FOREIGN TARIFFS AND HOME INDUSTRY.

HC Deb 06 April 1910 vol 16 cc515-55

Mr. HAMILTON BENN

rose to call attention to the effect of hostile tariffs on industry and employment in the United Kingdom; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the tariffs of foreign countries have tended to hinder the development of the trade and industry of the United Kingdom, to aggravate unemployment and distress throughout the country, and to affect prejudicially the commercial and other relations between the various parts of the Empire; and that an alteration of our present fiscal system is urgently needed to secure greater facilities for exports to tariff-protected countries, to diminish unemployment, and to establish reciprocal preference within the Empire."

The slip of the tongue which caused so much good-natured amusement when I gave notice of this Resolution was, in fact, rather a happy one, because "revolution" is really the right description of the policy which we advocate, a revolution in the mental attitude of the people and of the State, a revolution in our relations towards the Empire and an entire abandonment of the policy of laissez-faire. The greater part of my life has been spent in business which has taken me about the world. Year by year I have had to go to the principal countries of Europe, to America and to the United States, and that business itself is not affected by tariffs. Therefore I may claim to be unprejudiced in regard to this question. In fact, I may say that my prejudices to begin with were entirely on the other side. In company with most Members of this House, I was proud to believe that the British Constitution and British Free Trade were the bulwarks of civilisation, but facts, examined on the spot, the conditions of trade in foreign countries, and my opportunities of discussing this question with foreigners themselves, led me to change my opinion with regard to the blessings of Free Trade. Indeed, it was soon borne in upon me that the only answer to the movement which we see around us is an alteration, and drastic alteration, of our fiscal system. Our supremacy as an industrial manufacturing country is being challenged by the alterations which have been made in the fiscal systems of other countries, and our existence as manufacturers in certain branches of trade is at stake. I fully appreciate that to arrive at the alteration we desire requires a revolution in the mental attitude of many people in this country, and especially of the Government. I think that our politicians in the past have been very much disposed to look upon commerce with a sort of contempt. They have not treated it as being something worthy of serious study or consideration. Our Board of Trade has been a veritable Cinderalla among the Government Departments. Its position, until quite recently, has been shown by its chief receiving less than half the salary accorded to the holders of other posts in the Government, but I recognise that the position of a Government Department may be altered or raised by the Minister who occupies the position of chief. This was the case with regard to the Colonial Office when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham occupied it. Since his time that office has been one of the most desired offices under the Government. I might also, pay a tribute to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer who, during his occupancy of the office of President of the Board of Trade, overhauled the shipping laws and the patent laws, and thereby secured the enthusiastic support of Members on this side of the House. We recognise that what he did then was a courageous abandonment of his fiscal principles, because these laws in many cases were more favourable to foreigners than to Britishers.

I think that in the past, in regard to international trade at all events, our politicians and our leaders have taken up an attitude of singular detachment when other Governments have stepped actively into the arena and given their support in every way possible to their traders. Our leaders have merely shrugged their shoulders, and seemed surprised that any Government should so far demean itself, shall I say, by entering upon affairs which were entirely, in their opinion, outside the sphere of Governmental action. Owing to Britishers' aptitude for commerce, our insular position, our advantages in iron and coal, and our great Colonial possessions, we have secured, and have for a long time possessed, a commanding position in the world's commercial affairs. To wrest this from us has been the earnest desire of our commercial rivals, and in that they have the support of their Governments. They have called to their aid the best intellects and the keenest business acumen to be found among them, and they have by common consent evolved a policy for national development based upon tariffs. This policy, I believe, commends itself also to the Irish Nationalist party, because I noticed in the early days of the Session their spokesman indicated that they desired such a measure of Home Rule as would give them fiscal autonomy, realising no doubt that a nation can only develop itself to the full by a well-considered financial policy. But I think the best and brightest intellects of this country have devoted themselves to party strife.

The Prime Minister last week said that when his party was in power, the greater part of their time was taken up trying to undo the legislation of their predecessors. A Radical Government never knows when to leave well enough alone. The leader of the body to which I have the honour to belong, on that same day complained of the amount of time which was wasted in barren, fruitless, if not harmful discussion of constitutional questions, discussions which did nothing to relieve poverty, mitigate unemployment, Assist commerce or consolidate the Empire. I think these words may very well be the watchword in future of the Unionist party. But there is a very great difference between the attitude of the British Government and that of the German Government. This was borne in on me very forcibly four years ago when, after the Baring crisis, I had to go to South America, to Buenos Ayres, to try to recover a considerable sum of money from a provincial Government. The greater part of the money was British money, but one-fifth of it belonged to a German House. I had the best recommendation to the British Minister, which I presented in due course, and I was very kindly received. He explained to me that it would be entirely contrary to the nature of our system if he was to take any part whatever in commercial affairs. To my surprise, within three or four days I received a call from the German Minister to ask me in what way he could be of assistance in the matter I had in hand, and the success of my mission on that occasion was very largely due to the assistance which I received from the German Minister. But that is only an isolated case. I might refer to another instance also in Argentina, where, a short time ago the Government of that country wanted to buy field guns to the value of half a million sterling. English, German and French firms were competing for the order. A trial was made of the guns and the British guns passed the test in the most satisfactory manner. In fact, they were declared to be the best. In addition, the price of the British guns was less. But the British firm did not get the order. I am told that the German Minister informed the Argentine representative that His High Imperial Majesty would be glad if the order was given to Germany, and hinted that certain reductions might be made on the German tariff in favour of Argentina if the order went that way. The result, however, was that half a million of Argentine money went to Germany instead of Great Britain. Of course, the British Minister would not think of interfering in such a matter.

But this is not an isolated case by any means. To-day the Argentine Government are building several railways, and I believe that England is the only country that is not getting a part of the order, although I am sure it is well known to this House that Britain is well able not only in point of quality and construction, but also in point of price, to compete for any such orders. But I am especially concerned to-night to point out the injury which is done to British trade by hostile tariffs. I know that our theorists will say that tariffs are most harmful to the people who employ them. To that I would reply, Have tariffs hurt Germany or France or the United States? If they were so patently harmful, why have the people of such democratic countries as France and the United States not abolished them long ago? But I think that so-called Free Traders do not really examine these questions upon the spot or make careful inquiries as to the operation of tariffs in the countries in which they exist. They always strike me as being so intellectually arrogant that they would not imagine for a moment that it can be possible that they can be wrong in regard to their theories. This morning I received a letter from a man in the City, who, I believe, is generally r[...]ognised as one of the brightest men in the City of London. He for many years —in fact, all the time that I have known him—has been a strong Free Trader. But this morning, in a letter received from him, he says that he has just returned from Germany, where he has been making a special study of this question, and that he is now quite prepared to believe that my point of view is correct. I shall be pleased to supply his name to any hon. Member opposite who wishes to know it.

But commercial men generally do not deny the evil effects of foreign tariffs upon our trade. This was clearly shown in the speeches made at the meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce recently, where, as no doubt the hon. Member for Sunderland will tell the House, some fifty-one chambers of commerce voted in favour of a change in our fiscal policy, as against twelve who opposed it. I know it was said that a great many chambers of commerce were neutral on that occasion, and I will tell the House why. It was because an attempt was made in the London Chamber of Commerce to prevent any vote being taken on it on the ground that it was now a political question and it was not fair to gentlemen who differed on political questions to have it brought into commercial questions. That was the way in which this question has been dealt with by many of the chambers of commerce in this country. But I would like, if I may be allowed, to quote from the speeches of some of our leading politicians with regard to this question of hostile tariffs. The Prime Minister has always been very consistent in asserting the damage done to us by foreign tariffs. So far back as 1894 he said:— British trade in these days carries on its operations under great, formidable, and increasing difficulties. And he goes on to say what these difficulties are:— ''The wall of tariff which excludes us from foreign markets every day is becoming higher and higher, and side by side with these hostile, aggressive manifestations we find every day that in activity, industrial energy and industrial equipment, our rivals became keener. In 1900, speaking at Leeds, he declared that there was not the slightest doubt in the mind of anyone that in the international markets we are fighting for our trade with all our available strength. These speeches were made before the Tariff Reform controversy was launched. But in October, 1903, in one of the speeches in which he met or tried to meet the warning of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Joseph Chamberlain), he said:— We have seen industries in which we ought to have maintained our supremacy falling behind, and in some cases entirely taken away from us by our competitors.'' Notice particularly the phrase as to "the maintenance of our supremacy." The Chancellor of the Exchequer is quite as emphatic in his speech before the Imperial Conference:— Germany, France, and other countries wanted to build their industries within this wall of tariffs and they undoubtedly managed to exclude our goods to a very large extent. I think Mr. Chamberlain was quite right, that our trade with protected countries has gone down. I might quote many other speeches-made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but we have much more conclusive evidence in trade returns of our own and other countries, and I propose to base this part of my argument on the Memorandum issued by the Tariff Reform Commission last year. The figures have not been impugned by anyone. The first of them relate to exports and manufactures from the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States to France, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Holland, and Belgium, the principal protected markets. To these we exported £37,000,000 worth of manufactures in 1895, and £54,000,000 in 1907. Germany exported of the same articles, £43,000,000 in 1895, and £96,000,000 in 1907. [An HON. MEMBER: "What articles?"] Practically the whole list of manufactured articles given by the Board of Trade. During the same period the United States increased their exports from £6,000,000 in 1895 to £29,000,000 in 1907; that is to say, in a period of twelve years British exports to these markets grew by £17,000,000, Ger- man by £53,000,000, and American by £23,000,000. A closer examination of the figures shows that while the British increase was mostly during the boom period of 1897, the increase of Germany and the United States was a steady increase. I think these figures are extremely significant. If tariffs hamper and obstruct exports it is very remarkable that the exports of these tariff-protected countries show greater expansiveness than our own. It is sometimes said, in fact it was said quite recently, that the German expansion was due to her position. That might perhaps be considered a good argument if it were not for the increase we have in the United States, which certainly cannot be said to be in as good a position as Great Britain in regard to these particular protected markets. It will be noticed that America's increase was fivefold. The value of these commercial treaties is well illustrated in the case of Germany. About 1892, under the leadership of Caprivi, Germany negotiated a series of treaties with States in Europe, and the influence of these treaties on German trade was that, whereas in the three years 1890–2, before the treaties came into force, their average exports were £46,500,000, during the treaty period from 1903 to 1909 she increased her exports to these countries to £95,500,000—that is to say, an increase of £49,000,000, or 100 per cent., in the same period that British exports had increased only by £12,000,000.

I think the conclusion to be drawn from those figures is that the English exports have less power of penetrating or overleaping foreign tariffs than those of Germany. The fact is every country in revising her tariffs has to consider the effect upon other countries that have tariffs. Germany, for instance, has to regard the power of Austria or France or even Canada to retaliate if the tariffs are altered in such a manner as to affect their existing arrangements. We, on the other hand, are absolutely powerless; we advertise to the world that we will take no action, no matter what they do. I am told that one of our diplomatists who was recently engaged in trying to improve our situation in regard to an alteration of tariff said that the result of his experience to try and alter a hostile tariff with free imports was like going into battle with an umbrella against a pom-pom. It is we who are still wielding the umbrella, while all the time we have in our back yard the biggest quick-firing gun in the whole world. To say that we cannot alter our tariffs, we who are the biggest buyers in the world, purchasing £600,000,000 of goods in the year, and exporting only £450,000,000, to say with a balance like that in our favour, that we cannot make terms with the world, is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard in my life. Hon. Gentlemen opposite take much comfort to themselves from the blessed words, "most favoured nation clause." I do not like to speak disrespectfully of so comforting a phrase, but I must say that I think it is a very much over-rated blessing. In former days, when there were large groups of articles dealt with, the most favoured nation clause did help us to a great extent. The favour given to one country very often extended to ourselves. Most tariffs to-day have become very much more highly specialised, and the tariff officials of other countries have learned how to give concessions to country A, which under the most favoured nation clause should be given to country B, but owing to this specialisation they are able to give a concession to country A; which would have no value whatever to country B. We have had a good many instances of that kind of thing. I dare-say my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Manchester will refer to cotton, and perhaps he will tell us whether it is not the fact that in connection with the German tariff of 1906 the lower counts of cotton received a reduction of duty owing to representations from Russia, while to compensate that they raised the duty on the higher counts of cotton which Great Britain supplied, with the result that Russia got a reduction of duty on exports amounting to 6,000,000 marks, and we had to pay the higher duty on our exports amounting to 34,000,000 marks. Russia was able to get a reduction which suited her, and this had to be paid for by adding to what Britain had to pay. I think that, in reply to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire last year, the Foreign Secretary gave some information with regard to the duty at that time being paid upon British spirits in America. I think that that has now been altered. At that time we were paying on British spirits 50 per cent, higher duty than was on the spirits of other countries. It was stated that America claimed that she was able to give this differential duty on account of reciprocal concessions which she received from other countries.

Taking a general view of trade, I think that the way that hostile tariffs have affected us mostly is that in other countries they are able to manufacture in larger quantities and with greater safety, and that they can run their works at full time, relying on the fact that if trade in their own country falls off they can dump their surplus on to us. If they have to take a lower price for that surplus, they still have a very fair average price for their total output. Our manufacturers, on the other hand, are in this position, that they can only rely upon such orders as come their way, and on such orders as they can get in England or abroad in competition with all the world, and they must shut down if they do not obtain sufficient orders, because there is no country into which they can dump owing to hostile tariffs. That has been particularly marked in connection with the iron and steel trades. Twenty-five years ago there were thirteen Bessemer steel plants in this country, turning out 1,500,000 steel ingots. To-day four have been scrapped, one has been shut down, so that that there are only eight of those works now running. In the same period Germany has increased her output of steel ingots very largely. Twenty-five years ago she had only eight such plants, turning out a million tons, while to-day she has twenty-seven, turning out 7,500,000 tons, or an increase of over seven times in twenty-five years. While we have shown no expansion in that trade, the German expansion has been very marked. [An HON. MEMBER: "Are the royalties the same? "] I know it will be said that the German ores are very suitable, or more suitable, for this particular form of Bessemer steel, but if their ores are very good, which I do not deny, they are very much further away from their coke, and a very long distance away from their seaboard. I believe I am perfectly accurate —and I will be supported by everybody who knows—that there is no place in Germany as suitable for the production of Bessemer ore as Cleveland. Yet, while we had four there twenty-five years ago, we have only two to-day. Our manufacturers of iron and steel have increased, but not in proportion to those of Germany. In the twelve years, from 1895 to 1907, to the same market I spoke of a little time ago, the English increase was from 10,500,000 to 12,000,000, while that of Germany was from 7,000,000 to 20,000,000. In machinery the British increase was from 8,000,000 to 12,000,000, and that of Germany from 3,250,000 to 16,250,000. In the thirteen years German exports have grown five times over, or 500 per cent., while ours have grown only 50 per cent.

Those effects have been produced by the series of tariffs which, as I have pointed out, came into existence about 1892; but there has been a series of quiet reconstruction of tariffs during the past few years. In 1902 Germany reconstructed her tariff, and from that to 1906 she negotiated treaties with all the important central European States. In 1909 Germany adopted the new Paine Tariff, which came into force last August. By it she has already obtained concessions from Canada, which may ultimately prove very unfortunate for us. France has now put the coping-stone on her tariff of 1891, which has stood her in such good stead, and Japan is getting ready to change her tariff as soon as her present treaties will permit. Indeed, if we could draw a map in which the heights of the tariffs corresponded to the peaks you would find that the peaks everywhere have grown higher and that the valleys tend to disappear. The configuration of the map would be that of a high plateau. The position to-day is that It is getting harder and harder for our manufacturers to climb the sides of that plateau to maintain the trade which they had formerly, while entrenched on that plateau is the foreign manufacturer, helped by bounties, by rebates, and by all kinds of assistance from his Government to compete with us in every neutral market, and even to harry us in our own home unprotected markets. I will give one instance of the competition we have to meet in this country, although I could quote many others. Some few years ago there was a large order for colliery machinery electrical plant, and no trade has ever had a harder fight for existence than the British manufacturers of electrical plant. There was a large order for this machinery in the market. The Allgemeine-Gesellschaft did not think it wise to put in a price, but they telegraphed on the day that the order was to be placed saying, "We will take the order according to specifications at 10 per cent, below the lowest British tender."

9.0 P.M.

A similar instance has taken place in the last few days. Is it to be supposed that, if they were successful in closing the British works, and dispersing the highly-trained labour required for such an industry we should get our electrical machinery cheap? No. I think we may count upon it that we should have to pay full prices when our works were closed. I know a case where some works, having to face competition of that kind for two years, and finally finding it impossible to compete against it, made arrangements with the Germans to sell their goods on commission. That may be all very well for the manufacturer, but how about the workmen when they are thrown out of employment? The question of unemployment is so well understood in this House that I need not dwell upon it. We all recognise the great evil under which we are suffering. But my conception of our industrial system is not that of a heterogeneous body of merchants or manufacturers turning out goods irrespective of the demand—it is rather that of a delicately-balanced mechanism, organised to supply all the demands likely to be made upon it from various parts of the world. There is an expected demand for cotton in the Far East, for machinery or railway material in South America, for lace goods or textile machinery on the Continent. English capital is invested, plant is erected, men and women are trained in just sufficient numbers to supply that anticipated demand. Suddenly there is a new treaty between two States, say, Roumania and Germany. Roumania is now able to buy from Germany at prices more favourable, goods which she formerly bought from England. Or, supposing she formerly bought them from a third country, France, the result is just the same. France then has a surplus supply of goods which she can sell best in England on account of our fiscal system. The result to British workmen is the same: there is a cessation of the demand for British goods. The equilibrium which before existed is destroyed; a certain amount of capital is lost; and a certain number of men are thrown out of employment. In course of time a new equilibrium will be established, but in the meantime the capital has been lost, and the men are out of employment and in distress. These men may or may not eventually be taken on again, or find other employment, but they are not as efficient in their new work as they were in their old employment, and there has been an economic loss.

If we changed our fiscal system and adopted a system more applicable to present-day needs, we could bring about a considerable alteration in these difficulties. We could at all events penalise any change prejudicial to our existing interests. We could minimise the evil effects of dumping. We could engage in and conclude commercial treaties, which, at all events, would ensure to us the maintenance of foreign tariff conditions at a certain level for a certain period of time. This in itself would give our work people greater continuity of employment, greater security in their job, and would give manufacturers greater confidence in investing capital in British enterprises. I have no doubt that the Mover of the Amendment will point out that the total figures of our export trade show that business is flourishing with us. As a business man I am not satisfied that we should lose any trade which we are capable of maintaining. A business man as a rule looks more to his losses than to his profits. He knows that the profits will take care of themselves. It is the leaks that have to be looked after. I am not at all satisfied that we should lose any trade in which we are specially fitted to be supreme. But the increases in our total export trade are due to increases in neutral and Colonial markets, and in the latter case due to preferences which our Colonies have voluntarily given us. I know it is the habit to speak slightingly of those preferences, but our rivals are extremely anxious to have them. They appreciate to the full how much they mean. Large works are being erected at present at Barking in Essex by the great Swedish match, combine, the directors of which have openly stated in the newspapers that they were obliged to build those works in England in order to get the benefit of the preference given to England by our Colonies. There are other instances of the same kind. I have with me a circular from one of the large candle factories in Antwerp offering their customers a reduction of 10d. per hundred lbs., the equivalent of the British preference in South Africa. Instances of that kind are numerous. Let me warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they do not take advantage of the preferences now offered them they may lose them. Although our Colonies have not a very large population at the present time, it is too much to suppose that before many years are past the population of those countries will have grown to a very great extent? I think we may reasonably look forward to a Colonial population of at least 50,000,000. Unless the people, who govern this country, cut loose from abstract theories, and get busy with realities, we shall certainly lose the opportunities which we now have. I would conclude with some remarkable words attributed to the German Emperor. Whether he is correctly reported or not I cannot say, but at all events they fully express my sentiments, and the views of many people in this country. Those words are:— Never in the course of my reading have I seen such boundless potentialities as those of the British Empire, or rulers more indifferent to their utilisation. I beg to move.

Mr. SAMUEL STOREY

I beg to second the Motion. If my hon. Friend needed any justification, outside the intrinsic merits of the question, for bringing it again before us so soon after it had been debated, I think it might be found in the latest extra-Parliamentary utterance of one of the soberest and most reliable of the Ministers—my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Probably he cannot engage himself with internal matters much, but at the Queen's Hall he said:— I do not want for a moment to belittle the question of unemployment, or to suggest that it does not deserve the gravest consideration. I am most grateful for this rather belated sign of grace, for, unless I am misinformed, what else was done in the last House of Commons but to belittle the question of unemployment? Did you not slay and bury Tariff Reform in the early days of the Session, and when you had done that did you, in four years, show any practical conclusion, any method, any remedy for the admitted unemployment? Did you in all the four years show us any results from your gravest consideration? Even in that speech—I do not want to leave my right hon. Friend—the old Adam appears. My right hon. Friend said that we had presented our case as to unemployment in the great industrial centres and they had rejected us and our pleas. He said that in the late election— Where argument decides the question. Free Trade has won; where prejudice decides it. there is the stronghold of Tariff; Reform."' Truly, if my right hon. Friend were here, would he be quite sure that even in the industrial centres that they have objected to our method. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] It is undoubted that you have got a majority by a small number of Members in the industrial centres. But even if you take Lancashire—that much belauded Lancashire—the Liberal increase of votes was 9,000, I believe, and the Tariff Reform increase of votes was 60,000.

Mr. ARNOLD ROWNTREE

Do you count Lord Robert Cecil?

Mr. SAMUEL STOREY

We both know the North, which I come from, the extreme North—the ignorant North.

An HON. MEMBER

Newcastle?

Mr. SAMUEL STOREY

Yes, in the counties of Durham and Northumberland it is quite true we did very badly in Members. But hon. Members had better please remember the Liberal vote increased by 10 per cent., and the Tariff Reform vote in those two counties increased by very nearly 50 per cent. Even in Newcastle, which the hon. Member mentioned just now, does he really believe that Newcastle for the sacred cause of Free Trade, returned a Liberal and a Socialist at the last election? Why, Sir, my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford—he is not here, but I will let the House, the Liberal party, into a secret. The hon. Member for Waterford can return either two Conservatives or two Liberals for Newcastle at any time he likes. So do not let hon. Members opposite draw too sweet a conclusion from the fact that at the last election we came off second best in the industrial centres. One engagement is not a war. At the first engagement we deprived you of 100 seats. Whenever you give us a chance we will do better next time. We are here to-night no longer like a remnant in the last Parliament, to be laughed at, and to be voted down. We are here in equal numbers with you. We are here not as meek defendants in an action, but we are here as accusers, as plaintiffs. We ask you what you have done to remedy the admitted unemployment in this country? We allege that there is unemployment of a kind, type, measure, that never has been known in this country before. We allege that. Many of you admit it. But whether you admit it to the full or not all agree that there is a state of unemployment which is a menace to the prosperity of the country.

An HON. MEMBER

Give us facts.

Mr. SAMUEL STOREY

I have a reserve of facts. That voice seemed to come from hon. Gentlemen of the Labour party. I will reserve what facts I have to offer until I make some observations about them and to them a little later. We allege that our present fiscal system, in its double attitude of powerlessness to help us in foreign markets, and in its absolute liberty to foreigners to send their goods to our markets—that this is the main cause of the unemployment that unhappily exists. After six years' conflict, during which many misapprehensions have been removed, many prejudices, I hope, allayed, and many new facts made apparent, there are some things now which are common ground between the two sides. Every- body admits that production at home and foreign trade are inter-dependent. There cannot be foreign trade unless there be production at home. If there be no increase of production at home there will not be increase of foreign trade, or vice versa. We say, we put it to the House to-night, that the key to the whole question is not our power to produce at home. That we have against the world. The key to the whole question is the question of markets for our goods. We see that our markets are curtailed— that is not denied—the markets are absolutely shut against us. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which?"] What is the use of asking "which." The hon. Member can easily interrupt an argument in that way. Let him wait until I am done. I am putting general points now. How much silk do we send to America? Neither we nor America have the raw material. We are obliged to get it from more happily-circumstanced countries. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many tin-plates does America send here?"] I do not know how many tin-plates they send here, but I recognise that the Gentleman who makes that interruption is not much accustomed to close debating. We are equally circumstanced in regard to the manufacture of silk. What was the amount of raw silk that we imported into this country for use in the last year for which I have seen the figures? One and a quarter million pounds. Twenty-five years ago America had not a silk manufacture of any kind. She put up the duties twenty years ago. What is the amount of silk which America imported to be used for her manufactures during the last year? Seventeen million pounds. How is it that her production has grown and ours has not? Can anybody resist the conclusion that it is because she applies a measure of business common-sense to her national arrangements, so as to provide that her population shall have the making of her silk, and not anybody else. I am sorry I have been drawn away from my main point. I was making an indictment against the Government, and especially against the Board of Trade. I have to ask two questions.

Does our present fiscal system in the double aspect of admitting goods here and as incompetent to prevent, or mitigate tariffs abroad, injure production and -deprive us of markets and cause unemployment? That is a very simple question. The second question I would ask is. Is there any remedy possible for the state of things under our present system? If I had asked that first question, say five years ago, I am conscious that I would have to stand here and ask the House to be good enough to listen to me while I put in figures and combinations of figures and facts to prove my case. But, thanks to the independent inquiry of many persons—and I humbly say I have made independent inquiry myself, and, I will add, in answer to the jibes which were levelled a little while ago at the mention of the Tariff Commission—facts and circumstances have been brought so prominently before the public that it is hon. Gentlemen's own fault if they do not understand the conclusion to which these facts and figures point. I do not need to answer the question at all. That is the beauty of discussion. After long discussion, Gentlemen who did not understand one another's point of view at first, and who thought they differed upon many questions upon which really they did not differ at all, come to understand one another. I do not need to argue the question now, because I can put my right hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench into the witness-box and accept them as my witnesses, and after they have given their evidence, argument between the two sides is no longer necessary. I should summon my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer into the box. When he was at the Board of Trade—and it was an evil day, I think, for himself, and, speaking personally, it was an evil day in my eyes that he ever left the Board of Trade—when he was at the Board of Trade he made this statement in this House:— I am not afraid of foreign competition as long us British trade is free from impossible conditions abroad and from an equally stupid tariff system at home. Many British industries have been completely wiped out by privileges conceded by our institutions to foreigners. The right hon. Gentleman made that speech when he was introducing the Patent Act. It would take too long to go into what the Patent Act was, but what was its basis and purpose? Advantages were given to patentees by our laws which were, a disadvantage to the British manufacturer. Power was given to manufacturers abroad by patents granted by British law with free sale in this country, to the disadvantage of British workmen, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer put an end to that. In other words, he defined that the real purpose of sensible government was to make its laws and fiscal arrangements such that they would help and encourage British manufacturers and British goods. Free import of goods manufactured abroad by foreign workmen is an advantage to the foreigners, given under our laws. Therefore I do not think that I need argue the point that tariffs, in the opinion of some Members of the Government, do injure British manufacture and British trade. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is a case even more in point. In his office he has had a great deal too much to do with tariffs lately. He had not well got into the saddle when he had the new German tariff, and after that the mid-European tariffs, and after that the Italian, and after the Italian the Spanish, and after the Spanish the French, and after the French the American. What did he do in each case? At the request and upon the representations of the manufacturing and trading interests of this country he immediately applied that they should be modified and made more advantageous to this country. I do not think my right hon. Friend made these official requests from the Foreign Office with his tongue in his cheek. He made them seriously. He believed, as the manufacturers and the members of the various chambers of commerce did, that those tariffs were a disadvantage to British trade and British employment, and he made them in good faith. He made those representations, and what advantage did he gain? All those Foreign Ministers listened to him with a pleasant smile and answered him in most graceful letters, but the sum total of the whole proceeding was that these additional disadvantages to the manufacturers engaged in British trade remain, and the British Ministry, with the best intentions, are under our present fiscal system incapable of doing anything to remedy this state of things. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about France?"] If hon. Members interrupt me I shall never get done; but I may say that in Franco there are peculiar political reasons why France made certain concessions. We happen to be on good terms with France, but unhappily our relations with other nations are not so agreeable, and we cannot expect to get the same consideration. I think I have established my position that it is unnecessary any longer to argue that tariffs and bounties and all those other arrangements for benefiting foreign trades at our expense are a disadvantage to this country, and that we have no power to remedy this under our present system. An hon. Member opposite (Sir George Kemp) is going to move an Amendment to this Resolution. I am very grateful that that task has fallen into the hands of a business man. I do not want to hurt their amour proper, but if the Treasury Bench had contained one business man and one manufacturer who in his own person had to test his ability to compete against foreign tariffs, I do not think it would have remained in that position of dense ignorance on this subject which is the case at the present time. I am grateful that to-night the Amendment has not been put into the hands of the hon. Member for Swansea Town (Mr. Mond), because he has gene-ally been put in the forefront of the battle —I suppose on the ground that, having a patent which renders him invulnerable, and having territorial zones within which his competitors are bound not to compete with him, it is felt we should be better in the hands of a business man who does not fall within the category I have mentioned. The hon. Member for North-West Manchester has set down an Amendment to our Motion. It is a long one, but I will just quote the operative part. He is going to move to insert the words, "The proper method of fighting hostile tariffs is by the maintenance of free imports." That, of course, is the main point of his Amendment. May I for a moment speak as one business man to another to the hon. Member for North-West Manchester? Supposing he and I are in competition as manufacturers, and I go to him and say, "We have each customers of our own and also customers in common. I am glad to inform you that my Government has made such arrangements that in future you will not be able to sell goods to my customers, and my Government has also made such contributions to me in the way of bounties and cheap rates and so forth that I shall have an advantage over you in selling goods to our common customers." I say to the hon. Member, "You still give me full and untrammelled leave to sell to your customers whilst you are prevented from selling to mine." Let me put that very clearly, as if we were business men sitting in our offices. If I had the Government behind me preventing my hon. Friend from selling to my customers and giving me advantages in selling to his, would he really say that the best way he could act was just to continue to me that right to sell to his customers? What is true between two business men is equally true between two countries. I do not think under such circumstances my hon. Friend would be satisfied. On the contrary, he would say, "You are getting, through the common-sense, wisdom, and practical arrangement of your State, an advantage over me in my markets; I will go to my Government and say, ' I wish to goodness you would be as sensible as that other Government and give me similar advantages over him in his market.' "

I was misinformed as to the hon. Member who moves this Amendment, and I intended to make some special reference to the cotton trade, but as I understand I am on the wrong track I will not go into that matter at the present moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I am really very good-tempered and willing to oblige everybody, but there is a limit to my powers and to the patience of the House, and there is something else I want to say. I will put down in a definite sentence what we state. We assert that chronic unemployment of hundreds and thousands is the most dangerous social phenomenon of our time, a menace to national prosperity and to the individual well-being of the masses. We say to you that you reject our remedy. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is not the one."] Very well, then, what is yours? [An HON. MEMBER: "Insurance."] I believe the time has come now when there is no longer a question in this country as to whether Tariff Reform will be passed or not—the only question that remains now is what party, and what combination of parties, will carry it out.

Everybody knows I have been a Member of the Liberal party. I was a Member of it long before many hon. Members opposite were born. I left it on this question with many regrets and much sorrow. I have been too closely associated with them for too many years not to feel it. My sorrow has been increased by the fact that all my old associates without exception have treated me with great kindness and consideration. They did me the honour to think that I was honest although mistaken, and I do them the honour to say that they are honest, but they have forgotten their own principles. When was there a reform ever proposed during the last fifty years that the Liberal party, the innovating party, was not at the bottom of it? Is this a reform? [HON. MEMBERS: "No, a reaction."] What is reaction? It is a return to an old and discarded system. Then, what is Home Rule? Is that reform, or is it reaction? It is a return to an old and discarded state of things. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My hon. Friends who say "no" do not know history. It is not sufficient to say it is not a reform but reaction. We say it is a reform, and we believe we can establish the point. I ask why is not the Liberal party in this reform too as in other reforms? I am not going to stand in sackcloth and ashes before this House as a base deserting Liberal. I am going boldly to say that I am propounding a real Liberal principle I have known for forty years. What is that Liberal principle? [An HON. MEMBER: "Free Trade."] No. The Liberal political principle has always-been to adapt its policy to the circumstances of the time: first, to oppose a reform, and then by and bye to accept it. I was reading in my enforced leisure, when I was more happily employed than when I first came to this House, the report of the Debates on the repeal of the Corn Laws, and I happened to read what Lord John Russell said in this House in 1842, speaking as the Leader of the Liberal party. He said:— The repeal of the Corn Laws would be mischievous, absurd, impracticable, and unnecessary, and must be opposed by the Liberal party. Four years afterwards the whole of the Liberal party voted for the repeal of the Corn Laws. I am not complaining of the Liberal party for that. I tell them, if they will allow me, that that is the cardinal principle of the action of the party, both as it has been in my life and as it was before I was born. I am not, therefore, put about by hearing the wild, strong, and fierce language of vituperation and abuse that is used against Tariff Reform and Tariff Reformers. That is all in the game. I am perfectly certain that within a very little time the Liberal party will reassert its old principle of action and will vote in support of Tariff Reform. If it does, I do-not know what promises I, in my detached position might be able to give them.

I have come to this House, the only Liberal Tariff Reformer, the only one who was selected by a Tariff Reform committee composed of both Liberals and Conservatives; the only one who fought as an independent Tariff Reformer, and I am here to tell the House that, in my judgment, all your petty squabbles about constitutional changes are not worth considering when you have to take into account the enormous amount of unemployment, of misery, and of degradation, the failing in our manufactures, the failing in the production of our land and in the employment on our land. These things are all infinitely more important than the ploughing of the constitutional sands which the Liberal party has unfortunately adopted once again. We have the honour to have in this House a Labour party. The Labour party claims to represent organised labour in the country. I think they pitch their claims a little too high. I think they can fairly say that they represent a certain class of labour opinion in the country.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON

Organised labour.

Mr. STOREY

I come from Sunderland, and we have organised labour there. Six-sevenths of my electors are workmen, and yet I am here. The claim of the Labour Members is pitched too high. They do not even represent organised labour.

Mr. SEDDON

Who does?

Mr. STOREY

You represent some, and we represent others. You over-estimate your position when you say you represent organised labour. The Leader of the Labour party for many years was prominently connected with the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. Can he or any man say that they represent the opinion of the Amalgamated Society of Engineers? I know the members of that society count for a hundred thousand in the Labour party, but when the ballot was taken in regard to joining the Labour party how many voted? There were 6,000 votes in favour, 2,000 against, and 80,000 did not vote at all! I can give you similar cases. I might cite the case of the Society of Railway Servants, but one illustration is enough for my purpose. I only want to make it clear that, although hon. Members have an undoubted right to say that they represent a very large body of organised labour, it is nothing more than that. It was stated on one occasion that every Labour Member in the House was opposed to Tariff Reform. Is that a wonderful fact? I do not think it is, because, although every Labour Member may be opposed to Tariff Reform, that does not apply to every member of the organised societies. Having made that statement, may I say to hon. Members, many of whom I number among my personal friends, there is nobody in this country who knows the state of unemployment better than they do. They know it far better than Members on either side of this House. They know what has happened during the past years; they know it is not a temporary phase we are passing through, but that it is a chronic, permanent, growing, and oppressive burden on their unions. Think of the terror of the unhappy man who wanders over the country and cannot find work, the misery to his wife and children. Hon. Members know all that; they know that the present state of things is intolerable, and they ought to say to the Liberal party, "Nothing you propose is worth while in order to improve the condition of things," and then they ought to say to us, "We will not scoff at you"—and there was scoffing to-night—"but we will take up the study of the question you put before us." Will you consent to meet me and be my pupils in that respect? The trades unions of this country are a little over a million strong, and they pay out-of-work benefits. What a blessing that has been to many! These payments averaged under a quarter of a million a year, but they have steadily grown, and I think I heard from the President of the Board of Trade that in the year 1908 they had gone up to one million pounds. I only wish there were more Members of the Government here to listen to these figures. Will the House allow me to read them out for a few years? Just over ten years ago the total out-of-work benefit pay was £233,000, and the figures for the following years were £184,000, £261,000, £325,000, £420,000, £516,000, £654,000, £522,000, £424,000, £455,000, and in 1908 1,000,000 sterling. What it will be for 1909 I do not know. The Government may know. I have been amazed at the want of seriousness on the part of the Board of Trade in dealing with the question of the unemployed in this country. I am not referring particularly to the new President of that Board. He has only just started in the office, and we ought to give him time to find out the facts, but there are some Members of the Government who seem rather to pride themselves on the fact that the unemployed list has fallen to nearly 6 per cent. What about Germany's 2 per cent.?

Mr. J. M. ROBERTSON

The figures are non-comparable.

Mr. STOREY

The figures are non-comparable. I have read that cryptic sentence again and again. What does it mean? If they were made comparable would it be to the advantage of this country or to that of Germany? I know which, if only the figures were adjusted. The figures in Germany are made up from figures relating to nearly 1,400,000 trade unionists, two-thirds of the German trade unionists. They are made up in connection with State insurance, and when a man is out of work he is not struck out of the list, from which the unemployed are made out, although he is on the pension list or out of work. He is counted, and the German figures show that man as being out of employment. What is the case in England? If I am wrong I shall be set right presently, but when in regard to England we ask the Board of Trade to tell us not merely how many are returned as out of work, but how many members have fallen out of the unions because they cannot pay their subscriptions, the reply is that the Board cannot furnish the information. I can get it for myself. It may be found either in the reports of the trade unions or in their books. I have the report of not one of the smallest, but of one of the largest trade unions—the Carpenters and Joiners—and here is the fact: At the beginning of last year they had 62,000 members, but at the end of the year they had only 58,000. What became of those 4,000. Some of them died, some of them no doubt are blacklegs, as they are called, but the great bulk fell out because they could not pay their subscriptions, and were struck off the list of members. An hon. Member shakes his head, but I can tell him that in one quarter in this society 1,300 men fell out or were struck off the list, and when they returned their unemployed as 9 per cent, only, all these men who were unemployed, but who had ceased to be members because they could not pay their subscriptions, were not counted, or the percentage of unemployed would have been 14 per cent. I say the Labour Members know the facts, and many more facts that I could produce if I had time; but in the case of unemployment I am charging them with knowing the cause and not acting upon it. And I say, with good temper and with a good spirit, that they arc deliberately in that case not doing what is proper and good for the trade unionists. They know the cause: it is foreign tariffs and free imports. Why did a deputation go the other day to ask the Government to establish a factory in England in order to give work to people in this country instead of sending orders abroad? Then why did another deputation go to another Minister later on to appeal to him to alter certain laws in regard to America, so that books should no longer be printed over there for consumption in England while compositors stood idle in London? They know the facts, and that is my charge against them. At any rate I have done this. I have put some views before the House which I think have not been put quite so plainly before. To show that the Labour Members-know the cause, I will, for instance, read a very short extract from a speech by Mr. Will Crooks, who was a Member of this House, and I hope may be again. He said:— I am in favour of keeping everything we can in the hands of our own manufacturers and our own workpeople, and I regard every pound's worth of work going to a foreign country as a pound's worth of work which we ought to keep to ourselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle (Mr. Arthur Henderson) also said this:— I am not a blind worshipper of cheapness as that doctrine can easily be carried too far. Cheapness is not everything, we must have regard to the provision of work for our own people.'' Another Labour Member, the hon. Member for East Leeds (Mr. J. O'Grady) said:— I do not want to see orders going abroad which rob working people of the wages which they have a right to earn. Again, the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Stephen Walsh) said:— In sending these orders abroad, you may be breaking up homes and even gambling with human life. You may be buying cheapness very dearly indeed, if for some paltry saving, which in the long run is no economy at all you are throwing Englishmen out of employment and entailing untold misery on themselves, their wives and families.

10.0 P.M.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON

On a point of Order, Sir. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that these quotations were made in reply to interviews on a specific question, namely, the question of work being done at Woolwich.

Mr. STOREY

I was perfectly aware of the fact. But what is the point that all these quotations aim at? It is that owing to the Government giving orders abroad, which might have been given at home, work and wages are lost to Englishmen. If that be true about the few miserable orders that the Government must give, how much more true about all the general orders that are going abroad. In conclusion, I will only ask, why is it that Labour Members object to Tariff Reform, which would have the effect of providing work in England for our working people. I have only heard two reasons, and will give you one, which is, that we Tariff Eeformers—it is a matter of prejudice—that we Tariff Reformers are a band of greedy manufacturers who are only scheming this plan in order to put money and profits into our own pockets. Grant that it will put money into manufacturers' pockets, as I believe it will—I am not one, and I may say that freely, and I am not a landlord either, so it will not benefit me—will hon. Members opposite tell me when is it that work is best to be got and wages are most regular and highest? Is it not when manufacturers are busy and trade prospers? If it does benefit these greedy men would it not benefit the workmen also?

The other objection I have heard made by working men—and I think some even of the Labour Members may entertain these opinions—is that in protected countries wages are smaller and hours longer, and they fear that that may be the effect in this country. The cost of living may be higher but I should dispute that. If it be true that wages are lower and hours longer can they name one country where, under Protection, wages have not increased and hours fallen, and, further, if wages be smaller and hours longer is that not an all-powerful reason why you should, as protectionists of labour, set yourself against admitting the goods which these men make? If I brought a thousand Belgians into this country to work here all the power of the trade unions would be invoked to put an end to the experiment. A universal strike would be decreed. Every effort would be made to prevent it. Would not the unrestricted import of foreign -cheap labour be a move against trade unions and trade union principles? Would you not do everything to prevent it? What difference does the silver streak of sea make if the goods made by such labour are sent here? I told the Liberal party that I had indulged the hope that they might nave the honour and glory of carrying Tariff Reform for this country. They have lost their chance. They are wandering in the wilderness of constitutional change once again. In my opinion, the settlement of the question will not come from this party alone. Free Trade was carried in this country by a combination of parties. I believe that the repeal of our present fiscal system and the creation of a better one will be brought about by a combination of Tariff Reformers of all shades of political opinion and by the conjoint action of the Trades Unions of this country.

Sir GEORGE KEMP

moved to leave out from the word "House" to the end of the Question, and to insert instead thereof the words, "the proper method of fighting hostile tariffs is by the maintenance of free imports, and any alteration of the present fiscal system which involves the abandonment of the.principle of taxation for revenue purposes only and necessitates the imposition of protective taxes on corn, meat, dairy produce, and the raw materials of any industry, would increase unemployment and be disastrous to the commerce and prosperity of the United Kingdom."

The hon. Member who moved the Resolution said most of us on this side spoke on the question of Free Trade in a tone of intellectual arrogance. None of my friends have ever called me intellectual, and I hope none of my Friends opposite will after to-night call me arrogant. I should have risen to move the Amendment with greater pleasure had I known that it would be supported by Members on both sides. I only have to carry my mind back a short ten years when if I had moved an Amendment similar to this I should have had no lack of supporters not only on this side of the House, but on that also, and I should have had the approval of the majority of the Front Bench opposite. I must content myself with the probable approval of the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil), who is not here to-night. I do not know whether I shall be arrogant in suggesting that I might have the possible approval also of the Leader of the Opposition. There has been a sudden conversion during these few years of the whole of the party. [Cheers.] Hon. Members opposite cheer because I said a sudden conversion. I hope it will be not only sudden, but transitory. If that is the complexion of the House of Commons I am glad to say it is not the complexion of the Constituency that I sit for, nor of the whole of the North of England, and the large trading constituencies, with some exceptions. On some points the Mover of the Resolution is at one with me. He is at one with me partially as to the detrimental character of tariffs. It has been said that the quality of mercy is twice blessed. I should like to parody that, and say that the character of tariffs is twice-cursed. They are a curse to those who impose them and to those against whom they are imposed. Not so entirely a curse as one might imagine from the arguments which are advanced on behalf of them from the other side, because we must not forget that the tariffs imposed by other countries are penalising to themselves. They penalise themselves, they raise the cost of production for foreign protected countries, and thereby they enable this country to compete with success in the neutral markets of the world.

I had hoped that we should have had from the Mover and Seconder some clearer light as to the remedy by which they propose to deal with the evil of which they have spoken. I should have been glad to hear whether there was a new authorised or unauthorised programme, and whether it came from London or from Birmingham, but we have had no light or leading on the question at all. We have had various details put before us with regard to the disadvantages under which we suffer, but we have had no light as to the remedy which is proposed. I suppose, however, that I am right in understanding that the remedy proposed by the Mover is the remedy proposed by the Tariff Reform Commission, and I suppose one of the principal items of that remedy is food taxation. We have not heard a word about food taxation tonight, although these reciprocal preferences to which reference is made in the Resolution cannot be carried out unless we have food taxation. Nor did I hear a word about food taxation in the election I have just been through, unless it was an involuntary expression. We were not sufficiently fortunate in the North of England to have that wealth of Tariff Reform literature which referred to the millions of pounds of beef and other foodstuffs brought into this country to the detriment of the farmers. We never heard a word about that in the North of England, and we have not heard a. word about it to-night. We heard, it is true, in the course of the Debate on the Address, a speech by the Leader of the Opposition in which he said it was a matter of economic speculation whether the price of corn would increase or not. Well, I speak to business men to-night, and I say that I have always felt it to be a business principle that wise men do not speculate about the necessities of life. It is only foolish men who speculate on such matters, and therefore it is a dangerous thing to initiate a change in the fiscal system of this country if one of the principal items is a matter of speculation even to the Leader—I suppose he is the Leader—of the Tariff Reform movement. Of course, I know that there are advantages and disadvantages on both sides of this question,.and that we have to balance the advantages against the disadvantages, I should have liked, had time permitted to-night, to go into the question of food taxation, but I cannot. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] I would say then, with regard to food taxation, which is necessary to this system, that it is a question of speculation as to whether those who will benefit by the reciprocal taxation in our Colonies really want the preference on food taxes which we are asked to give. After the election of 1906 I venture to think that they did not. The Minister of Agriculture in Canada, Mr. Fisher, a farmer himself, speaking to farmers in Canada, said that they did not require it in Canada. He further said:— The farmers in Canada want no preference in the English market, England has not adopted preference, and I think she did right. That would mean the obstruction of her own trade, increased taxation, and the entering into the complicated problem of a protective policy. It would in England's case be a radical change for the worse. That is the view of the Minister of Agriculture in Canada. I would suggest to this House that it is then a very doubtful and speculative policy to give a preference of tins kind to an unwilling recipient. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Am I correct or not in that contention? I say it is a very speculative question whether it is a good thing to give a questionable benefit of this kind to an unwilling recipient when such preference is given to the detriment of the working classes of this country. It affects not only the working classes, but it affects particularly the poorest part of the working classes, because it is a matter of official investigation that the lower you get down in the scale the lower the wages of the man are, the more he consumes of bread. Therefore if you put a tax on bread it falls most heavily on those who earn least. It is an inverted Income Tax. In fact, you might say it is a question of a Super-tax on the whole of our population. On the question of reciprocal preference you have to balance the advantages on one side against the disadvantages on the other. I have no doubt that that is the case in most trades in this country, but I am going to speak of a trade in which the advantages are nil, and the disadvantages comprise the whole of the result of such a system of fiscal reform as is suggested by the hon. Mover of this Motion. I wish to speak of a trade which more particularly interests the Division for which I sit—I mean the cotton trade.

I do not think that hon. Members opposite entirely appreciate the magnitude of the interests comprised in the cotton trade, because those with whom I have spoken have said to me, "In advancing the question of the cotton trade you are advancing the interests of one trade only, and if Tariff Reform is going to benefit the whole nation it is selfish to put the interests of one trade against those of the people as a whole." I want to put a few facts before hon. Members opposite who are not directly connected with the cotton trade to show what a large section of the community the cotton trade affects. The actual number of people engaged in the cotton trade is very nearly 600,000. But that only includes those who are directly engaged in the cotton trade itself. There are in addition vast numbers of people engaged in subsidiary trades which depend on the cotton trade. There are the building trades, the making of cement, the leather trades, the machinery trades, and other trades which it is not necessary to mention to-night. If you take into consideration those trades which depend on the cotton trade it has been computed on expert authority that there are no fewer than 3,000,000 people engaged in the cotton trade and the subsidiary trades. That is a very serious proportion of the whole population of this country. And I have not done when I have mentioned those, because those 3,000,000 and those who are dependent on them form the best market in England for the farming interest; and owing to the ready market for agricultural produce which they provide for the farmers the value of the land is greatly increased. If anything be done to hurt or to diminish in any way the cotton trade that means that the land on which the warehouses and mills are erected goes down in value. It means that the land contiguous, the farming land, also goes down in value.

We have heard a great deal about the Socialism, the piracy, and the robbery involved in the Budget. If action is taken which materially damages the interests of the cotton trade, the damage done to the landed interest in connection with that trade would be ten times as much. May I put another point with regard to the cotton trade? The exports of the cotton trade to foreign countries are equal to no less than a quarter of the whole exports of this country. You can hardly call it a sectional interest, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will not think it is arrogant on my part to put before them, as far as I can, the magnitude of the cotton trade interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to hear that they agree with that, but I am astonished that they agree, because the Leader of the Opposition came down to Manchester in November and made a speech with regard to the cotton trade. It is hardly for me to say that his speech showed an absolute misconception of the magnitude of the cotton trade. Far be it from me to say that, but I do say that the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman of the industry was regarded by those engaged in it simply with wide-eyed amazement that he should so entirely misconceive what the facts of the case were. The right hon. Gentleman said:— Who are these competitors of the cotton industry? What are those nations against whom we can only just hold our own, and against whom we shall no longer be able to hold our own by any form of Import Duty, of balanced Import Duty. Who are they? Protected countries— There were great cheers when he said that in Manchester, but not from the cotton trade. which have an import tariff that I certainly do not recommend this or any other country to adopt. You might think from a speech of that kind that the cotton trade was struggling hard to just hold its own against foreign competitors. You might very reasonably think that the cotton trade of the world was divided into equal portions and that Germany had one little portion, England another, and America another. What is the fact? The fact is that England has the lion's share of the whole cotton trade of the world, while Germany, France, and the United States of America only have a small portion. Compared by their exports of cotton goods, together they have only a little more than a third of the exports of the United Kingdom. So that we are not struggling just to hold our own; we are struggling to hold a miraculous supremacy over the whole of the rest of the world. The right hon. Gentleman said our competitors are increasing more quickly than we are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] I am glad to hear that cheer from hon. Gentlemen opposite; I am glad to hear that we have some supporters among them of that contention. Let us look to the actual figures. We find that England between 1900 and 1908 increased her exports of cotton yarns and manufactures by over £25,000,000. Germany made also an increase of £5,500,000. I do not hear the same cheer now. [An HON. MEMBER: ''From what?"] France, an increase of £4,500,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the percentage?"] I have got one more instance which I have no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite will cheer even more, and that is that of the United States of America, which were sufficiently fortunate to secure a decrease of £400,000. Those are the actual figures.

Mr. STOREY

Is that of foreign trade or production?

Sir G. KEMP

I am referring to exports of cotton. If necessary I can refer to the exports of cotton piece goods. I think for the purpose of the argument the figures I have given are sufficient. I will take, as is suggested by an hon. Member, Germany alone. In the period from 1900 to 1908 the English increase of cotton exports, yarn and manufactures, was £6,000,000 more than the whole of the German trade put together. That is not altogether unsatisfactory, I venture to think, and such a state of trade as that does not warrant the phrase of the Leader of the Opposition that we are only just holding our own with foreign competitors. That is only one criterion by which to judge the cotton trade, but we must not judge it by one alone. I will take another, which I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit to be also a good one, and that is that of spindlage. The spindlage of the whole world amounts to something like 130 millions, and in England we have fifty-three million spindles, or nearly eleven million spindles more than France, Germany, and the United States put together. I see that those are figures which make hon. Members opposite yawn. I do not wonder. They do not make us yawn in Lancashire, because we are awake, and because we know the value of our trade we fight for our trade. It is because of that that Lancashire has given the answer which she gave with regard to Free Trade at the last election. [An HON. MEMBER: "Wait and see."] We have waited, and we have seen and I think what we have seen, and what I have shown to hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite, is a sufficient proof that under the fiscal system which we enjoy at present the cotton trade of England has nothing to complain of, and would do worse if it exchanged its cheap production, by which it has achieved its present position, in favour of a system of Protection. Why has this country been able to get this great supremacy over all the other countries? The one reason above all others is because it has been able to buy in the cheapest market. The cotton industry is one which depends on the purchase of a great many materials which are raw materials, semi-manufactured materials, and wholly-manufactured materials. Some of those materials are cement, timber, and leather. We know that those things are to be taxed, although we do not hear much about that now. I presume I am right in thinking that the party opposite gave a pledge at Bermondsey that leather would be taxed. I do not think I shall be unfairly stating the case if I say that all these articles, used in the equipment and in the running of a mill, will, if hon. Gentlemen opposite have their way, be subject to an average tax of, say, 5 per cent. [Several MEMBERS: "10 per cent."] I want to be very moderate, and to put the lowest estimate. What is the result of our buying in the cheapest market? It is that in England we can equiq a mill at half the price per spindle necessary in the United States. That means that if you have a company running 260,000 spindles the standing charges for interest and depreciation on the initial cost in England would be £32,000, and in the United States £65,000. That is what they have to start with. Then they have all the running charges to keep the mill going. [An HON. MEMBER: "Higher wages."] I will come to wages in a moment. Owing to our system, by which we can equip and run a mill more cheaply, we had in the year 1907—which for purposes of comparison with other countries will do as well as any other—an export trade of £110,000,000, while that of Germany, France, and the United States put together was only £44,000,000. What becomes of the argument that high tariffs are means by which you can beat down tariffs? If that is the case, how is it that these protected countries have not been able to beat down the tariffs of other countries so far as the cotton trade is concerned, and to get a better comparison with the cotton trade of Great Britain?

What has the cotton trade to gain by reciprocal preferences? The argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that, although the population of the Colonies is comparatively small, in time the population will increase, and the value of these reciprocal preferences will grow. What the cotton trade has to look at is the actual value of our trade with foreign countries, with India, and with the Colonies apart from India. Here are the figures. In 1907 our exports of cotton goods to foreign countries were £67,000,000, to India £27,000,000, and to the Colonies other than India only £16,000,000. In other words, we are to risk the £94,000,000 which we send to foreign counties and India in order to gain a slight preference in connection with the £16,000,000. That if. not good business. Any preference on the £16,000,000 would be comparatively insignificant so far as Lancashire is con- cerned. As to our £27,000,000 exports to India, in that market, open to all the other countries who compete with us in the cotton industry, we get more than 90 per cent, of the whole trade. If we changed our fiscal system and adopted a system of protective tariffs, as suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite, what would happen to our Indian trade? It is common knowledge that for the last twenty years the manufacturers of India have asked to be allowed to put on protective tariffs against the cotton manufacturers of this country. We have not allowed it. I am very glad the right hon. Gentleman opposite entirely agrees to that. Why have we not allowed it? Because we have said that if the fiscal system which we enjoy here in England is best for us it is also best for India. Hon. Gentlemen opposite disagree from that. Then on what ground have we not allowed India to put on a tariff against our goods? On what ground have we refused the Indian manufacturers the right to put a tariff on as against Lancashire manufacturers if it has not been because we thought that the fiscal system that was good for us was also good for India? That is the dilemma that has been put over and over again in Lancashire, and has never been answered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The question I ask now is—and I should have liked the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition here to answer it—he did not answer it at Manchester— "Are you going to allow India to put a tax, as she wishes to put it, on the cotton goods going into India; if not, what are you going to do?" Are you going to say, as has been said, "We won India by the sword, and we are going to keep it by the sword, and they can say what they like." You can say we are going to protect our trade in that way. Or, if you allow India to put a tax on cotton goods, you are going to damage one of the best markets of Lancashire.

I think we have a right to have an answer to that question from the Front Opposition Bench. Are they if we change our fiscal system going to allow India to put this tax on or are they not?

HON. MEMBERS

"Wait and see."

Sir G. KEMP

In other trades, agriculture or anything else, there may be a divergence of opinion as to whether or not Tariff Reform is a good thing for this country. But the cotton trade stands by itself. There is practical unanimity in the cotton trade; masters and men alike are agreed that if any general system of tariffs is imposed in this country it spells ruin for the cotton trade of Lancashire. That is the view of the employers and that is the view of the workmen. This view was embodied in a resolution when the first Tariff Reform proposals were brought before the country, and that resolution, passed practically with unanimity, was to this effect:— That this Conference of the Cotton Employés Parliamentary Association and the United Textile Factory Workers Association, representing the whole cotton trade as employers and operatives, firmly convinced that the great' cotton industry of the United Kingdom owes its pre-eminence to, and can only the maintained by, the policy of Free Trade, pledges itself to oppose to the utmost of its power any proposals. which by imposing a tax upon food and raw material, and so raising the cost of production and living, will cripple it in its already severe struggle to uphold its position in foreign markets, by which 80 per cent, of its productions are absorbed. That is the view of the whole of the cotton trade of masters and men throughout this country. If the Resolution of my hon. Friend were carried, it would mean a serious check to this great industry which employs, directly and indirectly, so many millions of people. We believe that if we deviate from our present fiscal system, if we agree to the policy of which a necessity is to put a tax upon food, the amount of food coming into this country will be decreased, and the amount of food consumed in this country will be decreased, and the general physique of this country would be diminished on that account. And we believe that taxes upon general imports, whether semi-manufactured or manufactured, will tend to restrict trade in this country and will cause an increase of unemployment, and would be to the detriment of the country. In the past we nave-won in neutral markets, because we have been free from fiscal fetters we have been able to beat other nations in the world for this reason, and now, at a time when protected countries, and especially organised labour in protected countries, are beginning to see that the protected system is not only bad fiscally, but from the social side as well, it seems to me extraordinarily inexpedient to consider making such a change, and when also we are asked to change our fiscal system for one in which some of the most important points, according to its own supporters, are matters of economic speculation. That is a policy which we believe,. if it did not tend to the absolute destruction, would, at any rate, tend to the serious diminution of our trade and the general prosperity of the country.

Mr. J. A. SIMON

The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Samuel Storey) seemed to desire the opinion of a business man upon some of the matters on which he spoke to-night. I think we may fairly claim that, so far as a Manchester business man has a right to speak about the cotton trade, the House of Commons has heard that opinion now. I do not, of course profess, to have any such claim to speak upon the subject, but I should like to make one or two general observations upon the Debate. We had two speeches— I make no question about the time they occupied, as the cause they had to advocate needs time—which were supposed to be a justification for these fiscal proposals which are pre-eminently associated with the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain); but neither of those Gentlemen in their speeches, from beginning to end, thought it safe to mention that it was any part of their policy to put taxes upon corn, beef, butter, or dairy produce. When that little omission is pointed out, some hon. Members on the back benches on the other side reply by interrupting my hon. Friend and saying, "We have taxes upon food now." Do they really suppose that that particular form of remark serves any purpose except at a Tory village meeting t Let me point out to hon. Gentlemen who imagine that that retort has any force —and I am sure they would not use it except they thought it had force—how the matter stands. In the ten years 1895–1905, when the last Conservative Government was in power, there was an increase of taxes upon food to the amount, of £8,500,000 sterling. There was an increase of the taxes upon tea, and there was an imposition of high taxes upon sugar. Since 1906 there has been a reduction, if I recollect rightly, of something like £4,750,000 in these import taxes upon food. Do I understand hon. Gentlemen opposite to resent the reduction of that taxation, or do they approve of it? If they approve of the reduction of taxes on food such as tea and sugar, then where was the point of the interruption by an hon. Gentleman opposite who said, "You have taxes upon food already." The simple position is this. We on this side of the House stand for the reduction and the abolition of all taxes on food. What do you stand for? [An HON. MEMBER: "Honesty."] If you compare the position of the system of taxation which obtains in Germany, which is alternately your model and your bogey, you will find that in every single instance, except one, the taxes on food in this country are just as great, and in most cases greater than in the German Empire. Not only this, but a great list of articles which are not taxed in this country are taxed in Germany. The Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved puts together, and rightly puts together, the proposals, on the one hand, to put duties on corn, meat, and dairy produce, and on the other hand, proposals to put taxes on raw materials. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Let me see if I rightly understand the argument in favour of taxes on food. Hon. Members opposite are anxious to say that they do not mean to tax raw material, but they try to justify taxes on imported meat from the Argentine by saying that it will not increase the price of beef or mutton. [An HON. MEMBER: "Honesty."] They tell us they can use an argument by which you can put duties on carcases, on beef and mutton, and yet there will be nothing more to pay on the part of those who buy beef and mutton in this country. What does this argument show unless it proves that the skin which is on the outside of the carcase of the ox, that the wool which grows on the back of the sheep, can equally be taxed by an import duty on hides, and this without anything further for us to pay. If it be true that putting a duty upon mutton coming from the Argentine is going so to encourage the sheep of Australia that it will bring forth there thousands and tens of thousands in the streets of Melbourne, are all those extra sheep to have no wool on their back? Can anyone here, or at any time, produce an argument to justify the imposition of a tax on food which does not by the same process justify a tax on the very things which hon. Gentlemen opposite are the first to repudiate, namely, a tax on raw material? When one considers that hon. Gentlemen opposite justify this system because it is said to be so scientific, I begin to want to know where the science comes in. It is part of their theory that if you put an important duty upon an article imported into a country, and it is used in the manufacture of commodities which are re-exported, the State should pay back the duty to the manufacturer who has used it. Why? If we import leather from abroad, which is to be taxed under your system, and the Leicester boot manufacturer makes his boots out of that leather, why are you going to give him back the duty if he exports those boots? Why, unless it be the fact that it is the man who buys the leather in this country, who pays the duty? The real truth is that if hon. Gentlemen who imagine that Tariff Reform is a scientific system would consider the way in which it works out in that example, they would find this: Their own system amounts to nothing more than a bounty which they wish to pay to manufacturers who use foreign imported leather. If the Leicester boot manufacturer makes his boots out of English leather, and then, under your system, exports the boots, he is to get no rebate, he is to lump it and get no bounty; but, if he makes his boots out of leather, dumped leather, then, forsooth, though the foreigner paid the tax on the leather, he is to get the State to give him a rebate. Such is the scientific basis of Tariff Reform. At one moment its votaries are going to raise large sums by taxing the foreigner, and the next moment they are going to impose duties which are going to keep the foreigner from sending goods into this country, and they actually believe sensible people are going to imagine those things are sense. At one moment they take an argument which goes to show that a tax on food can be imposed without increasing the price of food by one farthing, and the next moment they fall over one another in their anxiety to assure the people of England that nothing will ever induce them to tax raw materials. One minute they tell us their system is a system by which they are going to confer great benefits on the Colonies and tie them more closely to the Mother Country, and the next minute they tell us that their system is to be a system by which 2s. is to be clapped

on foreign corn to be paid by the foreigner, and 1s. on Colonial corn, to be paid—by whom? One minute they tell us they have got a system which is not only not going to increase the price of commodities, but which it is expected will make it easier for the poor people in this country to buy the goods they want; and the next minute the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Henry Chaplin) is telling the farmers of his constituency if he has any, that, if they will only support Tariff Reform, undoubtedly the price of corn will rise. This system may have its merits, but do not let it be claimed that it has any merits as a scientific system. Let us realise that in this country we have enjoyed, and still enjoy, a preeminence in trade, and, as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said, it can only be prejudiced by such a bogus recipe of prosperity. We have certain peculiar advantages in this country. We have got an enterprising people and an hereditary House of Lords. We have very uncertain weather, and we have Free Trade. Unless hon. Gentlemen think that any of those other things are the cause of our prosperity, I submit that the argument is overwhelming for continuing to preserve our system of Free Trade.

Mr. HAMILTON BENN

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Debate resumed.

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

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 235.

Division No: 21.]	AYES.	[11.2 p.m.
Adam, Major W. A.	Boyton, J.	Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham)
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Brackenbury, Henry Langton	Cooper, Capt. Bryan (Dublin, S.)
Arbuthnot, G. A.	Brassey, Capt. R. B. (Banbury)	Cooper, R. A. (Walsall)
Archer-Shee, Major M.	Brassey, H L. C. (N'thamptonshire, N.)	Courthope, G. Loyd
Bagot, Colonel J.	Bridgeman, W. Clive	Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)
Baird, J. L.	Brunskill, G. F.	Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)
Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)	Bulf, Sir William James	Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)
Balcarres, Lord	Burdett-Coutts, W.	Craik, Sir Henry
Baldwin, Stanley	Butcher, S. Henry (Cambridge Univ.)	Dairymple, Viscount
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)	Calley, Colonel T. C. P.	Dixon, C. H.
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-
Banner, John 3. Harmood-	Carllie, E. Hildred	Duncannon, Viscount
Baring, Captain Hon. G.	Castlereagh, Viscount	Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.
Barnston, H.	Cator, John	Faber, George Denison (Clapham)
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Cave, George	Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)
Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)	Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Falle, B. G.
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks	Chaloner, Colonel R. W. G.	Fell, Arthur
Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)	Finlay, Sir Robert
Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)	Chambers, J.	Fisher, W. Hayes
Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish	Clay, Captain H. Spender	Fitzroy, Hon. E. A.
Beresford, Lord C.	Clive, Percy Archer	Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue
Bird, A.	Coates, Major E. F.	Fleming, Valentine
Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)	Colefax, H. A.	Fletcher, J. S.
Forster, Henry William	Knight, Capt. E. A.	Rothschild, Lionel de
Foster, J. K. (Coventry)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Royds, Edmund
Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S.W.)	Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwlch)	Rutherford, Watson
Gardner, Ernest	Lawson, Hon. Harry	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Gastrell, Major W. H.	Lee, Arthur H.	Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)
Gibbs. G. A.	Lewisham, Viscount	Sanders, Robert A.
Gilmour, Captain J.	Liewelyn, Major Venables	Sanderson, Lancelot
Goldman, C. S.	Lloyd, G. A.	Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells)
Goldsmith, Frank	Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. M. (Bootle)
Gooch, Henry Cubitt	Lockyer-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)	Stanier, Beville
Gordon, J.	Lockyer-Lampson O. (Ramsay)	Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)
Goulding, Edward Alfred	Long, Rt. Hon. Walter	Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)
Grant, J. A.	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	Starkey, John R.
Guinness, Hon. W. E.	Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)	Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staffordshire)
Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)	MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh	Steel-Maitland, A. D.
Haddock, George B.	Mackinder, H. J.	Stewart, Gershom (Ches., Wirral)
Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)	M'Arthur, Charles	Stewart, Sir M'T. (Kirkcudbright)
Hambro, Angus Valdemar	Mason, J. F.	Storey, Samuel
Hamersley, A. St. George	Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas	Strauss, A.
Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)	Mitchell, William Foot	Sykes, Alan John
Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)	Moore, William	Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford)	Morpeth, Viscount	Terrell, H. (Gloucester)
Harris, F. L. (Stepney)	Morrison, Captain J. A.	Thompson, Robert
Harris, H. P. (Paddington, S.)	Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.	Thynne, Lord A.
Harrison-Broadley, H. B.	Mount, William Arthur	Tobin, Alfred Aspinall
Helmsley, Viscount	Newdegate, F. A.	Tryon, George Clement
Henderson, H. (Berks, Abingdon)	Newman, John R. P.	Tullibardine, Marquess of
Hickmann, Col. T.	Newton, Harry Kottingham	Verrall, George Henry
Hill, Sir Clement	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Hills, J. W.	O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid.)	Ward, Arnold (Herts, Watford)
Hoare, S. J. G.	Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.	Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)
Hohler, G. F.	Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William	Wheler, Granville C. H.
Hope, Harry (Bute)	Paget, Almeric Hugh	White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)
Horner, A. L.	Peto, Basil Edward	Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude
Houston, Robert Paterson	Pollock, Ernest Murray	Willoug[...]by de Eresby, Lord
H[...]me-Williams, W. E.	Pretyman, E. G.	Winterton, Earl
Hunt, Rowland	Proby, Colonel Douglas James	Wood, John (Stalybridge)
Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)	Randles, Sir John Scurrah	Worthington-Evans, L. (Colchester)
Jackson, Sir J. (Devonport)	Rankin, Sir James	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Jackson, John A. (Whitehaven)	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel	Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Jessel, Captain H. M.	Rawson, Colonel R. H.	Younger, George (Ayr Burghs)
Kerr-Smiley, Peter	Rice, Hon. W.
Kerry, Earl of	Ridley, Samuel Forde	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir
Keswick, William	Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Eccleshall)	A. Acland-Hood and Viscount
King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull)	Rolleston, Sir John	Valentfa.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Ronaldshay, Earl of
NOES.
Abraham, William	Channing, Sir Francis Allston	Glover, Thomas
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Chapple, W. A.	Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford
Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R.	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston, S.	Greenwood, G. G.
Agnew, George William	Clough, William	Grenfell, Cecil Alfred
Ainsworth, John Stirling	Clynes, J. R.	Gulland, John William
Allen, Charles P.	Collins, Sir Wm. J. (St. Pancras, W.)	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Anderson, A.	Corbett, A. C. (Tradeston)	Hall, Frederick (Normanton)
Armitage, R.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Hancock, J. G.
Ashton, Thomas Gair	Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)
Baker, H. T. (Accrington)	Crawshay-Wllliams, Eliot	Harmsworth, R. L.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Crosfield, A. H.	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)
Barclay, Sir T.	Daiziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)	Harvey, E. T. (Leeds, W.)
Barlow, Sir John E.	Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Barnes, G. N.	Davies, E. William (Eif[...]on)	Harwood, George
Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)	Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)	Haslam, James (Derbyshire)
Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)	Dawes, J. A.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.)	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry
Barton, A. W.	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Haworth, Arthur A.
Beale, W. P.	Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness)	Hayward, Evan
Benn, W (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)	Duncan, C. (Barrow-In-Furness)	Helme, Norval Watson
Bentham, G. J.	Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Bethell, Sir J. H.	Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)	Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)
Bowerman, C. W.	Edwards, Enoch	Henry, Charles S.
Bowles, T. Gibson	Elverston, H.	Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor
Brigg, Sir John	Esslemont, George Birnie	Higham, John Sharp
Brocklehurst, W. B.	Falconer, J.	Hindle, F. G.
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Fenwick, Charles	Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.
Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Ferguson, R. C. Munro	Hodge, John
Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)	France. G. A.	Holt, Richard Durning
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)	Gibbins, F. W.	Hooper, A. G.
Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)	Gibson, James P.	Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)	Gill, A. H.	Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)
Chancellor, H. G.	Glanville, H. J.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Hudson, Walter	Ogden, Fred	Tennant, Harold John
Hughes, S. L.	O'Grady, James	Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)
Hunter, W. (Govan)	Palmer, Godfrey Mark	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Illingworth, Percy H.	Parker, James (Halifax)	Thomas, J. H. (Derby)
Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel	Pearce, William	Thorne, William (West Ham)
Johnson, W.	Pearson, Weetman H. M.	Toulmin, George
Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)	Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A.	Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)	Pickersgill, Edward Hare	Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander
Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)	Pointer, Joseph	Verney, F. W.
Jowett, F. W.	Pollard, Sir George H.	Vivian, Henry
Kemp, Sir G.	Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)	Wadsworth, J.
King, I. (Somerset, N.)	Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)	Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Lambert, George	Priestley, Arthur (Grantham)	Walsh, Stephen
Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis	Primrose, Hon. Neil James	Walters, John Tudor.
Leach, Charles	Pringle, William M. R.	Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)
Lehmann, R. C.	Radford, G. H.	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)
Levy, Sir Maurice	Raffan, Peter Wilson	Wardle, George J.
Lewis, John Herbert	Rainy, A. Rolland	Waring, Walter
Lincoln, Ignatius T. T.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David	Rea, Walter Russell	Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)
Low, Sir F. (Norwich)	Rees, J. D.	Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)	Rendall, Athelstan	Waterlow, D. S.
Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Watt, Henry A.
Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	White, Sir George (Norfolk)
M'Callum, John M.	Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)	White, J. Dundas (Dumbartonshire)
McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)	White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.)
M'Laren, Rt. Hon. Sir C. B. (Leics.)	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Whitehouse, John Howard
M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding)	Robinson, S.	Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)
Markham, Arthur Basil	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Wiles, Thomas
Marks, G. Croydon	Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)	Williams, A. N. (Plymouth)
Martin, J.	Roe, Sir Thomas	Williams, P. (Middlesborough)
Masterman, C. F. G.	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Williams, W. Liewelyn (Carmarthen)
Middlebrook, William	Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)	Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)
Millar, J. D.	Samuel, J. (Stockton)	Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.)
Molteno, Percy Alport	Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)	Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
Mond, Alfred Moritz	Schwann, Sir C. E.	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)
Montagu, Hon. E. S.	Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne)	Wilson, T. F. (Lanark, N.E.)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Seddon, J.	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)	Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.	Wing, Thomas Henry
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Shackleton, David James	Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)
Munro, R.	Simon, John Allsebrook	Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)
Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.	Soares, Ernest J.	Yoxall, Sir James Henry
Muspratt, M.	Spicer, Sir Albert
Neilson, Francis	Summers. James Woolley
Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)	Sutherland, J. E.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Norton, Capt. Cecil W.	Taylor, John W. (Durham)	Master of Elibank and Mr. Fuller.
Nuttall, Harry	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

Question, "That the proper method of fighting hostile tariffs is by the maintenance of free imports, and any alteration of the present fiscal system which involves the abandonment of the principle of taxation for revenue purposes only and necessitates the imposition of protective taxes on corn, meat, dairy produce, and the raw materials of any industry, would increase unemployment, and be disastrous to the commerce and prosperity of the United Kingdom," put, and agreed to.