Lords Sitting of 12 February 1891

COLONISATION (HOUSE OF COMMONS).
Leave given to the Viscount Gordon (E. Aberdeen) to attend the Select Committee of the House of Commons (pursuant to message of Monday last) if his Lordship think fit, and, his Lordship (in this place) consenting thereto, a message sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
CUSTODY OF CHILDREN BILL [H.L.] (No. 31.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Bill read 3a (according to order).
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I have given notice of an Amendment, which I read the other day to your Lordships, to Clause 4 as proposed, and I did so with great regret that I should have to delay a Bill for which I am sure the country will be greatly indebted to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and in the purport of which I fully concur. I must say that I still think the Bill as now drawn will be a dead letter, because the parents who are intended to be dealt with are of a class who will never sue for a writ of habeas corpus to get the custody of their children. The fees alone in the High Court would be a bar to their so applying. The Bill also does not touch the class of cases chiefly in view, namely, those of vicious parents, throwing away all the good training of a child in an Industrial School when the child's term of detention has expired. My Amendment is upon Clause 4. That clause says that when the Court has rejected the application of a parent on the ground that he is wholly unfit to take care of his child, if the Court is of opinion that the child is being brought up by its foster parent or by the Institution taking charge of it in a religion different from that of the reprobate parent, it shall be the duty of the Court to secure that the child shall be removed from that better training, and shall
  430
  be taught in the religion which has led to its abandonment and to the parent's unfitness. This may be a necessary reservation of the parental right in a Bill in which all other parental rights are very properly thrown over; but what I want to point out is that if there are no means of teaching the child in the reprobate parent's religion, of course the provision fails. No Act of Parliament can compel the performance of an impossibility. If there are means, there are no funds provided in the Bill to replace the funds theretofore supplied by those taking care of the child.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 4, page 2, line 11, after ("brought up") to insert ("Provided means can be found available for the education of the child in such religion, and any additional cost so incurred shall be a charge on the school-rate, if any, in the district.")—(The Lord Norton.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sorry to say I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, for various reasons. In the first place, I think I can show him that inasmuch as the provision which he has just read runs through the whole clause, and is a necessary power in it, what he proposes would be an unjust taxation of some of Her Majesty's subjects, and one which this House has no power to make. The only effect would be that, having given an expression of opinion upon the matter, the proviso would have to be struck out of the Bill as one of the definitive measures. I observe that the noble Lord, in giving his opinion of what the clause provides, says that it shall be the duty of the Court to provide for the education of the child in the religion in which the parent would have the right to have it brought up. That is not the clause. The noble Lord is mistaken in his view of it. The clause says in terms that—
  "The Court shall have power to make such order as it may think fit to secure that the child shall be brought up in the religion of its parent"
  whose legal right it is to secure that the child shall be so brought up. Therefore, the noble Lord will see that instead of its being any statutory obligation or duty on the part of the Court, the Court is simply empowered, if it shall think fit, to make such order as

  431
  the circumstances of the case may require. Personally, I should not be averse to some such provision as I think the noble Lord has in his mind, although the language of his Amendment, if he will forgive me for saying so, is some what vague. I think that what the noble Lord means is that where the parent of a child is, in the opinion of the Court, unfit to be entrusted with its care, and the child is being brought up in a religion different from that of the parent, if the parent has no means to provide for the child being brought up in that religion, there is apparently presented to the Court the difficulty of either allowing it to be brought up in a religion contrary to the wish of the parent or of delivering it up to the parent. I see the point at which the noble Lord aims, but I do not think the difficulty arises. He has, I think, mistaken the effect of the clause. Here, we will say, is a Protestant parent applying to the Court and desirous that his child shall be brought up as a Protestant; the child is being up brought as a Roman Catholic, and yet the Court would have only power to continue it in the custody of a person who certainly would not provide for its Protestant instruction. That is the difficulty in the noble Lord's mind. Well, I do not see the apparent difficulty, but he omits to consider that the whole matter is referred to the discretion of the Court, and I should imagine the Court will exercise its discretion in the best way possible for the interests of the child. It is not for me to say what the Courts might think proper to do; but possibly they might think it better that the child should be brought up in the Roman Catholic religion, although the child of a Protestant, or vice versâ, and taught its moral and religious duties, rather than that it should be taught nothing of the kind at all. It is very likely the Court would come to that conclusion. I will not say what conclusion I should come to myself, though I have a strong opinion on the matter. I doubt very much whether any Court would consent to take the noble Lord's view as to the provision that should be made for children who would have no religious teaching. I am afraid he would encounter a very strong body of opposition, if he were to try to establish a kind of sectarianism in these cases at the expense of the State. But
  432
  I understand that the noble Lord admits the Bill is a useful and desirable one, and let me also call his attention to the fact that this section was agreed to without a Division, by a very large Committee representing both Protestant and Roman Catholic Peers. The religious difficulty did not arise. This religious question is the one question which I believe would be found most likely to imperil this Bill. Do let me, therefore, urge upon the noble Lord not to press his Amendment to a Division. If it passes with the full authority of this House that this the greatest of difficulties, the religious question, has been surmounted, it will go to the other House with a weight which it certainly will not carry if it is only passed by a majority of your Lordships. I do, therefore, again urge the noble Lord, fully recognising that the Bill is of importance and is greatly needed, as he says it is, not to press his Amendment to a Division.
  LORD NORTON: After what has fallen from the noble and learned Lord, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, before the Bill is put before the House for Third Reading, I should like in a very few words to call attention to the immense satisfaction with which the passing of this Bill will certainly be regarded, especially by the vast number of people who have long been engaged in that most difficult and most important philanthropic work—the training of neglected children. Even speaking within the range of personal observation and experience, one can testify to the fact that the difficulties of that work which are intended to be dealt with and overcome by this Bill, are of constant occurrence. The noble and learned Lord has alluded to the future of this Bill in other regions beyond. I am sure that the fact of its having been introduced by himself, and having received the approval of so many noble Lords in this House, ought to afford a very favourable prospect as regards its future. At any rate, it should surely remain free from the criticism that this is a piece of sentimental legislation. I should rather be inclined to think that some of the

  433
  criticism indulged in in other quarters has been of a sentimental kind; I refer to the almost superstitious dread which seems to actuate the minds of some persons of any interference with the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of parents. There is certainly one thing which this Bill will bring before a certain class of parents in a very forcible manner, and that is the responsibilities which they should recognise as attaching to them, and more especially in the matter of paying for the maintenance of their children, who have been brought up in institutions and by charitable people. My object in rising is to express my grateful appreciation of the action of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack in introducing this Bill, and the immense satisfaction with which it is regarded by all classes.
  Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  LICHFIELD CATHEDRAL BILL [H.L.] (No. 6.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  COLONIES (CONFERENCE ON IMPERIAL TRADE AND DEFENCE).
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: In asking your Lordships to agree to the Motion which I shall presently have the honour to read, I do so with a feeling of considerable responsibility upon me. It is not by any means a light matter to ask your Lordships to affirm that it is advisable that representatives of the various component parts of the Empire should be invited to meet together for conference in London. Such a Conference is, in my opinion, only to be justified when there are matters of very grave import indeed, affecting the whole Empire, to be discussed. But I think there are such problems now ripe for solution—problems and questions of a very far-reaching character. I do not mean to say that it might be possible to arrive at a solution of them at any one meeting of the Conference, but there are questions which are clamouring for discussion of a much more authoritative character than can be carried on merely by an interchange of views between private individuals. They are problems of such a character that they can only, be ultimately solved, in my opinion, by
  434
  such an authoritative discussion as could take place in such a Conference as I suggest. I have a good precedent for my Motion. It is only four years ago since representatives of the colonies met in London the Ministers of the Queen to consider weighty matters affecting the welfare of the Empire. That was an event of great moment. It was the first time in the history of this country that the Mother Country and the colonies had ever met together to discuss matters face to face. As long as the British Empire endures the first occasion in which the mother and her children met together to consult must stand out as a remarkable landmark in the history of our race. Whether that landmark shall in the opinion of historians mark the point at which a gradual decline towards disintegration takes place, or whether, on the other hand, it shall point down a long vista of united and peaceful progress, I think depends very much indeed upon the wisdom and the action of the present generation. Probably the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would not absolutely deny that the settlement, or partial settlement, of some difficult matters then in dispute with foreign countries was facilitated by the informal interchange of views to which the occasion of the Conference gave rise. And a great deal of good resulted also—an amount of good which must not be undervalued simply because it cannot be measured or weighed and read within the four corners of an Act of Parliament—from the contact and free interchange of views that took place between representatives of all the colonies and Her Majesty's Ministers. We learned a great deal about the opinions, the wishes, and desires of the colonies, and the colonies probably learned a great deal about each other, and they learned also probably a great deal that they did not know before as to the practical difficulties attending the management of a great Empire. In all these matters, to say the very least of it, as well as in other respects, another Conference could not possibly do any harm. Certain matters which were under discussion at that Conference are still unsettled, and ought to be settled. The Conference, I believe, did a great deal, in the way of defence. A good deal has been done in legal matters;

  435
  Legislation is in progress with the object of enabling Judgments of Colonial Courts to be enforced in this country, and those of the Courts at home to be enforced in the colonies. A good deal has actually been done in matters relating to bankruptcy, probate, letters of administration and the like, and I think I am right in saying that there is practical unanimity as to such important subjects as the saving of life at sea and the Merchandise Marks Act. But other matters are not settled, such as the investment of trust moneys in Colonial Funds, an alternative telegraphic route to the East through Canada, and cheaper telegraphic communication. I might mention many other matters, but I mention those to show that even in practical matters such as were introduced at the last Conference a great deal remains, to be done, and might be usefully undertaken if another Conference were, assembled. But those are, comparatively speaking, small matters. The two subjects, however, to which I wish especially to call the attention of the House are very large and grave matters indeed. If the last Conference was remarkable in what it did, it was also remarkable in what it left undone. The subject of organisation for military defence was the most prominent matter laid down for discussion, and yet, strange to say, very little indeed was done in respect of it. A great deal was done in the direction of increasing the naval resources of the Empire; and the direction which it took was that of providing special ships, a special squadron, for the defence of a certain group of colonies, the expense being shared between the mother country and the colonies interested. I have nothing to say against that principle of applying mutual help localised in that way. On the contrary, I think that is the direction in which the principle should be applied. I believe very strongly in the principle of individuality, and that mutual help and self-help should go together; but at the same time I should like to see the great principle of mutual obligations, of mutual responsibilities, and of mutual help applied in a larger, a more unselfish, and a more Imperial spirit. In the proposition that I shall make, in the propositions which I should wish to see introduced at the Conference, I admit
  436
  that I am coming near the confines of a proposition which I consider to be quite untenable; it may be urged, if mutual help is to become the principle observed, that all the subjects of the Queen are interested in securing that the forces of the Crown should be able to protect them in either offensive on defensive war, and therefore that all the subjects of the Queen should contribute in due proportion to the maintenance of those forces. That is a proposition or assertion which I consider entirely untenable, in practical politics at any rate, because to carry out such an idea as that would necessitate such an amendment and alteration of the Constitution as would amount to a complete revolution. It would require the creation of a Parliament or of a deliberative body of some kind, which should have the power of raising taxes for the maintenance of the forces of the Crown, and, of course, dealing also with questions of peace or war and all other questions in reference to which the forces of the Crown might be called upon to operate. That is a matter with which I have nothing now to do, and I shall stop far short of any proposition of that kind. I think that mutual help can be given and that mutual responsibilities can be kept within strictly defined limits without necessitating any change whatever in the Constitution or without creating any difference whatever of that kind. It is, of course, impossible to say offhand that the British Empire is more interested in any one particular portion of the Empire than in any other portion, or that it is more concerned for one fortress than for another fortress within its limits; but it is easy to see, at any rate, that the British Empire as a whole and every portion of it, individually and collectively, is especially and particularly interested in one matter, and that is the security of our water-borne commerce and our right of access to the markets of the world—in other words, the security and safety of the great highways of the sea. That is a matter which can be treated quite separately and independently of any other operations of war by sea or by land. You may divide the forces of the Crown for practical purposes into three classes: the forces organised for purposes of purely local defence, the regular forces of the Crown, naval and military,

  437
  and the forces maintained for the special purpose of securing our commerce and enabling our merchants to send their merchandise in safety across the oceans. That is a matter which I think concerns all portions of the Empire in a degree and to an extent quite different to the degree and extent in which we are concerned in respect of any other defensive or offensive matter, and on that account I can see no reason why Imperial funds should not be raised for a purpose in which the whole Empire—every portion of it—is so especially interested. What I should like to see done would be that a fund should be raised by the mother country and the self-governing colonies, to be devoted to the proper armament, and maintenance, in a proper state of defence, of certain coaling stations and certain strategic points, and the complete equipment and maintenance of a fleet of swift ocean cruisers. It is impossible for me to pretend to say what coaling stations or other places should be selected to be maintained by such a fund, or what number of ships would be necessary, or of what particular kind they should be, or what amount of money would be required, or what would be the best method of raising the money. But I will say this: that, in my opinion, by far the best way of raising such a fund would be by the imposition of Customs' duties, because I believe that such a plan would work automatically, fairly, and easily; but I admit that it is open to the great objection, from our point of view, that as the amount to be raised would be infinitesimally small as compared with the value of foreign imports, the expense of the machinery for collecting the duties would be out of all proportion to the duties to be raised. That, of course, is a serious matter as affecting a country like this, which has, practically speaking, no ready machinery for collecting Customs' duties of that kind. All those, however, are matters of detail; they would have to be and could only be decided in such a Conference as I ask for. No doubt there might be differences of opinion on such matters of detail, but I have no doubt that they would be got over and adjusted in that spirit of compromise and that spirit of give and take which is so characteristic of a practical race. On the main principle, however, I do not anticipate that there would be any very great
  438
  difference of opinion. I believe that the great self-governing colonies would be glad to recognise that the time has come when, in a matter of this kind, they might reasonably be expected to take upon themselves some share in fulfilling obligations with us. I believe that they would be glad of an opportunity to do so, and I do not anticipate—on the great main principle that it is advisable and desirable and legitimate that a special fund should be raised for this special purpose—that any large difference of opinion would arise. There is another reason which argues strongly in my favour, and that is a matter which is personal to ourselves in the United Kingdom. It is, and I should imagine always will be, a great temptation to all Governments to neglect their duties in respect of those coaling stations and strategic points on account of a desire to appear economical. I should myself be very far from saying that the great spending Departments of the Government are conducted with the greatest economy possible now. I am not at all sure that we taxpayers get the very best value for our money that can be got; but it is possible for a Member of Parliament, and even for a private individual, to arrive at a tolerably fair estimate as to the condition of the Army and the Navy. No Government would neglect its duties too far in that respect, being naturally fearful of the "wrath to come" which would overtake them; but in respect of the arming and protection of our coaling stations and matters of that kind the case is far different. I defy any one of average intellect and ingenuity to find out anything certain about the condition of these coaling stations. They are of the utmost importance to us. We live day by day—we get our daily bread—by our commerce; our commerce in time of war is absolutely dependent on our fleets, and our fleets in turn are absolutely dependent upon the coaling stations and other strategic places which can succour them, and where they can obtain fuel and supplies. The whole safety of our commerce in time of war depends upon those little places scattered about the world which the valour of our forefathers has coloured red upon the map; and yet those little centres of security are practically speaking utterly ignored, and

  439
  utterly unknown to the people of this country. Those places lie altogether outside their ken, they know nothing of them, and, what is worse, it is impossible to bring the existence of those all-important spots belonging to the British Empire and their condition under the focus of the most scrutinising eye. Owing to that and to many other reasons, I say that the temptation of all Governments (and of course I speak entirely in the abstract) to scamp their work in that respect and to neglect their duty is very great; and I submit that it would be to the advantage of the United Kingdom and of the whole Empire that matters of so great importance should be lifted clean out of range of the possibility of being interfered with by any Party considerations whatever, and should be maintained and administered by an Imperial fund, which could not in any way be influenced by Party politics either here or in any of the colonies of the British Empire. My Lords, those are the reasons why I am anxious that this question of the creation of a fund for certain Imperial purposes, that is to say, for maintaining a fleet of swift ocean cruisers and for keeping in a proper condition of defence the coaling stations and other strong positions and fortresses should be submitted to the discussion and consideration of the representatives of the colonies, meeting Her Majesty's Ministers and the naval and administrative advisers of the Crown. I believe that good results would follow, and that if such a fund was formed and maintained, it would introduce a very wholesome principle—that of mutual obligation, mutual responsibility, and mutual help; and I also believe that it would add greatly to the stability and security of our commerce and trade in times of difficulty or of war. That is the first matter which I should like to see submitted to a Conference, and I turn next to another and perhaps a more important matter. I will now deal with the encouragement of trade within the Empire—the desirability of developing the material resources of the Empire. A great deal, no doubt, can be done in that way by greater facilities of communication and matters of that kind; but it is useless to blink the fact that if anything definite and lasting is to be done it can be accomplished only by a
  440
  system of preferential treatment within the Empire. I look at that from three distinct points of view—first of all, the advantage to be gained in developing our resources within the Empire; secondly, from the point of view of counteracting the influences which in their tendency are dangerous to the principle of unity of the Empire, which attract and deflect British capital from profitable investments in the Empire; and thirdly—and most important of all—from the point of view of additional strength which it would give to those ties which already bind the Empire together. It was a subject which was mentioned at the last Conference, and upon which a most interesting and able discussion, or rather conversation, took place, but as it was a matter which was practically out of order and not contained in the reference to the Conference, it was, of course, debated in a more or less perfunctory manner, and the discussion of it was, as it naturally would be, partially paralysed by the knowledge that no practical result could ensue. What I want is to have that most vital question discussed at the proposed Conference with the view of producing some practical result. I do not wish to go into the matter at any very great length, but I must ask your Lordships to consider whether, in view of the general commercial attitude of foreign countries towards this country, it is not at any rate legitimate to do something to counteract the effect of foreign tariffs in attracting British capital? Ought we not to do so if we legitimately can, and especially if, when doing so, we can also accomplish another very desirable result? What is the general attitude towards this country? On every side we see the barriers of hostile tariffs raised higher and higher against us. Consider for one moment the present fiscal policy of the United States, the effect which it has upon British industry and upon Canadian industry, and the effect which it has upon the principle of unity as between Canada and the Mother Country. I do not for a moment mean to say that what is known as the M'Kinley Tariff was designed with any hostile intentions against this country. In fact, the United States have told us over and over again that it was not designed with any hostile intentions against us: and as they say so, of

  441
  course it was not. Still, as a matter of fact, it has very unpleasant results, and of one thing, my Lords, you may be perfectly sure, that is, that not one atom of the stringency of that tariff will be relaxed out of consideration for this country. So great is the patriotism of the people of the United States that I feel sure, whether it be in respect of the provisions of that tariff or in respect of the extremely irksome regulations attached to it, or whether it be in a matter which I have seen remotely mentioned, the granting of increased subsidies to lines of ocean steamers—if they think it necessary to do anything of that kind to benefit their own industries—it may make them very unhappy, but they will manage somehow or other to bear the inconvenience for the purpose of so benefiting themselves, while reflecting that they are inflicting injuries on British and Canadian industries at the same time. I will not argue the point whether capital is deflected from its natural channel by those means. Whether anything can be done to remedy it or not is a matter of opinion, but I do not think the facts will be gainsaid. I will pass very lightly over this, because, after all, the question which interests and which influences me most is the great question of the unity of the Empire. I believe that it is best for the interests of every portion of the Empire, of every colony, of every dependency, and of the mother country, that the great principle of unity should be maintained, and I am firmly convinced that the best and the surest and most lasting way in which it can be maintained is by making it pay to do so, by making it a practical material advantage to them all to remain portions of one Empire. What are the ties which bind us together now? The ties that bind the Empire together are no doubt strong, but, practically speaking, they are ties of sentiment, community of origin, of race, blood, and religion, common institutions and common traditions, all the ties which arise from common ancestry, and very strong ties they have proved themselves. There is one tie, however, and that perhaps, in some respects, the strongest of all, which is wanting—community of material advantage. We must not forget that ties of sentiment must tend to become weaker and weaker. The natural affection of a man for the
  442
  country of his birth, and the feeling of affection with which we all look towards a country where those who are near and dear to us dwell—all those naturally strong human feelings must gradually tend to become weaker. No doubt the sentiment of patriotism in the largest sense will remain, but the actual affection of a people for the place of their origin must become weaker, and all attractions of that kind must tend to shift from these Islands to the various countries which are the actual native land. Now, community of material advantage may sound very sordid and very commonplace, but still, as a matter of fact, it is true that the strongest tie that can bind men together and communities together is that of community of material advantage in matters of trade and commerce. It is perfectly true that trade and commerce are the most fruitful sources of jealousy and of international quarrels, but it is true also that trade makes and cements the strongest feelings of attachment and friendship. Such community of interest can only be gained in one of two ways; either by commercial federation or by preferential treatment. My Lords, I look upon the commercial federation of the Empire as a dream. I do not mean to say it is a dream incapable of realisation; but absolute Free Trade throughout the Empire I look upon, for all practical purposes, as nothing but a dream. But the other—preferential treatment—the granting of special advantages within the Empire, is by no means a dream. That is a matter which can be practically realised and brought into manifest life by a little sacrifice of principle or, might I say, a little sacrifice of prejudice on our own part. There is no physical difficulty in the way. The British Empire can produce everything that man may need. There is not a product beneficial for man that does not naturally grow on British soil. There is nothing that can be made up and manufactured that is beneficial to man that cannot be made up and manufactured on British soil. The British Empire is, or if it is not now, it could very easily become, practically self supporting; and, therefore, in advocating preferential treatment I am not advocating anything supremely or physically difficult. I am not advocating the forcing of industries

  443
  by anything in the nature of Protection. All that I am doing, all that I wish to do, is to endeavour to develop all our natural capacities, all our national resources, by the help of British capital. I desire to do something to counteract influences which are deflecting and dragging British capital abroad, taking it away from profitable investment within the British Empire; and I want to create that common material interest which must—I will not say alone—have a very strong influence in determining the direction in which the component parts of the British Empire will progress and grow in the future. What are the objections? The main objection that I know of lies in the fiscal system pursued by this country. It may be argued that Import Duties are in themselves utterly abominable things, and that no good can ever arise from their imposition. That is a matter which I will not discuss. It may be argued that any kind of departure from our present system must be radically wrong. That is a matter which I will not discuss either. I will grant for the sake of argument that our system is absolutely perfection itself, and I will grant for the sake of argument that it is absolutely wrong in principle to impose any more duties; but even so, I would appeal to your Lordships to consider whether there are not exceptions to every rule—whether there may not be circumstances to justify a departure in one instance from what is otherwise a very sound general principle; and I would appeal to your Lordships to say whether the present is not such an exception—whether the object to be aimed at, the strengthening of the ties which bind the Empire together, would not afford such an exception as would justify us in departing a little from the principles which we may hold in themselves to be in general absolutely true? One thing is perfectly certain, it is impossible for us to remain standing still. In one of two directions we must move. We must move either in the direction of preferential treatment within the Empire or in the direction of preferential treatment for the foreigners. It is not necessary for me to remind your Lordships what are the directions in which those two different courses must lead us. This preferential treatment could be brought about without interfering in the
  444
  slightest degree with the perfect liberty of action of the colonies. They could raise their revenue by any means they liked. They could take any measures they chose for the development of their own resources. They might make any arrangements among themselves. They might, for that matter, if it was thought desirable, make any arrangements with foreign countries. The only thing they could not do would be to give more favourable treatment to goods of foreign origin than to similar goods of British origin. Now I maintain that discrimination in favour of a foreign nation by the United Kingdom against the colonies, or discrimination in favour of a foreign country against the United Kingdom by a British Colony, or discrimination in favour of one colony as against another—I maintain that such acts approach so near to commercial hostility as to be compatible only with the most shadowy ideas of a common allegiance. With this single exception, that foreign goods should not be favoured as against British goods, the colonies would maintain all the privileges and freedom that they now enjoy, every atom of it, under a system of preferential treatment for goods of British origin, as against similar goods of foreign origin. One other matter is very certain, and that is that the initiative must come from us. In the first place the great difficulty in our way lies in our fiscal policy, and not in the commercial policies of any of the colonies; and in the second place I think it is obvious in a great Imperial question of this kind that the initiative should come from the Mother Country, that is, from the heart and brain of the Empire. I think, my Lords, that the present affords a good opportunity. The commercial condition of the Empire is in a somewhat peculiar state. I have already alluded to the M'Kinley Tariff, and there can be no kind of question that the fiscal policy of the United States offers a temptation to Canada to enter into an illegitimate union. There is a sort of political parody of the duel scene in "Faust" going on in North America at the present time. Well, my Lords, there are many other questions which might come under discussion. I believe there is a Committee sitting now considering the Commercial Treaties in force. There are two questions which have exercised

  445
  the minds of people both in the colonies and in this country, and those are the status of the colonies under the Commercial Treaties, how far they are free to enter into any commercial arrangements, their relations with each other—and also a far greater question, that is, how far it would be advisable that the colonies should have a more direct voice in the negotiation of Commercial Treaties. All those matters are at present under discussion, and, in fact, the commercial relations of the Empire are all more or less in a state of suspension, and are waiting for some force or energy which will enable them to crystallise again into definite shape. It would be a great misfortune, to my way of thinking, if the opportunity were lost—an opportunity for using that force or energy which will enable them to crystallise in the best possible way. I admit that it is impossible for statesmanship to run in any way counter to the natural development of the community. All these communities must, and will, infallibly develop in their natural direction according to the genius of the people, and as influenced by natural laws and by their environment and the circumstances which surround them; but statesmanship surely can do a great deal by promptly seizing opportunities, by strengthening the existing ties which now bind us, by supplying those ties which are now wanting, by uniting preference with International Law, and by doing all that is possible to counterbalance and counteract the evil which is being done by the artificial attraction and the artificial stimulus that is now given under the commercial and fiscal systems that are universal in foreign countries. It is quite possible that no immediate result would ensue from the Conference I suggest. I do not mean to say that I should expect the Conference would be able to lay down heads of Bills which should be submitted to our Parliament, and to the colonial Legislatures, or anything of that kind; and I admit at once there is not the slightest use in inviting the Conference to consider matters of that kind if they are to be met by a flat non possumus as to any change in, or relaxation of, the rules of our present fiscal system. But if they can be met with any degree of open mind on that point the greatest good would
  446
  result from a Conference. All those matters of detail which are still unsettled—the effect of the most favoured nation clause upon the arrangements amongst the colonies themselves, the effect of preferential treatment within the Empire, the amount of duties which would have to be taken off colonial produce which is at present heavily taxed by this Free Trade country, the duties which would have to be put on foreign products, the amount of money that would have to be raised and the method of raising it for the creation of such an Imperial Fund as I have suggested—all these matters, and many others, would be discussed and threshed out in Conference, and can only be discussed and threshed out in Conference—hammered out by discussion and brought into such a shape as that they could be submitted to the people in the form in which a great scheme of a national character should be submitted to the people of this country and to the people of the whole Empire. My Lords, I believe that a scheme of that kind would commend itself at any rate to the democracies. Democracies are not slow to grasp large Imperial ideas and are keen enough to see the benefits which would accrue from them. In some respects the idea of instituting an Imperial Fund for certain common purposes of required defence and of steps to be taken in the direction of preferential treatment within the Empire in order to counteract in some degree the effects of foreign tariffs, and the addition of another powerful tie to the ties which already bind us, is an idea which I believe would be quickly grasped, and which would commend itself to the people. They would lay hold of the Imperial idea. The notion of a great Empire occupying the four corners of the earth, advancing steadily in the paths of peace and progress under one flag, exercising complete freedom to develop in every possible direction, according to their own individualities, and, at the same time, knitted together by the great tie of sentiment as well as of material advantage, is an idea which would commend itself, not only to the people of the United Kingdom, but of all the colonies of the British Empire. We should see also that if labour is to be benefited and is to be maintained in a superior position it can certainly best be

  447
  done by the earnest co-operation in all trade and manufacturing matters between those countries in which the most similar ideas are entertained as to the conditions under which labour ought to be employed. All these matters will commend themselves to the people; and what I am most anxious for, what I most earnestly desire, is that those opinions, which are largely shared I think in this country and throughout the whole Empire, but which are comparatively vague and in the air now, should be wrought and brought into a tangible shape and form by discussion in a Conference, so that something definite, something they can understand, might be submitted to the people, not only of the United Kingdom, but of the whole Empire. That is my object, and I trust your Lordships will agree to the Motion which I have now to make.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the Colonial Governments be invited to send representatives to a Conference to be held in London to consider the advancement of trade within Her Majesty's dominions, and the formation of a fund for certain purposes of Imperial defence."—(The Lord Kenry, E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): My Lords, my noble Friend has introduced to the House a subject of great interest and importance, and in doing so he has touched upon a still wider field and upon matters of still more imperious urgency. I shall have no temptation to follow or imitate my noble Friend, for I should fail in the eloquence with which he has dwelt upon the more sentimental and emotional portions of this subject, and I am the less inclined to do so because I think the subject is one which rather lacks treatment of the opposite kind. I have observed that all the questions which attach to Imperial federation while they create naturally the greatest interest and call forth speeches of the greatest power, seem to me to lend themselves more readily to peroration than to argument, and it is rather exactitude of expression and of reasoning that we require in dealing with a subject which may readily lead us astray if we allow ourselves to repose upon vague, sonorous
  448
  generalities. My noble Friend asks us to summon a Conference—a Conference of the colonists; and I have to ask myself what are the considerations which should guide us in summoning a Conference. It is not a matter which can be undertaken by the colonial statesmen who join in it without very considerable inconvenience—inconvenience not only personal to themselves, but which, I believe, extends to the political systems which they work. I believe the eminent men who came over here four years ago found when they got home that political matters had by no means prospered during their absence. And we must remember that this Conference, if summoned, is a Conference purely of advice. They are not a Parliament which can pass Resolutions which will have practical effect. They are not even negotiators, a Conference in the diplomatic sense, which can bind the authorities from whom, they came. The votes they give or any view they may have may be entirely repudiated by each colony from which they are deputed. Under these circumstances it seems to me we should be very careful only to make use of that instrument when we have some definite question to ask and some definite proposition to lay before them, which can be canvassed by the colonies which send them forth before they come, so that they may come here with a definite mandate which we know will be respected and upheld. Any other course, I fear, must lead to confusion. My Lords, I appeal to your own experience. You as a body have the power of summoning a Conference—one of the most august Conferences of the realm. You can summon the 12 Judges to give you advice; but suppose instead of laying before the 12 Judges certain definite questions which you desire to solve you were to merely ask them to give their opinions generally upon certain subjects on which you may be engaged, I am afraid the result would not lead to the explanation or illustration of the law. Now, looking at the Conference from that point of view, I confess I do not see what are the definite propositions which we are to submit to so distinguished a body if we invoke its assistance. My noble Friend has indicated two directions in which the Debates which he wishes

  449
  to evoke would go. The first (I will give it in his own words; he has inverted the Order in his Motion) is the formation of a fund for certain purposes of Imperial defence. Now, of course, when you ask people to come together for the formation of a fund, they generally feel that that will end in an appeal to their pockets. No one imagines, when you ask them to come together for the formation of a fund, that it is for the purpose of putting anything into their pockets, and I am afraid the colonists might answer us:—"Imperial defence gets on very well now—the money comes from somewhere, and if you propose that the colonies should pay less than they do now, well, we do not object to it. But it would be very difficult to form any propositions upon that basis. If you propose the colonies should pay more than they do now," (and one alternative or the other is necessary if you are to propose any change at all)—"we should like to consider the matter at-home for some time before we join your deliberations." I do not think the proposal to ask the colonists to come here to be taxed for larger contributions for Imperial defence would excite that enthusiasm throughout the Empire which my noble Friend seems to anticipate. But there is another difficulty in the way. "Colonies," unfortunately, is one of those vague words which cover so many things. The colonies which ought to be summoned to meet together in conference and which will contribute to this new war fund are the self-governing colonies. But when we talk of coaling stations and the protection of trade routes and the establishment of fast cruisers to protect our commerce we are not thinking exclusively of the self-governing colonies. We are thinking of other colonies as well, and I may say in a greater degree. For instance: I do not know of any coaling stations protecting trade routes which can be connected with our great North American colonies. How could we ask them to join in subscribing money to establish coaling stations for the protection of our trade routes? There are one or two, I believe, in respect of which the interests of our Australian colonies may be invoked; but in the main it is not the self-governing colonies, it is the Crown colonies and our great dependency of India whose trade has to be protected
  450
  by these fast cruisers and coaling stations. I join with my noble Friend in all the anathemas he has invoked upon any Government which from motives of economy neglect them; but I do not think that we should advance the matter by asking the great Colonies of Australasia and of North America to join us in contributing to an expenditure for a system of defence in which their interests are, at all events, of a secondary kind. I do not think, therefore, that we have any proposition to lay before the colonies of a sufficiently definite and fruitful character in reference to the creation of a special war fund to justify us at the present moment in summoning a Conference on the subject. I do not, however, wish to enter into any negative engagements in the matter. I can quite imagine a state of things, whether partial or complete, in which a Conference or certain communications with the colonies may be very desirable; but, speaking merely from the present state of things, and from the circumstanes which now surround us, I cannot see that we have any proposition to lay before the colonies. Now I come to the other, far graver and more important portion of my noble Friend's proposal. My noble Friend's proposal practically is that we and the colonies should enter into a tariff arrangement to discriminate in favour of the productions of the Empire as against those of all the rest of the world. I am not going to use any deprecatory language of my noble Friend's proposal. We are surrounded by discriminating tariffs on all sides. Outside these Islands he is the greatest statesman who can propose the most discriminating tariffs. We have no ground for thinking that the Protectionist wave which has been sweeping over civilised opinion has yet reached its crown, and therefore we must needs speak with respect of such opinion, and we cannot dismiss and simply pooh-pooh any suggestions which are made. Even quite recently the French Committee on the Tariff has recommended, I believe, a discriminating Customs' Duty in favour of the French colonies of as much as 50 per cent. It will be an interesting experiment when it comes to work. My noble Friend's argument did not very clearly show in what light he regarded in the abstract such discriminating legislation. I should rather have said—I

  451
  May be wrong—that in the abstract he disapproved it, but that, as retaliation, as defence against fiscal enterprises which are going on all around us, there was a good deal to be said on its behalf. Well, I am not in the least prepared to eater the lists against him on that subject. I know that I shall meet with a severe critic in the noble Earl opposite when I say that I have never yet been able to see the objection to the principle of retaliation as an essential part of the doctrine of Free Trade. We love peace, but that does not prevent us from keeping up an Army and a Navy, and from using them if necessary. We love Free Trade, but that need not prevent us from instituting retaliatory duties, if those duties should seem to us necessary and expedient. But whilst I have not the least desire or intention of meeting my noble Friend on the question of principle or arguing a very difficult economical question, I wish to meet him on the more familiar and easy ground of political possibility. I ask him to look at the state of opinion in this country, especially the state of mercantile opinion, the state of opinion in our commercial, manufacturing, and industrial centres, the state of opinion, above all, among the capitalists and the most educated classes, and say if he sees the slightest chance within any period to which we have a right to look forward of such a modification of opinion in this country as will enable any statesman, whatever his opinion may be, to propose the establishment of retaliatory duties. It seems to me to be absolutely out of the question. If you wish to set up a discriminating system in favour of the colonies as against the rest of the world, just consider what are the goods on which you would have to levy a heavy duty in this country in order to make that discrimination felt. They are grain, wool, meat. What chance have you of inducing the people of this country to accept legislation which would make these essential articles of consumption susceptible of such tariffs? I see no probability whatever of it. That being the case, I think we should be hardly behaving respectfully to the colonies if we asked them to send to a Conference to discuss a question when we know that the answer which many of them, at all events many of their statesmen,
  452
  would give must be met immediately on our part by the intimation that such a thing is absolutely impossible. Whenever such a modification of English opinion takes place—if ever it takes place—so that this idea of discrimination of duties in favour of colonial produce shall be a fiscal possibility, I, at all events, shall not oppose the wish of my noble Friend to have the matter thoroughly discussed between ourselves and the colonies. But I hold that we are bound, if we ask them to attend a Conference, to lay before them propositions which we believe not only to be salutary, but practicable, and to ask them questions to which practical answers can be given. These conditions, are not satisfied by the present state of things, and therefore for the present we think that the summoning of a Conference is not expedient.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw the Motion; but before doing so, perhaps the House will let me say a few words. As far as I am concerned the noble Marquess attributes to me an intention which I really have not got; that is to say, I do not propose preferential treatment within, the Empire for the purpose of retaliation. I unfortunately differ from the noble Marquess in that respect. I have very little faith indeed in retaliation. I should propose preferential treatment merely for the purpose of encouraging and developing the trade of our own colonies, and for the particular purpose which I mentioned of creating a strong tie for uniting the Empire together. I shall not argue the matter, because the argument would be very lengthy; but so far as I am concerned I wish to enter my protest against the assumption that any duty, or a duty which would be sufficient to give a preference to British goods, would have any appreciative effect whatever in increasing the price of food stuffs in this country. But that would be a large matter to argue. I should have to explain the immense development in the food-producing capacity of the world; I should, also have to explain the great cheapening of practical necessities of life such as tea, coffee, cocoa, and other foods which are colonial products. But I am not going into all that. I simply do not wish it to be supposed that I am a advocating the

  453
  imposition of duties which, could possibly have the effect pf increasing the cost of the necessaries of life to the people of this country.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Ordered, That a Standing Committee be appointed for the consideration of such Public Bills as may be committed to it by the House.

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee.

  L. Privy Seal. (E. Gadogan.)

  L. Balfour.

  L. Foxford. (E. Limerick.)

  E. Cowper.

  E. Stanhope.

  L. Colville of Culross.

  V. Oxenbridge.

  L. Kensington.

  The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at half-past Two o'clock.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, at a quarter past Ten o'clock.