Sitting of 19 February 1904

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the Clock.
UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.

  PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH).
  Mr. SPEAKER Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Beading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz.:—Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Great Northern and City Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Surrey Commercial Dock Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time.
  Kilmarnock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.

PETITIONS.

  LICENCES (RENEWAL).
  Petitions against alteration of Law: from Onslow Square; Moss Side; Rivington; Wallsend; Saffron Walden; Parton; Hatch Beauchamp; Heart Brook; Wolverhampton; Gosport; Havant; Newburn; West Cramlington; Preston (two); Winchmore Hill; Cartmel; Dewsbury; West Allotment; Deptford; Alexander M'Nabb and others; North Walbottle; Mostyn; Port Talbot; Plas-more; Eastbourne; Clayton le Moors; Mossy Lea; Greenock; Noel Park; Belmont; Llangranog; Hermon; Bedford; Tynant; Women's Christian Temperance Association; Manchester; Anfield; Capel Drindod; Five Oak Green; South Ockenden; Dolton; Llandilo; Llan-wchllyn; Liverpool; Carmarthen; Falmouth; Measham; East Somerset;
  444
  I Melbourne; and New Barnet; to lie upon the Table.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
  Petition from Washford, against; to lie upon the Table.
  SOUTH AFRICA (CHINESE LABOUR).
  Petition from Guildford, against establishment; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (NEW SCHEME OF TRAINING).
  Copy presented, of Reports of Members of the Interview Committee on the selection of Candidates for nominations as Naval Cadets [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Loan Societies.—Abstract of Accounts of Loan Societies in England and Wales to 31st December, 1902, furnished to the Central Office for the Registry of Friendly Societies [by Act].
  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, That this House, at the rising of the House this day, do adjourn till Monday next.—(Sir A. Acland-Hood.)
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

    Tanat Valley Railway—Increased Government Grant.
    MR. SEYMOUR ORMSBY-GORE: To ask the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the increased cost of the Tanat Valley Railway in excess of the original estimate, he will recommend an increased Government grant towards the alleviation of the extra local taxation incurred by the local authority.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) This matter is one for the Treasury. If application is made to that Department, and the Board of Trade should be consulted thereon, I will give full consideration to all the circumstances of the case.

    Increased Harbour Accommodation at Anstruther, Fife.
    CAPTAIN ELLICE (St. Andrews Burghs): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the amount of harbour accommodation at Anstruther, Fife, for meeting the present requirements, and to the fact that fishing boats from all parts of Scotland are hampered in their operations, and frequently suffer damage, owing to the congested state of that harbour; and whether he will instruct the Board of Trade Harbour Department to send an engineer to Anstruther, Fife, to examine and report as to the best means of providing increased harbour accommodation there.
    (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) My attention has not been called to the insufficiency of the harbour accommodation to meet present requirements, and the Board of Trade are not in a position to appoint an engineer to advise upon an increase of accommodation; that is a matter which should be undertaken by those who are interested locally, but if a scheme is prepared which requires legislative or other sanction, the Department will be glad to give it full consideration.

    Constitution of Consular Service.
    MR. D. A. THOMAS: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say what progress has been made by the Committee appointed to inquire whether reforms could be made in the manner of appointing Consuls, with a view to obtaining the services of men more familiar with commercial matters than many of our present Consuls are; and, if the Committee has reported, can he state the tenour of their Report; and whether any steps have been taken to give effect to their recommendations.
    (Answered by Earl Percy.) The Report of the Committee recently appointed to inquire into the Constitution of the Consular Service has been laid before Parliament. The recommendations therein contained have been approved by the Secretary of State subject to slight modifications, and he is in communication with the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury with a view to giving effect to them as soon as possible.

    Aliens Working in British Coal Mines.
    MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that 4,000 Polish Jews are working in the coal mines of Great Britain, most of whom cannot speak English, and of the danger involved thereby to the safety of the lives of British miners, he proposes to take any steps to prevent these aliens working in British coal mines.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My information differs somewhat from that of the hon. Member. This matter has engaged the attention of the Home Office for some years. Careful inquiry has been made from time to time by the Mines Inspectors for Scotland, where the bulk of the foreigners are employed—some 1,200 out of a total for the whole country of less than 2,000—and there is no evidence before me to show that these men are a cause of danger to the other miners employed in the same mines. I have satisfied myself that adequate steps are taken at the mines where they are employed, to instruct them in their duties. The matter will continue to be watched by the inspectors; but on the information before me I am not prepared to take the steps suggested by the hon. Member.
    MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will grant the Return relative to Underground Mines (Great Britain) (Foreigners Employed), standing on to-day's Paper.†
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) According to the information supplied to me by the inspectors of mines, the employment of foreigners is confined to a few of the inspection districts, and the numbers employed are approximately as follows: in the two Scottish districts 1,600 Poles and a few Germans; in English districts, some ninety Italians and seventy Poles, Germans, and men of other nationalities. A special Return, the
    †Underground Mines (Great Britain) (Foreigners Employed)—Address for Return stating the number of Foreigners and their nationality working in the Underground Mines in Great Britain.

    447
    collection of which would involve a considerable amount of work, and which could not be relied on for complete accuracy, as there is no obligation to keep records on this point, appears in the circumstances to be unnecessary.

    Electricity in Mines—Report of Committee.
    MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any opportunity will be given to the House to discuss the departmental recommendations of the Electricity in Mines Committee Report, presented to this House on 28th January; and will he say when the minutes of evidence will be available for the use of Members.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I am not aware of any reason for departing from ordinary Parliamentary procedure in this matter. I appointed the Committee to advise me on the subject of the use of electricity in mines for the purposes of my duties under the Mines Regulation Acts, and it will be open to any hon. Member to discuss, on the Home Office Vote, the action which I take on the recommendations made by the Committee.

    Irish Valuation Committee.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask Mr. Attorney- General for Ireland if he can state when the Select Committee on Irish Valuation Acts, as recommended by the Select Committee of last session, will be reappointed.
    (Answered by Mr. Atkinson.) I should hope next week.

    Increase of Pay to Joiners in Naval Ordnance Departments.
    MER REGINALD LUCAS: To ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he can state why the increase of pay conceded to the joiners in His Majesty's Dockyards has not been extended to the joiners in the Naval Ordnance Departments as on previous occasions.
    (Answered by Mr. Arthur Lee.) The Admiralty have recently decided that this increase of pay is to be extended to the joiners in the Naval Ordnance Departments, and the necessary instructions will shortly be issued.

    Indian Native States administered by Political Agents.
    SIR MANCHERJEE BHOWNAGGREE: To ask the Secretary of State for India if he has received from the Government of India information as promised by the then Secretary of State on the 25th June† last, in answer to a Question as to how many of the native States of India, the territory of which exceeds 100 square miles, are, or up to the end of last year were, under the administrative control of political agents on account of the infancy or incapacity of the chiefs of such states; and what has been the increase in their number during the last five years.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick. I have been informed by the Government of India that the local governments and administrations have been instructed to furnish the information. I am asking that the matter may be expedited.

    Construction of Pier at Buncrana.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the question of the construction of a pier at Buncrana, county Donegal, is still engaging the attention of the Irish Government, as stated by him on the 14th August last; and, if so, has any progress been made since then.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Yes, Sir; the question is still under consideration.

    Irish Ancient Monuments, Greenan Hill.
    MR. O'DOHERTY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland what has been the result of the negotiations between the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland and the proprietor of Green an Hill with reference to the vesting of this ancient monument in the Commissioners.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The owner of this monument has not yet intimated his willingness to vest the guardianship in the Commissioners.
    † See (4) Debates, cxxiv.,542.
    ‡ See (4) Debates, cxxvii., 1290.

    Gun Licences in Ireland—Case of Mr. James Flynn.
    MP. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that a memorial has been presented to His Excellency signed by magistrates, Roman Catholic priests, Protestant clergymen, and other local residents in Queen's county to the number of sixty-four, recommending Mr. James Flynn, Gosbrook, Mountrath, for a gun licence, he will state upon what grounds Mr. Flynn has been refused a licence; and if he will request the resident magistrate to reconsider this application.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Mr. Flynn was informed by letter, dated the 8th instant, that the Lord-Lieutenant saw no sufficient reason for interfering with the discretion vested by law in the resident magistrate, who felt himself unable to issue a licence to the applicant.

    Promotion of Police at Belfast.
    MR. SLOAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of police promoted, and to what rank, since the present Commissioner of Police in Belfast took charge; and how many were Roman Catholic and Protestant.
    (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The following promotions to the ranks mentioned have been made since 1st December, 1901:—

    Roman Catholic.

    Protestant.

    District Inspector

    --

    1

    Head Constable.

    4

    2

    Sergeant

    9

    9

    Acting Sergeant

    22

    17

    Total

    35

    29

    3rd. Battalion King's Royal Rifles.
    CAPTAIN ELLICE: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why only twenty of the married
    450
    men of the 3rd Battalion King's Royal Rifles, who are now under orders to proceed to Bermuda, are to be allowed to take their wives and families there; and whether he is aware that these men have been home from South Africa less than a year, having been separated from their families for three and a-half years.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) Accommodation for twenty families only can be found in the fortress of Bermuda for this battalion. Additional married quarters, however, are being provided in Bermuda under the Military Works Loan.

    Sale of Surplus War Stores—Actual Receipts.
    MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how much of the £3,000,000 appropriations in aid from the sale of surplus animals, supplies, and stores is realised receipts from actual sale and how much is estimated.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The reply is that practically the whole of this amount has been actually realised and brought to credit.

    Indian and Colonial Contributions to the Army.
    MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state how much of the £200,000 increased Colonial and Indian contributions in the Army Supplementary Estimate comes from India and under what charge, and from which of the Colonies does the remainder come.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The amount is made up as follows:—Balance due from India on contribution for effective Home charges for 1902…3 (only three of the four quarterly payments have been brought to account in that year), £65,000. Increase in military contributions from Hong-Kong £11,000, and Straits Settlements £24,000 (owing to rise in dollar and growth of revenues), £35,000. Miscellaneous credits arising on the adjustment of the South African War Accounts, £100,000.

    Erection of Barracks at Dingwall.
    MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that although the depot of the 3rd Battalion Seaforth Highlanders (Ross-shire Militia) is nominally at Dingwall, part of the staff only is stationed in that town, the arms and clothing of the battalion being kept at Fort George, where the battalion is trained; and will he consider the expediency of arranging for the erection of barracks in the vicinity of Dingwall so that the whole of the battalion may be accommodated near the county town.
    (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) There is no present intention of building barracks at Dingwall.

KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
[FOURTEENTH DAY.]
Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Main Question [2nd February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign,—
"We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Hardy.)
Main Question again proposed.
MR. KEIR HARDIE, in moving an Amendment expressing regret that His Majesty's advisers had not seen fit to recommend the creation of a Department and Minister of Labour, said there was always a difficulty in convincing a large and influential class section of the community that there was such a thing as the unemployed trouble. The assumption was that men who were able and willing to work could always get work. If that were the case there would be no reason whatever for troubling the House of Commons with the question, but unfortunately the assumption was not correct. Further, the theory was sometimes propounded that the unemployed were in the main confined to great centres
452
of unskilled and sweated labour like the East End of London. That also was incorrect. The figures of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade showed that in 1903 the percentage of unemployed of all trades making a return was 5·1. In the building trades (in 1902) it was 4·2, in the shipbuilding trade 5· 5, and in the printing and bookbinding trades 4·6. In 1899 the corresponding figures were for all trades 2·4 per cent., for the building trades, 1·3, for the shipbuilding trade 2·4,and for the printing and bookbinding trades 3·9. The object of quoting those figures was to show the fluctuation which took place in our staple industries. In Lancashire the case was exceptional. The distress in the cotton trade due to shortage of employment was due to circumstances over which unfortunately the House had no control, but he hoped that before long there would be some means of stopping the gambling in cotton options. It was a scandal that speculators should be able to gamble on the Stock Exchange not only in scrip, stock, and shares, but also in the lives and comfort of thousands of their fellow subjects. With regard to particular districts, the condition of the shipbuilding trade was a fair index of the condition of many others—for if the shipbuilding yards were full, the iron, engineering, coal, and various other trades were all benefited—and in that trade, in the districts of the Clyde, Tyne, and Wear, the tonnage under construction showed a decrease of 36 per cent. last year as compared with 1899, and that, of course, meant a considerable reduction in the number of men employed. According to the figures supplied by the principal trades unions, the number of engineers employed in the districts concerned decreased from 19,782 in 1899 to 18,966 at the end of last year, boilermakers showed a decrease of 5,000 in 1903 as compared with 1901, while the shipwrights reported a decrease of 1,520 in the same period. These figures showed that the lack of employment was not confined to the East End of London, but was general throughout the country. Nor was the problem of the unemployed a British question only; it was worldwide in its extent. In America, on the Continent of Europe, and in the Colonies,

453
the same problem faced social reformers and statesmen, and cried aloud for solution.
It would probably be said that alien immigration was largely responsible for the present condition of affairs. It might be that in one or two specific and local cases, such as in the East End of London and in certain parts of Leeds, the foreigner did compete successfully with the British working men, and that in those cases employment for the Britisher might be more plentiful if aliens were scarcer, but that had no bearing whatever on the question he was endeavouring to put before the House. It was not alien competition, but shortage of trade, that caused lack of employment in the shipbuilding, engineering, and iron works, and the stopping of the incoming of aliens was not likely appreciably to affect the gravity of the unemployed trouble. In view of recent discussions, it would probably be said that free imports were responsible for the depression in trade. That was a stronger case. He regarded with considerable appreciation the fact that the ex-Colonial Secretary should have raised this question in the prominent way in which it had been raised of late, as it had directed attention to social and industrial problems which must be faced if our national existence was to be maintained. But the remedy propounded would but increase the trouble of which they complained. In Germany, as against our 4·4 per cent., the number out of work was 11 per cent., and in parts of America, such as the State of New York, the number for certain trades was as high as 17 per cent. The condition of the worker in those protected countries was as the position of the worker here: he got as much for his labour as his trade union and the state of the market could extort or obtain, and nothing beyond. The condition of the German worker had considerably improved within the last ten or twelve years, but the improvement was due almost entirely to the better trades union organisation of the workers, and not to the fiscal policy of the country. Protection, so far from increasing, would materially diminish the amount of employment in the country, and would make life harder for the toilers of the land.
454
Whilst saying that, he must not be taken as accepting the point of view of those who held that free trade had solved our social problem. It had not. Much remained to be done—much that would be in direct conflict with the theories underlying the free-trade agitation. So long as nearly one-third of our population were living either in poverty or on the edge of poverty, the condition of the working classes could not be regarded as satisfactory. Free trade offered no remedy for that state of affairs: it maintained the status quo, but he preferred the status quo, bad as it was, to the horrors which obtained under protection early in the last century.
What were the powers possessed by various authorities for dealing with this question? Local authorities were straining their resources to the uttermost in the endeavour to find work for their people. But that was really no part of the duty of a local authority. Necessary works might be put in hand during periods of depression, but it was usually a costly method of carrying out local improvements. Municipal authorities should be free to carry out their improvements at times most suitable and under the best conditions, and not be more or less compelled to carry out such works during periods of trade depression, in order to tide over the workers who were otherwise unable to find employment. Boards of guardians were the only authorities at present empowered to deal with the question. The foundation of the Poor Law in England was to provide work for the able-bodied unemployed and relief for the incapable and sick. It was no part of the theory of the English Poor Law that relief should be given to the able-bodied. Boards of guardians had the powers originally conferred on the vestries, to the extent that each board might acquire 50 acres of land, establish workshops, equip those workshops with machinery, employ men at wages to carry on manufactures, and sell the produce He submitted that they could do that without any taint of Poor Law attaching to it; that was to say, no disfranchisement would follow. As showing how much England had departed from its ideal in this matter, he might quote an interesting

455
document issued by the Secretary of State as far back as 1694—
"Mandate issued in 1694 addressed to the Overseers of the Poor and to the Churchwardens for the setting to work of all the poor within your parishes. By virtue of this statute made in the three and fortieth year of the Reign of our late Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth for the relief of the Poor: These are to will and require you, whose names are here underwritten, that you, together with the Churchwardens of your Parish for the time being, do according to the same statute, take order from time to time, (for this year to come) for the setting to work all the Poor within your parish (as well married as unmarried) that are able to work, and have no means to maintain themselves, nor use no ordinary and daily Trade of Life to get their living by. And also for the placing out as Apprentices all such children within your said Parish as are fit to be put forth, whose parents are not able to keep and maintain them. And also for the raising of a convenient stock of Flax, Hemp, Wool, Thread, Iron and other necessary Ware and Stuff in your said Parish for that purpose; and also for the providing of necessary relief for all such Poor within your said Parish, as are Lame, Old, Blind, Impotent, and unable to work, wherein if you be found negligent, or shall fail to meet once a Month to confer together for the purpose aforesaid, then you are to forfeit 20s. apiece for every Month that you shall be found remiss or careless therein. And therefore see that you fail not in these Premises at your peril."
That was a State document issued about 1694. He hoped the day was not far distant when a similar document would be issued to local authorities carrying due punishment for remissness of duty.
What were the trades unions doing to meet this? He had quoted figures showing the number of unemployed among shipwrights, boiler-makers, and engineers. He would now quote the amount paid by them last year, not for strike pay, or superannuation, or sick benefit, but exclusively to those unable to get employment. The shipwrights paid £6,000, the boilermakers £90,000, and the Amalgamated Society of Engineers £22,000. If they turned to the Board of Trade figures for all trades unions in the ten years ending 1901 it would be found that 100 trades unions paid out-of-work benefit to the extent of £3,280,755. Out of their own pockets the trades unions helped their unfortunate fellows to the extent of nearly £3,500,000 in ten years. Surely then the State should have no hesitation in attempting to do its duty when the private individual was endeavouring to do so much. To show the gravity of this
456
question and the importance attached to it by local authorities he wished to refer to a conference held in February last in the Guildhall. At one of its sittings it was presided over by the hon. Member for South Islington, the Member for Cambridge University being also present, as well as a good many dignitaries of the Church and gentlemen prominent in connection with local government. At that Conference there were present 587 delegates, of whom 123 were councillors sent by the various councils. The Corporation of the City of London, the London County Council, and the City and Borough Councils of such important centres as Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Bradford, Newcastle-on-Tyne and Wolverhampton were all represented. That gathering sat for two days and certain resolutions were carried. The main resolution was to the following effect—
"That this Conference (a) realising that the interests of industry are the paramount interests of the community, and that the problem of the unemployed should be dealt with in a sympathetic as well as in a practical manner, urges upon the Government (b) the necessity of appointing a Minister of Labour with a seat in the Cabinet, one of whose duties it shall be to organise a special department of his office to deal with recurring periods of depression and distress, to watch for and to notify indications of approaching lack of employment, to supplement the Board of Trade statistics, to obtain and to disseminate information as to places where work can be had, to help in distributing labour where it is most needed, and, above all, to devise and promote measures for the temporary and permanent utilisation of the unemployed labour of the nation."
Then it goes on with recommendations which he would deal with later on. This Conference, representing the boards of guardians and the great city councils of large centres of population, passed this resolution with absolute unanimity, and as their spokesman he suggested the creation of a Labour Department. They passed one other resolution. It was somewhat lengthy, but in view of the importance of it the House would perhaps pardon him reading it. It was as follows—
"That seeing the President of the Local Government Board has power under existing laws to group parishes and unions to carry out such work as they individually are able to do under the powers conferred on them by Parliament, and as such power is frequently used by the Local Government Board to form

457
districts for dealing with the sick and children, this Conference is strongly of opinion that the Metropolitan area should be formed into one district to be called the Metropolitan District for dealing with able-bodied destitution, and that to this body all the able-bodied applicants for relief should be sent, whether such applicants are vagrants or residents of their respective parishes. This Conference further points out that as each parish has power under the Act of William IV., N2 Chap. 42 to buy 50 acres of land it would be therefore for such a body representing all London and vested with all its powers to buy a considerable quantity of land north, south, east, and west on which to put the able-bodied to work intead of as now to stone-breaking, oakum-picking and the like useless tasks. It is therefore resolved that the Right Hon. Walter Long be asked to at once issue the necessary Order to give effect to these proposals."
That was the resolution, and he hoped the President, seeing that this was purely a question of administration, and called for no legislation, would be able without delay to give effect to this scheme. If the various parishes throughout the country were empowered to group themselves together for dealing with this question their combined power would be very much greater than when separately applied.
He now came to the practical remedies. He was afraid that many of those whose sympathies would induce them to deal with this question, were held back by the fact that they believed that there must necessarily be a large and permanent unemployed element as an indispensable adjunct to the present methods of production. The larger the number of men out of work the more easily could wages be reduced, and if the time should come when every man willing to work should have within his reach the opportunity, the effective power of the worker to improve his condition would become very great indeed. Mere temporary dealing with this question was no solution for it, the amount of work to be performed must be permanently and considerably enlarged, and with all due respect to what might be the opinions of others he submitted that it could only be done by turning on to the land of England a very much larger portion of the population than now found employment thereon. The proper cultivation of the soil of Great Britain would to a very large extent solve the unemployed question. So long as trade and agriculture were
458
allowed to flounder along without regard to the national wellbeing then he felt there could be no remedy for the state of affairs which they were now discussing. Every other country in Europe and America was devoting increasing attention and expenditure to the proper teaching and training of those who had to cultivate the soil, and here, whilst they were spending unlimited money in connection with military affairs, they were starving industry and standing idly by while agriculture was going to ruin. That state of affairs should not be allowed to continue. As he had indicated last year very considerable additional powers would be required by local authorities for the acquisition of land, for organising and training labour upon the land, and for making the life of the labourer more agreeable, as it could be made, and thereby doing what had been done in Denmark by this means. There, by this means, not only had the influx of population from the country to towns been stopped, but the flow of population had been actually reversed back again to the country. If that could be done in Denmark with such excellent effect that it improved the condition of the people and brought happiness and wealth to that nation, surely it could be done in this country. He would not dwell upon this aspect of the land question because the facts in regard to it were pretty well known.
He would seek to concentrate attention on a matter that more immediately concerned the Government, and which could be undertaken without loss of time. He referred to the question of afforestation. The total import of wood in all its various forms was something just under £20,000,000 a year. That was a serious matter. He was to this extent in the fullest sympathy with those who advocated fiscal changes, that wherever an article could be produced within our own shores it should be so produced. We should not be dependent upon outside agencies for that which could be produced with profit and advantage at home. The question of timber came well within that category. He would tell the House what was being done in Germany. He found from a report by the British Consul at Stuttgart that out of a total acreage of

459
135,000,000 no fewer than 35,000,000 acres were planted with woods and forests. Two-thirds of that area were owned by the State, and the planting was done by the State direct. It might be alleged that this would involve an expenditure of money. He would come to that in a moment. He wished to point out that in Germany the profits each year from these forests ranged from £15,000,000 to £18,000,000. Surely, if we could, by a judicious expenditure of capital secure a return to the State of £10,000,000, £12,000,000, or £15,000,000 a year in addition to finding our own wood and employing our own labour, that was worth making an effort to carry through. Germany was not the only country that had set an example of this kind. India was also in a like case, and the profits there from the growing of wood were from £5,000,000 to £6,000,000 a year. That had been accomplished since 1863, when systematic planting in India was first undertaken. In Saxony the net profits from what was said to be not very advantageous land for the purpose, after paying the cost of labour and interest on capital, was 38s. per acre. The value of that land for agricultural purposes was only 4s. per acre. The same kind of thing was being done all over European countries, our own colonies and many of the States of America were seriously considering the question, because there was a danger that the wood supply of the world would shortly show a shortage as against the demand. The price was bound to increase unless steps were taken to meet the demand. On 17th January last year The Times said—
"In India the earlier phases of British rule were as unmindful of scientific forestry as we always have been, and still are in this country. The results were so disastrous and so menacing that in 1864 the Forest Department was established. Dr. Schlich, the Professor of Forestry at Coopers Hill and a member of the Committee whose Report we are considering, gives in the supplement to the Encyclopædia Britannica a brief account of the labours of this department. 'The progress made since 1864 is,' he says, 'really astonishing.' Thousands of square miles of Indian forests are now under its control and have been preserved and managed to the great advantage of the climate, agricultural and general rural economy of India. It has been a revenue earning institution from the outset. In the first five years of its existence, from 1865 to 1870, its mean annual nett revenue was 1,372,733 rupees. In the last five years for which
460
returns are given by Dr. Schlich, 1890 to 1895 it was 7,370,572 rupees. The percentage of increase during each quinquennial period from 1870 to 1895 has been 30 per cent., 25 per cent., 52 per cent., 50 per cent., and 45 per cent., respectively.
That had been done, by the application of scientific methods under State authority, with the forests of India. Surely the Government under whose auspices this was being done in India might well seriously consider whether something similar should not be done at home. He had mentioned already the Report of the Committee appointed by the late President of the Board of Agriculture whose loss this House deplored. He was a man of large and generous heart, wide sympathies, and intensely practical in his methods—a man who, if spared, would undoubtedly have made the Board of Agriculture an efficient means for aiding in the development of the agricultural resources of the country. Under his auspices a Committee was appointed to consider whether any measures might with advantage be taken by the provision of further educational facilities, or otherwise, for the promotion and encouragement of afforestation and the planting of wood. The Chairman of the Committee was the hon. Member for the Leith Burghs, and it included Members on both sides of the House, and authorities on arboriculture. He would read two of the recommendations of the Committee.
Paragraph 7.
"As regards the question of the extension of the forest area, it is shown on the highest authority that there is in these islands a very large area of waste, heather and rough pasture or land out of cultivation, amounting in all to 21,000,000 acres on a large proportion of which afforestation could be profitably undertaken. Regular forest book-keeping is rare in Great Britain; but we believe the various estimates of profit obtained from the cultivation of timber, which have been laid before both inquiries, to be substantially correct. These show that excellent returns, even with indifferent management, have often been obtained from plantations formed on land of little or no value for any other purpose."
Paragraph 12 said—
"The present condition of existing woodlands has been repeatedly and clearly reviewed by many eminent authorities. It is the common verdict that timber of the kind and quality imported in such large quantities from the Baltic and similar temperate regions can be grown as well here as anywhere; in fact, it is a matter of common knowledge that European 'red wood' and 'white wood,' so highly esteemed for structural purposes, are yielded

461
by the Scots pine and the spruce, two of the commonest trees of British woodlands. That foreign is so generally preferred to home-grown timber is in no way due to unsuitability of soil or climate, but is entirely due to our neglect of sylvicultural principles."
He hoped the House would get some information as to what was being done to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee. He wished to know whether extra facilities for the training of foresters, and extra means for the equipping of suitable establishments for that purpose were being, or were likely to be, provided; whether the recommendation of the Committee that this matter should be undertaken by the State, and should not be left to private individuals, was likely to be acted upon; and whether the waste Crown lands which were suitable for this purpose were being utilised by the Commission of Woods and Forests as the Committee recommended they should be; and whether the Commission of Woods and Forests, or any other Department of the Government, had commenced to collect statistics as to areas presumably suitable for afforestation. If these statistics had been collected the House would then be in a position to know where the work could be commenced. That would be one step at least towards the work being undertaken.
As to the financial side of the question they would probably be told, as they were last year by the President of the Local Government Board, that those who were always preaching economy were at the same time clamouring for expenditure for the carrying out of their own fads and opinions. He clamoured urgently for the expenditure of public money for public purposes, but he did not do so in the sense of asking the State to spend money in any eleemosynary form. It was not charity that was asked from the State. They were endeavouring to get those responsible for the Departments to understand that by the proposed expenditure they were not throwing the money into a sea of blood, resulting from quarrels that never ought to have arisen, but expending it for a purpose which would benefit the State, and also be profitable from a purely commercial point of view. This was investing not spending. Let the House suppose that there was a Government
462
in office sympathetic with this matter and determined to deal with it. Let it be assumed further that of the 21,000,000 acres of land which the Committee in their Report said was available for the purpose, and which was now lying practically idle, the Government acquired 10,000,000 acres. He was led to understand by those who knew, that such land could be acquired for 10s. an acre. A large part of that land was in Scotland and used for game-preserving purposes. There might, therefore, be a difficulty in acquiring it. But he hoped that we had reached a point when the well-being of the working people was of more importance than the sport of American millionaires. He assumed that that land was acquired at 10s. an acre, which would involve a capital expenditure of £5,000,000. The cost of planting would probably be, in this country, £3 per acre, making a further expenditure of £30,000,000, or a total outlay of £35,000,000 for acquiring and planting 10,000,000 acres with trees suitable to be grown in these islands. If that were done it would be a profitable investment. Private individuals had tried experiments on these lines. One specially referred to in various works on the subject, was that undertaken by the head forester of Lord Powerscourt. That nobleman's estate in Ireland was planted and the portion which formerly only produced 10s. an acre for agricultural purposes produced a rent of £1 under timber. But Lord Powerscourt in his testimony admitted that by plantations the value of the surrounding agricultural land had been increased by 25 per cent. The best figures attainable seemed to indicate that forests increased in value at the rate of from 10s. to£1 per acre per annum. Assuming that only 10,000,000 acres were increased in yearly value to the extent of 10s. each, in fifty years that would amount to £250,000,000. In other words, the investment of £35,000,000 would produce a return of £250,000,000. Therefore, from a commercial point of view, there was nothing to be afraid of from an experiment of this kind, while it would give permanent and profitable employment to 150,000 men. In Germany the forest employment maintained 400,000 persons.
He now came to his last point, viz., the establishment of a Ministry of Labour.

463
He knew that there was a difference of opinion, even amongst those who usually worked together on labour questions, as to the advisability of that measure. The chief danger that seemed to be in the minds of some of his friends was, that if a new Department were created, with a Cabinet Minister having a seat on the Treasury Bench, he would be more probably a Minister of Commerce than a Minister of Labour. He quite frankly acknowledged that if it were proposed to appoint a new Department whose duties would be divided between commerce and industry he would oppose such proposal. Already we had a Department specially charged with attending to the interests of commerce. He meant the Board of Trade. He found that Murray's Official Handbook to Church and State" described the duties of the Board of Trade to be—
"To take cognisance of all matters relating to trade and commerce, to advise other Departments upon such subjects, the Foreign Office in commercial matters arising out of treaties or negotiations with foreign States, the Home Office with respect to the grant and provision of charters or letters patent by the Crown, and the Treasury in matters connected with the Customs and Excise laws; also to superintend the conduct of all Bills and questions before Parliament which relate to commerce, and to exercise some control over all private Bills so far as the protection of the public interests is concerned."
The Board of Trade was therefore a Commercial Department of the Government. He proposed, in connection with the Ministry of Labour or Industry, to relieve the Board of Trade of its duties in regard to labour. He would not say one word which would, either directly or indirectly, appear to reflect upon the efficiency of those who were at present in charge of the Labour Department of the Board of Trade. They discharged their duties with consummate skill, with great conscientiousness, and with great ability. He had nothing but praise for the way in which they performed their work. But he contended that an interest so important, so wide-spread, so far-reaching as that of 'labour, should not be confined to a mere corner of the Board of Trade, and should not be treated in the niggardly fashion it now was under a responsible Government. But he asked that a new Department should be called into being, or rather that the present Department should be
464
enlarged, to be specially charged with the responsibility, not merely of collecting facts and figures, but of seeing to the proper administration of existing laws relating to labour. The new Minister should take over duties such as those of factory and mines inspection; and take a part in framing a code of Labour Laws for this country which, instead of being as it now was infinitely behind those of foreign countries and especially of our colonies, would set an example to the world of what a labour code should be. He would not dwell on that side of the new Minister's duties, but confine himself exclusively to what should be or could be done by such a Minister for the unemployed. One section of his Department might be specially charged with the responsibility of attending to the needs of those unable to find employment. Special bureaux should be established all over the country, where a man out of work, and who wanted work, could register his name. In that, there would be a complete index as to the state of employment all over the country. The new office might also seek for and suggest schemes of reclamation, schemes of afforestation, that great public works should be undertaken, especially during periods of depression, under State auspices or authorised by the local authorities affected. They all felt that at the present time the powers given for the employment of the unemployed were inadequate, and that the machinery for carrying out any sensible proposal did not exist. The Labour Department, with these special duties, would be able to advise and assist the local authorities to combine and coordinate the various efforts made to find employment for men out of work. There were a hundred and one ways of making it easier to the local authorities to grapple with this question than they could do at the present moment.
The right hon. Baronet the Member for Forest of Dean, he understood, objected to the proposal that there should be a new Cabinet Minister. The right hon. Baronet thought that there should be rather a reduction in the present number. His reply to that was that the increase in the number of Government Departments was a necessity arising out of our complex and growing civilisation. The more we extended our area, and the more our influence and

465
activities increased the greater became the demand for adequate and proper supervision. With a small country, a small Ministry would be sufficient; but where the interests of commerce, labour, and education, and the like, became so great as they had become in this country, then that economy of labour which was recognised by all industrial authorities, and which made for efficiency, namely, subdivision, should apply to Governments as well as to workshops. Each Minister should be called upon to do one thing, and be held responsible for the intelligent doing of that thing. Therefore the argument that we should not increase the number of Ministers did not apply to his proposal in the least.
As to the cost, he hoped no Member on either side of the House would mention that as an obstacle. If a thing was desirable the money could be found. He admitted that the expenditure of the country was alarmingly great, but he repeated that was because the money was spent in a wrong direction, which did not add to our greatness, which added doubtful elements to our strength, and which threw a burden on the community for no adequate result. What he and his friends pleaded for was that money should be spent in such a way as to give comfort and happiness to the oppressed and heart-weary, and give to every man the inalienable right of man—the opportunity of earning an honest living by his own labour. They asked that the resources of the State should be used to bring about that result. All down through the ages the pathetic figure of a workless man had been commented on. He was the human Christ whose crouching figure bore the accumulated sorrows of our complex civilisation; who was always being sacrificed and crucified in the interests of commercial greed. Surely in these days of abounding wealth, the time had come when some determined and systematic effort should be made to remove this reproach of strong men and women being found hungry and homeless. Scarcely a week passed that we were not horrified to read of men and women committing suicide simply because they were workless and starving. What a reproach it was! We often spoke scornfully of the dark middle ages, but in those
466
dark middle ages there was not that horrible kind of trouble which we now experienced. There was generally a rude plenty all over the land, and the monasteries gave shelter to the poor. He feared that in days to come it might be said that the present age of wealth and great commercial prosperity was the really dark age, because men were allowed to die through the lack of employment. He would conclude with one quotation from a speech made by the late Lord Salisbury in May, 1895. In this speech at Bradford Lord Salisbury said—
"You know the difficulty of the unemployed is rising in the south. There are vast masses of men who have no evil will, against whom no harm can be stated, who have only this one wish, this one demand—that the labour which they are prepared to give should be accepted, and bare sustenance given them in place of it, and to whom it has been necessary, from sheer want of employment to give them, to return a disappointing answer. We pass those things over. We express them in brief language. We do not take note as the information flies rapidly under our eyes. We do not take note of what misery, what despair to men, what utter despair to women and children, what physical suffering is involved in those frightful facts. I feel that as long as the problem of the unemployed presents to us the features it has shown during the last winter, we cannot say that our conscience as statesmen and politicians is discharged if we do not vote for an attempt, at all events, to solve it with the utmost time and the utmost energy in our power. … He did not say that he had any patent or certain remedy for the terrible evils which beset us on all sides, but he did say that it was time they left off mending the constitution of Parliament, and that they turned all the wisdom and energy Parliament could combine together in order to remedy the sufferings under which so many of their countrymen laboured."
That appeal he endorsed, and he asked the House of Commons as representing the nation, and representing, as it professed to do, the glory and greatness of the Empire, to turn its attention from the Imperial aspect of the case and to come down to the domestic aspect, and to see that every man born within the shores of these Islands should at least be provided with an opportunity of working for that living which he could not do without. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.
ME. CROOKSsaid that after the masterly and eloquent speech of his hon. friend, who, it seemed to him, had covered the whole ground so far as

467
the economical aspect of the question was concerned, he might be permitted, perhaps, to deal with the personal aspect of the whole business. It was frequently said that in this country of ours the people were divided into two classes—those who were willing to work and those who were willing to allow them to do so. That being so, he thought they were entitled to come face to face with the powers that be, and to ask them to provide an opportunity to work for those who were willing to do so. There were two or three classes of unemployed in this country. He would deal with but two. He would not deal with the rich unemployed; they had been animadverted upon pretty strongly during the last two or three days. But when the Minister responsible for this Department came to reply presently he would, no doubt, begin to argue that the Poor Law as it now stood was well able to cope with any exceptional distress. He would also say, no doubt, that they needed fiscal changes. It had perfectly truly been asserted that we had still to realise that the penny loaf was dear if one had not a penny with which to purchase it. Yet the proposal now before the country was to raise the price to three halfpence by putting a tax upon the commodity, in order to give the working man a better chance. The ex-Colonial Secretary indeed had gone further, and had asserted that they ought to have a responsible Minister who could survey the whole labour world and find work for the working men of the nation. The surprising thing about it was that the Government proposed to settle the unemployed difficulty in the Transvaal by introducing half a million of Chinese, in spite of the fact that, according to the information we already possessed, there were thousands upon thousands of willing workers out there who, however, could not naturally be induced to work for a mere animal existence, and who, therefore, from the Government point of view, were to be excluded from any consideration in that House or anywhere else. They would also, no doubt, be treated to the argument that men were unwilling to work, they would have pointed out to them the loafer who did little or nothing, and who was an endless expense to the whole community. It would further be said that the willing
468
worker could always find work to do. That, however, was not true, and that it was not true was recognised by the Local Government Board, which, from time to time, issued Orders to the boards of guardians to find "useful" work for able-bodied paupers. What character of work was thus provided? These able-bodied paupers were housed and fed better than the liberty loving workman, and in return they were called upon to pick a fixed quantity of oakum. Was that a lucrative investment of labour? No, the truth was that not infrequently people were paid to bring the oakum to the workhouse, and after the paupers had picked a ton the material was returned free of charge to the firm which had sent it in, and the cost to the ratepayers for that amount of work thus done was not covered by a less sum than £10. Surely that could not be called "encouraging" useful labour.
They had vainly tried to induce the Local Government Board to help them to deal with that class of men, whom he preferred for the moment to call the flotsam and jetsam of the labour world. They had also asked the Board to assist honest attempts to provide useful employment for honest workmen, but they were always met with stories such as one of which he happened to be the originator. They were told of a man who applied to a foreman of some works for employment, and who, on being informed that there was difficulty in finding work for those already engaged by the firm, replied that what he would do would not make much difference. Of course, originally the application was made by a man who was applying for piece and not day work, but still the story was told as applying to day employment in order to impart the sting to it. Then, again, there was the man they were so frequently reminded of who, when he woke up in the morning asked his wife if it was raining, and who on receiving a reply in the negative put the further inquiry, "Does it look like rain"? To that the answer was "No," and he promptly rejoined, "Then I wish it was Sunday." This was the class of men who made it so difficult for them to deal with the unemployed problem. He had long been agitating to get established

469
some organised system of dealing with the unemployed, and occupying the position he did in connection with one of the big unions he had often been blamed by these loafers because he had declared that he desired to provide work for the worker, and not to provide assistance for the loafer. Whenever any suggestion was made to the Local Government Board as to a solution of this problem, a series of inquiries were addressed to them, and they were finally asked whether it would pay. Again, if an enterprising board of guardians made any practical suggestion for dealing with able-bodied paupers, they simply got the reply that the Department were seriously considering the question. That was the invariable reply, and he thought that if he were the head of the Department he would have that answer printed instead of taking the trouble to write it time after time.
A man in the house would, if the guardians broke the law, at once say he would report them to the Local Government Board. This sort of man took his discharge when a ship came into port, and went and fought his better brother who was trying to keep a house over the head of his wife and children, and being neat and clean he was usually given the preference over his better brother; he got his day's wages which he spent in drink, and then at night came back to the house and said he was a destitute person, and then if the guardians refused him admittance he said he would report them to the Local Government Board. His board of guardians had refused them, and had sent them down to Hadleigh Farm, where the Salvation Army was doing such excellent work, to do field work, but when they got there they used to say they did not think they liked the look of that and went away, and with the outfit with which the guardians had presented them they paid their way back to town. One man who did this they took before the magistrate, and charged him with neglecting to maintain himself, he then said he was willing to work, he was only too anxious to work, but they had no work to give him. He assured the House that if the able-bodied man went into the workhouse, every hour he remained there he became more degraded and demoralised. Under the present workhouse system, with its
470
habitual casuals, it was difficult to compel wasters and tramps to work; but if the Local Government Board would unite districts and enable guardians to take land, and put their flotsam and jetsam on to the land, and give them power to keep them there, something might be done to make useful labourers of them. [A Voice: Chinese labour.] He knew that meant an alteration of the law, but the House had already assented to the proposal to keep Chinamen in a compound. He would appeal in this matter to the Empire builder. It was estimated that there were 30,000 tramps on the road, and 61,000 able-bodied paupers in England and Wales. Surely if 30,000 of these men could be trained to a useful knowledge of agricultural work, "they would be a useful class of man to send to Canada. He was strongly of opinion that if the guardians could compel able-bodied men to work on the land they would get rid of the tramp element very quickly, because if it was known that there were colonies where these men could get useful employment the promiscuous charity by which they were more or less maintained would be stopped. Everything that was done now played into the hands of the habituals, and not into the hands of the unemployed who were genuinely anxious for work. With the creation of a Department and Minister for Industry much could be done, as much ought to be done, to assist the deserving. Most people engaged in industry could tell within two or three years what was going to happen, and such a Department would be able to foresee events, at all events, to a certain extent, and to make some provision to meet distress.
As to thrift, it was all very well to save on £18 a week, but it was a very different matter when the wage was only 18s. They could not make such a show upon that as one could desire. There was a phrase in that part of the town in which he was connected that summed up the situation exactly. That phrase was, "We are in and out regular." In his experience there always had been a lot of casual labour, and so far as he could see there always must be; it was the old, old story that in that neighbourhood they knew only too well "Monday plenty, Tuesday some, Wednesday little, Thursday none, never mind Friday, we shall draw our

471
money on Saturday." That was the average life of the British workman. The accumulation of wealth in the country did not pan out to the advantage of the working man. In times of industrial depression, the man who went without was the working man, and his wife and children. He had nothing but the Poor Law to fall back upon; and the moment he touched that it demoralised and degraded him. There was a general impression that when work fell off the first man to be discharged was the old man. That was not his experience. He lived among his own people, and in times of depression the first man to approach him was the comparatively young man. He was discharged because he had lost time and had not paid attention to his work. The next man to be discharged was the old man, but he had been diligent at his work, and his master endeavoured to keep him on as long as he could. When the old man came along things were awfully bad. The old man called in October or November when trade was falling off; and then had before him a hard winter with absolutely nothing except what he got from his trades union. Notwithstanding all the attacks on them, trades unions did something to help men in distress. Indeed, 61 per cent. of the expenditure of trades unions went in benefit to the sick and unemployed. At the commencement of the winter the old unemployed man was a simple, kindly, obliging person who said he would be satisfied if he could only get three days work a week. He would say he was about to move from three rooms into two. At election times that man was told he was the backbone of the British Empire, and that his fore fathers fought and bled to make this country. That man made aheroic struggle to keep his little home over his head. One thing went, then another, not for the father or the mother, but for the children. He himself heard a mother say, "It is no use telling young children that father is out of work. They don't know anything about it, and we have no right to inflict the burden on their little minds." Watch the man who was kindly pleading for work in October through the winter. In February he was demoralised and degraded and a bully. He would say he
472
was an Englishman, and if something could not be done for him, it was time there should. On writing to the President of the Board of Trade, he himself would be told that the matter of employment was still under the consideration of the Department. A right hon. Gentleman said, and he agreed with him, that labour was not a section or a class. It was the whole nation; and the nation had to depend on it. The well-being of the whole nation was dependent on the Government. In his childhood and early manhood he believed that Parliament existed for the express purpose of protecting the weak and the helpless, and seeing that no one went without the common necessaries of life, and that the country was made a little brighter and better. Later experience however, convinced him that Parliament looked after the people who were well able to look after themselves. The well-being of the people should be the first consideration of the Government.
What could a Minister of Industry such as his hon. friend suggested, do in a time of industrial depression. Indeed, such a Minister should not wait for a time of depression, for after all, statesmanship claimed to foresee many things which, however, were not always foreseen. When a man in private employment broke down, his employer might say he could not help it, and that he had the Poor Law to fall back upon; but with Parliament it was different. A Minister of Industry could send to any governing body in the country when there was a dearth of employment and ascertain what work could be undertaken (1) for the locality if a loan on reasonable terms were advanced; (2) at the expense of the county rate; and (3) at the expense of the National Exchequer. Throughout Great Britain there was considerable work remaining undone, which, if done, would provide employment and be a benefit to the whole community. Look at the rivers. Many of them were silted up because some person or other could not afford the expense. If they were cleared and embanked their value would be increased, and the work would give employment. Then there was the reclamation of slab and

473
waste lands and the encroachment of the sea on various parts of the coast might be prevented. These works could be taken up in times of industrial depression, as they could be dropped when the position improved. Assume that there were 10,000 men idle on the Tyne. The Minister of Industry would send down an inspector to inquire into the work that was proposed and on his report the Minister would decide whether it should be undertaken at the expense of the locality or of the National Exchequer. It would be the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to earmark a certain sum of money, in such years, for dealing with the unemployed during times of depression. Surely it would be better to give a man honest work than charity, which was always demoralising and degrading. He himself did not know how it felt to have a lot of money. He did not back horses; but if a man backed the right horse he would imagine he would say "Easy come, easy go." The same thing applied to charity. When a man got so low down, degraded by want of employment, he lost his manhood, he did not care what became of him, and simply swilled beer whenever he could get it. He believed the House was not only sympathetic but desired to be practical. It wasted an awful lot of money every year in experiments, but here was an experiment really worth making. By the creation of a Department that should organise work throughout the length and breadth of the land and keep docketed in its proper place, for use in emergency, information which could be availed of in periods of commercial depression, the blood and sinew of the people could be kept up, instead of things being allowed to go until the people were so degraded that they were unable to do work when offered it. Something should be done for those who could not help themselves. He asked the Government to accept the Amendment. It was not a vote of censure; it simply called the attention of the Government to a slip of the memory in drawing up the King's Speech. That was nothing to be ashamed of; the best of men sometimss did the same thing, and he hoped now that they had been reminded of it they would have the
474
moral courage to stand up and accept the Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
"At the end of the Question, to add the words,' And further we desire humbly to express our regret that, in view of the distress arising from lack of employment, Your Majesty's advisers have not seen fit to recommend the creation of a Department and Minister of Labour fully empowered, inter alia, to deal effectively, acting in conjunction with local administrative authorities, with such lack of employment, mainly by the execution of necessary public works, afforestation, and further by encouraging an increase in the numbers of those employed in agricultural pursuits.'"—(Mr. Keir Bardie.)
Question proposed: "That those words be there added."
COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid he wished it had been possible to treat this as a non-Party question, but that was absolutely impossible because no Amendment to the King's Speech could be accepted by the Government. The precedent quoted of a few years ago was not one they would be inclined to follow now. One would have thought that upon a question involving so much misery and suffering it would have been possible to treat it from a non-political point of view, but a long acquaintance with the House of Commons convinced him that it was impossible that such a question as that brought forward by the mover of this Amendment could be treated on non-Party lines. They had listened with the greatest interest and sympathy to the speeches made by the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydvil and Woolwich, which were moderate in their character, and obtained the respectful sympathy of both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil with quiet dignity, and the hon. Member for Woolwich with a good deal of that humour which characterised him, showed that they were dealing with one of the most painful subjects, namely, the misery and suffering of what had been described as "the submerged tenth." Those speeches had produced the greatest possible effect upon this House, and sympathy from the Ministerial Benches was just as great as upon the other side of the House. They had been told of the hard case of the man who wanted work, and was willing to work but could not find employment,

475
and that the cause of honest labour was prejudiced by the existence of an undeserving class. Unfortunately the latter must always be a disability under which labour suffered, but as long as such men as the hon. Members for Battersea, Merthyr Tydvil, and Woolwich were prepared to tell working men that they did not plead for the idle scoundrel and the drunkard, he was sure there would always be sympathy for the deserving class. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil did not dwell upon the faults of the Poor Law, but the hon. Member for Woolwich did. Anyone acquainted with the outline of the Poor Law must be aware of its inability to cope with all the distress and misery that arose from time to time. Both sides of the House, when in power, did their best and adopted any fresh laws and rules for the better conduct of Government Departments that were possible and seemed to them to be wise. It was very easy to chaff a Government Department by quoting the familiar reply that "the matter was receiving the serious consideration of the board." That might lend itself to laughter, but it was often very true and the Local Government Board were frequently trying to solve problems which every day got more pressing. Every man who was worthy of being a Member of Parliament must agree with the view that charity degraded a man and the workhouse was the worst possible abode for any man who was willing to work. On that point he thought both sides of the house were absolutely agreed. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil said there were 12,000,000 of unemployed in this country.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: What I said was that there were 12,000,000 in poverty and on the verge of poverty, whilst 5 per cent. of the total number of workers were out of work.
COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid perhaps he might be allowed to refer to some other Jemedy, and no doubt the hon. Member opposite would prefer even the condition of things he had described, to life under the old system of protection. Even those like himself who viewed with favour the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham never dreamt in their wildest moments that it was possible that they would ever
476
revert to those days which he agreed were painful and terrible to the people of this country. Such a thing would never be tolerated and the working classes of this country were never likely to be reduced to the pain and suffering which they went through in the old days. The hon. Member opposite had suggested municipal workshops as a remedy. He was afraid that after the trial of that remedy in France they would not be tempted to adopt anything of the sort in this country. Sometimes he had had occasion to feel that he could not accept all the doctrines of trades unions either as useful to trade or as making the way of the workmen or the masters smoother. But they all recognised the fact that trades unions had played a most important part in this country, and were more likely to play a greater part in the future. Without trenching upon what must naturally be delicate ground he had always understood from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the trade of England at the present time was in the most flourishing condition, that there was no need for any attempt at fiscal reform, and that matters if left to themselves would remedy themselves. They had heard from the Labour Members facts about the want of employment and distress amongst the working classes, and he hoped he should have the pleasure of hearing what the hon. Member for Battersea had to say upon this question. They must eliminate the waifs and strays and the jetsam and flotsam from the class of men they were talking of. He should like to hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they recognised the fact that there were many thousands of men at the present time out of employment, and, if so, they were only echoing in a still more marked manner than the Member for West Birmingham the contention that all was not well with our trade at the present time. They never protended that the trade of England was ruined, but it was not as prosperous as it should be. Hon. Members opposite said that the ex-Colonial Secretary's proposals were not likely to benefit the workmen, but at all events the right hon. Gentleman had put forward a concrete proposal which he had had the courage to lay before the country, whilst on the other hand very few remedies had been put

477
forward by those who opposed the Member for West Birmingham's scheme. The hon. Gentleman opposite had proposed the creation of something like penal Chinese colonies, but he did not believe the House was likely to* accept such a remedy.
With regard to the agricultural labourer he might say that farmers had been visited with the most disastrous winter and spring that most of them could remember. Consequently, they had to add that to the disadvantages under which they were labouring at the present time. He thought they ought also to have some regard for those men who toiled with very little reward in the country, and whose future was often the most miserable that it was possible to conceive. The agricultural labourer dragged out a miserable existence upon insufficient wages and amid unhealthy surroundings, and he was worthy of the sympathy of the House. At the present time there was very little hope for the agricultural labourer. The resources of the farmer were exhausted by misfortune, and the population from which they used to draw the best men for the Army and Navy were in a deplorable condition. Were they going to leave the agricultural labourer with his scanty wages and miserable home without attempting, at all events, to do something for him. So long as they left the agricultural labourer to flounder along there was but little hope for them. With regard to the question of afforestation he agreed that there was a quantity of wood used in this country imported from abroad which might be grown with advantage, if with profit, in this country. He did not, however, think they could compare the great tracts of land in Germany and France, where there were huge areas covered with pine, with the lands in England. He did not believe for one moment that the land in England could be profitably employed for the purposes of afforestation. For instance, they could hardly take the moorland of Scotland as likely to afford remuneration to the man who afforested such land. They should also remember that the amount of labour employed per acre on afforested land was very much less than on land under corn or crops of any description. It should not
478
be forgotten that the Government had always been searching for land upon which to conduct Army manœuvres, and a certain amount of open space was absolutely necessary for this purpose. The hon. Member for Woolwich said that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board would probably tell them that this evil arose through want of thrift amongst the working classes. If there was more employment and more constant work thrift would be increased because the wretched man would have something to put away. The hon. Member for Woolwich also said that the President of the Board of Trade would probably tell them that 30s. a week was a princely income, but he did not believe that anyone would advance that theory for a man who had to keep a wife and five children. He agreed that the tasks set in workhouses were not a remedy which ought to be applied to the unemployed. He wanted to see in England employment for every man, and a state of things under which no man would have to look about for work which he was ready to do. Those who had spoken upon this subject had proved to them absolutely that there was depression. He echoed that sentiment and believed in it, and it was because hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House believed that trade was not flourishing that they had ventured on a course which they thought was absolutely necessary to remedy this state of things.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he did not think that there was any need to mix up the question of fiscal reform with this question. Nobody, not even the most hide-bound Cobdenite, would argue that in the matter of trade all was for the best in the best of all possible worlds; but he and those who thought with him did argue that the proposals of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham were likely to do harm rather than good, and to lead to a diminution rather than an increase in the amount of employment. If it could be proved that those proposals would lead to increased trade and employment, hon. Members on the Opposition side would be the very first to adopt them. They had listened with great interest to the very

479
moderate speech of the mover of this Amendment, and they had also listened with especial interest to the racy speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich. This was not in any sense a Party question. He thought neither Party had up to now faced the facts and attempted to deal with them in a broad and generous spirit. They all admitted that the matter was one of urgency and importance. It was of urgency, because each recurring winter there was great distress among the unemployed in the different parts of the country. Fortunately there had been an open winter this year, or, at all events in London, there would have been a very great deal of distress. There was one point to which the House ought to pay some attention. His hon. friend had called attention to the fact that the great trades unions of the country had in the last ten years spent upwards of £3,000,000 in relief to the unemployed, thus enabling them to keep their homes together while they were out of employment. He could not go into that question now, but the whole of the trades unions were absolutely threatened, and unless this House came to the conclusion that in view of recent legal decisions, legal protection should be given to trades unions, he was afraid that the sums which had hitherto gone for the relief of the unemployed, would go into the pockets of the employers in the case of industrial disputes and strikes. This was a serious matter, for, after all, it was the trades unions which had helped to keep down the number of the unemployed.
The practical proposals of the Amendment were threefold. In the first place, the hon. Member desired the creation of a special Department which would deal with labour problems; in the second place, he desired to give the State power to deal with such questions as afforestation; and, in the third place, he desired to give greater power of combination to local authorities to deal with questions affecting the unemployed especially, and to give them power for the acquisition of land in order to enable them to find employment as necessary. He agreed that if this question was to be dealt with at all effectively, it must be dealt with to a certain extent under the control of a
480
central Department working through the local authorities. He could not see what objection there could be on the part of the Government to giving greater powers of combination and grouping to the different local authorities, in order to enable them to deal more effectively with this question than they were able to do at present as individual bodies. It was not possible to have this matter properly dealt with by isolated local authorities. If one local authority dealt with it, and a neighbouring authority neglected it, the only result was that there was a greater rush of workers into that particular district, to the disadvantage of those who were attempting to deal with it on a proper basis. This was more especially the case in regard to London. He should like that the President of the Local Government Board had power to combine the different borough councils and others into one body for such purposes. He very much doubted whether under existing Statutes he had that power. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to have the power conferred on' him of dealing with the question in London, and of giving to the local authorities the power of combining and organising for this and other purposes. The argument in favour of treating London as a whole in this matter was a very sound one, for it was already recognised as a whole under the Equalisation of Rates Act. He thought there was very considerable feeling in favour of extending that system still further. Thanks to the ordinary circumstances affecting a great community, some parts of London had become and were becoming ever richer and less populous and others poorer and more populous and unless London was dealt with as a whole there was danger of an unjust weight falling on the poorer parts to the relief of the richer. His hon. friend desired that these grouped bodies should have power to acquire land in order that work, and especially test work, might be carried on under the authority of municipal labour departments for the benefit of the unemployed during periods of special depression when they were not able to obtain other work.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Epping Division said that the

481
hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment advocated municipal workshops.
COLONEL LOCKWOODsaid that what he stated was that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment advocated the giving of power to local districts to give municipal work.
MR. SYDNEY BUXTONsaid he heard the hon. Member read extracts in regard to municipal workshops in other countries, but he did not understand him this afternoon to advocate municipal workshops here, though he might have done so on other occasions. What the hon. Member advocated was the taking of people out of the towns and putting them on the land in different parts of the country. That was a very different matter altogether. He was aware that municipal workshops had been tried and that they had certainly failed, very largely because they had not been carried on under proper inspection and because the result of their having been opened in certain places had been to attract labourers from other parts in order to go into these municipal workshops. Harm had been done in that way by attracting labour away from where, in the ordinary way, it might have been employed to places where it was artificially in demand. The work proposed by his hon. friend in connection with the grouping of local authorities would not only provide for the unemployed but might he made reproductive. With regard to afforestation he must congratulate his hon. friend the Member for the Leith Burghs, who was chairman of the Commission on that subject, on the fact that he had shown in his own person that afforestation could be carried out on business lines and made profitable. There was, at all events, no objection in principle to very considerable steps being taken on the lines indicated by the mover of the Amendment. Several recommendations had been made by the Commission, and if they could he carried out they would certainly lead to a considerable amount of employment and to the supply of this country with raw material for our own manufactures. Only a day or two ago a Question was
482
asked in regard to Government subsidies for the growing of cotton in different parts of the Colonies. He was glad to hear both sides of the House cheer the proposition. With regard to the fiscal question, free-traders quite as much as retaliators were in favour of growing raw material as far as possible within the Empire. If what his hon. friend the mover of the Amendment proposed could be done on a proper and sensible basis he would endorse the proposal. That was a particular and practical matter with which a Government department could deal.
With regard to the proposal for the creation of a Department of Labour he would like to say that he did not agree with his hon. friend in the view that there was room for a single department to deal solely with labour questions. He had some sympathy with the Amendment and desired to vote for it, but he wished to guard himself against being; committed to the actual proposal that there should be a separate and distinct Department of Labour. He thought, however, that there was great room for a rearrangement of the offices of the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board and the creation of new departments in their stead. He was one of those who were strongly in favour of the creation of a Commercial Department. But besides this he would like to see the creation of a department, one of whose principal functions would be to deal with labour questions. His hon. friend the Member for Woolwich had referred to the duties of such a department when created. He thought everybody would admit that it would be an advantage if the labour portion of the Board of Trade was transferred to the Local Government Board and if that department were made more powerful than it was at present. No one had any desire to throw any reflection on the work of that department in the past. So far as it had opportunity it had done most admirable work. But if such a department as he had suggested were created it might have considerable effect in dealing not only with the unemployed question in towns but also with the position of the agricultural labourers, with whom they all sympathised. Though he did not

483
suppose that the proposals in the Amendment would be an absolute remedy for the lack of employment, he held that they would be a real palliative for evils which they all admitted to exist.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid everyone would sympathise with the object of the Amendment, and although it had been explained that it was not intended as a vote of no confidence in the Government, there was no doubt that if a division took place and if the Amendment were carried it would be regarded as a vote of censure on the Government. He thought we already had enough Government departments, and the only question was how they should be adequately administered and brought up to date. The seconder of the Amendment had said that the officers of the departments should be adequately paid. The hon. Member would find that the officers of the Board of Trade consisted of a Comptroller-General with a salary of £1,200 a year, an assistant labour commissioner, and about twenty other gentlemen whose salaries ranged from £700 to £1,200. He did not think that anyone would say that this particular department was up to date, or that it formed a bureau wherein everyone who was seeking employment might obtain information where that employment could be found. He would point out that the real remedy was to appoint a Minister of Commerce and Industry. At the present time there was a Committee sitting and considering the various forms of work that might be undertaken by such a department with a Minister at its head.
MR SPEAKER: The Amendment is only about a Minister of Labour The hon. Member is now discussing the Board of Trade and a Commercial Department.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIR: I am now discussing the commercial intelligence branch of the Board of Trade.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has a notice of an Amendment on that point. If that is reached he will have an opportunity of discussing it, but he cannot discuss it now.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he had very little hope of that Amendment being
484
reached. He would confine himself to the remarks made by the mover and seconder of the Amendment before the House. He reminded the House that a proposal for the appointment of a Minister of Labour was made in 1893. He would point out to the hon. Member who moved the present Amendment that it would be a very difficult thing indeed to have a separate Minister to deal with the Factories and Workshops Acts, the housing of the I working classes, and probably old-age pensions, and various other matters which pertained to industry apart from the Commercial Department of the Board of Trade. He thought there must be a sub-division of that important work. They had heard that commerce, trade and industry went hand in hand, and that one could not exist without the others. It was imperative, therefore, to recognise that the question was essentially a complex one. It was admitted on the other side of the House that the trade and prosperity of this country were not so great as they might be. He had heard also that the number of unemployed was on the increase, and that there were 12,000,000 either in want or on the verge of starvation. Would a Minister of Labour be able to deal with this matter without being in absolute touch with the matters which were now dealt with by the Board of Trade? Surely the Board of Trade required a head who would deal exclusively with statistical information with regard to labour? In the north of England it was noted last year that in some towns there were numbers of unemployed, while only a few miles away factories were working half time owing to the owners not being able to get men for them. With regard to the agricultural classes, hon. Members were aware that it sometimes happened that crops were allowed to lie on the ground because farmers were not able to get sufficient labour. People did not care to take labour which was inadequately paid. The House was moved by the appeal of the hon. Member for Woolwich as to the wastefulness of this. It was, he thought, in great measure due to the fact that trades unions made such hard and fast rules with regard to labour that many people in winter were not more employed. They all recognised the admirable work done by trades unions, but

485
he thought it was unfortunate that they did not permit men, however good they might be, to accept a higher wage than other men who were less competent. If one man did double the work of another he did not receive double the wage the other man received. He would suggest to his hon. friend that if he could amend the rules so that the good workman would receive a little more than the bad workman he would do something to improve the conditions of labour.
MR. CROOKS: That is so now. It is only the minimum wage that is fixed, not the maximum.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid the minimum was very often the maximum. He did not know the exact amount paid to a carpenter, but he would suppose that it was 11d. per hour, and that the ordinary wage paid to a labourer was 7d. per hour. He considered that the difference was enormous, and if 11d. was the wage necessary to keep a family, 7d. was not. His point was that there were carpenters and carpenters. In taking a building contract an employer struck an average, and paid not more that 11d. per hour, though he might very often find among the men one who was worth 1s. 3d. or 1s. 4d. per hour. But if he paid that man 1s. 3d. or 1s. 1d. per hour he would find that he would have the greatest difficulty with the trades unions.
MR. CROOKS: That is not so.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid he would give an example. He had a man in his employment to whom he paid 1s. 3d. per hour, because he considered he was worth it, but this gave great dissatisfaction to the others and they left. When work was resumed he had to pay these men the same wage all round.
MR. CREAN: I could give you evidence of quite the reverse.
MR. LOUIS SINCLAIRsaid it was not that they had not got every sympathy with the lot of those who could not obtain employment, but he did not think the hon. Member would attain the object he had in view by moving an Amendment which was practically a vote of censure
486
on the Government. They knew the admirable work done on the Continent for trade and commerce, especially in France, where, likewise, a Government department dealt with the differences that might occur between employers and employed. He certainly thought that the question should be thrashed out as to whether the Board of Trade was an efficient department and up to the times. He himself thought that it was not an efficient department, and that as at present constituted it was impossible for it to deal adequately with all questions relating to commerce, industry, and labour. It ought to have various sub-departments, and if his friends, who had this question deeply at heart, would force on the Government an inquiry as to the various functions of the Board of Trade, they would do more good probably than by the vote of censure.
MR. MUNRO FERGUSONsaid he should certainly hesitate to support a proposal to create a new department, but he would strongly support a representation to the Government showing that certain departments had not done what they might have done for labour At any rate, there was one industry, that of afforestation, which must be directly promoted by the State, if labour was to obtain its full advantage from it. This was a subject in which he had long taken a practical interest. He had served on two inquiries in connection with it. That were the facts? We imported timber and timber products of the value of nearly £30,000,000 a year. Our home production of timber was small; he thought it amounted to only 2,000,000 tons a year, and the value was not large, because there had been no instructions in the art of growing timber in this country. They could not increase timber growing by protective tariffs, because tariffs did not teach the people how to grow timber. As a matter of fact timber preferences were the last to be taken off. There was a considerable protective duty on timber till 1860, but the heavy duties on the timber taught us nothing, and left no mark behind on our woodlands, which were the despair of anyone interested in them. He excepted a few parts of England which were under coppice. There were portions of beech coppice in

487
Buckinghamshire which showed a profit of £2 an acre. He also knew one or two patches in Scotland where timber was properly grown. The area available for timber growing was enormous. In his own country there were between 19,000,000 and 20,000,000 acres, only one fourth of which was under agricultural occupation; the rest was rough pasture and heather. In England the rough pasture and heather amounted to 5,000,000 acres. He always regretted that under the Land Purchase Act of last year nothing had been done for State afforestation. He was sure that timber could not be properly grown in this country unless the State took direct action. It must provide facilities for teaching, and hold woodlands of its own, properly managed. Private owners were not disposed to lay out money in the afforestation of waste land, because the capital had to lie too long before it came again. Moreover, it was impossible to get good timber without continuous good management. There was no example in this country of a succession of private owners who had managed their woodlands successfully, and therefore there was an opening for State action.
In Germany, 1,000,000 of the population were dependent on the production of timber, and 3,000,000 were dependent on the manufacture of timber and timber products. In the Southern German States there were 1,000,000 acres returning a net income of £1,000,000, which showed the result of State action, and good management. It had been shown quite clearly that owing to the exhaustion of the best American forests, and the excellent way in which timber could be grown here, that it would be an act of common prudence to make provision for a large extension of our woodlands. If a remedy was to be found for the present state of things in this country, it could not be provided by the existing departments. A Forestry Department should be created with power to buy land, and plant it. He believed there were 10,000,000 acres in this country which could be put under timber to produce £1 per acre. We imported a great deal of wood-pulp, and £18,000,000 worth of coniferous trees, which he believed could be perfectly well produced at home. He was perfectly confident that if suitable
488
areas were afforested we might have a population of 750,000 dependent on those employed in the woodlands, and the raw material thus provided would feed great industries, which would support an even larger population. There had been a great diminution of late years in the rural population in this country, and the same process had been going oh in France and Germany. He knew of no other means of restoring the people to the soil except through afforestation under a State department.
MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he hoped they would not go to a division on this subject. Many of them who sympathised with the subject under discussion would not vote for what was practically a vote of censure on the Government. He wished to say a word or two in connection with the mistaken arguments which had been used on certain details and statistics quoted during the debate. These statistics were misleading, unless accompanied by explanation. In Germany, France and the United States there were no workhouses; in Great Britain there were workhouses, as they knew to their cost. If the unemployed in the workhouses (he did not include the unemployable) were added to the statistics it would immensely increase the number of unemployed in this country. It was a matter of common knowledge that the statistics of the unemployed in Germany, France, and America were not to be depended upon. Those who were engaged in businesses like his own got more than a glimpse of what took place behind the scenes. Steamers were cosmopolitan; they traded not only with England, but with all other countries in the world. His own business was done principally with Argentina and the other South American Republics. The carrying lines to these countries, British as well as foreign, worked under an agreement in regard to rates, which were so arranged that no country had any advantage over the other; but the foreigner was protected in his home market, and was beating us, in his opinion, out of the field. He had only recently returned from a business visit to Brazil and Argentina, and he had seen a notable change there

489
during the last two years. The manufacturing business, which used to give employment to our own people, was now done for themselves by these countries.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The hon. Gentleman is not in order in discussing the fiscal question. The subject of discussion is not the causes of the want of employment but whether a Minister of Labour and a Department of Labour should be appointed.
MR. DAVIDMACIVERsaid that he did not wish to be out of order; he only wanted to show that the facts which came under his own personal knowledge afforded grounds for his contention that the Board of Trade should be so strengthened as to enable it to include an adequate Department of Labour rather than that a separate Ministry of Labour should be set up.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid there was no one on that side of the House who did not recognise the importance of the subject under discussion, or who did not sympathise with everything that had been said by the hon. Member for Woolwich. But as the Amendment to the Address was, by the Rules of the House, a vote of want of confidence in the Government, no one on that side of the House could vote for it, even if they supposed that the Amendment moved from the other side of the House would achieve the result they desired to bring about. He had heard the greater part of the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich and he congratulated him on the extremely able and moderate manner in which he had put his case before the House. The views laid down by the hon. Member emphasised the position always held on that side of the House, viz., that the real aim and object of everyone who had the welfare of the working classes and of the whole community at heart was to endeavour to find permanent employment for the people. He was surprised that the hon. Member for Woolwich should have proposed that there should be compulsory detention on the land.
MR. CROOKS: Only for the habitual able-bodied pauper.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he perfectly understood that the hon. Gentleman only wanted to put men who would not work on to the land and compel them to work. The question for consideration was whether the appointment of a Minister of Labour would bring about that abundance of employment which was a real need. Such a Minister could do nothing unless he used public money in creating artificial employment; whereas what we wanted was genuine remunerative employment in a natural way. It would not be in order for him to go into the question of fiscal reform, but he would like to say that in his opinion the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich was the strongest he had yet heard delivered in favour of the policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Many on that side of the House were prepared with a remedy for want of employment in a natural way, while gentlemen on the other side were not prepared with or desirous to find a remedy. As to the question of afforestation the hon. Member for Leith said that one reason why private enterprise had failed in this direction was that for a long time it must be a dead loss. He would point out that if it was a dead loss to the individual it must also be a dead loss to the State, and he did not think the present was a good time for locking up money If the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman were carried out the capital involved would remain unremunerative.
SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid it would only mean waiting for a dividend.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid that the State was not in a different position from the individual; and during the period that the capital remained un-remunerative, the interest would have to be paid, and there would be no return. He did not think that at present it was opportune to allocate sums of money which could not be profitably used. Trade was bad, and there was no money in the country. That was one of the reasons why he and his hon. friend were endeavouring to make trade better. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who wished to take money from one pocket and put it into another were really doing a great deal to

491
destroy that confidence in capital which was desired. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Woolwich referred to the reclamation of waste lands. He knew something about that question. He knew a man who had spent about £100,000 in reclaiming 4,000 acres, and the result was he practically ruined himself, because when the bad times came, and when wheat went down, it was impossible to use the land properly, and he had no return for his capital. If the scheme of the hon. Member for Woolwich were adopted, with the price of wheat what it was, the only result would be that the money would be lost. He only intervened because he wished to show that his hon. friends and himself were just as anxious to help the working man as the hon. Gentlemen opposite.
SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid it was a great pleasure to him to find from what had been said on both sides of the House that there was a very large amount of human feeling and keen sympathy with the objects of the Amendment. If they differed at all, they differed only as to method. He remembered reading in the Report of the Poor Law Commission of 1844 about parish farms. It was a most deplorable story. His colleagues on Boards of Guardians in Cheshire had, from time to time, a hankering to return to the old system, but he himself had always said it would be an extremely dangerous policy to undertake. Men who worked on parish farms did as little as they possibly could, and the result was almost invariably that the contagion spread through the parish, and the surrounding parishes, and that other labourers adopted the same as the labourers on the parish farm. He did not think that Boards of Guardians were the best class of employers, and on that point he differed from his hon. friend who moved the Amendment. He was greatly interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Leith Burghs. The late Dr. Hunter was possessed of an intellect which was equally accurate and luminous. He satisfied himself by a study of the question that if he could only obtain a fair allocation of Scotland's share of the National Debt, he would be able to pay if off in two generations out of the profits
492
resulting from the reafforestation of the Highlands, in spite of the fact that he would have to pay interest while waiting for a profit. He was amazed that a business-man like the hon. Baronet who had just spoken should think that an investment which was spread over twenty years, and which did not pay a dividend, was lost. He was aware that the hon. Baronet turned over his money daily, and made a profit. Others, however, were accustomed to lay out money for years in the sure and certain hope of ultimately obtaining a dividend; and they had no reason to grumble. He sympathised very greatly with the suggestion that the superabundance of the population should be transferred from the towns to the rural districts. He believed that the country would very greatly benefit from such a transfer. He very frequently travelled between Liverpool and London, and certainly the land along that route did not look overcrowded. There was plenty of room. He intended to vote for the Amendment, because by doing so he would be doing his best to bring about an improved sense of proportion with regard to public affairs. If hon. Gentlemen could only realise the importance of devoting the best of their thoughts to the consideration of the condition of their own people, they would be acting wisely and well. He was not sure that the method proposed in the Amendment would be the best to achieve its purpose. He wished, instead of creating a new department, that all departments of the Government would be impressed with a due sense of the value of the ideas of his hon. friend who moved the Amendment, and that they should all realise that it was of the very greatest importance that they should help the poor people of this country to help themselves, first by education and then by improving their physical condition. Many hon Gentlemen opposite, and also many of his hon. friends, were sportsmen, and knew the saying, "The more trees the more salmon." The fact that salmon were diminishing in Scotland was the result of cutting down the trees; and if the Highlands were reafforested it would not only give labour to the people, but would also provide more sport. It was always

493
the case if a step were taken in the right direction, an extra benefit, which was not calculated upon, would follow. Although what he had said might, to some extent, be inconsistent with the actual words of the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman moved in an extremely moderate speech, and a kindly sense of human feeling, he would vote for it.
MR. J. H. LEWISsaid he did not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman opposite into the realms of fiscal tariff, or what happened in South America, but he wished to make a few remarks on one aspect of the question which he had ventured to raise on several occasions in the House in past years. That was the question of reafforestation. He had the honour of serving on a Departmental Committee on the subject; and he was sure they all deplored the loss of the Minister who appointed that Committee. He was one of the most business-like Ministers who had ever sat in the House of Commons, and if he had lived he would have done much to promote the object he had at heart when he appointed that Committee. The question of reafforestation was one in which Wales was deeply interested. One witness before the Committee gave it as his opinion that Wales, in proportion to area, had more land available for profitable planting than any other portion of the United Kingdom. In past times Wales was covered with great forests, which were a source of profit and employment, and which furnished timber for building many of the most famous ships of the Navy 100 years ago. The quality of the timber was considered far better than that produced in any other part of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, that state of affairs had ceased to exist. For years past they had been urging the Government to do what they could to provide a remedy. He believed the Government could do a great deal in the desired direction. Experiments had been undertaken in certain areas in Wales which were to a great extent successful, and what they asked was that the Government should not wait thirty or forty years in order to see whether those experiments were a complete and final success, but that they should at once undertake
494
work on a very large scale. The hon. Baronet opposite said that the work would be unremunerative, but the difference between the State and the individual was that the State could afford to wait. The State never died; and had not need to take questions such as had been raised by the hon. Gentleman opposite into consideration. The State had to look to the future; and when they considered the enormous wealth forests would be to the State they would realise how greatly reafforestation would increase the national wealth. Germany one hundred years ago was at its very lowest point, and seemed to be threatened with overwhelming ruin; but Germany declined to sacrifice its forests on any account whatever. Reafforestation would make the land more profitable; and it would also be a source of employment. Moreover, it would give work at a period of the year when it was most needed, as the greater part of the work would be done at a time when other employment was scarce; and it would therefore help to fill up the labourers' year if steps were taken in the direction indicated by his hon. friend. Moreover, it was healthy work; and if men could be kept in the country engaged in healthy employment it would be a very great advantage. It was not alone the mere growing of trees that had to be considered, but the wood industries that invariably followed. Mr. Parry, the water engineer of the Liverpool Corporation, gave interesting evidence on the subject before the Departmental Committee. He said that the catchment area of the Corporaton had been planted with trees; and as it was a long distance from railway communication a wood industry was set up, the volume of water flowing for the reservoir being utilised for the generating of electricity. In that way a profitable wood industry was established in the vicinity of the New Forest. It was in ways such as that that the forest industry could be made profitable. There were 26,000,000 acres of waste land in this country, a great portion of which could be utilised for this purpose. Timber to the value of £30,000,000 was imported every year, and of that £18,000,000 was spent on coniferous timber, which could be suitably grown in this country. The question was a great problem, which the Government would act wisely and well in tackling in a bold

495
spirit. There were common rights in many of the waste lands which were of very little value, and which might be expropriated for the purposes of forestry, thereby adding not only to the profit and employment in the district and to the beauty of the country, but also making it easier for the commoners to rear their sheep. He trusted the Government would take this matter up. They had already made some small tentative attempts; but he hoped they would be able to deal with the matter in a bold manner.
MR. FIELDsaid that as an Irish Member he desired to convey to the House the Irish view on this question. His hon. friend who had just spoken said that there was proportionately more land in Wales suitable for reafforestation than in any other part of the United Kingdom. He was not certain that that statement was absolutely accurate. He believed that there was a greater proportion of such land in Ireland. He was a Member of the Forestry Association of Ireland, which had provided much useful information on this subject, and Ireland was perhaps the least wooded country in the world, and at the same time it required more wood than most other countries. Owing to the action of the Gulf Stream, the climate of Ireland had been degenerating for fifty years. In former times the whole country was covered with wood; and the part which was now in the country was the remains of the old forests. He remembered speaking to an old man in Galway, whose father told him he could walk ten miles on the branches of trees in Connemara. The absence of trees was one of the reasons why the climate of Ireland was so wet; and it was held by scientific men that if the country was proper!}' wooded and properly drained the temperature could be raised two or three degrees. This was a matter to which the Government should give consideration, as if the climate went on degenerating they would all have to live in Noah's Arks. He was recently studying the report of the Department of the New Zealand Government charged with the management of the forests in that country. Lessons could be learned from new Colonies which appertained to the general prosperity of the United Kingdom. No
496
question should be approached in a more serious manner than the question of reafforestation. In France one province had been reafforested with most beneficial effects, not only as regarded employment but also with reference to the health of its inhabitants.
SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked if timber was not a protected industry in France.
MR. FIELDsaid he would not enter into the fiscal question, although if he did his views might not be very different from the views of the hon. Baronet. He only wished to point out that Ireland had a greater interest in the question of reafforesstation than England, as there was a greater want of employment. The people in Ireland were mainly agricultural; and anything that provided the Irish agricultural labourer with employment ought to be seriously considered. One of the reasons why the rivers in Ireland were dammed up was because of the rain rushing down from the hills carrying the alluvial soil with it; and that rendered the country less fertile. If there was a sufficient quantity of wood in the country that could not happen; and the country would also produce much better crops. From all those points of view he heartily supported the Motion before the House.
He might here refer to another matter which he desired to bring before the House, the cotton corner in Lancashire and Yorkshire. No more important question could come before the House, and he was surprised that hon. Members representing the divisions concerned had not raised it. It was to his mind extraordinary that an individual body of men operating between England and America should be allowed to shut out from employment thousands of persons, and bring disaster upon the cotton operatives of this country. This Amendment had his hearty commendation, and he could not understand it being regarded as a vote of want of confidence. Surely if the King's Speech omitted to mention a particular subject of great importance such as this was it was only right to call attention to it. There was a general consensus of opinion that something ought to be done

497
to provide employment for the people, and hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to be able to co-operate in the endeavour to see how such a state of things could be brought about. He suggested that the President of the Local Government Board should accept the Amendment and the nappoint a Committee to report as to what was the most feasible measure for carrying out the idea of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil.
SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONthought the subject of the Motion was a matter of agreement, but when it came to be in the House he did not think the remedy of a Labour Department would go any great way to meet the difficulty of certain kinds of want of employment. This was really a question of how work was to be found to enable men to earn a wage, and if they considered the question thoroughly they would see it was impossible to give any Labour Department the machinery to deal with such a matter. Besides distress from general causes there was the distress from the deplorable conditions of agriculture, and the distress arising from such conditions as were now affecting Lancashire. In Lancashire what was wanted was a remedy that would operate in a far shorter time than any remedy to be expected from the institution of a Labour Department. At the same time the question was a pressing one, and ought to be dealt with in some way or other.
MR. WILLIAM JONES (Carnarvonshire, Arfon)said he did not think he should be doing his duty to his constituency if he allowed this opportunity to pass without calling attention to one fact in support of his hon. friend's contention. The condition of many of his constituents at Bethesda illustrated the necessity for concentrating more power in the hands of a Minister, or strengthening a Department. The House would remember that on several occasions he had raised the question of a terrible dispute which had taken place in his constituency. That dispute was now ended, but its evil effects were left behind. In Bethesda there were now 1,237 skilled quarrymen out of employment, although the strike was over. Over 400 of those men were men
498
who had worked in the quarry for three-fourths of a lifetime. They were skilled labourers, and not like men who did casual work. They were very decent citizens, yet they were practically at the mercy of one employer, and the President of the Board of Trade during the dispute had confessed himself helpless owing to the limitations of the Conciliation Act.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. WALTER LONG,)said the debate on the Address, which had begun in some storm and stress, was concluding peacefully with an interesting, if somewhat discursive, debate. Both proposer and seconder had brought this subject before the House in speeches of great moderation and also of considerable force. With regard to most of the conditions of life which they described there would be found no difference of opinion in any quarter of the House. They knew these things existed, and regretted them. It was only when they came to consider the proposed remedy that acute differences must develop themselves, both in the House and outside. If the Amendment had simply stated that there was a condition of things which it was most desirable to deal with, it would have been one to which, if it had not been for the constitutional practice of the House in matters relating to the Address, no one need have offered opposition; but it was impossible to accept the declaration that a Department of Labour would be, if not a complete, a very effectual partial remedy for the state of things complained of. It was impossible for the Government to accept such an Amendment. The Government did not think there was any necessity for such a Department, or any reason for thinking that if the existing Department were to be strengthened, if it required strengthening, it could deal with the real difficulty which the hon. Gentleman and his friends had put before the House. He did not think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Merthyr had treated the Department quite fairly in this matter. The hon. Member knew perfectly well, and no one better, how hard it had striven in the past, and how hard it was now striving, to help guardians in their schemes for reclaiming

499
the destitute, against reproach for their justifiable caution in taking time to consider seriously one large scheme which would devolve expense on the whole area of London. It was their duty as trustees for the ratepayers of London generally to consider carefully any scheme to make London one area for the purposes of the relief of the unemployed. Only two practical suggestions had been made in the debate. One was the creation of a Labour Department, the other afforestation. He had waited with great curiosity to hear what would be the precise advantages of a Labour Department over the two existing Departments—the Board of Trade and the Local Government Board. He heard nothing until it was suggested that a Labour Minister should make certain inquiries with a view to the establishment of Imperial workmen, county workmen, and local workmen. Was this practicable? The organisation of works which would have to be suspended with the revival of industry was not a practical suggestion, and would not really contribute to the improvement of the industrial conditions of the people. The same must be said of afforestation. It had always been the view of the House that where such work was remunerative, private enterprise would undertake it. It was impossible to believe that, were such work undertaken, it would really meet the "unemployed" difficulty which confronted them to-day. Only a small portion of the men who complained of being out of employment would be suitable for it. There was no difficulty at present in the agricultural districts, for there was plenty of work for men who were agricultural labourers.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: At 12s. a week.
MR. WALTER LONGrepudiated the idea, so far as his constituents were con-
500
cerned, that the agricultural labourer's income was represented by 12s. a week. Putting aside the worthless class so amusingly described in the debate, for whom the wisdom of establishing even a kind of penal colony was doubtful, he asked whether anybody believed that either by the establishment of State farm colonies or village land appropriations, or any other means suggested in the debate, the difficulty under consideration could be dealt with in any measurable way. There was no power under which Boards of Guardians could employ men either on the land or in any other kind of work without making them paupers.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: There is a considerable difference of opinion among competent authorities on the point whether persons employed for wages and having to sue for wages have to be regarded as paupers.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid he did not know how far the hon Member intended to go when he said there was a considerable difference of opinion, but in 1893 the law officers of the Crown gave an exhaustive opinion on the subject, which wound up—
"We think that all these Acts being intended for the relief of the poor, that relief in the form of wages would be parochial relief so as to disfranchise the recipient."
That was the opinion of the then law officers of the Crown—the late Lord Russell of Killowen and the late Lord Rigby—and he feared it must be accepted as conclusive on the point as to the power of guardians to give relief which had not in its trail the taint of pauperism and the penalty of disfranchisement. He would remind the House that for more than fifty years the administration of the Poor Law by the guardians had been carried on upon

501
principles which were entirely consistent with that opinion. They had done their best to confine the action of the guardians to the relief of destitution and distress, and to prevent them working on every kind of enterprise. Nobody would suggest that we should go back to the state of things which existed in the old days of Protection—no one would like to go back to the days which preceded the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1834; and anything which would weaken that administration and turn Boards of Guardians aside from their proper sphere of work, which was the relief of destitution, would do a great deal more harm than good to the wage-earning classes of the country. As to afforestation it would no doubt be a good thing to have more forests in this country, but he could not say if it would pay to embark on such a policy, neither could he see why the State should make so large a change in its policy as was suggested in the Amendment by creating a Labour Department. Speaking for himself, for his colleagues, and for the permanent officials of his department, he might say that there existed among them all the strongest feeling of sympathy with those who suffered from these great difficulties in the industrial world, and the greatest possible desire to meet the local authorities more than half way. With that one desire at heart, they only differed as to the means of bringing it about, and it was because he so differed with the hon. Gentleman as to his methods that he felt he must resist the Amendment.
MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to accede to the request for a united parish of London.
MR. WALTER LONGsaid the question was one of immense importance, and the
502
change proposed was so great that he was afraid he could not carry out the suggestion without much more consideration than he had yet been able to give to it.
MR. ASQUITH (Fifeshire, E.)said that the mover and seconder of the Amendment might take a good deal of satisfaction to themselves on account of the tone of the discussion and the spirit of the remarks of the President of the Local Government Board. Personally he proposed to say a few words only on the domestic aspect of the proposals of the hon. Member for the solution of a problem the gravity of which the right hon. Gentleman had fully recognised. He had very great sympathy with the object which his hon. friends had in view in proposing the establishment of a Department and Ministry of Labour. Anybody who had been confronted with industrial questions in any of the public Departments would agree with him that the present administrative system was seriously defective, first of all in the duplication of functions, and next in the conflict of jurisdiction. First of all there was the Home Office, which was primarily connected with the Department of Labour, in asmuch as it was concerned with factories, workshops, and mines. Then they had the Board of Trade, which had to look after railways and shipping and some other branches of industry; next there was the Local Government Board, which had under its supervision the work of sanitary Land Poor aw authorities, which branched out into other parts of the industrial problem, and finally there was the Board of Agriculture, which dealt not only with agriculture but with the fisheries. All would agree that this was a most unbusiness- like system, and that the existing state

503
of things was uneconomical as regarded the expenditure of labour and unsatisfactory as regarded simplicity and uniformity of administration, and therefore, in so far as the hon. Member's proposal was a proposal in the direction of simplification and readjustment, he believed there would be no difference of opinion upon it. As regarded the other side of the question—the side which concerned the local authority—they had endeavoured, on the whole with success, to secure freedom of local administration with a certain amount of indefinite and very elastic central supervision and control. It was a very difficult problem and one which could only be solved by a good deal of give-and-take on both sides; but he thought that somewhat more intimate relations might be established between the central authority and the local authorities.
In the case, for instance, of factory and workshop administration, they had on the one hand a number of central inspectors appointed by the State, and on the other hand in respect to many questions of sanitation, particularly in workshops, they had to rely largely on local administration and inspection. It was most important that these two entirely different sets of local authorities should be brought into harmony with one another and secure co-operation of action both in principle and detail. A still more important aspect of the question was that of the powers of the local authorities themselves. He had always held the view that they could not be too liberal and elastic in giving to local authorities the power of experiments in matters of this kind. They heard a great deal in these days about the supposed evils of municipal trading; but the remedy for those evils, if there were evils, and the
504
safeguard against risks—and he did not deny that there were risks in the application of the money of the ratepayers to industrial and other experiments—lay in the long run with the ratepayers themselves. It had always been the case in the past, and assuredly it would be in the future, that if their resources were spent in a wasteful and speculative manner the ratepayers themselves would, in the long run, take vengeance on the persons responsible. [Cries of "No."] If they did not it was their own look out. But he was very anxious that they should give the widest possible latitude of experiment to the local authorities, and he thought that in London in particular, where the division between the areas of the various authorities was to a large extent purely geographical and artificial, they ought to recognise more and more that they were dealing with one large area which had common interests—interests which, though one area might benefit more than another, were really common to the whole community. As regarded the powers of local authorities in the employment of labour to meet special emergencies, he hoped that the Local Government Board would favour wherever they could co-operative action by those local authorities. A question had been put with reference to an application in this direction for Poplar, and the answer had been given that no decision had been come to on the subject. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would give at any rate indulgent and fair and broad-minded consideration to the representations made to him by the local authorities in that respect. He believed that this debate had been of very great value in bringing out the essential community of purpose which existed among them all in relation to these matters, though they

505
might differ as to the precise terms of the Motion. In so far as it affirmed the necessity for further simplification of administration in industrial affairs and a wider latitude of powers for the local authorities he would give it his sympathy, as he believed it would have the sympathy of the great majority of Members of the House.
SIR ALBERT ROLLITsaid he only wished to point out that the local authorities were greatly interested in arriving at some solution of this problem. He presided some time ago at a meeting, in the Guildhall, of representatives of these authorities, at which there was a general concurrence of opinion that the difficulty which now arose was in a large measure the result of the diversity of local authorities and boards which had to deal with it. He hoped that the mover of the Amendment would be satisfied with the sympathetic expressions of opinion of the President of the Local Government Board, especially as there was at this moment a Committee sitting to consider the allocation of duties between various public Departments. A Motion had already been carried in the House for the creation of a Ministry of Commerce and Industry, and he hoped that one outcome of the debate would be the establishment of a Ministry, not merely
to look after commerce which involved the means of employment, but also the means of obtaining employment by the dissemination of information and by joint action on the part of the local authorities. Probably by a considered Motion or by bringing in a Bill after the Committee already referred to had reported, a solution might be found for what was, undoubtedly, a most pressing and urgent problem.
MR.TENNANTasked for information as to what was being done by the Committee on the co-ordination of work between the Board of Trade, the Home Office, and the Local Government Board, which was appointed last year. Was it to be reappointed, and when was it likely to report?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,)said that the Committee, to which the hon, Member referred, was sitting at the present time, and he hoped that their Report would be submitted before long.
Question put.
The House divided:—-Ayes, 151 Noes, 231. (Division List No. 6).

AYES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson

Cremer, William Randal

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Burke, E. Haviland

Crombie, John William

Allen, Charles P.

Burns, John

Cullinan, J.

Austin, Sir John

Burt, Thomas

Dalziel, James Henry

Barlow, John Emmott

Buxton, Sydney Charles

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Caldwell, James

Delany, William

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Cameron, Robert

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Donelan, Captain A.

Bell, Richard

Causton, Richard Knight

Doogan, P. C.

Black, Alexander William

Channing, Francis Allston

Dunn, Sir William

Boland, John

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Edwards, Frank

Brigg, John

Cream Eugene

Ellice, Capt E. C (SAndrw'sBghs

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Roche, John

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

M'Kenna, Reginald

Rose, Charles Day

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Runciman, Walter

Farrell, James Patrick

Markham, Arthur Basil

Russell, T. W.

Fenwick, Charles

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

Mooney, John J.

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Ffreneh, Peter

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Schwann, Charles E.

Field, William

Murphy, John

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh

Flavin, Michael Joseph

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Flynn, James Christopher

Newnes, Sir George

Sheehan, Danel Daniel

Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Sheehy, David

Gilhooly, James

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

Norman, Henry

Slack, John Bamford

Grant, Corrie

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

Soares, Ernest J.

Hammond, John

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Hayden, John Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

Strachey, Sir Edward

Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Sullivan, Donal

Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.)

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Tennant, Harold John

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

O'Dowd, John

Trevelyan, Charles Philips

Jordan, Jeremiah

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Wallace, Robert

Joyce, Michael

O'Mara, James

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Kilbride, Denis

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Labouchere, Henry

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Lambert, George

Partington, Oswald

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Paulton, James Mellor

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accriugton)

Pirie, Duncan V

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Long, Sir John

Power, Patrick Joseph

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Lewis, John Herbert

Price, Robert John

Young, Samuel

Lloyd-George, David

Reddy, M.

Yoxall, James Henry

Lundon, W.

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Redmond, William (Clare)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Keir Hardie and Mr. Crooks.

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Rickett, J. Compton

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Rigg, Richard

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Roberts, John H. (Denbigh.)

NOES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Bousfield, William Robert

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F (Middlesex

Cust, Henry John C.

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Bowles, T. Gibson (King's Lynn

Dalkeith, Earl of

Allsopp, Hon. George

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Davenport, William Bromley

Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O

Brymer, William Ernest

Denny, Colonel

Arrol, Sir William

Bull, William James

Dewar, Sir T. R (Tower Hamlets

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Campbell, Rt. Hn. J. A (Glasgow

Dickson, Charles Scott

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.)

Digby, John K. D. Wingheld-

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Cautley, Henry Strother

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Douglas, Rt. Hon. A, Akers

Baird, John George Alexander

Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Duke, Henry Edward

Balcarres, Lord

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Baldwin, Alfred

Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Worc.

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Chapman, Edward

Fardell, Sir T. George

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.

Charrington, Spencer

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Coates, Edward Feetham

Fisher, William Hayes

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

Coddington, Sir William

Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon

Beckett, Ernest William

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Flower, Sir Ernest

Bignold, Arthur

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Forster, Henry William

Bigwood, James

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

Bill, Charles

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Fyler, John Arthur

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Galloway, William Johnson

Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

Gardner, Ernest

Boulnois, Edmund

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Garfit, William

508

509

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets)

Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc.)

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Gosehen, Hon. George Joachim

Lowe, Francis William

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Graham, Henry Robert

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Macdona, John Cumming

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury

Maclver, David (Liverpool)

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Grenfell, William Henry

Maconochie, A. W.

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Gretton, John

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

Hall, Edward Marshall

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Manners, Lord Cecil

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East

Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)

Maxwell, W. J. H. (Dumfriessh.

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Spear, John Ward

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich)

Milner, Rt. Hon. Sir Fredk. G.

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Heath, James (Staffords., N. W.

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M ' Taggart

Helder, Augustus

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Stock, James Henry

Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

Morrell, George Herbert

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Mount, William Arthur

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.

Horner, Frederick William

Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Houston, Robert Paterson

Murray, Rt. Hon. A. G. (Bute)

Thornton, Percy M.

Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham)

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Tollemache, Henry James

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Nicholson, William Graham

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Hunt, Rowland

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Tuff, Charles

Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

Percy, Earl

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

Pierpoint, Robert

Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Plummer, Walter R.

Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E (Taunton

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Kenyon, Hn. Geo. T. (Denbigh)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Purvis, Robert

Wilson, John Glasgow)

Kerr, John

Pym, C. Guy

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

Kimber, Henry

Randles, John S.

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R (Bath

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Rankin, Sir James

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

Knowles, Sir Lees

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Ratcliff, R. F.

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Reid, James (Greenock)

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Remnant, James Farquharson

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Richards, Henry Charles

Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S.

Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

Main Question again proposed.
MR. AKERS-DOUGLASrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
MR. SWIFT MACNEILL, (seated, and with his hat on) asked if there was any precedent for closuring the debate on the Address when notice had been given of twenty-four further Amendments.
MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid I cannot answer that question, not having counted the number of outstanding Amendments either now or on previous occasions, but there are plenty of precedents for the closure when a considerable number of Amendments have been shut out.
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The House divided:—Ayes, 232; Noes, 139. (Division List No. 7.)

AYES.

Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden

Anson, Sir William Reynell

Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

Alisopp, Hon. George

Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn. Hugh O

Arrol, Sir William

FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-

M'Calmont, Colonel James

Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

Fitzroy, Hn Edward Algernon

M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire

Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H

Flannery, Sir Fortescue

Manners, Lord Cecil

Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

Flower, Sir Ernest

Martin, Richard Biddulph

Bailey, James (Walworth)

Forster, Henry William

Maxwell, W J H (Dumfriesshire

Bain, Colonel James Robert

Foster, P. S. (Warwick, S. W.)

Mildmay, Francis Bingham

Baird, John George Alexander

Fyler, John Arthur

Milner, Rt Hon. Sir Fred'rick G

Balcarres, Lord

Galloway, William Johnson

Molesworth, Sir Lewis

Baldwin, Alfred

Gardner, Ernest

Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey)

Garfit, William

Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

Balfour, Rt. Hn. G. W. (Leeds)

Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

Morrell, George Herbert

Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christen.

Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk

Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

Banbury, Sir Frederick George

Gordon, Maj. E. (T'r Hamlets

Mount, William Arthur

Bartley, Sir George C. T.

Gore, Hn. S. F. Ormsby-(Linc

Mowbray, Sir Robert Cray C.

Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

Murray, Rt. Hn. A Graham (Bute

Beach, Rt, Hn. Sir Mich. Hicks

Goulding, Edward Alfred

Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

Beckett, Ernest William

Graham, Henry Robert

Nicholson, William Graham

Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)

Bignold, Arthur

Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury

Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley

Bigwood, James

Grenfell, William Henry

Percy, Earl

Bill, Charles

Gretton, John

Pierpoint, Robert

Blundell, Colonel Henry

Hall, Edward Marshall

Platt-Higgins, Frederick

Boulnois, Edmund

Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

Plummer, Walter R.

Bousfield, William Robert

Hamilton, Marq. of (Lnd'nderry

Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

Bowles, Lt.-Col H F (Middlesex-

Hardy, L (Kent, Ashford)

Pretyman, Ernest George

Bowles, T Gibson (King's Lynn

Hare, Thomas Leigh

Purvis, Robert

Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

Harris, Dr. Fredk. R. (Dulwich

Pym, C. Guy

Brown, Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

Haslett, Sir James Horner

Randies, John S.

Brymer, William Ernest

Hatch, Ernest Frederick Geo.

Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne

Campbell, Rt Hn J A (Glasgow)

Hay, Hon. Claude George

Ratcliff, R. F.

Carson, Rt Hon. Sir Edw. H.

Heath, James (Staffords., N W.

Reid, James (Greenock)

Cautley, Henry Strother

Holder, Augustus

Remnant, James Farquharson

Cavendish, VCW (Derbyshire

Henderson, Sir A (Stafford, W

Richards, Henry diaries

Cayzer, Sir Charles William

Hope, J F (Sheffield, Brightside

Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green

Cecil, Evelyn Aston Manor)

Hornby, Sir William Henry

Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson

Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

Horner, Frederick William

Roberet, Samuel (Sheffield)

Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Worc

Houston, Robert Paterson

Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry

Howard, J (Midd., Tottenham

Rollit, Sir Albert Kayo

Chapman, Edward

Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

Round, Rt. Hon. James

Charrington, Spencer

Hudson, George Bickersteth

Royds, Clement Molyneux

Clive, Captain Percy A.

Hunt, Rowland

Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

Coates, Edward Feetham

Hutton, John (Yorks., N. R.)

Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)

Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.

Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

Coddington, Sir William

Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton

Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

Cohen, Benjamin Louis

Johnstone, Heywood (Sussex)

Sandys, Lt.-Col. Thos. Myles

Colomb, Sir John Chas. Ready

Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

Compton, Lord Alwyne

Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh

Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop

Sharpe, William Edward T.

Cox, Irwin Edward Bainbridge

Kerr, John

Skewes-Cox, Thomas

Cripps, Charles Alfred

Kimber, Henry

Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

King, Sir Henry Seymour

Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.

Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

Knowles, Sir Lees

Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

Cubitt, Hon. Henry

Laurie, Lieut.-General

Spear, John Ward

Gust, Henry John C.

Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

Stanley, Edw. Jas. (Somerset)

Dalkeith, Earl of

Lawrence, Sir Jos. (Monmouth)

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.

Dalrymple, Sir Charles

Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)

Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

Davenport, William Bromley

Lawson, Jn. G. (Yorks., N. R.)

Stock, James Henry

Denny, Colonel

Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)

Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

Dewar, Sir T R (Tower Hamlets

Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)

Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

Dickson, Charles Scott

Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ.

Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-

Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S.

Thorburn, Sir Walter

Dimsdale, Rt. Hn. Sir Joseph C

Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

Thornton, Percy M.

Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

Tollemache, Henry James

Douglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers

Long, Rt. Hon. W. (Bristol, S.)

Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

Duke, Henry Edward

Lonsdale, John Brownlee

Tritton, Charles Ernest

Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin

Lowe, Francis William

Tuff, Charles

Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart

Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth

Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. H (Sheff'ld

Fardell, Sir T. George

Macdona, John dimming

Walrond, R. Hn. Sir William H.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

MacIver, David (Liverpool)

Warde, Colonel C. E.

Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

Maconochie, A. W.

Welby, Lt.-Col, A. C. E (Taunton

Fisher, William Hayes

M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

512

513

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

Willox, Sir John Archibald

Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart-

Wilson, John (Glasgow)

Wrightson, Sir Thomas

Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.

Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

NOES.

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)

Hardie, J. K. (Merthyr Tdyvil)

Partington, Oswald

Ainsworth, John Stirling

Hayden, John Patrick

Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

Austin, Sir John

Hayter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur D.

Pirie, Duncan V.

Barlow, John Emmott

Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

Power, Patrick Joseph

Barran, Rowland Hirst

Humphreys-Owen, Arthur C.

Price, Robert John

Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

Reddy, M.

Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

Jones, D. Brynmor (Swansea)

Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

Beaumont, Wentworth, C. B.

Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

Redmond, William (Clare)

Black, Alexander William

Jordan, Jeremiah

Rickett, J. Compton

Boland, John

Joyce, Michael

Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

Brigg, John

Kilbride, Denis

Robson, William Snowdon

Burke, E. Haviland

Labouchere, Henry

Roche, John

Burns, John

Lambert, George

Rose, Charles Day

Burt, Thomas

Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

Runciman, Walter

Caldwell, James

Layland-Barratt, Francis

Russell, T. W.

Cameron, Robert

Leese, Sir Jos. F. (Accrington)

Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton

Leng, Sir John

Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

Causton, Richard Knight.

Lewis, John Herbert

Schwann, Charles E.

Condon, Thomas Joseph

Lloyd-George, David

Scott, Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

Crean, Eugene

Lundon, W.

Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

Crombie, John William

Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

Sheehan, Daniel Daniel

Crooks, William

MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

Sheehy, David

Cullinan, J.

MacVeagh, Jeremiah

Shipman, Dr. John G.

Dalziel, James Henry

M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

Slack, John Bamford

Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

M'Hugh, Patrick A.

Soames, Arthur Wellesley

Delany, William

M'Kenna, Reginald

Soares, Ernest J.

Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

M'Laren, Sir Charles Benjamin

Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northants

Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

Markham, Arthur Basil

Sullivan, Donal

Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

Mitchell, Edw. (Fermanagh, N.)

Tennant, Harold John

Donelan, Captain A.

Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.

Doogan, P. C.

Murphy, John

Thomas, D. Alfred (Merthyr)

Dunn, Sir William

Nannetti, Joseph P.

Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

Edwards, Frank

Newnes, Sir George

Wallace, Robert

Ellice, Capt. E. C (SAndrw's Bghs

Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)

Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

Emmott, Alfred

Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

Esmonde, Sir Thomas

Norman, Henry

Wason, Jn. Cathcart (Orkney)

Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)

Norton, Capt. Cecil William

Whiteley, George (York, W. R.

Farquharson, Dr. Robert

O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.)

Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

Farrell, James Patrick

O'Brien, Patrick, (Kilkenny)

Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

Fenwick, Charles

O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

Ffrench, Peter

O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

Woodhouse, Sir J. T (Huddersf'd

Field, William

O'Donuell, John (Mayo, S.)

Young, Samuel

Flavin, Michael Joseph

O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)

Yoxall, James Henry

Flynn, James Christopher

O'Dowd, John

Gilhooly, James

O'Kelly, Jas. (Roscommon, N.)

Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

O'Mara, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Edward Strachey and Mr. Rigg.

Griffith, Ellis J.

O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

Hammond, John

Palmer, Sir Chas. M. (Durham)

Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
"Most Gracious Sovereign,—
"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
514
Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."
To be presented by Privy Councillors and Members of His Majesty's Household.

SUPPLY.
Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Ordered, That the several Estimates presented to this House during the present session be referred to the Committee of Supply.—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)

WAYS AND MEANS.
Resolved, That this House will, upon Monday next, resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Ways and Means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
NEW BILLS.
  COTTAGE HOMES.
  Bill to authorise the provision of Cottage Homes for the aged poor, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Hutton, Mr. Wharton, Mr. Brigg, Sir Ernest Flower, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Goulding, Mr. Paulton, Mr. Joseph Pease, Mr. T. W. Russell, and Sir William Wilson-Todd.
  COTTAGE HOMES BILL.
  "To authorise the provision of Cottage Homes for the aged poor," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday, 6th May, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION.
  Bill to enable Local Authorities to adopt the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, ordered to be brought in by Captain
  516
  Jessel, Mr. Hay, Mr. Bell, Mr. Galloway, Mr. Louis Sinclair, Sir Carne Rasch, Dr. Rutherfoord Harris, Mr. Atherley-Jones, and Mr. Bill.

  LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.
  "To enable Local Authorities to adopt the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday, 29th February, and to be printed. [Bill 88.]
  SALE OF BUTTER.
  Bill to amend the Law with regard to the sale of butter, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes, Mr. Long, and Mr. Solicitor-General for Ireland.
  SALE OF BUTTER BILL.
  "To amend the Law with regard to the sale of Butter," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [89. Bill]
  DOGS.
  Bill to consolidate and amend the enactments relating to injury to live stock by Dogs, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Dogs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes, Mr. Long, and Mr. Solicitor-General.

  DOGS BILL.
  "To consolidate and amend the enactments relating to injury to live stock by Dogs, and otherwise to amend the Law relating to Dogs," presented, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 90.]
  Adjourned at ten minutes before Six o'clock till Monday next.

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Mid-Cheshire Tramways Bill [H.L.]. Presented, and read 1a.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with. Manchester Ship Canal (Finance) [H L.]; Manchester Ship Canal [H.L.]; Young and Bell's Patents [H.L.]; Southport and Lytham Tramroad (Extension of Time) [H.L.]; Gosport Water [H.L.]; New River Company [H.L.]; New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company [H.L.]. The same were ordered to lie on the Table.
Ilford Urban District Council Bill [H.L]; Lothians Electric Power Bill [H.L]; Barnard Castle Gas Bill [H.L.]; Cardiff Railway Bill [H.L.]. Read 2a, and committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Appleby Corporation Gas Bill [H.L.]; Bournemouth Corporation (Tramways) Bill [H.L.]; Chesterfield Gas and Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Filey Improvement Bill [H.L.]; Preston Corporation Water Bill [H.L.]; Shipley Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Bill [H.L.]; Tynemouth Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway (Extension of Time, etc.) Bill [H.L.]; Weston-super-Mare Grand Pier Bill [H.L.]. Committed.
Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bridlington Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Bristol Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Buxton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Chesterfield Corporation (Tramways and Improvements) Bill [H.L.]; Derwent Valley Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Ebbw Vale Urban District Water Bill [H.L.]; Harrogate Waterworks Tramroad Bill [H.L.]; Holy wood Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Huddersfield Corporation Act, 1902 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]; Ipswich Dock Commission Bill [H.L.]; Leeds Corporation (Waterworks) Railway Bill
346
[H.L.]; Manchester Corporation Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill [H.L.]; Milwr and District Mines Drainage Bill [H.L.]; Minehead Urban District Council Water Bill [H.L.]; Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Bill [H.L.]; Nuneaton and Chilvers Coton Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]; Oakengates, Dawley, and District Joint Water Board Bill [H.L.]; Ulster Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; Weaver Navigation (Additional Finance) Bill [H.L.]; Preston and Blackburn Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Weaver Navigation (Constitution and Finance) Bill [H.L.]; Withnell Gas Bill [H.L.]; Lancashire Electric Power Bill [H.L.]; West Riding Tramways Bill [H.L.]; Cambrian Railways Bill [H.L.]; Tynemouth Gas Bill[H.L.]; Neath,Pontar-dawe, and Brynaman Railway Bill [H.L.]; Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads Bill [H.L.]; Barry Railway (Steam Vessels) Bill [H.L.]; Harlow and Sawbridgeworth Gas Bill [H.L.]; York Town and Black-water Gas Bill [H.L]; Matlock and District Gas Bill [H.L.]; Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Bill [H.L.]; Great Western Railway Bill [H.L.]. Committed. The Committees to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

PETITION.
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF WOMEN) BILL [H.L.]
  Petition in favour of; of Corporation of Lewisham; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  NAVY (NEW SCHEME OF TRAINING).
  Reports of the members of the Interview Committee on the selection of candidates for nomination as Naval Cadets. Prsenteed (by Command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LOAN SOCIETIES.
  Abstract of accounts of loan societies in England and Wales furnished to the Central Office for the Registry of Friendly

  347
  Societies, for the year ended 31st December, 1902. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  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 THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Appointed: The Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:—

  E. Cowpel.

  L. Boyle. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  E. Stanhope.

  E. Waldegrave.

  V. Churchill.

  L. Ribblesdale.

  L. Balfour.

  L. Kintore. (E. Kintore.)

NEW BILL.
  BISHOPRIC OF BRISTOL BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for re-arranging the Boundaries of the Dioceses of Bristol and Gloucester and Bath and Wells—Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury (for the Lord Bishop of Bristol); read la; and to be printed. (No. 13.)

NEWCASTLE CHAPTER AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
[SECOND READING.]
Order of the day for the Second Beading read.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, this Bill is word for word the same as one which was passed without opposition in your Lordships' House during the latter part of last session. It was not possible, however, to pass it through the other House owing to the congested state of business there, and it was thought better to withdraw it and bring it before your Lordships at an early period in the present session. If it is desired I shall be pleased to explain its provisions at a later
348
stage. Meanwhile I will content myself by moving the Second Reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Bishop of St. Albans.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FISCAL POLICY—DUTIES ON IMPORTS.
Order of the Day read for the adjourned debate on the Motion of the Earl of Crewe to resolve, "That no duty upon imports into the United Kingdom from Foreign Countries, or from British Colonies and Dependencies, should be imposed, modified, or removed, without the formal consent of Parliament to each such proposal;" and on the Amendment moved by the Marquess of Salisbury to the foregoing Motion, viz:—
"To leave out all the words alter 'that' for the purpose of inserting the following words, viz.: 'This House, while affirming the constitutional doctrine that all the fiscal arrangements of this country must be subject to the full and effective control of Parliament over taxation, is not prepared to lay down rules for the guidance of future Parliaments as to the exact method in which such control should be exercised by them in cases which may hereafter arise.'"
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I have had considerable doubt whether it would be necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with anything in the nature of a personal explanation as to the reasons which caused me last autumn to resign the office in His Majesty's Government which I then had the honour to hold. But as two of my colleagues who resigned their offices about the same period have thought it due either to their constituents or to the House in which they sat or to themselves to enter upon some explanation of a personal character, and as, in addition, the Prime Minister thought it necessary—as he had not thought it necessary on the other occasions—to reply to my letter of resignation in a tone which perhaps was somewhat controversial, I hope that I may ask your Lordships to allow me in a few words to try to explain the reasons, not so much why I thought it necessary ultimately to resign my office, but why that resignation was for some considerable period delayed. Let me say first that I have no complaint

349
whatever to make of what I have referred to as the controversial tone of the reply of the Prime Minister. I fully recognise that some inconvenience may have been caused to him, and perhaps also to the public service, which might have been avoided if my resignation had been sent in at the same period as that of my colleagues; and if this was so, I desire to express my extreme regret for any want of judgment or any want of decision which may have been the cause of such inconvenience.
My colleagues, who have already made personal explanations, Mr. Ritchie and Lord George Hamilton, were perfectly justified in the statement they have made, that at the time when they resigned their offices they had every reason to believe from the communications which had passed between us that I intended to have taken the same course at the same time. I do not think it is necessary that I should enter at all fully into the reasons why I formed that intention. Those reasons were, in the main, identical with those which have been fully stated by my colleagues. I perhaps could not have formulated so distinctly as they did the reasons for their action, because I had not at the time, and I have not even now, a very clear idea of what were the measures to which we were asked at that time to give our assent, or of what was the policy to which we were asked to commit ourselves. It may be enough for me to say that both the action and the language of the Prime Minister and of some of his colleagues since the first opening of this question had been to me a cause of great anxiety and doubt. I felt myself obliged to dissent from much that was contained in the pamphlet which has been published by the Prime Minister, and from some of the contents of the Memorandum which was circulated to his colleagues at the same time. I also had in my mind that two only of my colleagues had prepared for the Cabinet Memoranda dealing with the proposals which had been put forward by our colleague the late Colonial Secretary, and had made criticisms of those proposals with which I was on the whole in entire agreement.
350
At the Cabinet which met on 14th September it was clearly indicated that in the opinion of the Prime Minister the opinions of these members who had expressed themselves in these Memoranda were such as to make it impossible that they could give their assent to the policy which he was about to propose, and that it was not likely that it would be possible for them, with satisfaction to themselves, to remain members of his Government. Sharing as I did in the main the views which had been expressed by my colleagues, I did not see how, if in the opinion of the Prime Minister they could not with advantage remain in his Cabinet, the same considerations should not apply also to my own case. But there was, however, another reason, which was not referred to in the letters of resignation of my colleagues, but which had a great influence upon me, and I think must have had some influence also with them. I think we were, none of us, quite clear as to the nature of the declarations which the Prime Minister might think it necessary to make in his forthcoming speech at Sheffield; but what I felt, and what we all felt, was that, whatever might be the nature of these declarations, it would be impossible for us to continue to be members of a Cabinet in which the Colonial Secretary would be free to advocate principles which we knew he had adopted, which we also knew it was his intention, either in or out of the Cabinet, to advocate publicly throughout the country. Such a state of things would, I think, have been highly unsatisfactory to us, and contrary to the best interests of the public service. It would have been necessary in such circumstances for me either to remain silent—which would have been an intolerable position for myself—or to have taken an open part in combating a policy which my colleague was advocating, which, I think, would hardly have been a course that would have been decent to colleagues in the same Cabinet.
It is quite true that at the Cabinet to which I am referring some mention was made of the possible resignation of Mr. Chamberlain. My recollection, however, agrees with those of my colleagues who have already stated their views on the subject, that that resignation had not been definitely tendered, still less that it

351
had been, or was likely to be, accepted without protest on the part of the Prime Minister. It is also true that on the evening of the same day, after the Cabinet, I had an interview with the Prime Minister, in which he again referred to the possibility of the resignation of Mr. Chamberlain. But, even at that time, it was not presented to me in such a manner as to lead me to understand that a definite tender of resignation had been made, still less that it was likely to be accepted. At a further interview the next day the subject was again referred to, and the resignation of Mr. Chamberlain was spoken of as being extremely probable, if not certain; but it was not until the third day, the Wednesday of that week, that I learned definitely and finally that that resignation had been tendered and had been accepted. I admit that this communication appeared to me to make a very great difference in my position.
As I have said, I was not even then clear as to the scope and nature of the declaration that the Prime Minister intended to make at an early date; but I understood that it was to be mainly on the lines of his pamphlet, with which your Lordships are all acquainted; and from passages in that pamphlet, and also from communications which took place between myself and the Prime Minister, I thought I was justified in the statement which I made in the letter in which I finally tendered my resignation. The passage is very short, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read it—
"I had hoped to have found in your speech a definite statement of adherence to the principle of free trade as the ordinary basis of our fiscal and commercial system, and an equally definite repudiation of the principle of protection in the interests of our national industries."
I thought, from the reasons which I have endeavoured to indicate, that I was justified in forming that opinion as to the general character of the statement which the Prime Minister intended to make. I thought at the time, very wrongly I am afraid, that it was possible that my continued presence in the Cabinet might have the effect of, in some degree, restraining that body from any very wide departure from the principles of free trade to which I still adhered. Still my
352
position, I acknowledge, I felt to be an extremely difficult one. But from that moment when I was definitely assured of the resignation of the Colonial Secretary my difficulties were mainly of a personal and not of a public character. I pointed out to the Prime Minister that the effect which the fact of Mr. Chamberlain's resignation had on my mind would in my opinion probably be similar to the effect which that fact would have on the minds of those other colleagues who had already tendered their resignations and whose resignations had been accepted, understood, however, from him that, whatever might be my decision, there was no intention of asking those colleagues to reconsider theirs, or in fact that any reconsideration on their part would be admitted. My difficulty, therefore, was mainly of a personal character; it was whether I should be wanting in loyalty to those colleagues with whom I had been in communication, who had consulted me as to their course, and whom I had consulted as to mine. My first inclination, I admit, was to insist on being permitted to lay this new fact before my colleagues and consult again with them, and, in fact, to place myself to a great extent in their hands. On reflection, however, I considered that, as nothing which I could do would alter their position, I had no right to ask them to take any responsibility for my own conduct, which affected myself alone, and that my decision must be made solely upon public grounds. I therefore decided that under these new circumstances it would be my duty to remain a member of the Cabinet, and to exercise what influence I might possess in endeavouring to guide or restrain the action of the Cabinet.
There is one further explanation, or perhaps I ought rather to say one further confession, which I have to make. It is quite true, as was stated in the Prime Minister's letter of reply to me, that I saw before I finally gave my decision the letter in which he had accepted Mr. Chamberlain's resignation. I think if I had at that time fully grasped the significance of that letter my decision would have been a different one. But I can only plead in excuse that the letter was only read to me, that I had no opportunity of considering its terms

353
carefully; and I will also ask noble Lords to remember that this was the third day of these proceedings, days which had been occupied incessantly in meetings of the Cabinet, in interviews, and in correspondence, and the strain upon my mind was very great, as I think it would have been on the mind of any man. I was not in a position, my mind was not so clear and lucid as it ought to have been, and I did not, as I ought to have done, fully grasp the significance of the terms in which the resignation had been accepted. On the next day the Prime Minister had left London; I had an interview, however, with his private secretary, and I again had an opportunity of reading the correspondence with Mr. Chamberlain. That more careful inspection of the correspondence, I acknowledge, filled my mind with the very greatest anxiety, and I doubted whether I had taken a wise step in consenting to remain in the Cabinet. I felt, however, that it was too late to recall my decision, and that I could only trust and hope that, notwithstanding the terms of that letter, the declarations which would be made by the Prime Minister would not be inconsistent with those which I had previously expected. With that object, I had, I think, another interview with the Prime Minister's private secretary, in which I impressed upon him to the best of my ability that I trusted that those declarations would be consistent with the opinion which I had formed that the Prime Minister did not intend to depart widely from the principles of free trade as the accepted basis of our fiscal policy.
I have stated already in my letter the reasons which induced me to think, after I bad read the speech at Sheffield, that I had altogether misconceived the position and the opinions of the Prime Minister. Although I did not then, and although I do not now, know what measures I might ultimately have been called upon to defend in this House, I did feel that those declarations, to which I have called special attention in my letter, were entirely opposed to the impressions which I had formed and which I had expected to be fulfilled. It would have been impossible for me, when Parliament reassembled, to stand at this Table, or on any platform
354
in the country, and to profess myself, as a member of the Prime Minister's Government, still a convinced free-trader, as I am, and always hope that I shall remain. That is, I think, all that I have to say on the personal question. I trust that I have not said anything which may make it necessary for any of us ever to reopen that question, which I am sure your Lordships will admit is, and must be, one of extreme pain and difficulty for me.
I desire to offer a few observations on the subjects which have been raised in the present debate. I think that my noble friend Lord Crewe has rendered no inconsiderable service to the House and to the country in raising a discussion upon one side of this question, which up to the present time, I think, has been inadequately discussed. A great deal has been said—not, in my opinion, at all too much—upon another side of the question, that of the attitude of the Government towards the policy which has been proposed, not by them, but by Mr. Chamberlain. But up to the present time very little, comparatively, has been said on the subject of the Government's own policy, or of the proposals which they intend to make either to Parliament or, before a general election, to the country. It is a somewhat curious and remarkable feature of the extraordinary position in which we find ourselves that ten times as much interest—I think I may say a hundred times as much interest—appears to be roused throughout the country in the policy which is advocated by Mr. Chamberlain, and in the attitude of the Government towards that policy, than is excited by the Government's own proposals.
The Government have asserted, and I believe still assert, that they have a policy. The Prime Minister at Sheffield declared that, this question having been raised, it was his intention to give a lead to his Party and to the country. I ask, Where are we to find this lead? It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has been unable to further explain his views in the House of Commons; but surely he must have colleagues in the House of Commons who would have been fully capable of explaining those views if there had been anything further to explain. The Prime

355
Minister has written a pamphlet and he has made three speeches; and in those, up to the present time, we must find the materials for forming an opinion on the policy of the Government and on the lead which he desires to give to his Party. In the pamphlet the most definite expression that I find is that he pleads for "freedom to negotiate in order that freedom of exchange may be increased." In the speech at Sheffield I find also the definite declaration that he intended to reverse the fiscal policy of the last two generations. That declaration would seem to imply that as the fiscal policy of the last two generations had been one of free trade the Prime Minister's intention was to revert to protection. But we have been assured that that is not the present intention of the Government, and therefore we have to fall back on the freedom to negotiate in order that freedom of exchange might be increased. That does not appear to roe to be so much a declaration of policy as the expression of a sentiment; and until that sentiment is reduced to concrete proposals I maintain that we have not got—and the country has not got—the lead which we have the right to expect.
If the complexity and difficulty of this position could have been increased I think it would have been increased by the speech of my noble friend Lord Selborne last night. Lord Selborne told us that it was impossible to explain the details of a policy which was not yet born. I ask, how are we to accept as the policy of the Government or the lead which the Government have promised to give to the country a policy which, in the words of one of his colleagues, has not yet come into existence. Under these circumstances, it is perhaps not strange that we have not derived very much enlightenment from the debates which have taken place in the other House of Parliament. We have to-night one more chance of obtaining that enlightenment. My noble friend who leads the House holds a position only second in authority to that of the Prime Minister himself, and it maybe—I hope it may be—that he will be in a position to throw some light upon this perplexed condition of things. He told us the other day, in words spoken with some deliberation, that the Government
356
presented a solid front on that part of the policy which they had examined and to which as a Government they were committed. What we want to know is, What are the results of that examination which has been given? I trust that I do not put this question in a hostile spirit to the Government. As I have admitted, while I was a member of the Government I was perfectly ready to enter myself into an examination of certain proposals; but while I was a member of the Government certainly no examination of this policy had yet been undertaken, and if I had remained in the Government I should have expected that such an examination would be made before the meeting of Parliament, and that its results would be communicated to Parliament.
We have never got nearer to a definition of the policy of the Government than that which was given to us by the noble Marquess at the opening of the session. "The policy of the Government," he said, "might be summed up in the words negotiation and retaliation." It is perfectly possible that a policy which has been fully and adequately explained may be summed up in two words; but there never was a policy—and I do not think that there ever will be a policy—which, in the absence of such adequate explanation, could be summed up sufficiently for the consideration of Parliament or the country in a couple of words. Though we have often heard this summing-up of the policy of the Government we have never received any indications whatever as to the manner in which those principles are to be applied to our future fiscal policy. As to negotiation, the Government have always, in my opinion, been free to enter into negotiation.
The Prime Minister says that we deprived ourselves of the means of successfully conducting negotiations, and the other night, in the House of Commons, Mr. Wyndham attributed the failure of certain negotiations with France which took place in 1880 to the absence of any fiscal inducement which it was in our power to offer. I think Mr. Wyndham was not quite accurately informed with respect to that negotiation. It is not the fact that in that negotiation we had nothing to offer. Parliament had already been asked, and had assented, to a

357
reduction of the duties on French wines in the event of the conclusion of a treaty. The obstacle which prevented the conclusion of that treaty was the pledge which was given to Parliament by the Government—rightly given, I think, at that time—that they would not assent to any treaty which should provide for the imposition of higher duties than those which had been agreed to by the French Government in 1860. The French Government, I believe, were perfectly willing to comply with that demand on the part of our Government; and the obstacle which prevented the conclusion of a fresh treaty with France was the unwillingness of the protectionist majority in the French Chambers to agree to the proposal to which their Government were quite ready to assent. That negotiation, therefore, did not fail in consequence of the absence of anything which we had to offer in the shape of inducement. It failed on account of the rigid protectionist principles professed by a majority in the French Chambers.
From negotiation we come to retaliation. I suppose my noble friend Lord Selborne was under the impression last night that he was defending the principles of retaliation. In my judgment almost the whole of his speech, although he every now and then used a phrase about retaliation, might have been just as well made in defence of a policy of protection, or the policy proposed by Mr. Chamberlain. My noble friend used all the arguments which are so familiar in the mouths of protectionist speakers. He asserted that our country had prospered under protection and also that other countries had in recent years prospered more under protection than we had under free trade.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): I made no comparison as to the respective degrees of prosperity. I simply said that foreign countries had prospered greatly under protection.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I was under the impression that my noble friend used the words that other countries had prospered more in recent years under
358
protection than we had prospered under free trade.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said that their trade had progressed at a greater rate than ours.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I accept my noble friend's correction; but if that is his opinion why does he not boldly advocate a return to a system of protection in this country? It may be that protection is a very good system, and that other countries may have prospered under a protective system; but I do not think that my noble friend can point to any instance where a country has prospered under a system of negotiation and retaliation, or to any country whose fiscal system is based on a formula so unmeaning. But we are not to-night discussing protection. The object of this debate I take to be to endeavour to find out, what, if it is not protection, is the policy of His Majesty's Government. If we were to discuss the question of protection I should find it necessary to challenge most, if not all, of the statements and arguments that were contained in my noble friend's speech; and especially should I think it my duty to call attention to the fact that he based an argument as to the stagnation of our trade upon the exports of our manufactured articles only, and that he altogether omitted to make the slightest reference in the course of his speech—an omission which was somewhat remarkable on the part of the First Lord of the Admiralty—to the enormous progress which has been made under free trade by our shipping industries, by our shipbuilding and our foreign shipping trade.
As to retaliation, it seems to me everything depends upon the meaning which we are to attach to the word and as to the spirit in which it is to be used. There was a somewhat ominous sentence in the Prime Minister's pamphlet, in which he said that the only alternative that was left was—
"To do to foreign nations what they always do to each other, and, instead of appealing to economic theories which they wholly disbelieve, to use fiscal inducement which they thoroughly understand."
If this means, as it seems to me, that we are to base our future fiscal policy on

359
the model of foreign nations—upon what foreign nations do to each other—we can very easily form an opinion of what it comes to. If my noble friend Lord Lansdowne is to be free to present his big revolver at the head of every protectionist State which imposes protective duties against our exports, and to threaten, or to carry out a threat, of imposing similar duties upon their exports, we know very well what that would come to. We know that almost every nation of Europe and the United States of America attach far more importance to keeping control over their own markets than to opening our markets to themselves; and we know that all the fiscal inducements which they so thoroughly understand have never enabled them, if they have ever tried, to establish free trade between each other. If we are to model, as that sentence appears to indicate, our future fiscal policy upon what foreign nations do to each other, I cannot see what other result we can anticipate than the establishment of a system of protection all round.
The Government decline to discuss with us concrete cases. That is no reason why we should not put to them concrete cases of our own for the purpose of helping the country to see where this policy of retaliation may lead them. Lord Crewe referred last night to a suggestion which has been made that it might be possible in the case of Germany, for instance, by threatening to impose an additional tax upon her wines or upon the cheap toys that she exports, to obtain some concession on her part in our favour. It has also been suggested that in the case of Prance we might threaten to impose some duty upon her silks or fancy articles, and by that means obtain some concession from her. I admit that I am extremely doubtful whether the advantages which we could obtain from using such fiscal inducements as these would be very great. I can conceive that, if threats of this sort were made and carried out, it would certainly tend to dislocate a certain portion of our trade, and that it would infallibly diminish a certain portion of our exports which pay for those imports which would be thereby checked. But if, after full examination, His Majesty's Government had reason to suppose that by a threat or the imposition of duties of
360
this kind there would be any probability of their obtaining larger and more important concessions in other directions, I should not have the slightest objection to seeing this experiment tried, to seeing it proposed to Parliament, and seeing on what grounds it could be defended. But let me instance another case of retaliation. I do not know that the proposal has ever been made in a more simple and naked form than it was made a short time ago in a newspaper which is a great supporter of His Majesty's Government and also of Mr. Chamberlain—The Times newspaper. The Times was discussing the question of our iron industry, and said—
"By a hostile tariff America first shuts our iron out of her market and then invades our home markets and shuts up our manufactories. Would it really be no advantage to be able to retain our home market in spite of their tariff? We could do that by a retaliatory tax upon the iron of every country that taxes ours. Granting that we could obtain no power of negotiation that would open the American market to our own iron—"
It is not proposed that it should be done in order to secure greater freedom of exchange—
"still to secure possession of our home market would immensely increase our power of competing with America in every foreign market open to both. All this is so elementary that no free-importer should spoil his case by directly contradicting it."
Well, this argument rather appeals to me. I happen to be considerably interested in the iron and steel industry as chairman of an iron and steel company, and I quite admit that it would be rather an attractive prospect to me to be relieved of American competition in our market and to be able thereby to charge higher prices to our customers at home. I have no doubt that if a tariff reformer were to go to Barrow-in-Furness and make the same suggestion to the workmen in our works they would see it in the same light as I do. But, in my opinion, Parliament has got to look a little further than the interests either of iron and steel companies, or even of the workmen engaged in this industry.
It is admitted that we cannot succeed in what we all desire to do—in opening the American market to our iron products; but, as a compensation, we are to be protected against competition in our own. Now the competition to which we

361
are exposed is essentially of a temporary and fitful character; it is a competition of that kind which is now described as "dumping"; it is the occasional export by America or by Germany of a portion of their over-production which has been fostered by their protective tariffs, and by their trusts which have grown up under protective tariffs. A portion of that overproduction is priced below the cost of manufacture But that competition must in its nature be of a temporary character. In order to relieve us from that temporary inconvenience we are to be compensated by a permanent protective duty. It is not easy to see that our power of competing in neutral markets would be increased by the adoption of that proposal. If America or Germany want to "dump" they will "dump" somewhere. If they cannot "dump" here, they will be driven to "dumping" in neutral markets in which we compete with them.
What this tariff would do would be permanently to raise the price of our products to our home customers. Who are our home customers? Nobody that I am aware of buys iron or steel to look at or to put in his pocket. The purchasers of iron and steel are a thousand different classes of manufacturers who convert iron and steel into hundreds and thousands of articles of general utility and advantage. Well, if the price of their material is raised to them, they also must be protected—the price of the article which they produce will also be raised, their consumption will be necessarily reduced, and the effect of this proposal would be that production would be diminished, and that a large number of workmen in these subsiduary industries—a far larger number than are employed in the ironmasters' works—would have their employment by so much reduced. I think it is a fair question to put to His Majesty's Government whether the proposal which I have just described comes under the head of protection, or whether it comes under the head of retaliation. If the answer is that such a policy as has been recommended by The Times comes under the head of retaliation, I think the country will be in a better position to judge than it is now of the consequences which may follow the adoption of the policy which was so simply described to us in a couple of words.
362
There is one point on which I desire to say a word, which seems to me more important even than the discovery of the proposals of the Government itself. It is the relation of the Government to the Unionist organisations which largely control the policy indicated by the tariff reformers. What are we all looking to? We know we are all looking to the future general election, to the preparations to be made for that general election, and the results of that election. The Government are using the whole of their influence to ensure that the results of that election should be a mandate for a change of some kind or another in our present fiscal policy. This is their irreducible minimum, and unless a candidate is prepared to proclaim himself a fiscal reformer of one kind or another he is no longer permitted to be a loyal supporter of the Government. Sometimes they profess a mild preference for their own proposals over the more extreme proposals of the Tariff Reform League. Some of them do not conceal, however, their sympathy with the more extended proposals than their own; but in no case, so far as I am aware, is the influence of the Government exerted, or will it be exerted, to impose any limit whatever on the extent to which their supporters may legitimately commit themselves. I submit that this attitude on the part of the Government is unfair to many of their supporters who desire to give them a loyal support.
I think we have a right to ask that there should be a superior limit as well as an irreducible minimum. Some of us here, and some of those who in the other House voted for the Amendment moved the other day, have endeavoured to induce the Government to fix some such superior limit; but hitherto our endeavours have been without success. I believe and I trust that the whole of His Majesty's Government are not committed to a policy of undisguised preference, protective taxation of food, or to the imposition of an all-round duty. But what is the use of the protests which some of them have made if they take no steps to secure that their protests shall be effective? And unless they take some steps to prevent the return to Parliament of candidates who are pledged

363
to protection and preference, the responsibility of those members of the Government who are not prepared to go to these full lengths will not be, in my opinion, discharged if by their possible future resignations they decline a verdict on the part of the country which they have I themselves been instrumental in obtaining and which by timely action on their part they might have averted.
There is only one hypothesis on which this attitude on their part can be justified. It is that in their judgment these questions are of minor importance as compared with the maintenance of the Unionist Party for other purposes—for purposes, I acknowledge, great and important, perhaps of resisting any revival of the Home Rule policy, of maintaining the principles of the Education Act, and, for all I know, there may be many others; but in comparison with these they hold that the most sweeping changes in our fiscal policy are matters of minor importance. I acknowledge that I am unable to hold this view, for I believe there is no subject which is the least likely to occupy the immediate or early attention of Parliament which compares in importance with that of the principles on which our fiscal policy is in the future to be based. In saying this I think I am taking a more consistent position than that which was taken by Lord Selborne last night. He reminded us that we were risking the existence of the great Unionist Party? But what are he and his friends doing? Are they doing nothing to risk the existence of the great Unionist Party? He has not even the excuse of thinking that these are great matters, for he told us that he considered that a wholly exaggerated importance was attached to the question both by the advocates and opponents of protection.
There are certain compensations for the absence of the Leader of the other House and for his place being occupied by Mr. Akers-Douglas, who, speaking the other day, gave some novel definitions of the principles of Cabinet responsibility. He said—
"The noble Lord wants to know whether hon. Members supporting the Sheffield policy and hon. Members supporting a more advanced policy will receive the same support from the Conservative associations. I say certainly, as long as they receive the support of their local associations, and my hon. friend the Secretary of
364
the Treasury has observed that he certainly will make no difference with regard to the candidates who are standing now; but the condition must be that they are supported by the local associations, and that they necessarily support the policy of the Government. How else would hon. members have it?"
I think that is a very frank expression of the opinions of an important member of the Government on this part of the question. We know now who are to control the decision of the future fiscal policy of the Government. It is to be left to individual opinion and the action of the local associations. If by any process of wire pulling a sufficient number of local associations can be got to support the policy of the Tariff Reform League, then it is the policy of the Tariff Reform League only and not their own policy which will be submitted to the country at the next general election. I confess I am not content to leave the decision of this question in the hands of the local associations. Local associations are a necessary and important part of our political organisations; but local associations do not always, and frequently do not represent the opinions of the constituencies which they profess to represent.
I have been reproached with disloyalty to the Unionist Party for having advised free-traders to vote against protectionist candidates. I have given that advice. I have never advised any one to vote against candidates who were pledged to the policy of negotiation and retaliation—partly because, as I have already said, I do not know what that policy means. But I do advise every man who professes free-trade opinions, and does desire that freedom of exchange should not be diminished but increased, to exact from every candidate who seeks to represent him in Parliament a pledge that he will oppose protection in whatever shape it may re-appear—to exact a pledge from the candidates that they will vote against protection, and that they will oppose protective taxes on food, that they will oppose the imposition of a protective duty upon foreign manufactured goods; and I will advise that, failing this pledge, he will refuse to support a candidate even if he professes to be a supporter of a Unionist Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I believe I am only expressing the views of every one of

365
my colleagues, that they regard the departure of the noble Duke as a great calamity, and I can hardly adequately express how his absence from our counsels is felt. The subject of the resignation of the noble Duke is one which I think may be fairly left to him. At least, as far as I am concerned, I absolutely refuse to discuss any part of that matter. I am sure that in the eyes of his countrymen the noble Duke has said and done nothing that is inconsistent with the highest tone of honour. Turning to the other part of the noble Duke's speech, I confess I am a little surprised at the complete innocence the noble Duke appears to display as to the mode in which political matters are managed in Cabinets. I should have thought the noble Duke's experience would have led him to speak less lightly of the opinions of local political associations. Another observation occurs to me upon the noble Duke's remark, that he had never heard of a policy that could be expressed in two words. Has he ever heard of Home Rule? No one has made a more effective stand than the noble Duke himself as to the necessity of distinguishing between the official acts, the official programme, of a Government and the individual opinions of the members of a Government: and until there is that official programme, and something which the Government as a Government is supporting, I should have thought there was no right to inquire into the individual opinions of different members of a Government. The noble Duke quoted a celebrated passage from a speech by Lord Macaulay, in which he pointed out that great and important issues before the country had been advocated by members of a Cabinet and denounced by other members of the same Cabinet. I do not know whether the noble Duke has altered his views since June 15th last. I am afraid I shall have to call the noble Duke's attention to observations he then made on the subject; but on this part of it I am a little surprised to find the noble Duke expressing his view that a member is open to have his expressed opinion challenged by his colleagues and a declaration made by the Government.
Before proceeding further, I wish to make a protest against the impression, which the noble Duke has acted upon for the last twenty minutes, that the House is discussing protection and
366
free trade. That is a kind of trap into which speaker after speaker has fallen. They are not invited to fight that question, and those responsible for bringing the subject forward at Sheffield and elsewhere have over and over again repudiated the statement that it is necessary to take the part of free-trader or protectionist. I have my own views and will not, when necessary, hesitate to express them; but as a member of the Government, and responsible for what I say as representing my colleages, I have spoken no words in favour of protection, nor do I intend to do so to-night. I claim to have my views unchallenged until I say or do something for which the Government will be responsible. It is not a discussion upon any proposal of the Government, and when the noble Duke said he did not understand the measures suggested by the Prime Minister at the time of his resignation, he could not have meant to convey that measures were actually suggested, for certainly they were not. Not now is there any specific proposal from the Government in question, but we are challenged by the noble Earl to say what we are going to do or say in the country. That is what it comes to; and, forsooth, His Majesty's Ministers are challenged on their views without respect to any specific measure capable of being discussed. It is one thing to speak of a policy of retaliation, or what, in other words, the noble Duke more accurately described as freedom to negotiate with other countries; but what is it? Who has given the right to challenge members of the Government upon what they are going to do, or what they are going to say, or what they are going to propose? What has been suggested is an inquiry, an inquiry among themselves to determine what they should propose to Parliament. That was what was suggested; and I think I may claim the authority of the noble Duke for considering this a reasonable and proper thing to do, and one would suppose that the natural result would be that, when a conclusion came to be arrived at as to what was the right thing to do, then a full discussion would proceed as to a general policy and its details. But here the House is discussing nothing in particular and speakers attribute anything they please as to possible proposals His

367
Majesty's Government may hereafter submit.
I observe that not only did the noble Earl who initiated this discussion suggest that a policy should be declared, but that the Government should be bound by a Resolution of the House as to the particular form which a proposal should take. It is a very remarkable thing as a matter of constitutional curiosity, and I think it should be handed down to the future as a precedent which ought to be avoided. On 15th June there was a discussion not very unlike others heard in the House when this subject is raised, and the noble Duke on that occasion used words in which, alluding to the line taken by noble Lords opposite that inquiry into the present system was not even permissible, he said they would—
"Find themselves compelled, whether they liked it or not, to take their share in this grand inquest of the nation which was to be opened."
But from what the noble Duke has just said, it does not appear that his mind is so open as to whether there should be this grand inquest or not.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I thought the inquiry had been concluded, and that the Government had arrived at a conclusion to reverse the fiscal policy of the last two generations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: From what did the noble Duke infer that the inquiry was concluded?
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The decision.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What decision? I have not heard of any decision to reverse the fiscal policy of the country. On the contrary, one of the most frequent complaints on both sides is that no decision has been announced. All through his observations to-night the noble Duke referred to free trade; but in the course of his former speech he very justly said we never had free trade, but only free imports. How the noble Duke can have come to the conclusion that the inquiry was concluded is one of those mysteries which I am not able to solve. I was under the impression, until the noble Duke spoke, that we
368
were still piling up statistics, and were still engaged in "the grand inquest." What the noble Duke said in June was good common sense, and ought to be acted on—that a great evil undoubtedly exists, and that it ought to be remedied in some way or another. The noble Duke said with great force that the circumstances had completely changed, and that, instead of manufacturing as we had formerly done for the whole world, we were being surrounded by hostile tariffs. What was to be done was to inquire in what way that great evil could be remedied. Is it, or is it not, an evil that we are being shut out from every market in the world, and, if it is, are those charged with the Government of the country not under some obligation to endeavour to apply a remedy? And if there is no remedy but retaliation, what is the objection? At present, if we go to France or Germany and say, "Will you let our goods in free if we let your goods in free?" the answer we should receive from these countries would be, "Our goods go in free already. You have nothing to offer us. Why should we give you anything, when you have nothing to give us in return?" Whoever heard of a bargain in which one partner began by saying, "I have nothing to give you; please give me something?"
It is not unnatural that the Government should endeavour in some way to get rid of the evil inflicted on this country and its commerce by high tariffs. But it is said retaliation would be ineffectual, that it would lead either to a tariff war, which would be injurious to both parties, or to the duties put on being made perpetual, and thus protection would be introduced. I admit that a commercial war may be injurious; but if it were known that we would go into commercial warfare with a weapon that we could use, our antagonists would be a little chary of challenging us by raising their tariffs. The objection to the present system is that every country may bring its goods to our shores and seriously injure our industries by underselling us, and we have no power to resist them. That injury is being done cannot be denied. But it is said we must take a wider view. I agree that we must not confine our view to one industry, but must look to the prosperity and interest of the whole country. But,

369
on the other hand, we must remember that the whole country is made up of its different parts. How many of its industries may be destroyed with impunity? It is interesting to observe the different forms in which the attack on the Government has been made; and until the Government themselves determine on which line of defence they will place themselves, I suppose they may be justly abused by both sides—by those who complain that Ministers are not sufficiently protectionists and by those who assert that their policy would lead to the taxation of food.
The Government should be judged by their professions. They have put forward no concrete policy. All that is before the country is the Prime Minister's statement that he is prepared to reverse the policy that no duty could ever be imposed except for the purposes of revenue. If there is an evil to be met, is it right to take the leading principle of the Sheffield speech and of the pamphlet—and there is, I assert, no difference between the the private paper and the pamphlet in this respect? The principle is that the country has a right to say to other countries, "Unless your fiscal system is so altered that our goods may get into your markets, we shall refuse to let your goods into our markets." All that is claimed is that that liberty should exist. The form in which and the extent to which that should be done are necessarily matters of detail. But that that should be the leading principle is all the Prime Minister has ever said.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I fully share the opinion which has been expressed by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, that the Question on the Paper is a very narrow one. I also agree with him that there has been considerable digression during the debate, but that digression is quite natural, and I do not think that any member of His Majesty's Government will complain either that inquiries have been made or that digression has occurred. I am sure there are many in this House who would wish to offer to His Majesty's Government their congratulation upon the two recruits they have obtained on the Front Bench. The speech of the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury and of the noble Earl Lord Donoughmore were speeches of good
370
qualities, and I think the Government may be congratulated on obtaining such recruits. My Lords, I have been accustomed for years to treat everything which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says with great respect, and I do so now; but he has propounded a doctrine which has fallen on my ears with strange sound. The Government claim the right to appeal to the country to-morrow, or any day, for a mandate of the greatest importance; yet, when details are asked for, my noble and learned friend replies, "What right have you to make any inquiry as to what that mandate is to be for?" I contend that, if the fullest information on the subject is not obtained in Parliament, the country will have actually placed before it the nature of the mandate at twenty-four hours notice, and they will have to determine upon it in ignorance. That is not the way to obtain the genuine opinion of the country on any great question.
The noble and learned Earl, referring to the observation of the noble Duke as to his inability to understand the meaning of a policy which was represented by two words, quoted the case of Home Rule. Of course, the meaning of those two words was clearly understood, for Irish politicians had been for years explaining to the country what Home Rule was; and Mr. Gladstone never consulted the country on Home Rule until he had introduced the Bill of 1886 with all its details Not till then did he ask the country to express its opinion. No one, I think, ought to deny to Parliament the right of investigation as to the nature of the mandate to be asked for by, and as to the policy of, His Majesty's Government. The speech of the Marquess of Salisbury was satisfactory so far as it went. He said the policy of the Government was that of supporting free trade. He went on to say that protection threw a burden on the consumer and gave a benefit to the producer. That is very satisfactory. But he was only playing the part which Mr. Gerald Balfour played in the other House of Parliament. We afterwards had the remarkable speech delivered by Lord Selborne. I am sure the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty knows that it is impossible for me to say a discourteous word in regard to him.

371
But the noble Earl seemed to be suffering from a suppressed attack of protection. Let us see what my noble friend said. He raised a question which is important from many points of view, because it is a purely protectionist point of view. Having had a great deal to do with the Unionist Party both on its platforms and in regard to its policy, I wish to ask my noble friend to consider the effect of his words upon the fortunes of the Unionist Party. He has stated that in the protectionist period, ten or fifteen years before free trade, this country existed in a state of prosperity. Well, the people who were interested in the prosperity of this country will be surprised to hear that His Majesty's Government regard the state of things existing before free trade as a prosperous state of things.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I must be allowed to state my point in my own way. The noble Duke had stated that there was no period of prosperity before the repeal of the Corn Laws, and I pointed out that it was prosperous according to the opinion of the period. I pointed out that prosperity was a comparative term, and the standard of comparison was the experience of the world at the given moment, and I proved from contemporary records that in the opinion of that time, before the repeal of the Corn Laws, the period had been considered a prosperous one.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: That is exactly what I am traversing. No doubt, after the French War this country recuperated, and our manufactures flourished. Steamships were built, and from the capitalists' point of view there was no doubt an increased prosperity, but that was not the prosperity of the country. May I say that if my noble friend had lived as long as I have he would not have said that that period was a prosperous one. I can recollect when those who looked out at night saw the fires burning from the agricultural homesteads, when reports came in of the breaking up of machinery, when lawless men scoured the country and raided the inns. The miners of Wales were marching on Newport, and I remember standing by the main road
372
to learn whether the Queen's mail coach had been captured by those rebels. Our gaols were full, and men were being tried for sedition and treason. All this did not proceed from political disaffection and wrong, or from bad laws, but it proceeded from one cause alone, and it was that men were starving and wanted food, and had to fight in defnce of their very lives; and they had to break the law in order to make their grievances known. Many of your Lordships may have seen a graphic account of the state of the country during the time which my noble friend Lord Selborne says was a prosperous time. That account says that the whole of the labourers in the agricultural districts were on the verge of starvation; that the poor rates were 20s. in the pound; that the large towns were like beleaguered cities, so dreadful was the destitution and misery which prevailed in them; that people walked the streets like gaunt shadows, and not like human beings; that bread was so dear that few were able to buy it, and we were on the verge of a revolution when the Corn Laws were repealed. Then is given the anecdote about the pinch of curry powder. That was the description given by an accurate and truthful historian of events, for that is the record of Mr. Chamberlain himself. I am not seeking to introduce anything in the way of a taunt to my right hon. friend, but this description represents history, and I take it that this description is true, yet my noble friend says those were prosperous times. People at that time may have looked to the capitalists of the country, and thought that if the capitalists were prosperous the country was prosperous. They are now looking towards the Tariff Commission, and saying that this country is prosperous, but they do not go into the cottages of the people and learn for themselves the suffering that comes from the want of food. My noble friend Lord Selborne said if there had been any amelioration of that state of things it did not result from free trade.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said free imports.
LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Yes; imports and free food coming in untaxed.

373
Your Lordships will remember that the agitation for free trade commenced in the year 1849, and in the year 1852 the Government of Lord Derby was formed, and at the end of that year free trade had only been in operation some three years. A question arose, on the Motion of Mr. Charles Villiers, whether free trade was a doctrine that ought to be supported, and a discussion took place in December, 1853, as to what should be the opinion of the House on that subject. At that time Mr. Disraeli, as Chancellor of the Exchequer was the Leader of the House, and he then expressed a wish that the Resolution proposed and the question it raised should be definitely cleared up, and in the course of that discussion, which was rather conversational, Mr. Disraeli said—
"Under these circumstances we endeavoured to draw up a distinct Resolution which we considered would conciliate your opinion to such a degree that we hoped it would be accepted. I have not the Resolution at hand, but I sufficiently recollect it to know that it most unquestionably declared the opinion that the welfare of the working classes was attributable to the cheapness of provisions occasioned by recent legislation."
That was the opinion of Lord Derby's Cabinet, and Mr. Disraeli was willing to bring forward that Amendment expressly in the terms which I have mentioned, stating that it was the opinion of the House that the amelioration of the working classes had been affected by means of free imports, and that it was in consequence of the cheapness of food, resulting from that legislation, that the working classes had had their position altered for the better. It turns out that whilst now there are members of the present Government saying that such is not the case, the colleagues of Lord Derby, Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Walpole, Sir J. Pakington, and every member of the Government of 1852, went into the Lobby and voted that such had been the result of free trade in ameliorating the condition of the working classes, and congratulating the country that the previous state of things had been changed. Not only the Government, but 486 Members of the House of Commons, voted that such was the result in 1852, and now it is left to the year 1904 for us to be told that such was not the case, and that there was no improvement for the working classes of this country through free trade. May
374
I mention, in passing, that I think we are to be congratulated upon the fact that one Member of your Lordships' House, most highly regarded, most highly venerated, still remains amongst us, who was a member of that Cabinet, and if he were here to-night—I allude to the Lord John Manners of 1852—I think he would readily confirm that, protectionist as he was, he voted in favour of that declaration, and also, if he had been present to-night, he might have told us how it was that he voted for such a. Resolution. I hope that this statement of my noble friend has now been pretty well disposed of, and I hope he will believe Mr. Chamberlain if he does not believe me. He has now got the statement on this point of the old protectionist Party, and I ask him to listen to such evidence and not rely upon persons less worthy of credence.
Perhaps I may anticipate for a moment what we shall have to deal with. There is one delivered statement which I am sure will affect public opinion to a great extent. The Lord Chancellor says that we have no right to ask the Government what their opinions are individually. I know I have no right to do that, but after his speech I am inclined to suspect them, and I think that my suspicions are well founded. We know the opinion of many members of the Government. Without breaking the canons of privacy, we know pretty well what the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are. I think I have a suspicion, from what my right hon. friend Mr. Alfred Lyttelton has said, what he means. You may call his opinions pious opinions if you like, but still they are his opinions, and the Lord Chancellor cannot object to my stating that Mr. Lyttelton has told us that we cannot put preferential tariffs on one side. My noble friend Lord Selborne says that the Government are free-traders, and he says they will not ban preferential tariffs. I suppose that means they will not oppose them. Is that the policy of the Government? When these views are placed before the country we wish to know what the policy of the Government is in regard to them; but when we hear Ministers in the House of Commons telling us that

375
they are in favour of these protectionist views, then we are told by the Lord Chancellor that we have no right to inquire what the views of the Government are individually. Have the governed no right to know the opinions of those who govern I Is it possible to hear these individual opinions and for us to be satisfied while the Government say "We will some time or other tell you what our opinions are?" I would ask my noble friend on the Woolsack to say whether the Government will tell us this after the next general election or before it. We must have some statement on this question. The people of this country are not constitutional lawyers, and if you are going to ask them to vote some time or other you must tell them what they are going to vote upon. It is no good telling them after they have voted. It may he negotiation and retaliation, and if it is, then you would have their banners inscribed with those words, and you would tell the farmer and agricultural labourer "That is sufficient for you, and we will not tell you any more." I feel seriously in regard to the fortunes of the Unionist Party, and I say that such strategy is placing the Unionist Party in very great peril. If you tell the farmer that your policy is retaliation he will ask you what it is you are going to retaliate upon. He will ask whether it is upon agricultural implements or the chemicals he uses upon the land. My noble friend says, "We are not going to tell you, but we shall leave it to the new Parliament and they will tell you." I assure my noble friend that the Unionist Party will stand in great peril in consequence of this state of things. You are practically telling the agricultural labourer, "You are to have this great policy of retaliation and negotiation and what more can you want?" He will ask you, what are you going to tax for retaliation? I think in this way you come down to a very low level and a very commonplace level, but it is a very practical level and you cannot avoid being placed in such a position.
May I ask my noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he speaks to-night to answer one or two questions. In the first place I want to ask what is the mandate that he expects from the
376
country. I suppose he will accept the view of my noble friend on the Woolsack and he will say, "I shall tell the electors they will vote for retaliation and negotiation." I suppose I must take that answer. Now let me ask my noble friend how is he going to take the opinion of the country upon negotiation and retaliation? How are you going to obtain your vote upon that mandate? How are you going to separate it from the rest of the proposals in your programme? Suppose you are placed between a free-trader and a supporter of Mr. Chamberlain—how are you going to get a vote for the Government under those circumstances upon retaliation and negotiation? There will be men who will not attach importance to their vote upon that question, but they will desire to vote upon education and Chinese labour, and all those subjects that engage the attention of the public, and how can you separate that question from all the other questions which will confront the elector? There is one way you can do this, and it is for the Government to frankly place their propositions before Parliament and before the country, and then you can place them properly before the electors. When I contested my first election in 1868 there was one question before the public, and this course was taken through the statesmanship of a man who knew the necessity for obtaining mandates. In the year 1868 Mr. Gladstone brought forward certain Resolutions in the House of Commons declaring the necessity of disestablishing the Irish Church, and he stated precisely the manner in which it was to take place, and every Liberal candidate had that question in his mind, and at every meeting I read this and used it, and I obtained my majority by virtue of being able to tell the people what it was the Prime Minister required. But we have not got anything like that now, for hero you are mixing up this question with the general policy of the Government. If you take that course the demand of the Government will be driven into the background. It will be Mr. Chamberlain's policy that we shall have to fight, and this Government, asking for a mandate so obtained, will have no proof that the people have ever expressed an opinion upon that question. My noble friend

377
is the Foreign Secretary, and he will have to deal with this question of retaliation. If the election is carried on in this manner, how will my noble friend be able to say to Foreign Ministers that the people of this country have declared in favour of retaliation. The natural reply will be, "You have not found out the opinion of the people of your country, and even if there is a majority in favour of the Government it is not a majority in favour of retaliation, because three-fourths of the electors may support Mr. Chamberlain. And my noble friend will have no power of negotiation if the Government will not be more explicit to show that the opinion of the electors has been declared. Does my noble friend know yet if the Government have formulated anything in the shape of retaliation? Has it been thought over what my noble friend is going to say to each particular country? Has he ascertained what he will say to Russia, or what he is going to tax? We have a positive promise that there shall be no taxation of food, and in the face of that, what can be said to Russia or America, which are the two countries whose imports you wish most to shut out. I fancy that when my noble friend comes to threaten, it will be a practice contrary to his nature, and he will not be able to threaten without knowing he is going to act. If my noble friend takes that course, he will ponder long before he will advise this country to enter into a war of retaliation.
There is another question I wish to ask. It is rather unfortunate that this debate was not postponed for a few days, in order that every Member of this House might have read this Blue-book, which contains an account of retaliation and tariff wars. I should like my noble friend's opinion as to the results of those destructive wars which have taken place, and which are discussed in this Blue-book. Probably none of your Lordships have had time to peruse the contents of this Blue-book, but you must have had time to learn the destruction to the trade of Italy and France. Take the relative proportion of our commerce, and apply the same measure of destruction to our commerce that occurred in Italy, France, and Switzerland, and what can compensate
378
us for the utter destruction to trade that would take place whilst that loss existed, and during the long time which would occur before that loss was made good. The opinion of my noble friend upon that record condemning the policy of retaliation with the strength which is contained in that Blue-book will be of the greatest value to the House, and I am sure that my noble friend will give us the assistance of his advice frankly and completely.
There are only one or two more matters that I feel I ought to detain your Lordships with. This Resolution that is suggested is a very simple one. We ask simply that the control of Parliament shall be maintained to the fullest. I do not understand what my noble friend's reason is for saying that this Resolution was framed so as to control future Parliaments, for there is no power to control future Parliaments. This is an expression of opinion of this Parliament. One Parliament cannot control another, and therefore the Amendment that has been proposed on the part of the Government does not carry us one step further, and it is not an Amendment that anybody can attach any importance to. I do not see how any one can object to the Motion of Lord Crewe. The Government could not object to it; and so, to give the House an opportunity of voting upon something else, this Amendment was put in. No one wants to bind future Parliaments, and the Government must not be taken to be opposing Lord Crewe's Motion by virtue of this Amendment, because it means nothing. My noble friend Lord Selborne last night informed us Unionists that we stood in great peril, and he warned us that we were taking a part in public affairs which may cause us to be associated with men with whom we differ. Well, my Lords, I will take that warning to heart. I have no wish to leave the Unionist Party, but I have to ask my noble friend and his colleagues to save us from becoming a protectionist Party. If you are going to allow us to drift into the position of being a protectionist Party, we, believing that such policy will be fatal to the cause of Unionism, refuse to listen to an appeal which asks us to strike a blow against the principles to which we are devoted. You say it

379
is important that a particular kind of fiscal policy other than free trade should exist. We claim that free trade is a necessity of the greatness of this Empire throughout and we cannot yield or forego it in order to bring success to any Party upon issues of secondary importance. I know that we are told that we are loyally to consider the claims of Party and I admit the obligation. There is, however, one duty which to me is higher than Party, and that is duty that I owe to my neighbour. I have for some years lived in an agricultural district where wages are of the lowest and I know something of what takes place in the homes of these who toil, and I have learned from observation that there is no margin between the receipts of these men and the expenditure they have to incur. Therefore I cannot and will not bring myself to add one farthing to the burdens of these men struggling day after day to keep off poverty from their houses and to find sufficient for those who have claims upon them. When we consider the burdens that are to be cast upon these people we are told that we should think Imperially. The best way to think Imperially is to let our minds dwell upon the foundation and the bed-rock of Empire. Our Empire rests above all things upon the contentment of its people. Our Empire throughout the world must look for its strength and foundation to the contentment and loyalty of the people of these islands. Will you be acting wisely in the interests of that Empire which makes an appeal to you, by doing anything to check the contentment and loyalty of the people by an unjust and class law?
LORD BURGHCLERE: I do not rise for the purpose of answering the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, for I am in accord with his stalwart profession of free trade, and I listened to his able discourse with an admiration which, I am sure, will be shared by all his fellow-countrymen who read it when it is reported in the papers to-morrow. But my Lords, there have been other speeches in this debate, and I am put somewhat in a difficulty about them, because they have already been answered by previous speakers better than I could have answered them myself. I must say that I was deeply disappointed by the speech
380
of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The object of my noble friend Lord Crewe's Amendment is to endeavour to extract from the Government what their policy is and what it means. There has been no doubt some very great difficulty in the country, for some time past, arising from our failure to get an understanding on this subject. There has been a debate in the House of Commons during the last week, but I do not think we learned very much from it. There were speeches by members of the Cabinet last night and still we are in doubt as to their meaning, and I did hope that when the noble Lord rose from the Woolsack he would have, in common parlance, cleared the air. I may be denser than other people, but I am bound to say that the way the noble Lord cleared the air reminded me of one of our fogs in the atmosphere of London on a day in November. The noble Lord on the Woolsack said that we ought not to challenge the Government as to what they are going to say. No, my Lords, we do not challenge them on what they are going to say, but we challenge them on what they have already said. I am bound to say that they have spoken both in the country and in Parliament with very different voices. Last night we were privileged to listen to two members of His Majesty's Government. One was the noble Marquess opposite, and if he will allow me I will venture, as an old colleague of his in the House of Commons, to congratulate him upon his appearance in this House and upon his speech. If I might be allowed to express my opinion as to these I two speeches I should venture to say that the speech of my noble friend Lord Selbourne was that of a good protectionist struggling with the disadvantages of free trade, and the speech of Lord Salisbury was that of a good free-trader struggling with the disadvantages of protection. On one thing they were both agreed at any rate, and that is that however great the disadvantages of protection or free trade might be, after all, they were quite willing to sink their differences in order to present a common front to the common foe. My noble friend Lord James has referred to certain portions of the noble Earl's speech, and I am bound to say that I shared last night the same impression as

381
he seemed to share as to the meaning of 'my noble friend's words. It appears to me that the noble Earl seemed to rejoice in his recollection of the halcyon days that preceded the repeal of the Corn Laws, and he told us that the state of the country was of a most prosperous description at that time. I have not the slightest doubt that the state of England was very prosperous at that time. We were then, as we are now, the greatest commercial nation in the world. It was not a very long time before 1846 that we were called "a nation of shopkeepers," and I expect that was applied to us as much out of jealousy of our prosperity as a sort of innuendo against our manners. The noble Lord mentioned the name of Sir Robert Peel, and he told us that one of the reasons why Sir Robert Peel changed his opinions and adopted free trade was that from the height of prosperity that existed in this country before 1846 he saw a glimmering of that depression which was about to fall upon this country, and he gave that as one of the reasons why Sir Robert Peel adopted free trade. I think with my noble friend Lord James that one of the reasons why Sir Robert Peel adopted free trade was on account of the state of poverty existing among the labouring classes in this country at that period, and I felt inclined, while the noble Earl was speaking, to read to him, if it had been within the Rules of the House, across the Table, the words Sir Robert Peel used when he resigned office. He spoke of the goodwill existing in the abodes of those whose lot it was to labour when they recruited their exhausted strength with abundant and untaxed food. Anybody who could remember the days of poverty, distress, and starvation amongst the labouring classes, the burning of ricks, and the bread riots at that time must see that, if the rich at that time were richer, certainly the poor classes then were poorer and more miserable than they are now.
I have not risen to refer to the pros and cons of this high fiscal debate which has agitated the country since Mr. Chamberlain first declared war on free trade in May last. I do not rise to do so, because already in this House high authorities have delivered themselves on
382
that subject with infinitely greater ability than I can claim to possess. I have another reason for not doing so, and that is that during the last six months it has been my lot, as it has been the lot of a great many others, to take an interest in politics, to expand every argument which I have on the subject, on many platforms in many parts of the country, and I was fearful, my Lords, lest I should be betrayed into repeating to your Lordships some of those rhetorical efforts, and when I tell you that the shortest of them takes something like one hour and a half to deliver, I am sure I shall have the agreement of your Lordships on the present occasion when I say that I do not intend to make any such effort here. There is, however, one exception I should like to be permitted to dwell upon. I should like to speak upon agriculture and how it has been affected by the policy of the Government, and if I may be permitted to do so without being corrected by the Lord Chancellor I should like to say how agriculture would be affected by the alternative policy of Mr. Chamberlain, because I observe that very many members of His Majesty's Government seem to endorse and approve the views of Mr. Chamberlain, although they do not approve of the means by which he is going to bring them about. My noble friend Lord Crewe alluded last night in the too short references, if I may say so, to the subject of agriculture as it refers to the Government position. It has often been a wonder to me since I have had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House that so comparatively few debates I on agricultural subjects are initiated in this House. Surely if there ever was an Assembly more interested in agriculture than another, it is the House of Lords. We have amongst us many landowners and many practical farmers, and we have also those who are well acquainted with practical farmers. It is perfectly true that up to the present moment we have no agricultural labourers here, but at any rate we have on both sides of the House noble Earls who have taken a deep interest in allotments and small holdings which deeply affect that large labouring class which I may be permitted to call the third estate of the agricultural community. I may say, moreover, that in endeavouring, as far as possible, to ascertain

383
how the policy of the Government effects the question of agriculture, although I am, as your Lordships are well aware, a most convinced free-trader, I have endeavoured to approach the subject simply from the view of one who is anxious to ascertain whether in the policy of the Government or in the policy of Mr. Chamberlain there can be any benefit conferred upon agriculture, or whether, on the contrary, those policies will do injury to the agricultural classes. The position of agriculture, though it may be a little better during the last year or two, is not in the position that agriculturists would like to see, and I am quite sure that your Lordships will admit that fact. Landlords have, during the last fifteen or twenty years, lost large sums of capital which I am sorry to say there is no chance of them ever recovering. Farmers have lost capital and they have left their farms and been replaced by other farmers who, I am afraid, have not so much of that desirable capital as their predecessors. The only class which seems to me to have prospered during the last twenty-five years is the large class of agricultural labourers, the purchasing power of whose wages is higher, and who are in a general sense infinitely better off than they were before the Corn Laws were removed. Now I should like to say on my own behalf that having given the schemes of the Government as far as I can understand them—and I am bound to say that they are somewhat misty as regards the official programme of the Government—fair consideration, and having given the schemes of Mr. Chamberlain, as far as I can give them, full consideration, I have deliberately come to the conclusion that neither one nor the other will in any way benefit agriculture at all. On the contrary, I think there is very considerable danger that they will do agriculture a great deal of harm.
With your Lordships' permission I will first of all take what I would call the authorised programme of the Government, and then I will take, I will not call it the unauthorised but the semi-authorised programme of Mr. Chamberlain. The authorised programme of the Government, as we understand it, is negotiation and retaliation, of which two retaliation is the one, I suppose, which is
384
the most effective. Now how will retaliation affect agriculture? That is a question which I think agriculturists may very well put to themselves. We have had an authoritative statement in another place by the Home Secretary, speaking, I suppose, with the consent of the Prime Minister and with the assent of his colleagues in the Cabinet, and what did Mr. Akers Douglas say as to the meaning of what the Government policy was. He said—
"We are anxious to see a reduction in those hostile tariffs which have been injurious to the trade and commerce of the country.
What hostile tariffs have been injurious to the trade and commerce of the country? I do not gather much from the Government on that point. There is some illuminative light thrown upon it by the speeches of the late Colonial Secretary, and if I understand him aright then nearly every trade and industry is injured at the present moment by the hostile tariffs, and if Mr. Akers Douglas has truly stated the policy of the Government there is no trade and industry which may not be affected by retaliation and against which hostile tariffs may not be placed. Yes, there is one industry, and that we learn is the industry of agriculture. Nothing is to be done for agriculture, which Mr. Chamberlain has also told us in one of his speeches has practically been destroyed by free trade. I say deliberately that the Government do not intend to do anything for agriculture whilst they protect the rest of the trade of this country, because Mr. Akers Douglas on the same occasion said the Government were opposed to any duty on food, foreign wheat, or other agricultural produce. In that case what would be the position of agriculture. Every other trade, every necessity of their life, all their machinery, every one of their comforts and necessities may be taxed, and heavily taxed, and they will have to pay more for them whilst their own agricultural industry will not be benefited in the slightest degree. If this policy is carried out the last stage of agriculture will be infinitely worse than the first. For my part, if I had to choose between the two as an agriculturist, I think that the scheme of Mr. Chamberlain is infinitely less deleterious to the agricultural interest than the authorised programme of the Government.

385
I should like to turn for a moment to the effect that Mr. Chamberlain's scheme would have on agriculture, and I do so because we are told by the Government that if the next election goes in that direction they, at least, have not excluded it from their programme. Mr. Chamberlain's proposals seem to me, if he really wished to introduce protection as a statesman, to have failed to grapple the very crux of the effect of imposing protection in this country. France, Germany, and the United States exist under different conditions, but in this over-populated highly commercial country it seems to me that Mr. Chamberlain has not dealt with the crux of the question, which is how you are to reconcile the rival claims of agriculture on the one hand with the claims of commerce on the other. That seems to me to be the real question which has never been dealt with, faced, or settled by any of Mr. Chamberlain's speeches. Your Lordships are aware what great protagonists of agriculture, like Mr. Chaplin, put forward. They say that large tracts of land have gone over to pasture which formerly grew wheat, and their idea is that those tracts should once again be transformed into wheat-growing land. How does Mr. Chamberlain's scheme affect them? He proposes to put a 2s. duty on corn. I ask any farmer or landowner who has a practical knowledge of farming whether a 2s. duty on corn would turn over those pasture lands to growing wheat rivalling the virgin soil of Canada and other countries abroad? We all know that it would require a 10s. duty or a 15s. duty before that millennium could be brought about. But if a 10s. duty or a 15s. duty on corn is the only protection you can give to the farmer what will the artisans say about it in the great centres of industry? Their cost for food will be raised to a point which will set the commercial against the agricultural interest, and you will either leave the agricultural interest worse than it was before or you will make the commercial interest rebel against the imposition of duties upon corn just as it did before 1842 and 1846.
If I may for one moment more detain your Lordships on this subject, I would
386
like to take the case of preferential tariffs supposing they are admitted. I do so without any apology because I have a sort of suspicion that my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and the President of the Board of Agriculture have at least a pious opinion about preferential tariffs with regard to the Colonies. How would preferential tariffs affect the industry of agriculture? I say that they would be the very worst enemy agriculture could have. What would be the object of them? To check the import of corn from the United States who send us most of our corn, and to stimulate the growth of wheat in the north-west province of Canada where everybody knows there are large tracts of virgin soil which only require labour in order to grow enough wheat to supply this country, and perhaps a large portion of the world. As regards labour that is going to the north-west province of Canada. I asked the President of the Board of Agriculture a question some time ago about emigration from America into the north-west province of Canada, and he minimised the figures I put forward; but if at the present moment he were speaking he would not so minimise the vast amount of emigration from the United States which is increasing every day. What has happened in the meantime in this country? Farmers have been obliged to adapt themselves to the agricultural circumstances of the day. They have done so at great expense to themselves through times of trial and stress. They have adapted themselves to the circumstances of the day. What happens if you check the influx of wheat from the United States. It cannot be done in a day. During the period when the wheat is not coming from Canada farmers and landowners at home may be tempted by the high price of wheat to break up those pastures and revert to the old practice of wheat growing, and then perhaps the north-west province of Canada will by that time be more fully developed, and they will be able to flood our markets with wheat. Again I say that the last state of the farmer will be worse than the first. Incidentally, a very curious thing might happen with regard to preferential tariffs. We had an animated,

387
or, at any rate, an energetic, debate in 1896 about a Bill which was brought in, in order to bring about the slaughter of all cattle at the ports, and the question at issue was whether the Canadian store cattle were to be kept out. If you are going to have preferential tariffs with the Colonies the first thing you will have to do with Canada will be to revoke that Bill, which I think was very strongly fought for by landowners and others in this House.
I have only one other point, and I fear I have detained your Lordships far too long. I wish to refer to the policy upon which the Government are going to the country. This has been referred to by other speakers, and it is the only remaining question with which I wish to deal. That policy, if I understand it aright, has been practically laid down by the Home Secretary in another place with the authority of his colleagues and the Prime Minister, and that policy consists of three things—namely, negotiation and retaliation, no preferential tariffs, and no taxes on raw material or food. That I understand from Mr. Akers Douglas to be the official policy of the Government. Unless I am corrected by some member of the Government I presume I am right, judging from Mr. Akers Douglas' speech, in saying that the whole of that policy is governed by another phrase which he used later on, because he said that the Government were prepared to keep their pledges until the electorate pronounced upon them. What we want to know is not what the Government are going to say after the next general election, but what they are going to say before the election, in order that the country may have a fair issue placed before it; and if this is not done I venture to say, with all submission, that the Government policy is not fair to the candidates in the constituencies, it is not fair to the electorate, and it is not fair to the nation, and you cannot possibly get a true and proper verdict upon which to decide when the general election is over. If I understand the position of the Government aright it is, "We are going to the country on retaliation and negotiation, and we do not include in our programme preferential tariffs or taxes on food." You go to the country with that proposition, and you
388
say if the country should say "No" to it and wish to go further you will go for Mr. Chamberlain's programme. But you have never said that you accept his programme. I repeat that that is not fair to the candidates, the electorate, nor the nation. Having had some experience of contested elections during the last twenty years I will venture to give an illustration and a concrete instance of what I mean, in which I think I shall be able to show that under these circumstances the Government may very probably, and almost certainly in some in stances, not get the true verdict of the nation, though they think they do. It is well known to everybody who has had anything to do with electioneering that many candidates come down to constituencies and advocate more advanced principles than their official leaders in London. The electors say, "He is a good Conservative (or Liberal as the case may be): he is a young man who advocates different opinions, but if we return him to Westminster it will be all right, for we know what the official policy of the Government is and they will keep him in order." But if the candidate goes down to represent Mr. Chamberlain's policy, and he is supported by the official organisations in London and receives letters from distinguished statesmen using such mystic phrases as, "Vote for this candidate and fiscal reform," which may mean anything from repealing the income tax to a 20s. duty on corn, the good Conservative elector will say, "I will vote for this man although he is a protectionist," and then the Government will claim that the country has voted protectionist, and many voters—enough to turn the election—will have voted for such candidates because you have told them that the official policy of the Government is free trade and not protection, while at the same time you will declare the result to be that the country has pronounced in favour of protection. I venture to say that that is not a fair issue-to put before the country. What we want to get is not this shibboleth of a policy, we want to get at what are the convictions of the Government. We want to know what their views are upon these great fiscal questions which have been put before the country; what their real mind is with regard to imports and exports; and whether the foreigner does absolutely pay the duty or not. We want to

389
know when a man has saved money and invested it abroad and his interest comes back in imports and increased wealth to this country whether they think such a position as that places the country on the direct road to financial ruin. If the Government would tell us what their convictions are we should understand what their shibboleth of a policy is. They have had plenty of time to make up their mind. They have had plenty of pabulum to fill their intellects. They have had Blue-books full of interesting figures, and a succession of speeches, books, pamphlets, and other information such as probably never occurred before, since 1842 or 1846; and I venture to say that if the Government have not been able to arrive at any opinion upon this subject by this time they are about the only sixteen or seventeen men in the whole Empire who have not done so. I thank your Lordships for having listened to what I have had to say on these various matters, and I say without fear of contradiction before I sit down, that the country has a right to ask for guidance in this great and important question from His Majesty's Government and from the leaders of a great Party, and if they are not in a position to give us guidance on this subject then their policy will go down to posterity as a policy of unsettled and divergent opinions tempered by opportunism.
LORD FARRER: I rise to support this Motion because I believe it to be impossible to distinguish between retaliation and protection. What does "retaliation" mean? When I am in a difficulty I go to that great authority Dr. Johnson, and I look out what the word means. In this case I have looked it up and I find that it means "requite" or "revenge." I venture to say that revenge is hardly a policy suitable in matters of trade. I have heard a great deal lately about thinking Imperially. It appears to me that it is much more necessary to think accurately, and if we do this, I think we must consider what is the effect of retaliation when applied in practice? It appears to me that retaliation must be either for a short time or for a very long time. If it is for a long time it cannot by anybody be said to differ in any respect from protection. If it is for a short time, then I venture to say that
390
you are put into the most difficult position possible when you come to take that protection off, for you have encouraged industries—and it is a well-known fact that such has been the case in the United States of America-—which you are injuring enormously when you take it off. I do not suppose that even Gentlemen who advocate this new policy will propose that compensation should be given to such persons, although I think it is actually going to be proposed to compensate people who hold a public-house licence for one year only. Therefore I do not know what may be the opinion of people who hold such views. But there is another and a more interesting reason for supposing that retaliation is a very dangerous policy. I think it has hardly been noticed in this debate that we have had in this country experience of retaliation before. I venture to say that very few people have read the debates which occurred in 1844, when for twenty-five years this very weapon had been tried in every possible way. I think if the Gentlemen sitting on the opposite Benches, and whose opinions upon this question are not settled, would read those debates, they would see how retaliation and even prohibition had been tried with absolutely no success for twenty-five years. They would then, I think, greatly modify the opinions which they hold at present. I have been looking at the speeches of that date and I find that Mr. Ricardo, Earl Grey, Mr. Ewart, Mr. Villiers, and Mr. Cobden all supported free imports on the very ground that for twenty-five years previously that weapon of retaliation had been tried and had been found to be completely useless. I am rather surprised that we have heard so little about the history of retaliation from that period. It was tried, I believe, in the case of Brazil, Portugal. Spain, and France, and in all cases it resulted in enormous increases in the tariffs of both nations. I suppose statesmen who sit on the opposite Benches are possibly greater statesmen than those of the day of Sir Robert Peel and Lord Palmerston, but I venture to say that they have not had the experience of this weapon for twenty-five years like those statesmen had. I think it is well to remember what Lord Palmerston said on that occasion in regard to the weapon of retaliation. He compared it to a bridge

391
with one toll-gate upon it, and he said it was hardly sensible when they had to go across to add another toll-gate on your own side. I cannot help thinking that the history of those days has been too little considered. I believe I am right in saying that retaliation has in practice always resulted in protection. It has certainly been so in the case of France, Germany, the United States of America, and in the case of Canada. All these countries began with retaliation and they ended in simple protection.
But there is another point to be considered in this matter. Do we find that those retaliatory nations get better bargains for themselves than we do with our policy of the most-favoured-nation clause? I believe it to be absolutely untrue that they do get better bargains. We have had, I believe, the most-favoured-nation clause in force with Germany, France, Russia, and with Italy. Perhaps I ought to except Russia, because ever since the Sugar Convention I believe Russia has put duties on our Indian teas which may have a very serious effect. Therefore I do not think the first effect of this policy of retaliation is such as to induce us to go light-heartedly into it generally. I do not know whether noble Lords opposite happen to live in the country, and have heard about the price of sugar in the humble homes spoken of, but as far as my experience goes, and I have figures from several Co-operative Societies in the South, since the Sugar Convention was put into force the price of sugar has gone up, and it is a very serious matter to find that not only has the price of sugar gone up but the consumption of sugar per head of the whole country has decreased. The consumption of sugar in this country per head in the year 1900 was 87·18 lbs, but in the year 1902 it fell to 83·95 lbs per head of the population. I am aware that time has not yet quite arrived to say what the effect may be absolutely, but I fully believe that the reason of the rise in the price of sugar is owing to the operation of the Sugar Convention. I should like to ask also whether in this policy of retaliation it has been considered what a terrible effect it would have if other countries began to retaliate, as they certainly will, upon our shipping. I do
392
not wish now to go into the figures, but everybody who has looked at the question during the last four years must have seen with astonishment how we, the only free importing country, have got the shipping almost of the world. I think it is also too often forgotten that the United States, who have pursued a totally different policy from our own—indeed they have pursued the policy which we are now asked to adopt—have come down from being the great carriers of the world to practically nothing at all. I fancy that shipping is the very easiest thing for foreign countries to attack, and I do not think it is for a Government which has spent more money than any Government for the last seventy years, during which time Consols have gone down from 112 to 87, to ask us as business men to alter a policy which has so much developed our trade.
I noticed yesterday we were asked whether we could say that on the whole trade was good. I think everybody admits that trade is good if you ask amongst business people. If you look at the figures I should for my own part be willing to admit that trade was good, and I care much more about the actual facts than what are called "tendencies." I shall not repeat the figures which have been given us so admirably to-night by the noble Duke as regards our industries, but I do protest myself, at this attempt to divide articles into manufactured and non-manufactured articles. I believe the case which has been so much put before the country and based upon those figures is a case which cannot be maintained. Nobody can settle what is a manufactured and what is a non-manufactured article. I say that the most serious thing in this new policy seems to me to be the question of giving more power to the Executive Government. In my own opinion the Executive Government has got far too much power in its own hands. What is Parliament? Why are we sitting here? What did it originate in? Why, in money being got by taxation from the people when the people were unwilling to give it without the fullest and freest discussion. The centuries that have gone by have proved that it is most undesirable to give to the Executive Government a weapon to be used at their own discretion without consulting Parliament. Anyone who

393
looks at the history of Parliament will see the jealous care which Parliament has always exercised upon financial matters. I have not heard a single word from any of the noble Earls opposite to justify us in granting them the power of using thus weapon themselves by means of the Executive Government, rather than in the old way of bringing in a Bill before Parliament. For these reasons I venture to hope that the Government will give us definite information as to what they mean by retaliation, and I beg to support the mover of this Motion.
EARL CARPINGTON: My noble friend who introduced this Motion is reported to have stated what is the attitude of the agricultural community upon this question and he said—
"Agriculturists do not seem to care very much for Mr. Chamberlain's proposals which have been placed before the country."
I cannot forgot that Mr. Chamberlain, at Greenock, on 7th October last year, told us that agriculture had been practically destroyed. I am one of those individuals whose money is entirely invested in land, and I am entirely dependent on the rents that come from my tenants, and, consequently, I received this statement with a good deal of apprehension. I was, however, comforted with the thought that perhaps after all it was only a theory, but, as far as I am aware, the distinguished statesman who made this prophecy has never owned, nor, as far as I am aware, has ever been the cultivator of a single acre of agricultural land. But Mr. Chamberlain rather raised our hopes when he told us after that rather dismal prophecy that his proposals, which all the country are aware of, would not raise the price of food one farthing, and that they were calculated to benefit all classes of the community; which means, I suppose, the landlords, the tenant farmers, the agricultural labourers, and the country parsons, who, to use a homely phrase, are four dogs all gnawing at the same bone. Mr. Chaplin, who is one of our great agricultural authorities, also gave us some comforting information, because he pointed out what the resolutions were that were passed fairly unanimously in the different counties in England by the different Chambers of Agriculture, and he depended a great deal on these resolutions, which more or less have been friendly to the
394
proposals of Mr. Chamberlain. But after all, I think the House will agree with me that Chambers of Agriculture are sometimes composed of loquacious gentlemen who have not been successful in agricultural pursuits, and perhaps Chamber of Agriculture meetings are not very numerously attended, and, consequently, their resolutions do not deserve the importance which they themselves would sometimes be apt to attribute to them. Consequently, I thought it might be a good thing to take the practical opinion of the tenant farmers themselves individually, and if the House will forgive a personal reference I would like to inform your Lordships of the result of my own investigations. I sent round two or three questions to some of my principal tenants to ask what their practical opinion, as men of business, would be upon this question as my co-partners in agriculture. My estate includes about 24,000 acres, and I have about 200 tenants holding different sorts of holdings from about 9,000 to 150 acres, and I ha\e 3,000 small holdings and allotment tenants, which I have been fortunate enough, with the co-operation of my tenants, to put on the ground. These small holding tenants were unanimous against Mr. Chamberlain's proposal, and I think very few of this class would be found to be in favour of them. I sent four questions to fifty-two of my principal tenants to ask them their opinion as to the proposals brought before the country by Mr. Chamberlain. The first question I put was—
"If Mr. Chamberlain's proposals become the law of the land would you allow me to have some share in the new prosperity that we are promised, by giving some increase on the present rental?"
The second question was—
"Would you be able to employ more labour on your farm?"
The third question was—
"Would you be able to offer increased agricultural wages, say 2s., 2s, 6d., or 3s. per week more than the present current wage?"
I put on these question papers "Yes" and "No," and asked them to scratch out either one or the other and return the paper. The fourth question was—
"If you are unable to do all these things at once how long would it be, in your opinion, before we should all reach this desirable state of things?"
My tenants were extremely good -natured, and they took a lively interest

395
in this agricultural catechism, and the replies they gave, and the opinions expressed by them, are very instructive. From twenty-eight tenants came the reply—
"We shall be unable to pay any more rent, or employ any mote labour, or give any higher wages, and we would rather give no opinion whatever on the subject."
That was a very decided answer. From seven more—one of whom has a bust of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham on his chimney piece—came replies saying they would rather not commit themselves. They wrote—
"It is a very great subject; we must think it over, and we would rather not commit ourselves or give any opinion, good, bad, or indifferent."
From twenty-one the answers were perhaps a little more hopeful, for they wrote to say that they were generally favourable. Five of them answered "Yes" to the first three questions, but the majority said:—
"They might be able to employ more labour, or to give their landlords, perhaps, or their labourers perhaps, a little more money."
But very few of them said they would give both. That was more generally satisfactory, but unfortunately there was a saving clause as regards the fourth question put by me, which your Lordships will recollect was in the following terms—
"If you are unable to do all these things at once how long would it be, in your opinion, before we should all reach this desirable state of things?"
The answers were very unsatisfactory indeed. Two hopeful creatures thought that it might perhaps be in two or three years, but nobody said at once; they said in two or three years they might possibly be able to do something either for me or the labourers on the land. Fifteen replied—
"Not for several years."
And amongst those were several who stated—
"When corn growing pays."
That was rather interesting, because the general consensus of opinion was that the prices would have to go up at least 25 per cent. before any more money could be paid. The other four were in a
396
very disappointed state and they made up the twenty-one. These four said they thought they would be able to pay a little more money to myself or the labourers in an unlimited time. One said—
"In a thousand years, and probably never."
And the last man said—
"Never."
I think the House will agree with me that we can hardly call these practical persons unduly sanguine about Mr. Chamberlain's proposals. Amongst the answers came some very curious covering letters upon the question of the right hon. Gentleman's agricultural proposals. One tenant began farming under my father, and farms a tremendous lot of land, pays a wages bill amounting to £4,000 a year, and well-to-do and an excellent practical farmer. He says—
"It would be several years before I could employ more labour."
He pays capital wages, and in his opinion he could not employ any more labour for several years, and he adds—
"But I cannot pay one penny more rent."
Then I got another opinion from three brothers in Lincolnshire. Their father was a farm, labourer in North Lincolnshire, and he brought his children up extremely well. These three brothers went on the land with small holdings and began with half an acre apiece. They went on to a fifty acres, seventy acres, and 100 acres, and now the three have a 250 acre farm and they are doing well. They say—
"We do not approve of Mr. Chamberlain's proposals; we hope they will never become law. We do not think we should benefit by them in any way, and we think it would be worse for the country in every respect."
I will give one more opinion, and it is the last. It is from another tenant farmer in Lincolnshire, who has a very large farm, and in good times he used to pay £2,000. He has been forty one years on the estate, and he has not done badly, because it has come to my knowledge, when he asked for a reduction of rent, that he had bought 700 acres in the county of Norfolk out of farming, so I thought that fact alone showed he had done extremely well, and I thought we

397
could continue as we were. This gentleman writes—
"I am strongly in favour of Mr. Chamberlain, but he does not go far enough."
That I think is the crux of the whole case, and if you want the farmers to back up the Government in their policy which we hope they will introduce at no distant date, I am afraid that 2s. on corn and 5 per cent on dairy produce and meat will be of very little value to the farmers. Mr. Chaplin says we must have wheat at 40s. If you want it at that price and the American price is 23s. you will have to put 17s. a quarter on wheat. I leave it to the Government to decide whether the working man will pay that price. If you want the farmers with you you will have to put a more considerable duty on wheat because 2s. a quarter, as my tenant said, does not go half far enough. A small duty would not raise the price of food or yield a profit to the farmer which would enable him to pay higher wages. I think that a good many tenant farmers will be found to agree with the Marquess of Salisbury, who is reported in The Times to have said that—
"There is no reason to suppose that with protection everybody would be richer."
I suppose we may take it for granted that the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury last night was not only speaking for himself—and perhaps I shall be contradicted if I am wrong—but I take it for granted that he was speaking not only for himself but for all his colleagues, including Lord Onslow, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and all the members of His Majesty's Government, when he said that the Government were not concerned to defend the policy of that distinguished statesman, Mr. Chamberlain. I apologise to the House for having intervened in this debate, but I felt, as an agriculturist and as a person entirely dependent on land, that we should have heard from the other side of the House some thing on the agricultural side of the question, but perhaps later on in the debate we shall be told what the ideas of His Majesty's Government are on this great question. Once more I beg to apologise to the House for having intervened in the debate, and I express the hope that we shall have some decided and intelligible statement from His Majesty's Government as regards
398
agriculture, which, of course, is so great and important an industry in this country.
THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, last night I listened to the speech of the noble Marquess who spoke for the first time in this House, but to whom I have often listened in the other House, and I should have been glad, had he been present, to congratulate him upon the excellence of his remarks, especially as he made one or two distinct statements which, though they have not cleared away some of our doubts, at all events have given us a little light upon the subject before the House. He told us that the Government would consider the Motion of the noble Earl as a vote of want of confidence in the Government. I confess that I consider it is a vote of want of confidence, but I feel that it is justified, considering what the country is at present thinking as regards His Majesty's Government, and especially considering what has taken place on those occasions which afford us our only opportunity of testing the feeling of the country, viz., the by-elections. It seems to me that the country as much as the Opposition has lost confidence in His Majesty's Government. The last expression of opinion came from Mid Herts, a part of the country with which the noble Marquess is intimately acquainted, and as he declared himself as distinctly opposed to what is called the Chamberlain policy, I should have been glad to learn from him whether he was pleased or sorry at the result of that election. As a matter of fact, at the present moment we are all turning our thoughts to the general election which is impending. At that general election there will be decided—I do not think it can be postponed to another election—one of the gravest issues ever placed before the country. I am going to endeavour to keep to the Motion and the Amendment before the House, but we must recognise the fact that the general election will not and cannot be fought on the question of retaliation; it will be fought upon what is known as Mr. Chamberlain's policy. We had another speech last night from the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty, in which he certainly declared himself as an "anti-free-importer," and we

399
heard from the noble Marquess just before that we on this side of the House were unconvinced Tories. I have been accustomed in my political life to be called many bad names, but I confess it is something new to be called an unconvinced Tory. Though I deny altogether that I am an unconvinced Tory, I will acknowledge myself to be a convinced free-importer, and it is upon that issue in my opinion that the battle will be fought at the next general election.
We are asking at the present moment for more information from His Majesty's Government as regards their retaliation policy. I heard the speech of the noble Earl on the Woolsack to-night. He seemed to impress upon us the fact that we were not to be too inquisitive as regards the private opinions of Cabinet Ministers, and, as it seemed to me, he also suggested that it would be better if we were not too particular as regards the collective opinion of the Cabinet. I am perfectly aware that the noble Earl did not say that, but I think he suggested it. At the present moment we are pressing for the collective opinion of the Cabinet on a particular question which they say will occupy our attention at the next general election, and we have not yet in any way obtained that collective opinion. We have heard and read a great many opinions from various members of the Cabinet, but we are still unaware whether they are all of the same mind even on the subject of retaliation. When Ministers speak, either in the other House or in your Lordships' House, they devote very little time to the subject of retaliation, and a great deal of time to Mr. Chamberlain's policy, and, if I may with all respect say so, I think the noble Earl on the Woolsack, although at first I thought he was going to keep to the subject of retaliation, did not refrain from wandering from that subject into the more important matter embodied in Mr. Chamberlain's policy.
We are all perfectly aware what retaliation means. There is no difficulty in understanding that. We have had many instances of retaliation taking place between Russia and Germany, France and Italy, and I noticed in the speech of the noble Marquess who moved the Amendment that he instanced the case
400
of Switzerland, in regard to which he said that when Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs he was a little inclined to threaten Switzerland because their tariff was inimical to the interests of our trade. We are all perfectly aware of what retaliation means. We have had our experience of the Sugar Convention. But the question at the present moment is not what retaliation or negotiation means, but how will the Government carry out the policy of retaliation if—as is very doubtful—they receive a mandate from the country at the coming general election? I appeal now to the noble Marquess the Leader of His Majesty's Government in this House. Is it not the case that either in the other House or in your Lordships' House a responsible Minister of the Crown can at any moment come down and propose retaliation against a foreign nation? As far as I am aware, there is absolutely nothing to prevent the noble Marquess himself bringing before this House, or some other member of the Government bringing before the other House, any gross case—I am using words which have been used in speeches—of unfairness on the part of a foreign nation towards this country as regards preference, or import duties, or any thing else. There is absolutely nothing to prevent any member of His Majesty's Government coming before us, without any mandate or general election, presenting a policy of retaliation in a concrete form, and appealing to the good sense of his fellow countrymen to support the Government in a policy which they believe to be the best for manufactures and our people. If I may respectfully say so, I think that point has been somewhat overlooked during this discussion.
If that is the case I am anxious to know why a mandate is required or asked for. I should like to ask the noble Marquess to explain tonight what would be the difference in his action if he received a mandate from the country as compared with the present condition of affairs under which he has full power to come before Parliament and ask for authority to use retaliation. I think that is a fair point to put to the noble Marquess, especially as there are at the present moment suspicions—I will not say more than that—as regards the

401
action of His Majesty's Government in this matter. If there is power at present to retaliate without any mandate of general election, what did the noble Marquess mean—I know he dislikes the term, but I use it only because it shortly explains my case—when he asked for a revolver? He was asking for much more than he at present possesses if I understand him aright. And what did the words of the Prime Minister mean when he spoke of the "complete reversal" of the traditional fiscal policy of this country? I am told that we are asking for information which we are not likely to receive. I think my question is one which ought to be answered before we go to a division. If there is no difference between what we can now do and what we are to be asked to do in the future, we can all vote for both the Motion of the noble Earl and the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite, for they would in such circumstances mean absolutely the same thing. The whole point lies in what is the extra authority His Majesty's Government are anxious to possess. The only thing I can see is that there may be a doubt in the mind of His Majesty's Government as to whether Parliament would accept their proposals for retaliation at the present moment, and that consequently they would like to have a general election on the subject so as to be quite sure of greater support than they at present have. But can it be conceived that His Majesty's Government believe that they will get greater support after the next general election in favour of retaliation than they are likely to get in the present House of Commons and the House of Lords—especially in the other House? It is admitted that the control of Parliament is to be kept supreme. If the noble Marquess came down with any proposal it would be the same thing now. I noticed that when the noble Marquess who moved the Amendment was speaking last night he emphasised the word "each" in the Motion of the noble Earl. Is the only difference that in the future it will not be a question of each individual case of the imposition of a duty coming before Parliament, or is it that a sort of conglomeration of import duties will be placed before us, or will it be the case that in the future, as at present, we should have a distinct proposal as regards the
402
beating down of import duties against us, when any foreign country proposes to impose duties which may do harm to our manufactures or manufacturers? I confess for my part, free-importer as I am, that if His Majesty's Government came down with a good case of grave injustice against any manufacture, and if it could be proved that by retaliation we should do no harm whatever to any other industries or to those employed in other industries, I think their plea for retaliation would meet with very favourable consideration at the hands of the people. But I do not see that that is the present proposal of His Majesty's Government. There seems to be something behind which has not appeared, and in discussing this question we cannot help reviewing what has happened during the last few months.
We are aware now that a proposal of what we call protection—to use a short term—was brought before His Majesty's Government before Mr. Chamberlain went to South Africa. We are aware that the Prime Minister sympathised to a certain extent with that proposal, but that he felt the country would not accept it because they would not agree to the imposition of any duties on the food of the people. We cannot help coming to the conclusion, therefore, that the retaliation policy was adopted subsequently to the proposal of Mr. Chamberlain's policy, and as a sort of a stop-gap for the ultimate adoption by His Majesty's Government of the policy of protection. The whole of the political machinery of the supporters of His Majesty's Government is in the hands of those who favour Mr. Chamberlain's policy. I am aware that there area certain number of members of His Majesty's Government who at the present moment say, and I believe sincerely say, that they are opposed altogether to anything further than retaliation. Well, if they stick to their opinion it seems to me that in the future they may be cast off as other members of the Cabinet have been, and be put outside when the true views of His Majesty's Government are placed before the country. The whole country are at the present moment thinking and speaking—and after all we have enough of speeches—not of the subject of retaliation, but

403
of the subject of protection. We who take some part on the public platforms of the country are aware that the only thing which interests the public mind is the Birmingham policy: no interest at all is taken in the retaliation policy—whatever it may be—of the Government. That is the outside, the public view, and I think that when we come to close quarters with the Government as we are coming tonight, and as they came the other night in the other House, we ought to receive, before going into the lobbies, a distinct and plain statement, not of what retaliation means, for that we understand, but as to the exact difference between the powers which His Majesty's Government at present possess for the purposes of retaliation, and the powers which they will ask us to grant them after a general election.
I said that we were suspicious. We are more than suspicious; we are alarmed. We feel that this is one of the gravest questions that have ever come before us. I am told that there is some fear in the minds of others that if this question were decided against the Government it might cause a change politically, so that for some time in the future we should have a Liberal instead of a Conservative Government, and that there would be some danger then of measures being introduced by that Liberal Government which Unionists would feel bound to oppose. We are told that if the Government is defeated there will be a danger of Home Rule. As far as I understand the present position of the question, the Bills that were introduced by Mr. Gladstone—the Home Rule Bill and the Land Bill—are absolutely dead. There is no fear whatever that any sane Liberal statesman would ever introduce such measures again. I do not for a moment believe that these questions could be raised in the next Parliament. I am perfectly well aware that there will be an extension of local government through all parts of the United Kingdom, but that is another matter. We are face to face now, in my opinion, with as great a danger as the Unionist Party had to face in the Home Rule Parliament. We believe that any attempt to reverse our fiscal policy will, bring upon this country not only danger but ruin. We believe that any change in our fiscal policy such as is proposed by those who really express their minds,
404
would not only bring ruin upon our country but also cause amongst our working population as great distress as was caused in the old times of protection. We are not taking this matter lightly; we are taking it seriously. We are determined—when I say "we" I am only speaking for those amongst whom I move, not so much Members of your Lordships' House as those outside—to do all that in us lies to prevent what we consider a suicidal policy being carried into effect. In my opinion it is not a matter of Party; it is a matter in which every patriotic Englishman ought to take the keenest interest, and one which those who know most about it ought to oppose with all their heart and with all the force they can command.
We are told that this question of the alteration of our fiscal policy is a question of Empire. We who consider ourselves as strong Imperialists as any who sit on the Benche sopposite do not believe the Empire is in danger. We believe the unity of the Empire will be in danger if you venture to carry out any part of the policy which has been proposed by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and it is because we think the Government are going in that direction with their retaliation policy that we are determined to oppose it.
LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, I should imagine that when the Unionist Party desires advice as to the dangers which beset it from the side of Ireland they will not resort to the noble Marquess opposite for consolation or information. Although I am opposed to the policy of His Majesty's Government on this particular subject, yet I must say that I think it is rather too open an invitation to walk into a trap which has just now been addressed to us by the noble Marquess. I, for my part, think that the danger from Home Rule is urgent, and one of my chief accusations against His Majesty's Government is that in a move men to that kind they have introduced measures which have shattered the Unionist Party. The subject which we have before us to-night has been brought to a point by the Motion and the Amendment before the House. The question immediately to be decided is whether my Lord Crewe's

405
Motion should be adopted, or whether instead of that we should adopt the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Marquess. When I first read the Motion of the noble Earl opposite, I searched for an excuse for voting with the Government, and I thought I had found it. It was that the Motion of the noble Earl was a platitude and was axiomatic, that it declared principles of Parliamentary conduct so plain that they ought not to be resolved upon by this House in the year 1904, because a proceeding of that kind was likely to throw doubt upon them. Just as one would decline to resolve on some proposal embodied in Magna Charta, I thought I had found a satisfactory excuse for myself in voting against a Motion which upset ideas instead of settling them. But the leaders of my Party and the heads of the Government think differently, and what they propose is this—that while Lord Crewe's Motion does nothing more than declare—
"That no duty…should be imposed, modified, or removed, without the formal consent of Parliament to each such proposal,"
we are now asked to pass a long Resolution that—
"This House, while affirming the constitutional doctrine that all the fiscal arrangements of this country must be subject to the full and effective control of Parliament over taxation, is not prepared to lay down rules for the guidance of future Parliaments as to the exact method in which such control should be exercised by them in cases which may hereafter arise."
I cannot find in Lord Crewe's Motion anything at all about "rules for the guidance of future Parliaments" as to the exact method in which anything should be done; it merely asserts what can be found in any text-book in which is laid down the relation of Parliament to imposts upon imports. This seems to me not merely in itself an important matter, but a highly significant one. The House will remember that when in old days Parliament asserted against the King the sole right of determining what imposts should be laid upon imports into this country, it was with reference, among other things, to this very question of retaliatory duties. I do not know whether noble Lords, unless their attention has been specially directed to it, are aware that in
406
the year 1610, when these great constitutional questions were raised, one of the arguments for the King's power—by which, of course, we mean now the power of the Executive—of levying duties was this: Lex ttalionis is to be applied for the defence of British commerce, goods for goods, tax for tax. Accordingly this question was full in view of the statesmen of those days. And what was said in the Petition of Rights was this—
"If the levying of impositions be indeed the only means left to redress a grievance, why should it not be done by Act of Parliament in these times as by Henry VII. and Queen Elizabeth?"
I grant that Henry VII. and Queen Elizabeth lived even longer ago than Mr. Cobden, and I suppose that the exhortation of Mr. Balfour addressed to faithful followers, who I should have thought might have escaped that reproach, implied that we ought to bring our ideas up to date. I have brought them up to date, and I venture to say that this is sound doctrine in this year of grace much more than it was even then. Why do I say so? Because it is not for nothing that this difference is made. This Amendment is moved upon Lord Crewe's Resolution. As I have said, Lord Crewe's Resolution is the tame milk and water constitutional doctrine of this country. But what is wanted now is to drop a broad hint that future Parliaments may amend this in such a way as to bring about the easier imposition of duties. So I read the Amendment. It is in your Lordships' judgment; it is before you all. I cannot understand why Lord Crewe's Motion is to be rejected. I could understand its being rejected altogether merely because it is a platitude, but I cannot understand its being rejected in favour of this newfangled Amendment. I have said I cannot imagine it being rejected; perhaps that is hardly frank. I can imagine.
There is a new notion abroad that Parliament ought by Act of Parliament to devolve upon the Executive the power of imposing duties upon imports. I will refer for a moment to a very able and very temperately written book by Professor Ashley of Birmingham, which I expect has had a good deal to do with some of the speeches that have been delivered in the course of the autumn

407
recess. Professor Ashley says (it is all highly condensed, his book has that among other merits)—
"What seems dictated by the requirements of the case is a statutory authorisation of the Executive to impose the duty that may be required from time to time as circumstances arise."
Now, my Lords, it is open to the noble Marquess to say, and he is well entitled to do so, that this is merely a professor—although he will observe it is a Birmingham professor—but I may say for the information of noble Lords around me, who I am quite certain to a large extent think that Mr. Chamberlain's policy is on the whole in favour of the country, and that it is a sound protectionist policy, that if they will buy that book for half-a-crown (I am not an agent for its circulation) they will be in a position to pose as seers and prophets and missionaries of Empire to their heart's content. They have it all there in that book, down to jams and pickles.
I have dwelt upon this question, the immediate question, upon which we are to vote, for this reason: I think it is highly significant that the veil of obscurity which has been drawn over the region within which retaliation is to be exercised, the mode by which it is to be exercised, and the authority by which the Ministry is to be authorised to proceed to enact it, applies to the legislative proceedings as well as to everything else. But now I want to ask the House to consider this: What is the area or region within which retaliatory duties are to be imposed? It seems to me that that is one of the first questions to be determined. I may say frankly for myself that to the general doctrine of retaliation as stated by the Foreign Secretary last year I have no objection whatever. It seems to me, whether it be consistent with the strictest sect of free trade or not, it is at all events an acceptable doctrine and worthy of practice that the diplomacy of this country should be busy in furthering the trade of the country, that it should concern itself with the removing by diplomatic methods of the barriers which obstruct the trade of this country. And I may say here, and I hope I shall not say anything to offend the susceptibilities of noble Lords on the other side, that I think if some Liberal
408
Governments had shown a little more activity and a little more sensibility on this subject twenty years ago, this question might very likely never have arisen. Still, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever to your doctrine of negotiation and even of retaliation. But, couple the latter word with this. The effectiveness of this method as a whole must depend upon the ultimate result of the policy of retaliation. I hope I shall not be saying anything rude or forward if I express my doubt whether that aspect of the question has been fully considered. To this general doctrine I believe on this side of the House there is no objection; I believe that even on the other side there is very little objection to it; there may be a lingering doubt as to its doctrinaire aspect, and consequently as to its practical consequences, and I also reserve my doubts as to its practical consequences. But if the Unionist Government had come forward spontaneously, on their own initiative, and proposed the policy of negotiation and retaliation, I believe they would have had the Conservative and Unionist Party at their back to a man. But they have not done so. The hitch in the whole argument which is persistently ignored by noble Lords on the Treasury Bench is that this is not a first hand proposal. This is not a proposal which arises either from the opinion of the Party on this side or from the exigencies of the country. It arises, on the contrary—I am speaking now not of motive, but entirely of the political sequence of events—from a move made by a distinguished politician in the Unionist Party. That is the real truth, and that accounts—I deeply regret to say it—for the vapid and inane explanation of the existence of this policy which we are receiving from day to day from the Government.
These are the circumstances which seem to me to make it doubly imperative on His Majesty's Government that we should be treated with an abundant frankness on this subject. I speak for one moment, and merely to dismiss the subject, of the humble individual before you. I am a Tory who has seen the Tory Party grow in power and strength, and have rejoiced in it. I have no interest in this matter except to see that those institutions which to the benefit of the country have swayed its fortunes during the last eighteen years should continue so to operate. I see on

409
the contrary the policy of the Government drifting this Party to ruin and destruction. The noble Earl on the Woolsack has contributed to this debate in the most remarkable manner. I am, as he knows, his colleague, his disciple, and his admirer, but my powers of admiration have been exhausted to-night by the declaration he has made. Custom cannot stale his infinite variety. He has told us tonight that this fiscal question, this question of a tariff, can be settled without prejudice to any difference of opinion between free trade and protection. I remembered at the moment an illustration used by Fitzjames Stephen in one of Ms memorable books, viz.—that you can no more do this (whatever it was he was speaking of) than you can do sums right without prejudice to a difference of opinion upon the multiplication table. It seems to me that that declaration removes indefinitely any possibility of arriving at sound ideas upon the Government policy. The Government policy seems to be something like the horizon which you advance towards and never reach.
Now, my Lords, I want to ask the representatives of the Government on the Treasury Bench one or two plain questions. First of all, they are aware, at least I hope they cannot but be aware, of this, that they attained their majority of fifty-one the other night in the House of Commons because Mr. Akers Douglas declared at the most solemn moment when a Parliamentary pledge can be given, just before the division, that the Government were opposed to duties upon food and raw material. Now, I pray the House to observe, because we require to draw distinctions, it is not that taxes upon food and raw material do not form part of the Government policy; we have heard that very often, but it is this time definitely that the Government are opposed to taxes on food and raw material. I hope my noble friends on these Benches will observe that that is the condition upon which we are proceeding in this debate. There are to be no taxes upon food or raw material; therefore any of us who had brilliant ideas about taxes which would make some of our friends rich—I mean the farmers and people of that kind—must send them
410
away to that capacious reservoir of unfulfilled promises which is associated with the name of Birmingham. If you so circumscribe the area within which your policy of negotiation and retaliation is to operate, how will it work out? I suppose I shall be told that that is a question of detail into which it is impertinent to intrude; that is the tone of the discussion. When my noble friend Lord Salisbury—whom as an old House of Commons friend I would gladly have congratulated, in his presence, on the success of his speech last night, in which he showed the charming qualities of character as well as of speech which endeared him to us—I say that when Lord Salisbury spoke on this subject and infused into our debate an absence of mystification which at all events was gratifying, he said flatly that he was against Mr. Chamberlain's views, and he said various other things which, as I have said, brought a tonic into our somewhat oppressed atmosphere. I want to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf of the Government, can it be possible that they do not adhere to Mr. Akers Douglas' promise given on the eve of the division upon which as a Ministry they exist? And if they do, how does the policy of retaliation work out? Has that point been thought of? I own with great regret that the more I press into this question the more I am convinced that the whole of this subject has not been thought out. I cannot think that the obvious objections and the obvious difficulties which beset the whole of this question would not have been met and considered and cleared away if it had been possible to do so or if any pains had been taken about it.
But then comes a serious question which really and truly has alone caused me to speak to-night. There was said in the House of Commons not long ago something which I really think ought never to have been said by a Conservative Minister. He had been appealed to on this very subject to tell us—observe "us," not you of the Opposition who are hungering for some fault in the Government, but us who want merely to be satisfied in going on and supporting the Conservative Party as we have known it—he had been asked to tell whether he could not state, even on this vital question of the constitutional procedure to be

411
adopted, whether Parliament was to be approached before these measures were sanctioned, and various other things of that sort; and Mr. Gerald Balfour said that that question of procedure—of procedure, observe the degree of confidence between Minister and country—had been settled—by what? By Mr. Gladstone's conduct about the Home Rule Bill! I hope I shall not offend the susceptibilities of noble Lords opposite, many of whom were Mr. Gladstone's friends, if I speak freely of the characteristics of that statesman's methods. I will not go further than this: they were sometimes, particularly in his later days, wily and astute, and, on this side of the House, language was applied to them which was a good deal more pointed. We, on this side of the House, thought, and we think still, that it was not fair to the country that they should be involved in proceedings of vital importance to the safety of the Empire unless they were told exactly how they worked out. I say the same now. I am not going too far when I say that it is not right that a Conservative Minister should appeal to us to keep quiet, and to shut our eyes and our ears about a matter of vital importance to the poor and rich of this country alike, merely because upon a certain occasion our most bitter opponent, under our fierce denunciation, had made a somewhat similar economy as to the facts. I could understand all this if it were applied to noble Lords opposite as a tu quoque which would silence their tongues, but I cannot understand the leaders of the Conservative Party turning round upon us, who have never done anything to forfeit their confidence, and saying: "We will treat you as Mr. Gladstone, your direst opponent, treated you."
I heard last night, with more than interest, the appeal made by my noble friend Lord Selborne to his supporters on this side of the House. He said that this was a vote of want of confidence, and he appealed to us whether we were going to throw away vital interests, of which the Unionist Party are the custodians, merely because we differed from the Government on this subject. The noble Duke touched on the subject to-night; I also will venture to touch on it because I am a Tory who is going to vote against the Government, and I feel bound to say
412
one or two words on the subject. We are represented as leaving or deserting our Party at a critical moment and imperilling Unionist interests. I stand astonished at that accusation. What is the history of this matter? It is a history of the last two years. When the present Government—by which I mean the Government of Mr. Balfour—acceded to power, they came into possession of the lead of the Unionist Party—Mr. Balfour, especially, as a Tory, came into the lead of the Tory Party—when that Party had attained a strength and a power and a usefulness which had never been rivalled in this country. I believe, for my part, that if the Party had been kept out of this morass into which it has been led it would have maintained the confidence, and the proud confidence, of the country for a generation to come. What has been done? I do not refer to my distinguished friends who are now scattered over the two Houses of Parliament; I refer rather to those graver and deeper differences which have been created by the act of the Unionist Government. The Conservative Party—I speak of it because I know it best, and without the smallest disparagement to the Liberal Unionists—had been built up by Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury into a momentous organ of national welfare; it had based its power by showing the identity of its principles with those of the loyal working classes; and, what was equally striking, it had done exactly what Matthew Arnold told it to do twenty years ago—it had made friends with the mind of the country. With those two elements on the one side and the other the path of prosperity and progress was clear before it. What has happened? We have seen the word and idea of Empire, which had cheered our people on to great exertions in the past, vulgarised beyond description. We have seen a successful attempt to capture a Party based upon the deepest and clearest principles of national life and conduct, and the Party is now being turned into some sort of trading machine.
I am going to ask the Government one more question about their policy of negotiation and retaliation. How do they intend to work it out in this country? As my noble friend Lord James said in his admirable speech—a speech which ought to be read all over the country—

413
"Who brings you tidings of your mandate?" The answer must be "Mr. Chamberlain's candidates." Of course; you have not got enough of your own. Will the noble Marquess at the head of the Government in this House show me a complement, a sufficiency, of candidates on the Conservative and Unionist side who are able to bring him back the clear tidings, "We have brought the financial truth through all difficulties; no more taxation of bread, and, on the other hand, no more foolish Cobdenism, but the very soul and truth of the word, and you are in a majority?" My noble friend has no more prospect of that than he has of excluding Home Rulers from the next Parliament. What I want to ask is this. At the end of the day if—and it is a large"if"—the Chamberlainites bring triumph to your standard, what is to be done? I would not insure at a high rate your puny policy of negotiation and retaliation. I greatly fear that they would go by the board and you with them, and the question is—What then? This is one of the points upon which I am most anxious. Should this election go in favour of fiscal reform, what is coming? A ministry of Mr. Chamberlain. And what then becomes of Church and State? What becomes of the schools in which noble Lords on this side interested themselves so greatly last year? Would they not be open to the first bidder, who would go one higher on the subject of tariff reform? Have you considered that the miscarriage of your puny barque of negotiation and retaliation means the return into port with full sail of a system of Government the methods of propagating which were embodied in old-age pensions and in the promise of high wages? That is a consummation to which I frankly decline to be a party. I owe Mr. Chamberlain no allegiance, and I decline for my part, and I hope many noble Lords will be found to do the same, to lend a hand to anything which will bring about such a sinister catastrophe.
EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to vary the ordinary formula which comes from those who address the House for the first time by asking your Lordships' indulgence for
414
one who has not, as far as he knows, addressed the House for nine years. I had no desire to intervene in this debate, and I can promise the House that I shall not trespass on their indulgence for any lengthened period. I am sorry I entered the House at a late period in the speech of my noble friend behind me (Lord Robertson) and that I am not able to follow the arguments of a somewhat singular nature by which he appeared to be supporting his view. I did hear, however, an attack upon a very distinguished statesman—Mr. Chamberlain—and it appeared to me, from what I could hear, that my noble friend was not prepared to consider on its merits the all-important question which is now before the House. He was filled with anticipations of evil which might arise from the triumph of Mr. Chamberlain; he saw before him a disestablished church, and various other matters which I think it will hardly be necessary for us to discuss to-night. As I said before, I am very unwilling to intrude in this, as in any other, debate, but I am impelled to say a few words, in the first place, because during the whole of this discussion I have not heard one word in support of the position which I feel I ought to occupy in this discussion.
As a result of the 'debates, both in the other House and in your Lordships' House, we have arrived, as far as I can understand, at a unanimous agreement upon one subject. I have not heard anyone on these Benches, or read of anyone elsewhere, who doubts that we have arrived at a time at which our trade and commerce is carried on under conditions which require, if not amendment, at all events consideration. That lands us, at all events, at the first stage of the discussion. Of course, there are some noble Lords, and I am afraid I must divide them into four categories, who have spoken in this debate, who appear to feel that in some cases there is no necessity for any change, and in other cases that that necessity is of a more modified character. Perhaps if I were to single out one among my noble friends as hardly appreciating the necessity for any action, or even for any consideration of this important question, I should point to my noble friend Lord Balfour of

415
Burleigh. I believe, if I understand his speech aright, that he sees no necessity for any inquiry into the system which now obtains, and he is quite content that we should remain as we are, and do nothing. Then there are noble Lords opposite. I do not think that any one of them will deny—I do not know that my noble friend who leads the Opposition has ever denied—that there is at all events a case for grave consideration, that there are doubts which must be solved, and although, as we know, his opinions are very distinct and very loyal upon the doctrine which he has always advocated—the doctrine of free trade—yet he and his noble friends also admit that something possibly may be done, though not in the sense of the proposals of the Government. Nobody, as far as I know, has mentioned in the course of the debate the alternative policy which has been placed before the country by the right hon. Gentleman the late Colonial Secretary. We have had attacks upon His Majesty's Government; we have heard that they have not expressed their own opinions clearly, and that they have not placed before the House a policy which is intelligible to us. To a certain extent I am obliged to coincide with that view. But with regard to the policy which has been very clearly laid before us by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, nobody, as far as I know, has discussed that policy. Perhaps they were correct in not doing so, because that policy is not before the House. But if that policy is not before the House, I should like to know what is.
Here I should like to associate myself with those who have offered their sincere congratulations to my noble friend opposite who initiated the discussion on the admirable form which he has invented for the Motion now under discussion. It is one which I recommend to the notice of all those who in future will manage our business here. It is one which no doubt offers some difficulties to those who wish to meet it. My noble friend gave notice of a series of questions which he intended to put to His Majesty's Government; he answered those questions according to his own lights, and reserved to himself the right of moving, which gave him a locus standi, a Motion embodying a principle which had already been agreed to
416
by my noble friend on this side of the House. That is a very convenient way, no doubt, of creating a peg upon which to hang a discussion, and I am bound to say that I listened with the greatest interest to the admirable speech which my noble friend delivered from his point of view.
I wish in the few words I shall address to the House to point to the difficulties in which the supporters of His Majesty's Government are placed by the apparent want, not only of information but of cohesion, which is to be found in all the utterances of the various members of the Government. We must all admit that the Government have been placed in exceptionally difficult circumstances during the debates on this subject. There is no man in the country who does not regret as much as I do the illness which has overtaken the Prime Minister. We have all watched by his bed-side; we have all grieved at the loss which his absence has entailed upon us and at the sufferings he has undergone; we have all been gratified to hear of the improvement of his health, and I am sure his return will be welcomed, to the great relief of all Members on both sides of both Houses of Parliament. I think there was a great deal to be said for the statement made in the other House of Parliament as to the position in which the members of the Cabinet then found themselves. They said, and with great reason, that the one man who had a right and who alone had a right, to expound the policy of the Government was the Prime Minister. But I noticed that they proceeded, as perhaps they were in duty bound to proceed, to expound that policy for themselves. What I have to find fault with—and I do so with the utmost respect—is the fact that those expositions have come upon us in a painful alternation, with an ebb and a flow, which has bewildered us all, with the general result that it is very difficult to ascertain where we stand and in what position we are with regard to this question. I have no hesitation in saying where I stand, because, although nobody has said so before in this House, and I am afraid nobody is about to say so, I myself am inclined to support the larger policy, the more frank policy, the more practical

417
policy, which is embodied in the proposals which have been enunciated in public by my right hon. friend the late Secretary of State for the Colonies.
But while I say that, I wish to offer my tribute of respect to my noble friends—the noble Duke and others—who have never made any secret of the position which they have taken up on this question. They still are devoted to a policy which they call free trade and which they believe to be free trade, but which I think the noble Duke has modified into a policy merely of free imports. I hope I am not misinterpreting them. I think they are satisfied with the status quo, they do not see any reason for debating a policy to revive what is admitted to be an unsatisfactory state of trade, therefore, it is very difficult to urge anything which will have any effect upon them or induce them to join anyone who proposes fiscal reform. The policy of His Majesty's Government is I admit, of a very different character. His Majesty's Government has admitted that these difficulties exist; they have also intimated their intention to remedy them. We look to the Prime Minister and to his declarations for an explanation of the lines upon which they propose to deal with this all-important subject. I am sure I should not be considered to be taking any unfair advantage if I read a few extracts from a speech made by the Prime Minister, I think in June last, at the Constitutional Club, which, if he has not been able to inform us lately as to his views, at all events gives us a basis upon which we can found our appreciation of the policy which he intends to carry out. I think it was on 27th June last that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister attended a luncheon given at the Constitutional Club in honour of the late Colonial Secretary on his return from South Africa. The occasion was a very interesting one, and loth as I am to take part in any public functions of that sort, I determined to be present and to hear what the views of the Prime Minister at that time were. There was no doubt whatever about those views then. It fell to the lot of the Prime Minister to present an address to the then Secretary of State for the Colonies and to make a speech congratulating him on that visit to South Africa which was the ad-
418
miration of all those who observed the energy with which the late Secretary of State for the Colonies performed a duty which few men at his age could have accomplished, and returned, having, as we believe, done a great work towards the pacification of, and the arrival at friendly arrangements in that important part of our dominions. The Prime Minister on that occasion, as I have said, proposed a vote of thanks to the late Colonial Secretary and presented him with an address, and he made several remarks on that occasion which I think bear upon the question now under your Lordships' consideration. He said—
"It would be folly on the part of the Conservative or Unionist Party to make particular opinions on economical subjects a test of Party loyalty."
He said the questions were not new, and that he saw four dangers ahead. This, I think, is an important statement, because if there were four dangers ahead those dangers ought to be dealt with. He said that the first was what we now call "dumping," which he expressed in much more detailed language. The second he said was that negotiation with regard to tariffs was rendered extremely difficult or impossible by the present position of our tariff. Since Cobden's treaty with France and other concessions we had had nothing left to give. Now my Lords, I hardly know what this can mean except that retaliation will create for us something to give, and I doubt myself whether that can be done without protection. Then the third point of the Prime Minister was a protest relating to the Canadian-German difficulty. The fourth is in these words—
"If possible there should be some arrangement made with these self-governing colonies which would unite us together in fiscal bonds."
And he added that he left that to his right hon. friend Mr. Chamberlain to deal with. This was at the banquet—
"If possible there should be some arrangement made with these self-governing colonies which should unite us together in fiscal bonds."
We hope it may be possible, but we have heard nothing of that arrangement since. It is important to remark that I believe we all understood at the commencement of these discussions that the Imperial question, the question of drawing the Colonies closer to us, was to be one of the leading

419
objects which the Government and Mr. Chamberlain proposed to themselves in starting this campaign. The Prime Minister further stated, in reference to the possible opposition to taxation on food—
"There is no logical or substantial reason why a policy, if it be wise and if it be practicable in other ways, should not be carried out without increasing the cost of living to the working classes of this country; but, at all events, let us set our minds to consider how that can be met."
After what I had heard at that meeting I considered that the Prime Minister, if he did not wholly coincide with the views of the late Colonial Secretary, at all events agreed with him in the more important points of his policy. Not only that, but I understand that Mr. Chamberlain had the high sanction of the Prime Minister in the campaign in which he subsequently embarked. So far, so good. What I would like to ask on behalf of many supporters of the Government is this. We understood the position of the Government at the time to which I have just referred. What is our position now? We have had the debate in the other House of Parliament; we have had the debate just concluding in this House, but I suppose it would not be too much to say that if we looked for guidance to the speeches of members of the Cabinet we should be somewhat puzzled as to the decision at which we ought to arrive.
I may say at once as regards the Amendment before the House that I shall give it my humble support. I should always wish to support His Majesty's Government, because, if I understand their policy, they not only realise the difficulties under which we labour, but they are prepared with a policy which in their opinion is adequate, and which, whether we agree with it or not, is a policy in the direction which we may hope will lead to a remedy of the evils complained of. I cannot see any such hope in the attitude of noble Lords opposite. I think that any Motion proposed on behalf of His Majesty's Government in this matter should be supported by all of us, because, although we think they might go further, at the same time they are prepared to do something, while I cannot see that noble Lords opposite, or even those who dignify themselves by the name "free-fooders," are likely to help us in any degree.
I should just like to say that I have felt very deeply the position in which
420
supporters of His Majesty's Government have been placed. It is quite true, as I have said, that the trumpets give an uncertain sound, and that whenever the subject is discussed we find some members of His Majesty's Government who lead us to hope for strong measures, and others who, on the contrary, limit very strictly the hopes of those who support them. But there have been, especially last night, one or two statements made by Ministers which I confess have given me considerable consolation, and have led me to hope for better things before long. There was, for instance, the speech of my noble friend Lord Selborne. That speech has been described by some as a speech throughout in favour of protection. I am not quite sure that I could go so far as that in the description of it, but there was one element in it to which I should like to draw the attention of the House. We have had no more eloquent statement of the difficulties in which the country now finds itself; we have had no more eloquent refutation of the allegation which was made on the other side of the House that this country is at present in an exceptionally favourable and prosperous condition. But the more my noble friend argued that trade is decreasing, that our industries are in danger, and that a state of things has arisen which calls for a remedy, the more I think does he invite upon himself the retort that the Government in that case should provide some effectual remedy for the state of things which now exists.
What is the remedy which the Government propose? It is negotiation. Well, the power of negotiation they possess at present. It is retaliation. Well, retaliation, as I understand it, means the power of imposing a protective duty in reply to one imposed against us by a foreign country. But my noble friends say that retaliation does not mean protection. The noble Marquess Lord Salisbury, whose appearance in this House was an event of great and deep interest to those who, for many reasons, would have recalled to their memories recollections of his illustrious father, and whom we all congratulate on his success, told us, not only that there was no protection in retaliation, but that there was not even a protective flavour. I have heard of the odour of

421
sanctity but I have never heard of a protective flavour. However that may be, I imagine he meant that retaliation, in his view, could be carried out without any protection at all. That I very much doubt. I quite understand that protection pure and simple means protective duties all round. I quite understand also that retaliation may be said not to be simple protection, because it means merely imposing one duty ad hoc as a quid pro quo in the case of a duty imposed against us. Be that as it may, I take it that my noble friend Lord Salisbury has told us that there is to be no protection, and we have already heard that there is to be no preference. But is there to be no preference? I do not know whether it is in order to refer to a speech made in the other House, but the Secretary of State for the Colonies in a speech there, after detailing the policy and the position of the Government, made a pathetic appeal to the supporters of the Government. He begged and implored them—it is not necessary to implore me, because I should not do it in any case—under no circumstances to forget that there was this preference behind. I think his expression was that he would never take his eye off that preference. Then my noble friend Lord Selborne said that he hoped we should not put any ban on preference. I hope we shall not.
I have ventured to make these few remarks because I think that the arguments which have been used by those who have attacked His Majesty's Government have come from those who do not believe in the necessities of the situation, who do not believe in providing any remedies for those necessities. I wish merely to put the case, which I do with all respect, from the opposite point of view. There may be no Member of your Lordships' House who agrees with me, but I believe that the Government will not be able to confine themselves to the limited policy which they have laid before Parliament. I venture with all respect to agree with what fell from the noble Earl on the Woolsack. I am not sure that I realised all his views, but I have never heard him quoted as a very strong free-trader, and I think that so far he left the argumentative part of the question. He simply informed us that it was not the duty of the Government to lay down the conditions of any policy
422
which was not before the House. We know that the policy before the House is a very limited one. His Majesty's Government have told us that the policy now before the House, which they admit is before the House,—viz., the policy of negotiation, and what I may term contingent retaliation, is the only policy which they mean to supmit to the electors of the country. It is impossible for His Majesty's Government to limit the scope of the consideration of such a question as this within the lines which they have laid down for themselves, not only because it would not be easy under any circumstances, but because a much larger, a much fuller, and I venture to say, a much worthier policy has been already laid before the country by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for the Colonies. The country is in possession of that policy; they have discussed it, and they are about to discuss it; and in my opinion, which perhaps is not worth having, the country will adopt towards that policy an attitude not entirely unfavourable to the views of my right hon. friend. Of course, if His Majesty's Government lay down their policy—their limited policy as I venture to call it—and pit it against that of the ex-Colonial Secretary, no doubt the country will be able to decide, but I am afraid His Majesty's Government are deceiving themselves if they believe that the discussion in the country, both up to and during the election, will be limited to the proposals they have made. I am afraid they will find themselves mistaken. I say this in all honesty, and not in any spirit of antagonism to my noble friends who are members of the Government or to the Government itself. On the contrary, I realise all the difficulties which the Prime Minister had to face. I admit that he was not only Prime Minister, but also the leader of a Party, and I am far from saying that he was not right and that he did not exercise the highest duties of statesmanship in limiting the policy to what he believed would be endorsed by the majority of his Party, leaving further developments to the future. But I am afraid he deceives himself if he thinks that the people of this country have forgotten his own utterances. They believe that the Prime Minister is favourable—he had admitted it very often—to the policy of

423
Mr. Chamberlain. They know and they understand—and nobody blames him for it—that he says it is a policy which it will take a long time to develop, and upon which the electors of this country will require a considerable amount of education. But, as I said before, I think His Majesty's Government will do well if between this and the general election—which I hope will be long postponed—they reconsider their policy in the sense of augmenting and strengthening it. I can only say that, as far as I am concerned, and I know I express the views of many Members of your Lordships' House and of Members of the other House, any strengthening of that policy would be viewed with gratification. I trust that before long the Government will see that they are more likely to enjoy the support of the country if they will go "the whole hog"—I hardly like to use the term, but I know no other way of expressing it—or at all events if they will advance some further step towards the realisation of what I believe will prove in the end to be the policy to the best advantage of the people of this country, and by which I believe they will secure the strong support of the constituencies throughout the Kingdom.
EARL SPENCER: My Lords, I do not regret that I gave way to the noble Earl when I rose to address your Lordships a short time ago. The noble Earl's speech is one which, I think, has made an impression on your Lordships. It was what I may call the speech of a candid friend of the Government, and certainly a very independent speech. But why is it that on this great national question the independent supporters of the Government are so silent I It is a remarkable thing that, with two exceptions—and they were not warm supporters of the Government—not a single independent Peer has spoken on the opposite side. We had a very able speech from the noble and learned Lord (Lord Robertson), but he is an ex-member of the Government. We have now had a speech, as I have said, from a candid friend, but the noble Earl is also an ex-member of the Government. Why is it, I repeat, that on this great national question the independent supporters of the Government do not express their opinions? Is it that they disagree with
424
His Majesty's Government, or is it for some other reason? Can it be. I hardly think soon such a great question, a justification of what I said on the opening night of the session, when complimenting the mover and seconder of the Address, that the atmosphere of this House was not conducive or encouraging to debate. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in very kindly terms, differed from me on that subject, but I still adhere to what I said.
We have had, nevertheless, a remarkable debate. We had a very interesting speech from the noble Lord the late Secretary for Scotland; we also had an interesting speech from my noble friend the noble Duke, on the personal part that they played in the changes in the Government. I shall not discuss the attitude they took up, nor the attitude of the Prime Minister towards them. But I think I may observe, with the approval of everyone in this House, that what they have said is honourable to them, and that everybody believes that they acted in the spirit of honourable statesmen doing their duty, as they conceived it, to their Party and their country. The attitude of the noble Duke and that of the noble Lord who sits near him is of great importance. The reasons they have given for separating themselves from the Government of which they were such strong supporters, show what an extraordinary position His Majesty's Government is in, and how very vague and dangerous an attitude the Government take towards this great question of free trade or protection. My noble friend behind me, Lord Crewe, put a specific Motion relating to one part of the subject, but, considering how much this part of the subject bears on all the larger questions connected with free trade and protection, it was natural that the debate should run into other parts of the question.
Though I shall not trouble your Lordships at great length at this late hour of the night, I must refer to one or two of the points which have been raised, and I shall also have a word to say with regard to retaliation and negotiation. Those of your Lordships who are free-traders rejoiced to hear the noble Marquess (Lord Salisbury) speak with no faltering voice in favour of free trade and against protection,

425
but it is worth while noticing that the speech of the noble Marquess hardly coincided with that of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty. I am not going to say that the First Lord of the Admiralty made a completely protectionist speech; but, if I am not mistaken, in his speech there were echoes from the arguments of the great man who has been stumping the country. Although no doubt the noble Earl very ably expressed them in his own words, still his speech contained a great many of the views which Mr. Chamberlain has urged. More than one noble Lord has referred to something I said on the opening night with regard to this question. I am stated to have admitted that the trade of the country was not as satisfactory as it should be. I entirely deny that I said anything of the sort. What I said—I am quoting from the report in The Parliamentary Debates—was—
"There are continual declarations from the President of the Board of Trade and others that the trade of the country is declining, but I am convinced this is an entirely erroneous view, and that trade was never more prosperous in this country, though I admit that some changes may be necessary, for we have to meet a keen and active competition from other nations, and must look to ourselves to see we are fully armed for the struggle."
We may compare this question to illness; we find that there are degrees of illness. It may be necessary for a man to undergo a serious operation to save his life, or his illness may be a very trifling matter. Can anybody say that at the present moment the state of trade and commerce in this country shows signs so ominous, to use the expression of the First Lord of the Admiralty, that a remedy of the greatest possible severity must be applied? Yet to upset the whole fiscal policy of the country is a proposal analagous to the most serious operations in surgery. Lesser evils which may demand consideration do not call for any such treatment. When I speak of the necessity of technical education, I cannot help having in mind the example of Switzerland. That country, mountainous, and with no harbours, has yet been most successful in industrial competition, because enormous attention has there been paid to technical education.
As to the comparisons that have been made between the state of trade in this
426
country now and in former years it will be remembered that in the early period of this discussion one famous comparison, which dealt with a period of inflation following on the Franco-German war, has been shown to be entirely erroneous. We do not hear of that kind of comparison now. How is the comparison made now? The progress of our commerce is now compared with that of other countries, but I venture to say that that is false matter of comparison. The First Lord of the Admiralty has said that sixty years ago we were commercially supreme and had no rivals. But is it to be expected that now-a-days we are to have no rivals? Our trade and commerce have reached such enormous dimensions that we cannot expect that we should increase it in the proportions we did formerly. I would compare the increase of our trade and commerce with what takes place with regard to other matters. Take the speed of trains. In early days, when trains only went twenty miles an hour, it was not difficult to increase the speed to thirty miles. But now, when we have reached a speed of sixty miles, it is exceedingly difficult and expensive to augment it. The noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty will, I am sure, admit the same argument with regard to the speed of battleships and cruisers. The speed could be pretty easily increased when those ships went at twelve knots, but when they reach twenty-two knots, it is very difficult, if not impossible, without incurring tremendous expense, to increase the speed. It is the same with regard to our trade and commerce. Our trade and commerce, as I have said, have reached such great dimensions that we cannot expect that the same proportion of increase should be maintained. On the other hand, our neighbours, owing to great activity and also to great intelligence and learning, have been able to improve their position. Their position was not nearly as advanced as ours, so that they are therefore advancing at this moment in far larger proportion than this country. I cannot share the forebodings of evil which seem to fill the mind of the First Lord of the Admiralty. It is true that our trade and commerce are not increasing at the same rate that they did twenty years ago, for the reasons I have given, but I believe they were never more prosperous than at present.

427
Referring to the pamphlet on "Insular Free Trade" which the Prime Minister issued not long ago, what, I ask, is the Premier's test of a nation's prosperity? The amount of its imports. He says clearly that exports are only required in order to enable us to obtain imports. If, then, our imports continue to increase we need not trouble ourselves about exports. This clearly follows from Mr. Balfour's own arguments. He also says emphatically that the wealth of the country is greater and better diffused than at any previous period. Why, then, should we risk anything? People do not run great risks except when they are suffering great evils. The shipping question, which is one of the most important of the questions connected with the subject of free trade and protection, has been scarcely referred to during the debate. Yet our shipping trade is marvellous in its proportions, and it is increasing enormously still. We are in no way going back. We are the great carriers for the whole world, and it is, I believe, the fact that British steamships have increased 1,000,000 tons every five years since 1870. That is an important evidence of the prosperity of this country, and I think we ought to be very careful to do nothing which would interfere with the prosperity of the shipping trade, for, as the noble Earl opposite will, I know, agree, its prosperity is not only of vital importance to the commerce of the country, but also as the great nursery for and helpmeet to our great Navy.
Free trade has given our shipbuilders access to the cheapest and best materials in the world. And consider how diverse these materials are. As Sir Christopher Furness recently pointed out, the steel is made from ore produced in Spain and Sweden, the brass from Spanish and American copper, the spelter comes from Germany, the woodwork from America and Norway, the ropes from Russia, and the hemp from the Phillipines. Is not that evidence of what enormous importance free imports are to trade in this country? I sincerely hope that nothing that His Majesty's Government may do, and nothing that Mr. Chamberlain can do, will in any way check that great volume of trade which is carried all over the world by our shipping, and which is of
428
such gigantic importance to our influence, power, and wealth. The noble Earl argued that we could not trace the commencement of our commercial prosperity to the period after the introduction of free trade. Well, I venture to say he has overlooked a great deal in making that statement. He has overlooked the state in which the country was at that time. He began by referring to the year 1846.
The EARL OF SELBORNE: 1847.
EARL SPENCER: The noble Earl seemed to have forgotten that long before that Sir Robert Peel commenced his great reform of the tariff. From 1842 he made enormous changes, which had very great effect on the whole of the country. The noble Earl quoted Sir Robert Peel before he became a convert to free trade, and I might quote numerous passages from the speeches of Mr. Chamberlain, in which the right hon. Gentleman most eloquently and clearly put the very arguments which we wish to enforce to-day. I should like to quote what was said by a very great man, and a man whose name will carry weight. Speaking at Edinburgh, on 2nd December, 1845, Lord Macaulay, referring to the condition of the country in 1841 said—
"Will anybody tell me that the capitalist was the only sufferer, or the chief sufferer? Have we forgotten what was the condition of the working people in that unhappy year? So visible was the misery of the manufacturing towns that a man of sensibility could hardly bear to pass through them. Everywhere he found filth and nakedness, and plaintive voices, and wasted forms and haggard faces. Politicians, who had never been thought alarmists, began to tremble for the very foundations of society. First the mills were put on short time. Then they ceased to work at all. Then went to pledge the scanty property of the artisan; first his little luxuries, then his comforts, then his necessaries. The hovels were stripped until they were as bare as the wigwam of a Dogribbed Indian. Alone amidst the general misery, the shop with three golden balls prospered, and was crammed from cellar to garret with the clocks and the kettles, and the blankets and the Bibles of the poor. I remember well the effect which was produced in London by the unwonted sight of huge pieces of cannon which were going northward to overawe the starving population of Lancashire."
Is that a picture of prosperity? Does that show that before free trade came in the country was in a very prosperous condition. On the contrary, it shows—

429
and I could quote the opinions of others to the same effect—that the condition of affairs was most deplorable in the country, and such as nothing, to my mind, but free trade was able to put straight.
Now, my Lords, I come to the actual Resolution which my noble friend behind me has proposed. We have heard a great deal about retaliation, and I hope we shall hear something more from the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, who, I presume, will wind up the debate. We understand perfectly well the policy of Mr. Chamberlain. We understand what my noble friend Lord Cadogan supports. But, as has been pointed out, time after time, we cannot understand the position of His Majesty's Government. They have two views. I hardly think the free-trade opinions which were expressed by the noble Marquess the Lord Privy Seal were at all echoed in the speech of the noble Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty. Now, what is retaliation? We have heard it described to-night, and up to a certain point we understand what is meant by retaliation; but can retaliation be called a policy? I rather think that retaliation is a weapon by which you can carry out a policy. We do not know how His Majesty's Government are going to carry out their policy. It may be done in various ways. They may proceed by Act of Parliament, giving power to the King in Council to act in certain circumstances, following the precedent contained in the Navigation Laws. I cannot help thinking that the refusal of His Majesty's Government to accept the clear proposal of my noble friend implies that they intend to have some general power of this sort, which will avoid their having to come to Parliament in each case. Why are they so afraid of the little word "each?"
If we do not have it to-night, we must have before long, certainly before an appeal is made to the country, the clear, definite, and cohesive opinion of the Government. The noble Earl said there was a want of cohesion on the part of the Government. I entirely agree. We have heard more than once that members of a Government may differ in opinion, and I quite agree that on certain questions they may differ. There are certain questions which may be considered open
430
questions. Take, for instance, a very important Irish question—that of an Irish Catholic University. We know that in Lord Salisbury's Government there were various views on that subject; but that is a perfectly open question It was not going to be made a question to be taken up by the Government. But I do not consider that this is a question which can be treated as an open question upon which a divergence of opinion among members of the Cabinet may be tolerated. It is a question upon which the Government and every politician must have a clear and decided view. It is not a question on which there can be two, four, or five views in the Cabinet. I will not detain your Lordships further, but I would impress upon His Majesty's Government the absolute necessity of clearing up their position, and stating whether they are going to support indirectly, if not directly, the policy of Mr. Chamberlain, which is protection, or whether they are going only to support retaliation and negotiation. If they are only going to support retaliation and negotiation, then I say they must define exactly what they are going to do, otherwise it will be impossible for the constituencies in the country to come to a correct vote and decision on this question, which is of such vital interest and importance to the whole kingdom.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, this discussion has ranged over a wide field, and at this hour of the night it is scarcely possible for me to go over the whole of it. We have listened to the important and interesting statements of the reasons which induced two of our colleagues to leave us recently. We have had a critical examination of the Motion and the Amendment; we have had a full discussion of the Government policy; and we have had a considerable amount of controversy with regard to another policy which is not that of His Majesty's Government, and with which they do not associate themselves. With regard to the two speeches which have been delivered to us upon the resignations, I can only say this, that I listened to them, as I am sure my friends on this side of the House listened to them, with a deep sense of the

431
depth of feeling with which those speeches were uttered and of the absolute sincerity with which they were characterised. We have great regret in parting from the friends and allies with whom we were associated so long, and as we listened to them we could not help feeling how great a loss this Bench has sustained in eloquence and ability by their defection. There is only one circumstance in which I am inclined to find consolation in the speeches of my noble friends. They made it perfectly clear to us that they left us under circumstances which rendered it absolutely impossible that they should continue to be our colleagues. There can be no question of their having left us owing to one of those momentary misunderstandings which sometimes lead to decisions forming the subject of lifelong regret. It is said of our first parents when they found themselves turning their backs upon the Garden of Eden that—
"Some natural tears they shed yet wiped them soon."
I think we may say that of our colleagues. They have gone forth like our first parents to till the earth, and we can only hope that the furrows which they trace may not be found to diverge too widely from ours.
As to the policy of the Government, we have been interrogated with a closeness and a persistency which I do not think I have ever seen equalled in the discussions in this House. The endeavour of our critics is to show to us that our policy means either nothing at all or else protection. Our policy does mean something, and that something is not protection. If one could find amusement in these things, I am almost amused at the persistent efforts which have been made to tar us with the brush of protection. I believe it is true that in some parts of Africa there are native officials whose business it is to smell out witches, and I think noble Lords opposite and their friends make it their business to smell out protection in all sorts of quarters where it does not exist. Sometimes it is a humble Under-Secretary, sometimes it is the Colonial Secretary, sometimes it is the First Lord of the Admiralty, and sometimes it is the Prime Minister himself. None of us are
432
safe, and we must congratulate ourselves on the fact that up to the present moment none of us have been done to death by our inquisitors. We say that we are not protectionists, but free traders. We say that our interpretation of free trade is as true an interpretation and founded on as high an authority as yours. Your theory is that if other nations freely supply us it does not in the least matter whether we are allowed to supply them; you keep your eyes permanently upon the importer and the consumer, and allow the producer and exporter to take chances for themselves. That is not, I believe, sound political economy, or, for the matter of that, sound sense. We hold, on the contrary, that you can only have free trade if the course of commerce is allowed to flow freely along its natural channels and when the country which gives and the country which receives are both allowed to reap the full advantage of natural conditions. We are not content with your theory of free trade; we believe, on the contrary, that the limited free trade which has contented you has been the cause of serious injury to our commerce, and we agree with my noble friend Lord Salisbury, who, I think, with great presence of mind succeeded in taking the sense of the House last night and in obtaining an opinion nemine contradicente, that all is not well with the trade of this country.
Leaving for the moment the question of theory, I would lay before your Lordships very briefly indeed one or two facts which seem to me to support the contentions which I have just urged. The first fact is this—that during recent years there has been a steady tendency on the part of all foreign countries to raise their tariffs against us. I will not trouble your Lordships with too many figures, but in 1879 the German tariff was raised to a protective level; in 1881 the Russian tariff was increased; in 1882 there was a general increase of the Austro-Hungarian duties; in 1884 there was a further increase of the Russian tariff; in 1885 there was a further increase of the German tariff; in 1887 the Russian duties were again increased; in 1888 the Italian duties were increased; in 1890 the McKinley Tariff was introduced in the United States, and there was a further

433
increase of the Russian tariff; in 1892 there was some reduction in the tariffs of central European Powers, but the French, Spanish, and Portuguese duties were increased; and in 1897 the United States scale of duties was largely increased. The second fact is that the effect of these successive heightenings of the tariff wall has been to divert our trade, to some extent at all events, from protected countries to those which are not protected; and the third fact which I would draw attention to is this, that at this very moment the European Powers are contemplating a still further addition to their hostile tariffs.
We are frequently told that what is called the "most-favoured-nation treatment" is sufficient protection for us against these dangers. My noble friend Lord Selborne very properly pointed out that the most-favoured-nation treatment has ceased to be a protection against hostile tariffs, and the reason is not far to seek. In these days the tendency is towards very minute classification of tariffs, with the result that when two Powers wish to make a commercial agreement between themselves, excluding from its advantages a third Power entitled to most-favoured-nation treatment, they can easily do so by a process known to experts as gerrymandering the tariff. The thing has in fact been constantly done to our disadvantage. I may mention an instance of this. In 1892 the central Powers of Europe revised their commercial treaties, and, although we had at that moment an export trade to Germany of no less than 675,000,000 marks, only 2·6 per cent. of that large trade obtained any relief under the most-favoured-nation treatment to which we were entitled. Of course, besides that there are other devices, such as preferential railway rates, frontier dues, and in certain cases interpretations of the most-favoured nation clause which have the effect of whittling away its meaning and importance. It is in these circumstances that we desire, instead of relying upon most-favoured-nation treatment—instead of being content with what I might call the by-products of arrangements entered into by other Powers—to bargain for ourselves. Having learned from experience that in such cases mere ex-
434
postulation and remonstrance are not enough, we desire to obtain from the country the authority to use arguments of another kind, to which we believe the countries with which we should have to deal will not be so ready to turn a deaf ear. When we reflect that this country takes from other countries imports valued at something over £400,000,000, we are led to the conclusion that we ought to be able to use arguments of the kind which I have indicated not without effect. Action of this kind has been characterised as "bluff." My Lords, I am under the impression that the word bluff is used without sufficient knowledge of its proper significance. That may perhaps be due to our innocence and unfamiliarity with the game from which I believe the expression originates, because I am assured that the word "bluff" can only be applied correctly when you make believe to hold in your hand good cards which you have, in fact, not got in it. I maintain that a country which draws £400,000,000 of imports from other countries cannot be made subject to the accusation that it is "bluffing," but that it has, on the contrary, a strong hand if it only knows how to play it.
Then I am asked—and I have been severely catechised on this point—how we propose to apply our policy of negotiation and retaliation; and constant efforts have been made by one speaker after another to lure us—I was almost going to say to goad us—into premature and indiscreet disclosures as to the manner in which such a policy may be applied. I think I am right in saying that my noble and learned friend Lord James cited the case of boots, and said—
"You will be asked when you go into your village, 'What are you going to do about boots?'"
Seriously, does the noble and learned Lord believe that we were coming to this House to tell your Lordships how two or three years hence the Government of the day is going to deal with the question of boots, or with German toys, or any of the other commodities which have been mentioned by different speakers this evening? I object to these revelations, not merely because of the tactical advantage which noble Lords opposite seek to derive from them, but because I venture to think

435
that on principle it would be absolutely wrong that any such announcement should be made.
I am going to make a personal appeal. I imagine that the audience which I have the honour of addressing probably contains in it the noble Lord who, when you have driven us from power, will replace me in the office which I now have the honour of filling. I do not know in what part of the House to look for him. But I will appeal to him to join me in protesting against the attempt to force the Foreign Office into indiscreet and improper disclosures of action which is at present remote from us. There is, however, one point upon which I will attempt to shed a ray of light with reference to a remark made by Lord Tweedmouth. He suggested that we should obviously begin by taking in hand those Powers whose tariffs were highest, and then he pointed out that those particular Powers were precisely the Powers from which we took foodstuffs and raw materials: and. therefore, the argument was, "You will be obliged to tax foodstuffs and raw materials." Now it does not in the least follow that because of two Powers one has a higher tariff than the other it is the higher tariff that is really most effectual for the purpose of excluding your commodities. Take two Powers, one with an ad valorem tariff of 100 per cent. and the other with an ad valorem tariff of 20 per cent. If the Power which has the higher tariff does not produce the commodities which you desire to export to it, those commodities will find their way into that country in spite of its high tariff. If, on the other hand, the Power which imposes the 20 per cent. duty does produce the commodities which you produce, and is therefore a competitor with you, the low rate of 20 per cent. will be effective for the purpose of keeping out your commodities. Therefore we must not run away with the assumption which has been more than once made, that it is necessarily with the Powers whose tariffs are highest that we shall be primarily concerned.
Then we have been asked what reason we have for believing that our policy will have the effects we desire from it. We were challenged last night to produce a
436
single case in which retaliation had been tried and found successful. We have just laid on the Table a Blue-book giving an account of certain tariff wars that have lately taken place, and I would call your Lordships' attention to this extract from the report on the conflict between Germany and Russia—
"A review of the conditions under which the struggle was conducted…makes it appear doubtful whether ordinary negotiations without the sanction of force would ever have led to a satisfactory compromise, or whether the protective policy of the two nations would ever have been modified except after the experience of the results of protection in its extremest form."
I do not, however, for a moment suggest that you should leave out of account the injurious results of those tariff wars and their disturbing effects on the trade of the world. All wars are at best but clumsy and cruel contrivances, and a tariff war does not differ from a war of another kind. No one in his senses would embark with a light heart on such a war; nor do we desire for a moment to provoke hostilities of that kind all over the world. All that we contend is that unless we can contemplate as a last resort the use of measures of this sort it will be impossible for us to hold our own in commercial negotiations with the foreign Powers whose attacks upon our commerce we have so much reason to apprehend.
But there is another illustration of the success with which the policy of negotiation may be resorted to which is more conclusive and encouraging. I refer to the Cobden Treaty of 1860. When that treaty was negotiated we were able for very a very small sacrifice indeed to obtain considerable concessions from France. The result was that our exports to France rose from £32,000,000 in 1859 to £81,000,000 in 1874. But more than that, the example of that treaty and of our treaty also with Austria which followed it soon after was contagious. Commercial treaties were entered into between other Powers, something like fifty or sixty such agreements being concluded, with the result that there was a general and, to us, most advantageous lowering of tariffs throughout Europe. The time came when we returned to a much stricter view of those matters and when the policy of commercial treaties fell into disfavour. From that time, although we repeatedly reduced our

437
taxation, we did so without inviting any corresponding concessions in return. Nay, more. When overtures were made to us we allowed them to pass by unheeded, with the result that not only our trade sustained serious detriment, but that we came to be regarded, and, indeed, have been regarded until last year, as a negligible quantity in all transactions with regard to commercial matters between one Power and another. I say that, knowing what I am talking about, because in their candid moments the representatives of foreign commerce do not hesitate to tell us with the utmost frankness that in such matters as the conclusion of commercial treaties, or the classification of commodities, the opinion of this country has been regarded with complete indifference.
Then we are asked why it is that we require a mandate in order that we may carry out our policy of negotiation and retaliation. We are told that there is nothing whatever to prevent us negotiating, or for the matter of that, retaliating at the present moment. I daresay that is perfectly true, but I would remind noble Lords opposite of a very recent incident. We entered into a Sugar Convention; we did so, it is quite true, without a mandate; but what was the result? We were hauled over the coals by the noble Earl and the noble Lord who sits by him and by the President of the Cobden Club, because we were told that we were breaking all the rules of the game and taking upon ourselves to adopt a policy which was in direct opposition to the recognised policy and principles of this country. Well, we do not want to be exposed to those kind animadversions in the future; and, when the noble and learned Lord asks us what extra authority we want, I say we want the extra authority which will be derived from a clear and emphatic pronouncement of opinion by the constituencies of this country. But we have no intention—and I cannot conceive why noble Lords should be so uneasy upon that point—we have no intention whatever of endeavouring to withdraw these matters from the cognisance or control of Parliament. We could not do so if we wished—and that is the best answer we can give. Noble Lords talk about our asking for a blank cheque; I do not suppose for a moment that Parliament could give us a
438
blank cheque; but, if it were to give us a blank cheque, and we were to fill it up in an improper manner, do you imagine that Parliament would overlook it? We should have to answer to Parliament and submit to their authority. It is perfectly true that treaties are the prerogatives of the Crown, and that, strictly speaking, their confirmation by Parliament is not absolutely necessary; but the treaty and the law of the land must be in harmony, and if the law of the land does not harmonise with the treaty, then you must legislate, and you at once bring yourself under the control of Parliament, and that no doubt is why in all commercial treaties the formula usually employed is that the Sovereign undertakes, not to make such and such an arrangement, but to recommend the arrangement to Parliament.
I wish to say one word with regard to the statement that has been so often made—that our policy, which has been a good deal belittled by the critics, will inevitably lead us to the Birmingham policy. And I wish to answer a challenge which I think was thrown down by the noble and learned Lord, who asked us whether we adhered to the statement which was made by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons. My Lords, we do adhere to it. The statement was this—
"The Government have no intention of taxing raw materials, and their policy does not include the taxation of food; neither do the Government propose the imposition of any taxation for the purpose of fostering a home industry which is subjected only to natural and legitimate competition."
LORD ROBERTSON: That is not what I referred to. I referred to a categorical Question put by Sir J. Stirling-Maxwell on the eve of the division, and the categorical answer was that the Government were opposed to any tax on food or raw materials.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I have not the slightest objection to accept that statement also.
LORD ROBERTSON: They slightly differ—I desire a direct affirmation from the noble Lord to that, my reason being

439
the variance among Ministerialist statements during that debate.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I am afraid it would be absolutely impossible for me to say anything more distinct than that I accept Mr. Akers Douglas's statement to which the noble and learned Lord drew my attention; and I say categorically, that we, as a Government, and we cannot speak except as a Government, are opposed to a duty on raw materials or foodstuffs. Why is it that we are told that our policy leads inevitably down an inclined plane to the Birmingham abyss? I say, on the contrary, our policy is a self-contained policy. It is quite within our power to stop short at it. It is a policy which is intelligible without the assumption that it involves anything that it does not already comprise. And I say more; I say not only is it a self-contained policy, but I believe that instead of leading to Birmingham it leads if anything in the opposite direction. I was rather interested by an argument used by Lord Crewe on the first night, when he set himself to work to demolish another argument which had been used by the noble Duke below the gangway in regard to that point. The noble Earl was at pains to show that it would be possible to graft the Government policy on to the Birmingham policy. I think the noble Duke was perfectly right. As far as it goes our policy is inconsistent with the policy of colonial preference, and for this reason: If your policy of retaliation and negotiation succeeds, it means that you will have entered into agreements with foreign powers by which, in return for the facilities which you give to their trade, they will give you facilities for yours; and surely it is not unreasonable to argue that the more the ground is covered with treaties between this country and foreign Powers, treaties maintaining a permanent open door for our products in foreign countries, the less, and not the more, easy will it be to make preferential arrangements with the Colonies.
What I have to say with regard to this question of colonial preference—it is not before the House, and I shall not examine it at length—is that, although it forms no part of our policy, and if you were to propose it to us now, we should certainly
440
oppose it, we do not desire to be held bound that at no future time and under no circumstances will we any of us have anything to do with commercial arrangements between the mother country and the Colonies. We are not prepared to say that we are going, as soon as we are permitted to do so, to enter into mutually advantageous arrangements with foreign countries—but that, in no circumstances, and at no time, can we contemplate the possibility of such mutually advantageous arrangements being made between this country and the Colonies to which we owe so much. I therefore rejoice that this question, although it forms no part of our programme to-day, should be undergoing the greatest amount of free examination and discussion. If that discussion should bring to light hereafter the possibility of doing something which will draw the Colonies more closely towards us, I shall be the first to rejoice. If, on the other hand, the result is to show that nothing can be done, then I hope the attempt will be abandoned with the goodwill and concurrence of both sides. If this were to happen the project would at all events be decently and respectfully laid aside. But that is a widely different thing from throwing it still-born upon the dust-heap, which is the policy which noble Lords opposite recommend.
Having those feelings, I object altogether to the proposal of Lord Robertson that we should endeavour to impose upon our supporters what he called a superior limit in regard to this question. Let me state in half-a-dozen simple words how I understand that superior limit would work if we were to apply it. It would mean this, that we should prefer a candidate who differed from us upon nine points out of ten, and who, upon this fiscal question, agreed with us partially and reluctantly, to another candidate who agreed with us on nine points out of ten and who differed from us in regard to fiscal policy only because he wished to travel rather faster and rather further than we did. Holding those views, we shall not support the Motion of the noble Lord opposite. We may be wrong, but we regard its language as ambiguous and disengenuous. We prefer our own formula, in which we have put on record, in the most unequivocal terms, our desire that this question

441
should not be withdrawn from the control of Parliament and in which, because we respect the authority of Parliament, we refuse to be parties to an attempt to bind the discretion of a Parliament which is not yet in existence and of a Govern-
ment which, for all we know, may never have a being.
On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided.
Contents, 47; Not-Contents, 98.

CONTENTS.

Devonshire, D.

Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

Lyvedon, L.

Hampden, V.

Monks well, L.

Northampton, M.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Ripon, M.

Aberdare, L.

Northbourne, L.

Balfour, L.

Reay, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Biddulph, L.

Ribblesdale, L. [Teller.]

Carrington, E.

Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

Robertson, L.

Chesterfield, E. [Tetter.]

Brassey, L.

Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

Crewe, E.

Burghclere, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Kimberley, E.

Coleridge, L.

Somerhill, L. (M.Clanaicarde.)

Lichfield, E.

Denman, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lytton, E.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Stanmore, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Russell, E.

Farrer, L.

Tweedmouth, L.

Spencer, E.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Wandsworth, L.

Stamford, E.

James, L.

Welby, L.

Temple, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Wimborne, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)

Grey, E.

Colchester, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) (Lord President.)

Hardwicke, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Harrowby, E.

Dawnay, L, (V. Downe.)

Salisbury, M. (L. Privy Seal.)

Jersey, E.

de Ros, L.

Lathom, E.

Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

Argyll, D.

Leven and Melville, E.

Dunboyne, L.

Beaufort, D.

Lindsey, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Grafton, D.

Morton, E.

Estcourt, L.

Marlborough, D.

Onslow, E.

Hampton, L.

Sutherland, D.

Radnor, E.

Herries, L.

Romney, E.

Hylton, L.

Abercorn, M. (D. Abercorn.)

Scarbrough, E.

Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

Abergavenny, M.

Selborne, E.

Kenyon, L.

Bath, M.

Stanhope, E.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Camden, M.

Stradbroke, E.

Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)

Cholmondeley, M.

Verulam, E.

Lawrence, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

Ludlow, L.

Winchester, M.

Wharncliffe, E.

Macnaghten, L.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (L. Steward.)

Bangor, V.

Monckton, L. (V. Galway.)

Churchill, V. [Teller.]

Muncaster, L.

Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.)

Colville of Culross, V.

North, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Oranmore and Browne, L.

Brownlow, E.

Ormathwaite, L.

Cadogan, E.

Knutsford, V.

Rayleigh, L.

Camperdown, E.

Llandaff, V.

Romilly, L.

Carnwath, E.

Rothschild, L.

Cawdor, E.

Addington, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Coventry, E.

Allerton, L.

Sinclair, L.

Cowley, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

Dartrey, E.

Ashcombe, L.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

Denbigh, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Derby, E.

Belper, L.

Trevor, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Calthorpe, L.

Windsor, L.

Chelmsford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Eldon, E.

Cheylesmore, L.

Feversham, E.

Cloncurry, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

House Adjourned at Twelve o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.