruitful discussion on general principles, is that it is time to cease the discussion of abstractions, and definitely to ascertain in a businesslike spirit the exact proposals which the Colonies are willing to make to us, to discuss them with an unbiassed and unhampered mind, and to endeavour as a result to arrive on concrete proposals at what is the real truth and substance of the case. I think that he who enters into discussion freely and fearless of the result cannot be accused of timidity. On the other hand, he who has so little confidence in his principles as to think that free discussion between the parties interested can lead to no good has more right to be taunted with timidity, seeing that he is afraid to put his opinions to the true test. The policy of the Government, as announced on more than one occasion, is to enter into a conference with the Colonies with a free and unfettered mind. I thought the great majority of the House, including the Opposition, were in favour of a free and unfettered Colonial Conference, and I would remind the House that in 1906 a conference will take place. The effect of this Motion, if accepted, would be to attach conditions to the Conference between the representatives of this country and the representatives of the Colonies.

In the first place, I say, broadly, that to attach any fetter upon discussion is undesirable. But it is doubly undesirable to attach a condition which is in itself ambiguous. I say that deliberately, because the last words in the Motion are "protective taxation of food." If you took any twenty men in the House, indiscriminately chosen, I venture to say that you would not get from any two of them similar opinions as to what protective taxation of food means. We had in the course of the recess many speeches from the hon. Member who moved the Resolution. The information he possessed was freely given to the public, it might even be said copiously given, and many of his points were given with great lucidity. I cannot say that I have read all his speeches, but I have had them condensed into an encyclopædia, and certainly some of the headings in that encyclopædia are distinguished for plainness and lucidity. I do not think, however, that I got from it any very clear and definite definition of protective taxes on food. But let me ask a question or two upon that point. Is there any clear definition of what a protective tax on food is? Is it to be called protective taxation of food to propose a uniform import duty on all commodities? To say it is is to condemn the fiscal system of India as protective. I am not using the argument in a provocative sense, but to show that different meanings are attached to the word protection. The fiscal system of India has been controlled at different times by two such stalwarts as the noble Lord the Member for Ealing and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Wolverhampton. Now, in India there is no Excise, and practically the Indian fiscal system is a uniform all-round duty upon all imports. In this case there appears to be a difference as to what protection means. Then, again, I ask if the shilling duty on corn is a protective tax. ["Hear, hear!" "Yes."]

ME. WINSTON CHURCHILL

said he considered that a protective duty was anything which imposed an artificial discrimination between one class of producer and another.

*MR. LYTTELTON

I suppose that under that definition the shilling duty would fall. I think I have heard all the perorations of 1846 refurbished to denounce the proposal of my right lion, friend the Member for West Bristol with reference to the Corn Tax. But I will not elaborate this; I have gone far enough to show that different people attach different meanings to the word. In the first place, then, the Motion will cause embarrassment among those who vote for it and, in the second place, it will have a very bad effect indeed in the Colonies. The Resolution of 1902 which was passed by representatives of the self-governing Colonies is familiar to the House; it was a unanimous Resolution recognising the principle of preferential trade between the United Kingdom and the Colonies. Are we prepared to say that we will rule out from discussion by a conference the question of how to carry into effect this general principle? Would they rule out of discussion absolutely such a topic even as a shilling duty on corn? ["Hear, hear," "Yes."] Certainly there are few on my side of the House who will agree with that opinion. Surely it would be better, as the matter has been discussed at very great length as regards general principles in the last two years, that when representatives are appointed to discuss this question, among others of high importance, that the representatives shall enter the discussion free and unfettered. Surely, from the point of those who like and those who dislike colonial preference this must be so. My noble friend the Member for Greenwich has stated that he does not believe in any form of colonial preference, because in his view it would be a source of discord and not of amity. But, holding that view, he stated the other day that he could not oppose a conference. So clear-headed a man sees that if his case is right, the freer the discussion the better for truth. My right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, who believes that in the principle of colonial preference there lies one of the greatest and finest ideals that has ever been proposed, is also in favour of the conference. Therefore, we have two honest, vigorous, and, of course, preeminently able men approaching this subject from opposite points of view, both equally confident and tenacious of the view which they hold, and both bold and courageous therefore in demanding that this matter should be submitted to a free conference, so that the truth may be ascertained. Both believe that their own opinion will be corroborated by further knowledge. I venture to say that we ought to seek the truth in this matter in the most excellent way. After a certain period surely it is not profitable to continue an abstract discussion. We should get the people who are interested in the matter together. Let us learn all the facts. Let us get out of a bewildering and endless maze into the safer region of a concrete proposition. A very distinguished man, well known to many hon. Gentlemen opposite, a very great lawyer and brilliant, wise, and witty man, Lord Bowen, once said to me— A man of talent is a man who makes up his mind aright when he has got all the facts before him. A man of genius is a man who generally makes lip his mind aright when he has only some of the facts before him. I venture to think that the hon. Member for Oldham and his friends arrogate to themselves the claims of genius. They wish to make up their minds, and, more foolish still, they wish the Government to make up their minds, before they know all the facts, and when there is a proposal before them by which they can learn the facts. Is there a better way of learning the facts than by people who are anxious to make a bargain for their mutual advantage meeting together and discussing the whole matter? No one has suggested a better method of getting at the facts and of placing them clearly before the people of this country and people in the Colonies.

AN HON. MEMBEK

Where is the offer?

*MR. LYTTELTON

I have never said there was an offer. I have said that the Colonies, especially Canada, New Zealand, and Africa, have given us that which is better than any offer—they have given us actual preference. The Premiers of all the self-governing Colonies have passed resolutions in favour of preferential tariffs and, so far as I know, they uphold the idea of a Colonial Conference. To my mind it is better that we should get to close quarters with actual proposals. It is not reasonable to expect us to give either a definite "Yes" or a definite "No" in the course of a three hours debate on a proposition which I have tried to show, notwithstanding the interruptions to which I have been subjected [Cries of "Shame"], and which, I venture to say, I have proved to be ambiguous even in the estimation of the hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite. It being, as far as I understand the cheers heard, agreed that it is desirable that the conference shall take place, most Englishmen wish that conference to be free; and nobody, not even hon. Gentleman opposite, wish it to be futile. But if we impose a condition such as that in the Resolution we prevent freedom, and if we impose an ambiguous condition we ensure futility.

I wish to imitate the commendable brevity of those who have preceded me, and I have only just a word more. This Motion, in my opinion, is not candidly or bona fide meant [Cheers, and some OPPOSITION cries of "Oh"] to clear up, but is intended to obscure the issue, it is not intended to strengthen, it is intended to weaken and invalidate the Colonial Conference. It is a device not to elicit the truth, but to mislead the unwary. It is impossible to affirm it or to deny it without giving to unscrupulous persons their opportunity, and its confessed ambiguity makes it liable to be misunderstood, and certain to be misrepresented. In these conditions, I have not the slightest hesitation in moving "That this Motion be not now put," and, so far from that being a Parliamentary manœuvre, it is precisely the occasion and the exigency for which this previous Question was intended, and it is precisely in order to meet tricky manœuvring that this Parliamentary weapon is forged. In saying "tricky manœuvring" I perhaps use too strong a phrase. [Cries of "No."] I do not mean, to apply it in any offensive sense to the hon. Member who moved the original Motion. What I wish to point out is that, though I do not blame him for laving us a trap, I should blame ourselves were we to fall into it.

Motion made, and Question proposed, ''That the Question be not now put."— (Mr. Lyttelton.)

*LORD GEORGE HAMILTON (Middlesex, Ealing)

I have listened with interest, but with regret, to the speech of my right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary. The Colonial Secretary, speaking, if my right hon. friend will excuse me for saying so, with a very limited Parliamentary experience [Cries of "Oh"], stated that the previous Question is a Motion which has been used in order to meet Motions of this character. I venture entirely to traverse that statement. The previous Question is a legitimate weapon of Parliamentary warfare, and Governments have had recourse to it under very exceptional circumstances. But I will undertake to say that neither my right hon. friend nor any one on the Treasury Bench will be able to cite a case where the previous Question has been used in connection with a Motion, made by a private Member, of a perfectly simple and straightforward character. The only occasion on which a Government has ever made use of this weapon has been whore the Motion was either obnoxious in itself or invalidated or anticipated proposals which they intended to lay before Parliament. Then it is a perfectly legitimate proposition. My right hon. friend told us that the Government had got certain proposals as regards in Imperial Conference. But the House of Commons is not seized of this matter. We know absolutely nothing about it. Where is tint proposition made, and who makes it?

MR. LYTTELTON

The Prime Minister made it at Edinburgh.

*LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

The Prime Minister made a most admirable speech at Edinburgh, because in it my right hon. friend repudiated the principles of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. A few days later my right hon. friend the Attorney-General, speaking at Inverness, pat on that Edinburgh speech exactly the same interpretation which I have put on it. Yet my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, writing to the gentleman who is standing for the constituency of Baling, stated that there was no difference as to principles between himself and the Prime Minister, though there is a certain difference as to methods. But what did the Prime Minister propose at Edinburgh? Apparently he proposed that there should be an unfettered Conference between this country and the Colonies. But is this country, the predominant partner in the Empire, to give no expression whatever to its opinions upon the questions which are to be discussed at the Conference? Are the Colonies going into the Conference in the same way? Surely it is perfectly childish to maintain that the colonial representatives will not go into that Conference hampered. Every one who has studied the matter knows perfectly well that, however desirable might be the high ideal of trying to establish closer and more satisfactory relations between this country and the self- governing Colonies, there are two serious obstacles in the way, differing in their character, their origin, and their object. We in this country are free traders, the self-governing Colonies are protectionists. This country objects to the taxation of food; the Government and my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham object to the taxation of raw material. But what are the views of the Colonies? They have behaved right through in a perfectly straightforward manner. All the Colonial Ministers who have spoken on this subject have declared in the clearest and most emphatic terms that they will not agree to so alter their tariffs as to allow British manufactured goods to compete with the products of their own industries.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I beg my right hon. friend's pardon. Has he any proof of what be says?

*LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

Mr. Fielding, of Canada, speaking at the Conference of Prime Ministers, distinctly said— There must be no misunderstanding; we are not going to allow British goods to compete with ours.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Of course I absolutely accept my right lion, friend's good faith. But what I want to point out to him is that at the last Conference of Colonial Prime Ministers, over which I presided, Mr. Fielding and the Canadian Minister alluded to were perfectly ready to review and revise their tariffs so as to see whether they could not—[OPPOSITION cries of "Order," and "Speech."] I am perfectly in order—in order to see whether they could not give us not only advantages against the foreigner, but give us also advantages with regard to the tariffs which affect British goods.

*LORD GEORGE HAMILTON

My right hon. friend's explanation does not really traverse the statement; I have are, what better opportunity could they advanced. Mr. Fielding, introducing the have of learning what are the views about Budget of 1903, frankly said— We cannot undertake to give further preferences in a manner which would operate to the disadvantage of our own industries But something more happened. It is a curious feature of this controversy that we in the House of Commons, the mother of the Parliaments of the Empire, must not express our free-trade opinions, and that only Ministers in the Colonies should give expression to their convictions. Mr. Fielding, ascertaining that English wollen goods were coming in under the tariffs and competing with Canadian goods, raised the general tariff from 30 to 45 per cent. and the preferencetial duties from 23½ to 33 per cent. There fore my point is this: if you want to come to a good arrangement with the Colonies—and I think I may say, putting all Party feeling aside, that both sides of the House desire to do what is mutually advantageous—surely it is ridiculous to talk about going into a free and untrammeled Conference when Colonial Ministers who hold protectionist views are thus giving effect to them, while we who sit here are not allowed to give expression to our free-trade opinions. I agree with the Prime Minister that a Conference such as he suggested would be advisable; but if it is to bear any fruit it is essential that the representatives of this country and of the self-governing Colonies should clearly understand the nature of the difficulties which they have to overcome. It is ridiculous for this country to keep in the background its objections to taxation of food if the Colonies are allowed at the same time to increase their protective duties. If this Motion had been proposed two years and a half ago, I believe that it would have been assented to without a dissentient voice. What has happened in the meantime? The Government have taken a course which so far as I know is absolutely without parallel or precedent. We have looked forward to an enjoyable evening of encounter between ourselves and the tariff reformers. Why should the Government interfere? It would not hurt anybody; it would I not hurt them; the House would have come to a decision; and if the Government want to know, pending the next election, what the opinions of the country protective taxation than by allowing the representatives of the people to discuss the subject in the House freely and to vote as they like? But the Colonial It is Secretary says that he does not know controversy what is meant by the protective taxation of food, and he puts a series of queries in order, I suppose, to get a little information. My right hon. friend knows what the protective taxation of food is as well as any Member in the House.

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

My right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary referred to the shilling tax on corn proposed by the right hon. Member for West Bristol, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and voted for by my noble friend and myself, and asked whether it was protective. Does the noble Lord consider that it was a protective tax or not?

*LOED GEORGE HAMILTON

My early official life was spent under Lord Beaconsfield, a strict disciplinarian, and there was nothing he more severely rebuked than interruption in debate. Lord Beaconsfield was in the habit of saying that, if the speaker who was interrupted kept his head, he would get the better of the interrupter. I was going to give my definition of protective taxation of food, which, I think, is that which is universally accepted. It is a tax imposed for purposes other than revenue. In my younger days we all had to know something about this question. I can assure my hon. friends who have come into Parliament in more recent days that if they raise this question, they will all have to be able to explain to their constituents what is the meaning of the taxation of food. I have given my definition, and I believe it to be accurate ["No, no."] Well, a new school has arisen among Members behind me, but I am afraid I am too old to take lessons from them. I intend to vote for this Motion. It contains doctrines that I have held all my life, and they were part and parcel of the Tory Party until a short time ago. [Cheers.] From those cheers I gather that I and my friends who act with me will be subjected to the imputation that we are voting against our Party. May I venture to give a little advice as an old Parliamentary hand to those of my friends who so cheer me? We shall vote against the Government, we cannot help it; but it does not always follow, towards the close of its tenure of office, that the interests of a Government are necessarily the interests of a Party. When a Government vacates office it dies, but the Party behind it lives; and during the final stage of the existence of a Government the primary duty of the Leader is to think of those behind him as well as of those who sit on the Front Bench alongside of him. I have seen the Tory Party rise from comparative insignificance until it became a great dominant and Imperial power in this House, and if the Prime Minister consults those of my own political standing they will one and all remind him that just in proportion as the Tory Party freed itself from the principles of protective taxation so did it flourish and prosper, and just in proportion as it gets involved in the principles of protective taxation, so will its influence dwindle and vanish away, and in opposition it will never be able to give effect to the great principles of which it is the sole custodian. I do not want the Government to go out of office—I have nothing in common with the Party opposite, except, perhaps, in regard to the fiscal question—but worse evils may happen to a Party than that the Government should Vacate office after being nine years in power. Let the Government on this question raise a fair and square issue and abide by it. They may be beaten, but they will carry into opposition the esteem of their friends and even of their opponents, and the Party behind them will carry with them that power of rehabilitation which alone can enable us successfully to maintain our principles hereafter. But to-night pressure has been put on my hon. friends, and a number of men, as everybody knows will vote against the principles which they hold. Not only that, but the question upon which we have to vote to-night is, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, to be the great issue of the next election. Therefore, in voting reluctantly against the Government, I and my friends are sustained by the consciousness that we are acting in the true interests of a great political Party, to which, I can truly say, I have given, during the greater part of my life, an unswerving and unbroken allegiance.

MR. J. CHAMBEKLAIN

I should have thought beforehand that there was no one better entitled to represent the great Conservative Party than my noble friend, who has been a devoted member of the Party and has served it in office probably longer than any other Member of the House and whom I am perfectly willing to allow the right to speak for it. But I know not how it comes—old friendships weaken—how it can be possible for my noble friend, who has now attained, as he says, the rank of an "old Parliamentary hand," to think so badly of those with whom he has worked for so many years as to suggest that on this occasion, under the pressure of the Party Whip, a large proportion of them are going to vote against their convictions. No enemy could have said worse. I think my noble friend has been betrayed into a statement which he will ultimately regret. I listened, Sir, with great interest—if I may say so, with a personal interest—which may not be shared by all Members of the House—to the speech with which this debate commenced, by the hon. Gentleman the junior Member for Oldham, with whom and with whose family I have for so many years had intimate relations; and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman not only upon the ability of his speech, but also upon the fact that it was, as I think, in the best Parliamentary tradition, because, while expressing his own views and expressing them with vehemence and clearness, he was not betrayed into any of that personal bitterness which, I think, in our sober moments, we all desire to omit from our discussions. The hon. Member made to me a personal appeal. He said truly that he challenged my whole policy, and he asked me to use my influence—whatever that may be—with the Government to enable the discussion to be concluded by a division which was not to be taken on Party lines. That may be perfectly consistent on the part of the hon. Member, but it is ridiculous if he professes to represent the Party opposite. This question was brought before the country without reference to Party politics, I say here, what I have said again and again in public outside, that I desire that it should be treated as a non-Party question; and, as far as I am concerned, strongly as I feel the importance of the subject, I have endeavoured, and I believe I have succeeded, never to introduce anything in the nature of personal recrimination or attack. As far as possible I have avoided any purely personal argument or attack. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh at that. Do they deny it? [Cries of "Yes" and "Certainly."] That being the case, it is very difficult to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to strive to make this a perfectly non-Party and debating society discussion.

I have been challenged by my noble friend the Member for Greenwich on more than one occasion to bring forward my whole case and to ask the opinion of the House upon it; and I think my noble friend suggested that nothing but a lack of moral courage could have prevented me from doing so. I venture to suggest to the House and to my noble friend that there may be other reasons besides mere lack of pluck; and. among them, is the fact that all through my life, political and other, I have hated anything in the nature of useless debate. I do not fear, I am glad to share, any debate which can possibly have a practical result; but I have never seen the value of these pious opinions and abstract Resolutions which the House of Commons, from time to time, while I have been a Member of it, has been accustomed to pass without the slightest effect upon the practical politics of the day. If I brought forward my whole case on an occasion on which it would be properly discussed, what would be the result? What practical result would be secured either on my side or in favour of the views of my noble friend? Suppose I brought forward this Resolution and it were rejected. Does any one in his senses suppose that that would have the slightest effect upon the agitation which is going on in the country? Would it in any sense be conclusive? Sir, after all, this is a matter which ultimately will be decided by the country. We all acknowledge that. I ask my noble friend and others to believe that we who entertain the conviction that this policy is necessary will have at least as much persistence as Mr. Cobden, who was not in the least disconcerted by a single vote of the House of Commons, but who persisted with his arguments and agitation until he successfully carried his views into effect. In my opinion, honestly expressed, it is a waste of strength to be putting our views before the House of Commons as the subject of what I call a debating-society discussion, until we have some reason to believe that we have converted the country to them. Our first duty is to convert the country. In order to do my part in that process, and to ask the country to look at what is now a new proposal and consider it, I have accepted a position of less responsibility and greater freedom; and it would be contrary altogether to my policy and belief on this question if I were to think it right to waste—for so I would consider it—the time of the House of Commons in an abstract discussion which can have no result. I have been speaking upon the assumption that such a Motion as my noble friend asks for were defeated. But suppose it succeeded. That is conceivable. What advantage should I gain? My Leader and the Government have distinctly pledged themselves that under no circumstances will they raise this question during the present Parliament. What advantage is it to mo to get a vote of the present Parliament under those circumstances? I do not think we need recriminate between us these imputations of cowardice or any other political sin; but we may accept as reasonable—even those who feel as I do on this subject—that discussion by this House is premature and not very practical. That is my view.

The hon. Member for Oldham, who takes a different view, does what I have neglected to do. He tells the House that he challenges the whole of my policy. Well, I cannot help thinking that he underestimates the force of his Resolution. It may challenge my policy, but it also challenges the policy of the Government. I will prove that in the course of my argument; but let me say that there is an important element in the decision of the House. It is not merely a condemnation of the proposal of one who is outside the Government, who is nothing but a private Member; it is also distinctly a condemnation of the avowed policy of His Majesty's Government. Some objection was taken to the expression of my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies when he said that this was a tricky manœuvre; he agreed that he might have used another adjective, and I am going, with his permission, to suggest the adjective—it is a perfectly legitimate Party manœuvre, perfectly legitimate for an Opposition to put out the Government by any means in its power, and I give the hon. Member for Oldham every credit for having devised a very skilful means of securing that result. But if my noble friend who has just sat down has any idea that this is really a bona fide occasion for the discussion of the merits of preference and free trade, well, considering that he is an old Parliamentary hand, he is a more ingenuous person than I have ever vet met in this House. Sir, the Opposition do not want, discussion; for them it is wholly unnecessary. Does my noble friend forget that in the early days of this session they proposed an Amendment to the Address in which they said that the subject had been fully discussed? [An HON. MEMBER: Not in this House.] In the debate to-night discussion is nothing, the vote is everything.

The hon. Member for Oldham spread his net very wide, and he has caught my noble friend. I really feel pained to think of the result, because my noble friend, in the speech which he has just delivered, declared that he did not want to put out the Government, but that is the sole object of this Resolution! The man who does what he does not want to do is an object of universal sympathy. My noble friend is committed; but surely, as to the other Gentlemen who belong to the Party which, I believe, rejoices in the extraordinary name of free-fooders, but who tax food with the greatest regularity, if I may judge from their speeches in the country, they is not one of them who is not devotedly loyal to the Government. They accept the Government policy; it is quite true that they are all opposed to my policy, but that, as I shall show——

MR. LAMBTON (Durham, S.E.)

We do not all accept the Government policy.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Yes, but there are very few of you who confess that in the country. We are all anxious to make a clean breast of it in the present debate, and I hope that those who do not accept the Government policy will make it perfectly clear to the constituencies to-night.

I want to call the attention of the House, to the form of this Resolution. It is rather a curious thing, it has not been noticed up to the present time, that the Resolution was altered at the last moment from the terms in which it was announced by the hon. Member for Oldham in the first place. The alteration consists in the introduction of the word "protective" before the words "taxation of food"; formerly it was that this House was to pledge itself against any colonial preference "based upon the taxation of food"; now it is, "based upon the protective taxation of food." What is the meaning of that? Why was the word "protective" introduced? Clearly, of course, it was to increase the spread of the net. I wonder what fish it is on this side for whom that extension of the meshes was made? Why! I do not know whether the hon. Member for Oldham knew it at the time but I assure him it might even admit me. I have said again and again in public that I am opposed to the protective taxation of food. It is quite true my opponents think I do not understand my own policy. But, at all events, that has been from first to last my own representation in regard to it. When I spoke in May in Birmingham, before there was any Party question of any kind, I declared to my constituents that I was not, and never had been, a protectionist. We have, of course, in all these discussions to interpret words; and, while on my interpretation I am not a protectionist, I have no doubt that on the interpretation of hon. Gentlemen opposite I do belong to that much abused class. But as my vote and my decision have to be governed by my interpretation of my own words, I do venture to point out that there is nothing in the Resolution as it now stands which would logically prevent me from voting in its favour. [Cheers and OPPOSITION cries of "Agreed, agreed."] Oh, I am so glad you agree with me; I always thought you would, but I had no idea that it would come so soon. After all, we shall all be ready to agree that we want to vote, not according to verbal subtleties, but according to the real meaning and intention. Very well! I accept the meaning and intention of the Motion to be not only a challenge to my policy, but a challenge to the Government policy. What is the Government policy? To me it ought to be plain even to the meanest intelligence, for what is it declared to be? The calling of a Conference between the representatives of this country and the representatives of the Colonies and great dependencies of the Empire, which is to discuss any question that may be raised in that Conference by any of the parties attending it, and among others—this, of course, being an important matter at the present time—the prospect of a commercial union based upon preference between those parts of the Empire and the mother country. That is the first thing. Is not that intelligible? Here is the second point, which is equally important. It is that the Conference shall be open, absolutely open, that it shall not be committed beforehand.

MR. WINSTON CHURCHILL

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? Does he mean that it is to be open in respect to raw material?

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

It is to be open as to everything; consequently there is nothing to prevent the Colonies, or ourselves from raising, if they please, the question of raw material. There is nothing to prevent us from raising the question of absolute free trade within the Empire. There is nothing, according to the proposal made by the Government, which is excluded from the discussions of that Conference. But what is the meaning of the interruption? Does the hon. Member think that because it is open to the Colonies to raise this question, therefore it will be raised or seriously discussed. Does he think, on the other hand, that because it is open to us to raise the question of free trade within the Empire our representatives are likely to do so when they know that the circumstances of the Colonies prevent, and, in my opinion, rightly prevent them at the present time from giving anything in the nature of absolute free trade? No, Sir! The Conference is to be free and open; but at the same time it is perfectly easy for any sensible man who has followed this controversy, and knows what the Colonies have said on the subject, to imagine beforehand, and probably correctly, what will be the serious subjects of discussion. Now, what would be the effect of the Resolution? The effect of the Resolution would be to muzzle the Conference in regard to the one subject——

LORD HUGH CECIL (Greenwich)

Why should it muzzle the Conference?

ME. J. CHAMBERLAIN

To muzzle the Conference in reference to the one thing upon which I am confident the greatest attention will be directed. You may say to the Colonies, "It is open to you to talk about anything; you can talk about a contribution to the Navy, you can talk about a contribution to the Army; if you like you can talk about any mortal thing concerning the different parts of the Empire;" but you know perfectly well that the thing that they will come to talk about is this question of colonial preference. My noble friend said; Why will it muzzle the Conference? Perhaps he will say what he thinks the intention of this Resolution is. The intention of the other side is to put out the Government, but is that his intention?

LORD HUGH CECIL

No.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

No; that is not his intention. He is a loyal supporter of the Government. Well, but in those circumstances the only practical effect will be that in view of a Resolution of the House of Commons, if the conference is held during the period of this House, the representatives of the country will go there practically with instructions given by this House that they are not to consider the question of preference or the only terms on which preference can he given. Then I should have thought, that my noble friend, who has a very quick intelligence, would have understood that the result would be to muzzle the conference and to try to prevent our representatives even from considering what I have said the Colonies would consider the most important part of the duty of the conference.

MR. MOULTON (Cornwall, Launceston)

Prevent them wasting time.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Now, Sir, am I not right in saving in those circumstances that this Resolution is a challenge to the Government? The Government want an open conference; those who support this Resolution are in favour of a limited conference. I confess that if I could have had my way, if I had the influence which the hon. Member attributes to me, I would have invited the Government to meet this Motion with a direct negative. That is my own opinion. I do not like a challenge to be thrown down and not taken up. I regret, though I entirely assented to it and am bound by it, the decision of the Government not to deal with this question at all in the present Parliament. I should have desired that it should be dealt with, as far as Parliament could deal with it immediately. The Government, however, decided not to deal with it in this Parliament, and in those circumstances they are absolutely consistent in saying that this discussion is premature. I think they are more than consistent in inviting their followers, myself among the number, not to commit ourselves to a decision with regard to this conference until we know what it will bring forth. I must say I am very much surprised that we should have to-night my hon. friend—[An HON. MEMBER: Divide; and MINISTERIAL cries of "Order" and "Go on."]—I was going to say I was amazed that my hon. friend the Member for Middlesex should use the language he did, because I think a fortnight ago, either in a letter or a speech, he declared that he welcomed the conference, because he was certain that that conference would show so great a difference between the sacrifices asked from us and the advantages to be given to us, that every one would see that my proposals are impossible. I assure him and the House if that is the result of the conference, if it is true, as my hon. friend believes, that we shall be asked for a very heavy sacrifice and, on the contrary, that no great advantage will be given to us, I should be the first to join with him and say I have been mistaken in my belief in the intention of the Colonies, and that as they have failed altogether to fulfil my anticipations, I would admit that any proposal of negotiation in this matter is unreasonable.

If I may, I want for a few minutes once more to call the attention of the House to the real merits of the proposal which is attributed to me. I beg the House to consider it not merely in a Party spirit. This Empire of ours, we admit, is held together by sentiment. Is every hon. and right, hon. Gentleman satisfied about this? Do they think that sentiment alone is sufficient foundation on which we ought to rest the interests of the Empire? [OPPOSITION cries of "Yes."] If they do and will study the question, they will find that they are at variance with our Colonies themselves, and that there is hardly a great statesman in any of our Colonies who has not practically confirmed the expressed opinion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that if in some way or another we do not draw closer we shall drift apart. That is a matter of immense importance. I say that the problem before us is, can we create a stronger organisation? Can we do something that will be more than mere sentiment? Can we add to the sentiment, the force and importance of which I do not deny, Imperial interests also? I will ask the House, to make my argument clear—I do ask hon. Gentlemen, Do you now want a consolidated Empire? Do you desire, as I do, that the Empire shall be drawn closer together if reasonable means can be found? You have given up the doctrines of Mr. Cobden. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] You no longer think as he expressed himself in a letter which I came across only to-day and in which he said— Colonies, Army, Navy, and Church are with the Corn Laws, merely accessories of our aristocratic connections, and John Bull has his work cut out for him for the next fifty years to purge his house of these impurities.' I believe that doctrine has been entirely abandoned by the Liberal Party. I do not think it is now the desire of any member of the Liberal Party to treat the Colonies as "impurities." Very well, if I may assume that you are all agreed on the necessity and on the importance of consolidating the Empire, I say to you there is not one among you who can suggest any alternative to this step of commercial union, which is not the end, but only a step towards the end which I have proposed. No one has proposed an alternative. Alternatives have been considered and found by both sides impracticable. You have the advantage in this case of the support of the Colonies. There was an interruption that the Colonies made no offer. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, "We offer to make a treaty with you." [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh!"] You may refuse to discuss the terms of a treaty, and if you do they will make a treaty with others and they will be perfectly justified in doing so [CRIES of "Oh"]; and whereas now you have an opportunity of making a treaty which shall be to your material advantage, as well as to the increase of the strength of the Empire, you will, if you refuse it, go back to the policy of laisser faire which prevailed in the time of Cobden, and you will find that laisser faire will do nothing for the consolidation of the Empire or the security of its interests, but may very likely lead to a separation, which you will look back upon with regret.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no very great length of time before us in which to finish the discussion, and I am aware that a right hon. Gentleman opposite has a desire to speak, as unquestionably he has a right to speak. I will therefore make such remarks as I must make as concise as possible; but I think the House will admit that I could not allow this debate to come to a conclusion without saying something in defence of the course for which the Government are responsible, and admit that they are responsible. The speeches of the mover and seconder were directed against my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, who has just replied in a speech of singular lucidity and eloquence. But, as I conceive the situation, the true attack was not upon my right hon. friend, but is upon the Government, of which I am a member, and in particular against the policy I have advocated in more than one speech, and notably in a speech I made at Edinburgh. My noble friend the Member for Middlesex stated, in the earlier portion of his remarks, that he had read that speech, and that he found himself—I do not think he said in entire agreement—but, at all events, that he had a large measure of agreement with it. Now what did that speech essentially contain? It contained two statements; and the first was that I individually was unalterably attached to the principle of free trade, and that I did not, and never would, accept the responsibility for a protective policy. I may say that within that speech I defined, with un-impeachable lucidity, what I meant by protection, and my belief is that it is in accordance with the views of sound political economists for many generations past. I am not going to discuss the various definitions. My noble friend has given one of his own; but if he finds good authority for it in books of sound political economists I shall be rather surprised. At all events there was no ambiguity in mine; and it is because in the word as used by the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion to-night there has been shown to be ambiguity, there is a reason why the Government propose the course they intend to take to-night, and in which they ask the House to follow them.

Well, that was one element in that speech I made at Edinburgh; and what was the second element? It was an appeal to the country in the face of the controversy raging on the fiscal question, an appeal to the country to discuss our colonial relations in a free Conference. I do not believe that my statement on that subject was a bit more ambiguous than my statement as to protection; it was clear, it was definite, it was complete; and it is because, in my judgment, the Resolution moved by the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House, and seconded by an hon. Gentleman who is a Member of the Party on this side—it is because that Resolution flies in the face of that second part of my speech made at Edinburgh that, in my opinion, all who are good enough to accept the policy I have recommended to the country ought to support the Government in the lobby this evening. How my noble friend, who approves the speech made at Edinburgh, and who approves by implication of the proposition for a free Conference, can vote in support of a Resolution which flies in the face of a free Conference passes my comprehension altogether. My noble friend stated that all the Colonial Premiers have already laid down conditions which are inconsistent with a free Conference. I must not be taken as accepting my noble friend's statement of fact, but I will accept it provisionally for the purposes of this argument. It is precisely that example which I think ought not to be followed if we are to bring this great Imperial issue to a satisfactory conclusion; and the circumstance that these gentlemen have stated that they would never admit some cherished principle of their colony to come under discussion or be interfered with in a free Conference is surely a warning that we ought not to follow that example. We ought, on the other hand, carefully to abstain from doing anything of the kind and if we can induce our Colonies to imitate the course which I hope we shall take ourselves by coming into the Conference unpledged and unfettered in order to bring its deliberations to a successful termination.

My noble friend is going to vote against us, because, as he says, he has always been against protective taxation of food; and for that reason whenever he sees a Resolution against protective taxation of food he will throw every other consideration to the winds, and though no human being suspects him of wanting protective taxation of food, he must give open profession of his faith in the division lobby. I dare say there are Gentlemen in the House who are in favour of protective taxation of food. Certainly I am not, and I do not believe my noble friend thinks I am It seems to me sufficient to make that statement in the clearest and most explicit language, on the platform and in the House, without, by recording a vote which is perfectly unnecessary as a mere profession of faith, a violation of the very canons that, with my noble friend's consent and the general approval of the Party, I have ventured to lay down for the summoning of this Conference. Therefore I would respectfully say to my noble friend that, even if the Amendment which we are going to vote on to-night was an alternative to the Motion in the ordinary sense—if it was an Amendment to the Motion—I believe even then he might have supported the Government. As a matter of fact, my noble friend is perfectly aware that the essence of "The previous Question" is that it does not require those who vote for it to make any statement of policy, any statement of agreement—hon. Gentlemen would do so much better if they waited for the end of my sentence—this question does not require the House to express any agreement upon the substance of the Resolution. The essence of it is that the Resolution is one upon which at the moment, for reasons which may be good or which may be bad, it is not expedient for the House to express an opinion. Well, Sir, can you imagine a case in which "The previous Question," as it is called, can be put to a more legitimate purpose than we propose to put it to-night? I do not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's proposition that we ought not to have a protective duty on food. Why should I quarrel with it? What I do quarrel with is the attempt to induce this House by a vote1 to do what it can to prevent the policy in which I firmly believe—the policy of a free Conference—coming to any useful or fruitful issue. And how can that be done so well as by the expedient we have adopted?

I am not going to enter into a controversy as to whether the motives of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution are those of a declaration of his economic faith, or whether they are rather a Party device to embarrass the Government. I do not know that I take a deep interest in his economic faith, and I have no objection to his trying to defeat the Government. I think it is the proper corollary of the public step he has taken. Yes, Sir, but because the hon. Gentleman in the legitimate pursuit of his new vocation puts down a Resolution intended to embarass the Government, is that a reason why hon. Gentlemen on this side who agree with what I may briefly describe as the Edinburgh policy should choose, in order to help the hon. Gentleman to carry out his amiable and charitable intentions, to vote against a policy of which they have declared themselves supporters? The Resolution itself is ambiguous. If it were merely ambiguous I should not specially quarrel with it. But it is not only ambiguous, it is inexpedient. It is inexpedient because it is brought forward under circumstances which, if it were carried by the House, will not merely have the relatively insignificant result of turning out the present Government, but will have the result of producing a widespread misconception in this country, which is bad, and throughout our Colonial Empire, which is far, far worse. I therefore would venture to appeal to friends of mine who agree with the Edinburgh policy—I do not appeal to those who differ from it—not to do violence to their natural wish to support the Government by voting with the hon. Gentleman against their own view. It appears to me that no question of Parliamentary expediency can justify such a course as that. I am not asking them—I do not think this is the time or the place to ask them—for any profession of their economic faith. The previous Question does not touch that point at all. The man who votes for the previous Question votes that he thinks this Resolution is brought forward at an inexpedient time and in an inexpedient manner for the interests of the country and of the Empire. Those who hold that, as I hold it most clearly, should surely have no hesitation in giving a vote which, as I have ventured to explain it, at all events is capable of no misinterpretation, of no charge of ambiguity. All those who vote for it declare that there should be a Conference, and that if that Conference is to bring forth any result adequate to the effort which it will involve and to the great interests committed to it it should be free. That is the reason why my right hon. friend moved on behalf of the Government the previous Question. That is the reason why I shall support it; and that is the reason why I, with some confidence, appeal to my friends on this side of the House to follow the example which we are endeavouring to set them.

*MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)

I do not know whether my hon. friend the Member for Oldham, when he put down this Motion, was sanguine enough to suppose that the majority opposite; the tariff reformers below the gangway, and the Gentlemen of variegated opinions above the gangway—the Gentlemen who believed last year in the Sheffield programme and believe this year in the Edinburgh programme—would, if they could prevent it, allow the House of Commons to pronounce its judgment upon it. If he did, he fell into a strange delusion; because, as the Prime Minister has frankly told us, the Government, in moving the previous Question, are endeavouring to prevent, as far as they can, any departure from their policy of the open or, as it was called the other day, the empty mind. It would be strange indeed if the game of evasion and procrastination which has been played so long were now to be dropped at the eleventh hour, and, I venture to say, stranger still if the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of this Assembly, permitted himself in this matter to lapse, even for a moment, into an attitude resembling respect for the opinion of the House of Commons—an opinion for which, as regards this fiscal controversy, he has now for two years exhibited an undisguised and unbroken contempt. We have heard a great deal to-night from the benches opposite of the advantages of a free and unfettered Colonial Conference. Might they not have set an example by allowing a free and unfettered House of Commons, for once, at any rate, in this Parliament, to pronounce its opinion upon that which is the dominant and capital issue in the politics of the day? The Prime Minister will add, if he carries this Motion, to what I think an unenviable record of successful attempts to lock the door of the principal forum of free discussion in this Empire. I say "free discussion," because a discussion which is not allowed to terminate, as it ought naturally to terminate, in the expression of "Aye" or "No" to the proposition put is not discussion in any real sense of the word. But though the Government, by their majority, may carry the previous Question, they cannot shift the issue; and that issue—the only issue before the House, the country, and the Empire—is the issue which is embodied in the Resolution of my hon. friend. The official policy of the Government has been throughout to endeavour to confuse and disguise that issue. Last year we had the Sheffield programme. In the debates that took place on this subject last session there is not a hint or suggestion from any representative of the Government that it was desirable to submit the matter to a Colonial Conference. Why, at the very end of last session the Prime Minister himself, after the deliberate consideration of a solemn appeal made to him by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, disclaimed any intention of taking any such step.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not admit that.

*MR. ASQUITH

It is recorded in Hansard. Yet, to-night, the Colonial Secretary is put up to represent as the sole ground, not of opposing this Motion, but of burking the discussion of it, that we are to have a free and unfettered debate in a Colonial Conference. There is a story of Mirabeau, who remarked of his younger brother that, "In any other family than ours he would be considered a scapegrace and a wit;" and after the speech of the Colonial Secretary, when he told us amongst other things that not to be able to make up your mind is a presumptive sign of genius, we may say that in any other Government but this the Colonial Secretary would be regarded as a master of the kind of sophistry which takes nobody in.

What are the facts? I am not surprised at the speech made by the Prime Minister. I do not claim any special gifts of prophecy, but apart from the right hon. Gentleman's elegance of style and the audacity of his dialectic I may say that forty-eight hours ago I could have made the speech which the Prime Minister has delivered to-night. But there is one person in this debate to whose speech I looked forward with much more curiosity and interest, and that was the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. What is the position of the right hon. Gentleman? He is going to vote for the previous Question. Just fancy, the missionary of a new creed, when the first article of his gospel is brought into challenge and made a matter of controversy, not upon one of those platforms where he is accustomed to stand surrounded by admirers and sympathisers, but here in the only place where he has to meet the representatives of the people face to face, the missionary of the new creed announces to the world which he has set himself to convert that he is going to vote for the previous Question. I fancy that this is a new and unique incident in the propagation of faith. I will not go back to Moses, or St. Paul, or St. Bernard, but I will take an illustration from a man of lesser stature suggested not for the first time in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself. Among his many curious and characteristic travesties of history he is in the habit of comparing himself to Mr. Cobden. I agree that generally he prefaces it with a patronising or compassionate reference to Mr. Cobden's sincerity of motive and shortness of vision; but the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, finds one common feature in those two historical figures. They are both pioneers of a new era, preachers of a new crusade. Imagine Mr. Cobden after he had been through the length and breadth of the country declaring that the unity of the Empire and the well-being of our people depended upon the adoption of a particular policy, and when that policy was challenged before this House, cowering, as the right hon. Gentleman is doing tonight, behind the cover of the previous Question. Yes, this is the right hon. Gentleman who, as he has just reminded us, a fortnight ago voted against the submission of this issue to the people by a general election. He will not allow either the House of Commons or the nation to pronounce their judgment on the great controversy on which the unity of the Empire depends. He may run away to-night, but I venture to tell him, and many hon. Members opposite who are hiding their heads in the sand, that they will not be able to run away when the issue comes, as it soon must, before a tribunal where no one can move the previous Question. The right hon. Gentleman told us—and I think the Prime Minister rather assented to that view—that this Motion, which protests against any system of preference involving the taxation of food, is not a fair representation of his views. Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to protective duties on food? I think sometimes he forgets essential parts of his own scheme. I should like to remind him of what he said at Glasgow, when he told us he was not going to tax maize and bacon. Why? Because they were articles of consumption of the poorest classes. If the foreigner pays the duty, what have the poorest classes got to do with it? And it is simply because the right hon. Gentleman knows very well—and by making that exception by implication admits it—that his scheme for the taxation of corn and flour and the rest is a protective scheme that he is compelled in order to make it more palatable to introduce what otherwise would be a totally illogical exception.

We are told that, by voting for this Resolution we are voting against what the Prime Minister called a free and unfettered Conference. But the Prime Minister tells us he himself is opposed to the protective taxation of food. In other words, therefore, this Resolution is simply asking the House to put upon record, if as we all desire to do, we enter into friendly Conference with the Colonies, what they ought to know from the first, that in the opinion of the House of Commons, including the Prime Minister, the protective taxation of food cannot form the subject of bargain. And yet in the same breath the Prime Minister assures us that the passing of this Resolution will be damaging to the Empire, and might prejudice the ultimate results of the Conference, although, as I have shown, the very effect of the Resolution will be to clear out of the way the possibility of serious misconception. The Colonies are going into the conference with a fixed and pronounced determination that under no circumstances are they going to lower their tariffs so as to bring British manufactured goods into effective competition with the products of their own native industry at home. Why should not we in the same spirit of candour tell them on the threshold of the conference that we are not going under any circumstances to make it a matter of bargain that food, the elementary subsistence of the people of this country, should become the subject of protective duties? That and that alone is the issue my hon. friend has raised, and I cannot understand even on the Prime Minister's own showing how there can be any justification on grounds of policy or Imperial interest in moving the previous Question. The truth, Sir, is, as the House knows very well, that this is the latest of a series of manœuvres unexampled in Parliamentary annals by which

the present Government will, I believe, gain their best title to be remembered by posterity. The Prime Minister has found himself in the last two years confronted by the greatest and the most capital issue that has been raised in our time. No one at this moment knows where he stands. You may muzzle, as you propose to do to-night, and degrade the House of Commons, but you cannot befool and delude the people of the country. Every vote for the previous Question here to-night will be construed, and rightly construed, by the people as a vote, whether direct or indirect, whether by a straight or a devious route—a vote in favour of the protective taxation of food. That, Sir, is the question. Disguise it, distort it, delay it if you can, and as you may, it is in that sense, and that sense only, that the decision of this House will be interpreted.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 302; Noes, 260. (Division List No. 33.)

AYES.
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte	Bentinck, Lord Henry C.	Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel	Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.	Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Aird, Sir John	Bignold, Sir Arthur	Chapman, Edward
Allhusen Augustus Henry Eden	Bigwood, James	Clive, Captain Percy A.
Allsopp, Hon. George	Bill, Charles	Coates, Edward Feetham
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Bingham, Lord	Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Blundell, Colonel Henry	Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Arnold-Forster Rt. Hn. Hugh O.	Bond, Edward	Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Arrol, Sir William	Boscawen, Arthur Griffith	Colomb, Rt. Hon. Sir John C R.
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John	Boulnois, Edmund	Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hon Sir H.	Bousfield, William Robert	Compton, Lord Alwyne
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy	Bowles Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex	Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas
Bailey, James (Walworth)	Brassey, Albert	Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Bain, Colonel James Robert	Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim S.
Baird, John George Alexander	Brotherton, Edward Allen	Cripps, Charles Alfred
Balcarres, Lord	Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)	Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)
Baldwin, Alfred	Bull, William James	Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J (Manch'r	Burdett-Coutts, W.	Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)	Butcher, John George	Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds	Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Cust, Henry John C.
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.	Cautley, Henry Strother	Dalrymple, Sir Charles
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire	Davenport, W. Bromley
Banner, John S. Harmood	Cayzer, Sir Charles William	Davies, Sir Horatio D (Chatham
Barry, Sir Francis T (Windsor)	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Hamlets
Bartley, Sir George C. T.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. (Birm.	Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin
Dickson, Charles Scott	Jessel, Captain Herbert Morton	Purvis, Robert
Dimsdale, Rt. Hon Sir Joseph C.	Kennaway, Rt. Hon Sir John H.	Pym, C. Guy
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph	Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T (Denbigh)	Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.	Randles, John S.
Doughty, Sir George	Kerr, John	Rankin, Sir James
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers	Keswick, William	Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne
Doxford, Sir William Theodore	Kimber, Sir Henry	Ratcliff, R. F.
Duke, Henry Edward	Knowles, Sir Lees	Reed, Sir Edw. James (Cardiff)
Dyke, Rt. Hon Sir William Hart	Laurie, Lieut.-General	Reid James (Greenock)
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton	Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)	Remnant, James Farquharson
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.)	Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th)	Renshaw Sir Charles Brine
Fardell, Sir T. George	Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)	Renwick, George
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J (Manc'r	Lawson, Hn. H. L. W (Mile End)	Ridley, S. Forde
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Lawson, John Grant (Yorks N R	Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Lee Arthur H. (Hants., Fareham	Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Finlay, Sir R. B (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs	Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)	Robinson, Brooke
Firbank, Sir Joseph Thomas	Legge, Col. Hon. Henage	Rolleston, Sir John F. L.
Fisher, William Hayes	Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.	Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Fison, Frederick William	Llewellyn, Evan Henry	Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose	Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.	Round, Rt. Hon. James
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon	Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine	Royds, Clement Molyneux
Flannery, Sir Fortescue	Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham	Rutherford, John (Lancashire
Flower, Sir Ernest	Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol S)	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool
Forster, Henry William	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford)
Foster Philip S. (Warwick S. W.	Lowe, Francis William	Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Galloway, William Johnson	Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)	Samuel, Sir Harry (Limehouse
Gardner, Ernest	Loyd, Archie Kirkman	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Garfit, William	Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)	Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert
Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.	Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth	Scott, Sir S. (Maryebone, W.)
Godson Sir Augustus Frederick	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred	Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Gordon, Hn. J. E (Elgin & Nairn)	Macdona, John Cumming	Sharpe, William Edward T.
Gordon, J. (Londonderry South	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Gordon, Maj Evans (T'rH'mlets	Maconochie, A. W.	Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-	M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Goulding, Edward Alfred	M'Calmont, Colonel James	Smith, Abel H (Hertford, East)
Graham, Henry Robert	Majendie, James A. H.	Smith, Rt Hn J Parker (Lanarks
Gray, Ernest (West Ham)	Manners, Lord Cecil	Spear, John Ward
Green, Walford D. (Wednesbury	Marks, Harry Hananel	Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich
Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds	Martin, Richard Biddulph	Stanley, Hon Arthur (Ormskirk
Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury)	Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.	Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset)
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)	Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire	Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)
Grenfell, William Henry	Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M.	Stewart, Sir Mark J M'Taggart
Gretton, John	Mildmay, Francis Bingham	Stock, James Henry
Guthrie, Walter Murray	Milner, Rt. Hn Sir Frederick G	Stroyan, John
Hall, Edward Marshall	Milvain, Thomas	Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.	Molesworth, Sir Lewis	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Hambro, Charles Eric	Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'donderry	Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)	Thorburn, Sir Walter
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford	Moon, Edward Robert Pacy	Thornton, Percy M.
Hare, Thomas Leigh	Moore, William	Tollemache, Henry James
Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th	Morgan, David J (Walthamstow	Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M
Haslam, Sir Alfred S.	Morpeth, Viscount	Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hay, Hon. Claude George	Morrell, George Herbert	Tuff, Charles
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)	Morrison, James Archibald	Tuke, Sir John Batty
Heath, Sir James (Staffords, N W	Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer	Turnour, Viscount
Heaton, John Henniker	Mount, William Arthur	Valentia, Viscount
Helder, Augustus	Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.	Vincent, Col. Sir CEH (Sheffield
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.)	Murray, Charles J. (Conventry)	Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.	Myers, William Henry	Walrond, Rt. Hon Sir William H
Hoare, Sir Samuel	Nicholson, William Graham	Wanklyn, James Leslie
Hogg, Lindsay	Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)	Warde, Colonel C. E.
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside	Parker, Sir Gilbert	Webb, Colonel William George
Horner, Frederick William	Parkes, Ebenezer	Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton
Hoult, Joseph	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington	Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts
Houston, Robert Paterson	Peel, Hn. Wm Robert Wellesley	Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon
Howard, John (Kent Faversham	Percy, Earl	Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und Lyne
Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham	Pierpoint, Robert	Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil	Pilkington, Colonel Richard	Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Hunt, Rowland	Platt-Higgins, Frederick	Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)	Plummer, Sir Walter R.	Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Jameson, Major J. Eustace	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp	Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse	Pretyman, Ernest George	Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H (Yorks
Jeffreys, Rt. Hon Arthur Fred.	Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward	Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath)

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm	Wrightson, Sir Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson	Wylie, Alexander	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart	Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong	Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
NOES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)	Dunn, Sir William	Kearley, Hudson E.
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Edwards, Frank	Kemp, Lieut.-Colonel George
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Elibank, Master of	Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W
Allen, Charles P.	Ellice, Capt E C (S.Andrw's Bghs	Kilbride, Denis
Ambrose, Robert	Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas	Kitson, Sir James
Asher, Alexander	Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)	Labouchere, Henry
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Emmott, Alfred	Lambert, George
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry	Esmonde, Sir Thomas	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm
Atherley Jones, L.	Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone	Lamont, Norman
Barlow, John Emmott	Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)	Langley, Batty
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Eve, Harry Trelawney	Law, Hugh Alex.(Donegal, W.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Farrell, James Patrick	Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.	Fenwick, Charles	Layland-Barratt, Francis
Beckett, Ernest William	Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington
Bell, Richard	Ffrench, Peter	Leigh, Sir Joseph
Benn, John Williams	Field, William	Lewis, John Herbert
Black, Alexander William	Findlay, Alexander (Lanark, NE	Lloyd-George, David
Blake, Edward	Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond	Lough, Thomas
Boland, John	Flynn, James Christopher	Lundon, W.
Bolton, Thomas Dolling	Foster, Sir Michael (Lond. Univ.	Lyell, Charles Henry
Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn	Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Brand, Hon. Arthur G.	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Brigg, John	Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.	MacVeagh, Jeremiah
Bright, Allan Heywood	Fuller, J. M. F.	M'Arthur, William (Cornwall
Broadhurst, Henry	Furness, Sir Christopher	M'Crae, George
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh	Gilhooly, James	M'Fadden, Edward
Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Bryce, Rt. Hon. James	Goddard, Daniel Ford	M'Kean, John
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn	Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon	M'Kenna, Reginald
Burke, E. Haviland	Goschen, Hon. George Joachim	M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)
Burns, John	Griffith, Ellis J.	M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin
Buxton, Sydney Charles	Guest, Hon. Ivor. Churchill	Mansfield, Horace Rendall
Caldwell, James	Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton	Markham, Arthur Basil
Cameron, Robert	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard. B	Mooney, John J.
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.	Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G. (Midd'x	Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Causton, Richard Knight	Hammond, John	Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose
Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lancs.)	Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil	Moss, Samuel
Cawley, Frederick	Harmsworth, R. Leicester	Moulton, John Fletcher
Channing, Francis Allston	Harrington, Timothy	Murphy, John
Cheetham, John Frederick	Harwood, George	Nannetti, Joseph P.
Condon, Thomas Joseph	Hatch Ernest Frederick Geo.	Newnes, Sir George
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)	Hayden, John Patrick	Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Craig, Robert Hunter (Lanark)	Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.	Norman, Henry
Crean, Eugene	Helme, Norval Watson	Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Cremer, William Randal	Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.	Nussey, Thomas Willans
Crombie, John William	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)	O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)
Crooks, William	Higham, John Sharpe	O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Cullinan, J.	Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)	O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Dalziel, James Henry	Hobhouse, Rt Hn H (Somers't, E	O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)	Holland, Sir William Henry	O'Connor, James W. (Wicklow)
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)	O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Delany, William	Horniman, Frederick John	O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway	Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk	O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)
Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)	Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)	O'Dowd, John
Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Isaacs, Rufus Daniel	O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.	Jacoby, James Alfred	O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.
Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles	Johnson, John	O'Malley, William
Dobbie, Joseph	Joicey, Sir James	O'Mara, James
Doogan, P. C.	Jones, David Brynmor (Swansea	O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark	Jones, Leif (Appleby)	Palmer, Sir Charles M (Durham
Duffy, William J.	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire	Partington, Oswald
Duncan, J. Hastings	Joyce, Michael	Paulton, James Mellor

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Shackleton, David James	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T
Pemberton, John S. G.	Sheehan, Daniel Daniel	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Perks, Robert William	Sheehy, David	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Pirie, Duncan V.	Shipman, Dr. John G.	Weir, James Galloway
Power, Patrick Joseph	Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)	White, George (Norfolk)
Priestley, Arthur	Slack, John Bamford	White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rea, Russell	Smith, Samuel (Flint)	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Reckitt, Harold James	Soames, Arthur Wellesley	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)
Reddy, M.	Soares, Ernest J.	Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Redmond, John E. (Waterford)	Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants	Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Reid, Sir R Threshie (Dumfries	Stevenson, Francis S.	Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th	Strachey, Sir Edward	Wills, Arthur Walters (N Dorset
Rickett, J. Compton	Sullivan, Donal	Wilson, Chas. Henry (Hull, W.)
Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)	Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid.)
Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)	Tennant, Harold John	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)
Robson, William Snowdon	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
Roche, John	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr	Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Roe, Sir Thomas	Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh. N.
Rose, Charles Day	Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)	Woodhouse, Sir J. T.(Hudd'rsf'd
Runciman, Walter	Tillett, Louis John	Young, Samuel
Russell, T. W	Tomkinson, James	Yoxall, James Henry
Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)	Toulmin, George
Schwann, Charles E.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)	Waldron, Laurence Ambrose	Mr. Churchill and Mr.
Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)	Wallace, Robert	Austin Taylor.
Seely, Maj J.E.B.(Isle of Wight	Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)