§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)I wish to ask the Prime Minister, with regard to an Answer which he gave two minutes ago to the hon. Member for Barnstaple—which Answer caused great surprise to a great many Members of the House—whether we are to understand that he meant to imply that he was under no obligation to inaction in the matter of colonial preference except in this House, and that out of this House the Government were free to take any step they chose so far as any undertaking or pledge on his part was concerned; and, secondly, whether we are to understand him to say that he is not bound by anything he said on this subject in his Edinburgh speech?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether I am bound to inaction with regard to colonial preference outside this House. Why, of course I am not. When the right hon. Gentleman is discussing it every day from a public platform, I suppose I may be allowed to answer him?
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThere is a difference between discussion and action.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIf the right hon. Gentleman means that we desire to use our majority in this House for dealing with the fiscal question in the course of the present Parliament, I must reply that we certainly do not mean to do so.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANIs it limited to proceedings in this House? Are we to understand that?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI really do not quite know what the right hon. Gentleman means.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANAre we to understand that while the right hon. Gentleman is restricted by what he has said from proceedings or discussions in this House he is free, the Government are free, to take any administrative steps they choose which will have the effect of committing the country to a certain elementary stage, at all events, of this policy?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not think the Government ought to commit the country on the subject of fiscal reform during the continuance of the present Parliament.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon Boroughs)Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Government is now bound by the specific statement made by Lord Lansdowne that they would not submit the question of colonial preference to the Colonial Conference without first seeking a mandate from the country on the question of the reference to the Conference?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI do not remember that at all.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEThe statement was specifically made in the House of Lords.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think it was not, as a matter of fact.
§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGEThen may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if that is not his view as to the attitude of the Government? Does that represent his view of the attitude of the Government, that the Government will not submit the 988 question of colonial preference to the Conference without first of all seeking a mandate from the country on the question of the reference to the Conference? Does that represent the attitude of the Government at the present moment?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThere is no question of a reference to the Conference. The Conference comes together through its own action in 1906. [An HON. MEMBER: Who calls it?] That Conference is, like all its predecessors, and, I hope, all its successors, free to discuss any question. It is not free to bind the Colonies. It is certainly not free to bind this country or His Majesty's Government. I do not see how it would be possible for us or for our successors to limit free discussion in this Conference.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANI think the right hon. Gentleman would make the House understand the matter better if he would answer the second part of my previous Question, which he has not done hitherto. Does he depart from the pledge he gave in his Edinburgh speech?
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI in no sense depart from the policy I announced in my Edinburgh speech. I frankly admit when I made that speech I had not in contemplation the fact that a Conference was to come together automatically next year, and I said nothing about it. What I did say was that, in my judgment, in the present condition of public opinion in this country, it would neither be possible nor right for the Government to adopt any system of fiscal reform unless the plan had first been submitted to the country. That was the policy of the Edinburgh speech, and anybody who has read it must know that that was the policy of it.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANThe pledge given in the Edinburgh speech was that the country would be consulted, first as to the submission of this matter to the Conference, and then again, if necessary, as to the question of approving or disapproving the results of the Conference. There were to be two consequential references to the country in the matter before anything was done.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think the right hon. Gentleman somewhat misuses the word "pledge" in regard to that speech. I can understand that my hon. friends on this side of the House may say that any announcement of policy I made was in a sense a pledge to them; but I cannot see how the announcement of a policy on this side of the House can be regarded as a pledge to the other side of the House. Of course, if you go to the country, as Mr. Gladstone did, saying you will do one thing, and then, when you are returned, you do something else, that is another thing. But, as far as hon. Gentlemen opposite are concerned, it is open to me at any time to say I have changed my opinions. But, as a matter of fact, I have not changed my opinions. They remain what they were, and I repeat that when I made my Edinburgh speech—I ought, perhaps, to apologise for not remembering it, but I really had not in my mind this Conference of 1906, and as I had not it in my mind it was not in any way referred to—the policy referred to was clear, and to that I adhere. There are two alternatives. The Government may be returned to office on the broad question of fiscal reform, and it may say, "We have that mandate end we are going to act upon it, and, if returned, we intend to recommend it to the House of Commons." I stated at Edinburgh that I did not think that could be done. I had not in my mind that a Conference would meet in the course of the present Parliament Perhaps it will not. The Edinburgh policy was that any policy agreed upon by the Government should be submitted to the country, and that is the policy of the Government now. To it I still adhere.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANMr. Deputy-Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking leave to move the adjournment of the House at the evening sitting on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely—"To draw attention to the statement made by the Prime Minister that the question of colonial preference will be submitted to the Colonial Conference in 1906"—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI never said that, Sir.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN"May be submitted to the Colonial Conference in 1906 before the country has had an opportunity of expressing its opinion thereon."
MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had the support of the requisite number of Members, but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than forty Members having accordingly risen,
§ The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until this Evening's Sitting.