Sitting of 15 February 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
NEW WRIT.
New Writ for the Borough of Liverpool (Everton Division), in the room of Sir John Archibald Willox (Chiltern Hundreds).— (Sir A. Acland-Hood.)

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported, That, in accordance with Standing Order 79, he had conferred with the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, for the purpose of determining in which House of Parliament the respective Private Bills should be first considered, and they had determined that the Bills contained in the following List should originate in the House of Lords, viz.:—
Abertillery Urban District Water.
Administrative County of London and District Electric Power
company.
Alexandra Park and Palace.
Bangor (County Down) Water and Improvement.
Barry Railway.
Blackpool Improvement.
Blackpool, St. Anne"s, and Lytham Tramways.
Bridgewater Canals.
Bristol Blind Asylum.
Buenos Ayres Grand National Tramways.
Cardiff Railway.
Central Electric Supply.
Charing Cross and Strand Electricity Supply Corporation.
City of London Electric Lighting Company.
Clacton Improvement.
Clacton-on-Sea Commissioners.
Commercial Union Assurance.
Cordoba and Rosario Railway.
County of London Electric Supply Company.
Dearne Valley Railway.
East Cowes Gas.
East London and Lower Thames Electric Power.
Entre Rios Railways.
Formby Township.
Gosport and Fareham Tramways.
Great Central Railway.
Great Central Railway (Pension Fund).
Hastings Harbour.
Hastings Harbour District Railway (Abandonment).
Hastings Tramways.
Hessle Gas.
Hessle Urban District Council.
Humber Conservancy.
Hythe Corporation.
Leeds and Liverpool Canal.
Littlehampton Urban District Council.
Llandrindod Wells Urban District Council.
London and India Docks Company.
London Squares and Enclosures (Preservation).
Mansfield Corporation.
Marylebone Chapels.
Matlock Bath Improvement.
Medway and Thames Canal.
Metropolitan and Great Central Railway Companies.
Metropolitan District Railway.
Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Acton District).
Metropolitan Electric Supply Company (Various Powers).
Metropolitan Railway.
Mexborough and Swinton Tramways (Extension of Time).
Mortgage Insurance Corporation.
Naval Works (Portsmouth Barracks Site).
Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation.
Nine Mile Point Railway.
North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply.
Nottingham Corporation.
Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation.
Oldham and Saddleworth District Tramways.
Orphan Working School and Alexandra Orphanage.
Preston Corporation (Ribble Navigation).
Rhymney Railway.
Sandgate Urban District Council.
Sheffield University.
Shepton Mallet Gas Company (Electric Lighting).
South Eastern and London, Chatham, and Dove Railways.
Southend and Colchester Light Railways.
South Lancashire Tramways.
Southport, Birkdale, and West Lancashire Water Board.
Stepney Borough Council (Superannuation).
Tees Valley Water Board.
Torpoint Urban District Water.
Tralee Urban District Council.
Truro Water.
Tyneside Tramways and Tramroads.
University College, London (Transfer).
Weaver Navigation.
Wellingborough and District Tramroads and Electricity
Supply.
West Cumberland Electric Tramways (Extension of Time).
Western Valleys (Monmouthshire) Water and Gas.
West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers.
Whitby Urban District Council.
Workington Harbour and Dock.

PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES CONGESTED DISTRICT AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1896.
  Petition from Wester Ross, for continuance; to lie upon the Table.
  MACRAE, JOHN JACOB ANDREW.
  Petition of John Jacob Andrew MacRae, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.

  REDDI, ARJANA.
  Petition of Arjana Reddi, for redress of grievances; to lie upon
  the Table.

  SUGAR TAX,
  Petitions for repeal; from Blackburn; Glasgow (two); Halifax (two); London; and Peterborough; to lie upon the Table.
  VARATHANUNTHAJEE, VIJAGA, SAHIB.
  Petition of Vijaga Varathanunthajee, Sahib, for redress of grievances; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  PATENTS, DESIGNS, AND TRADE MARKS ACTS, 1883 TO 1902.
  Copy presented, of the Patent Rules, 1905, dated 20th October, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
  Copy presented, of Report on the state of the Finances of the University, made by the University Court, for the year 1903–4 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 17.]
  UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Edinburgh for the year 1903–4 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 18.]
  UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
  Copy presented, of Annual Statistical Report by the University Court of the University of Glasgow for 1903–4 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 19.]
  PRISONS (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented, of Regulations, dated 20th August, 1904, made by the Secretary for Scotland for the Measuring and Photographing of Prisoners [by Act]; to lie upon the Table
  LOCOMOTIVES ON HIGHWAYS ACT, 1896, AND MOTOR CAR ACT, 1903.
  Copy presented, of the Heavy Motor Car (Scotland) Order, 1905 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Accounts presented, for the year ended 31st March, 1904, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 20.]
  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Copy presented, of an Order, entitled, The Hull (Channel Islands Animals) Landing Place Revocation Order of 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  PAPERS LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE
  Loan Societies.—Abstract of Accounts for Loan Societies in England and Wales to 31st December, 1903, furnished to the Central Office for the Registry of Friendly Societies [by Act].
  Intermediate Education (Ireland).—Accounts of Receipts and Expenditure for 1903, with Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 21.]
  Royal University of Ireland.—Copy of Account of Receipts and Expenditure or the Royal University of Ireland for the year ended 31st March, 1904, together with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon [by Act]; to be printed. [No. 22.]

  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Address for "Return showing, with regard to each Parliamentary Constituency in the United Kingdom, the total number and, as far as possible, the number in each class of Electors on the register now in force; and also showing the Population and Inhabited Houses in each Constituency (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 69, of Session 1904)."—(Sir Charts Dilke.)

  SANITARY INSPECTORS AND IN- SPECTORS OF WORKSHOPS.
  Return ordered, "showing what local authorities in the year
  1904 had appointed
  174
  (1) in London (a) female Sanitary Inspectors, distinguishing those whose duties consist entirely or principally of duties under the Factory and Workshops Act, and (b) male Sanitary Inspectors whose duties are solely duties under that Act; and (2) in the rest of England and Wales (a) female Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors of Nuisances, and (b) male and female Inspectors of Workshops who are not also Inspectors of Nuisances; the number and salaries of the officers appointed to be shown in each case."—(Sir Charles Dilke.)

  BREWERS" LICENCES.
  Return ordered, "of Accounts of the number of persons in each of the several Collections of the United Kingdom licensed as Brewers for sale, i.e., Common Brewers, Victuallers, Retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises, Retailers of beer not to be drunk on the premises, and Brewers of beer not for sale, particularising each class in each Collection; and of the number of Licences issued to Victuallers and Retailers of beer to be drunk on the premises and not to be drunk on the premises; and stating also the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., hops and hop substitutes, used by Brewers of beer for sale, and of malt and sugar used by Brewers not for sale, from the 1st day of October, 1903, to the 30th day of September, 1904."
  "Of the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged from the 1st day of October, 1903, to the 30th day of September, 1904, distinguishing Brewers for sale from other Brewers."
  "Of the number of Brewers for sale (i.) who use malt and hops, or hop substitutes only, and (ii.) who use malt with substitutes for same and hops or hop substitutes paying for Licences, from the 1st day of October, 1903, to the 30th day of September, 1904, separating them into classes, according to the number of barrels of beer charged with duty calculated at 1·055 degrees gravity, viz.: under 1,000 barrels; 1,000 and under 10,000; 10,000 and under 20,000; 20,000 and under 30,000; 30,000 and under 50,000; 50,000 and under 100,000; 100,000 and under 150,000; 150,000

  175
  and under 200,000; 200,000 and under 250,000; 250,000 and under 300,000; 300,000 and under 350,000; 350,000 and under 400,000; 400,000 and under 450,000; 450,000 and under 500,000; 500,000 and under 600,000; 600,000 and under 700,000; 700,000 and under 800,000; 800,000 and under 900,000; 900,000 and under 1,000,000; 1,000,000 and under 1,500,000; 1,500,000 and under 2,000,000; 2,000,000 barrels and over; showing separately, in each class, the quantities of malt, unmalted corn, rice, etc., sugar, including its equivalent of syrups, etc., hops and hop substitutes used; and stating also the number of bulk barrels of beer produced, and the amount of Licence Duty paid and Beer Duty charged in each class."
  "And, of the number of barrels of beer exported from the United Kingdom, and the declared value thereof, and where exported to, from the 1st day of October, 1903, to the 30th day of September, 1904, distinguishing England, Scotland, and Ireland (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 37, of Session 1904)."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish).

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (IRELAND).
  Copy ordered, "of Account of the Receipts and Payments of the Account-ant-General of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland, in respect of the Funds of Suitors in the said Court, including therein Funds to the credit of Lunacy Accounts, in the year to the 30th day of September, 1904; together with a Statement of Liabilities and Assets, and Particulars of Securities in Court, on the 30th day of September, 1904."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)
  NATIONAL GALLERY (REPORT).
  Copy ordered, "of the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for the year 1904, with Appendices."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)

  CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1903–4.
  Copy ordered, "of Accounts of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1903–4, showing (1) the receipts and payments in connection with the fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1904; (2) the distribution of the capital of the
  176
  fund at the commencement and close of the year; together with Copy of the Correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—(Mr. Victor Cavendish.)

  TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
  Copy ordered, "of Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1905."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  ALIEN IMMIGRATION FROM THE CON- TINENT OF EUROPE.
  Return ordered, "of the number of Aliens that arrived from the Continent at Ports in the United Kingdom in each month of the year 1905."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
  POST OFFICE TELEGRAPHS.
  Copy ordered, "of Account showing the gross amount received and the gross amount expended in respect of the Telegraph Service from the date of the transfer of the telegraphs to the State to the 31st day of March, 1904 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 49, of Session 1904)."—(Lord Stanley.)
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  The Unfunded Debt.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, what is the total amount of the Unfunded Debt, and what are the separate amounts in Exchequer Bonds under The Capital Expenditure Act, 1904, and under other Acts, in Treasury Bills, and in other securities.
  (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.). The total amount of the Unfunded Debt at the present moment is £81,633,000. It is made up as follows:—Exchequer Bonds, Issued under The Capital Expenditure Money Act, 1904, £6,000,000; and raised for the War, £20,500,000; Treasury Bills, Including £13,000,000 raised for the War, £21,133,000; and of the Bills issued to meet deficiency of Revenue, which have to be repaid before

  177
  31st March, 1905, there are still outstanding, £4,000,000; War Loan, which has to be redeemed in 1910, £30,000,000; Total £81,633,000.
  Land Purchase in the West of Ireland.
  MR. JAMES O"KBLLY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the failure of the Land Purchase Act to effect the re-settlement of the people on the grass lands in the West of Ireland, he will bring in a Bill to confer on the Congested Districts Board and the Estates Commissioners compulsory powers of purchase.
  (Answered, by Mr. Wyndham.) It is premature to allege that the Act, which has been little more than a year in operation, has failed to effect the occupation of untenanted lands in the Wrest of Ireland. The last published Report of the Congested Districts Board shows that satisfactory progress had been made during the year ended 31st March, 1904, in the acquisition of lands in scheduled districts with a view to the provision of new holdings and the improvement and enlargement of existing holdings. I have no doubt that this satisfactory rate of progress will be accelerated in future years. The reply to the second part of the Question is in the negative.

  Case of de Tiége.
  MR. EMMOTT: To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty"s Government have received a Copy of the judgment of the Appeal Court at Boma in the case of de Tiége; and, if so, whether they will communicate it to the House.
  (Answered by Earl Percy.) It appears, on inquiry, that Monsieur de Tiége is not a British subject, and His Majesty"s Government have therefore no right to prosecute special inquiries into the case.

  BALLOT FOR BILLS AND MOTIONS.
  Ordered, "That no Bills, other than Government Bills, be introduced in anticipation of the ballot, and that all Members who desire to ballot, whether for Bills, or for Motions, for Tuesday, 21st
  178
  February, and Tuesday, 28th February, and Wednesday, 22nd February, and Wednesday, 1st March, do hand in their names at the Table during the sitting of the House on the first and second day of the session, and that a copy of such Notices be handed in, at the latest, during the sitting of the House on the third day of the session.
  "That the ballot for the precedence of the said Bills and Motions be taken on the third day on which the House sits at a convenient time and place, to be appointed by Mr. Speaker, and that the presentation of Bills on the fourth sitting day to be taken as soon after Twelve o"clock as Mr. Speaker may deem convenient."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

  KING"S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th 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. Mount.)
  Question again proposed.
  MR. ASQUITH: I propose to conclude my speech by proposing the following Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper—
  "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that, the various aspects of the fiscal question having now been fully discussed in the country for nearly two years, the time has come for submitting the issue to the people without further delay,"
  Before I proceed to say anything about the Amendment I should like to offer one or two comments on some passages in the remarkable speech which was delivered by the Prime Minister last night. I regret I do not see the right hon. Gentleman in his place. The Prime Minister appeared to be very much shocked at

  179
  two things—in the first place at the suggestion that there is anything anomalous, not to say improper, in the constitutional situation, and next at the introduction into the debate upon the Address of so irrelevant a topic as the fiscal question. The right hon. Gentleman, unlike other people, sees nothing in the history or in the present condition of the House of Commons, elected in the year 1900, but the effects of the ordinary leakage which in the course of time always tends to diminish a great majority. And as to the fiscal question, why, to judge from his speech, or speeches rather, the fiscal question has no meaning or, indeed, no existence for him, except as a probable subject of discussion in the next Parliament, and a possible matter for decision in the next Parliament but one. I must say, so far as I can form a judgment, there is no man in the Empire who has less excuse for making either of those assumptions than the Prime Minister himself. For let us remember that when this House was elected in 1900 Lord Salisbury was the Prime Minister. Where is the Ministry and where is the Party that Lord Salisbury left to his successor? The one, the Ministry, has disappeared. Nothing would have surprised the country more in the year 1900 than if they had been told that they were voting for installing on the Treasury Bench the Gentlemen who at present occupy it. The Ministry has disappeared, and you have to look and search about for most, at any rate, of its more distinguished and experienced members in all sorts of unexpected quarters—below the Gangway, not always sitting together, of this House and of another place. The Party! What has become of the Party? [UNIONIST MEMBERS: "Here we are," and "Where is your own Party?"] We are able to render a fair account of ourselves. What has become of the Party there? The Party there, as every man I am addressing knows, is split and sundered beyond the salving power of any formula. ["No, no!"] But I should like to ask the Prime Minister, if he were here—[Loud Liberal cheers, during which Mr. A. J. BALFOUR arrived]—I will ask the Prime Minister, now that he is here, what in his view is the disruptive force which has shattered both his Government and his Party? As every one of them but the
  180
  Prime Minister knows, it is this very fiscal question—a question as undreamt of in 1900 as the constitution of the present Ministry—undreamt of, I mean, by any rational being as a living issue in British politics—which has proved its disruptive power. That is the question which the Prime Minister affects to regard as of the most microscopic interest.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Oh, no! It is very interesting.
  MR. ASQUITH: Ah! as a speculative and academic topic; but for the practical purposes of present day politics, the right hon. Gentleman affects to regard it as of the most microscopic interest and most remote relevance. It is in the same spirit of illusion, I will not say of make-believe, that the right hon. Gentleman dealt last night with the rather delicate topic of the by-elections. He admits they have gone wrong, but he sees nothing in them that is abnormal or even of any special significance. What are the facts? The facts are that since the election of 1900 there have been fifty-three seats in Great Britain in which the electors have had the opportunity of either affirming or reversing the opinion they expressed at the general election. In 1900, of those fifty-three seats, fifteen were Liberal and thirty-eight Conservative and Unionist. At the present day, of those fifty-three seats, thirty are Liberal and twenty-three Conservative. And that means—because really the figures of the voting are much more remarkable—that there have been summoned into the electoral field and on the side of the Liberal Party at the by-elections, as compared with the general election, an accession of no less than 70,000 votes, or between 35 and 40 per cent, of the whole votes polled. In the last fourteen months there has been a gain of nine seats. I agree that even the Prime Minister does not go as far as the Secretary of State for War, who attributed this series of mishaps to the exceptional predominance in these particular constituencies of the "enemies of England." I should prefer to describe these so-called "enemies of England"—and history will describe them as such—as the enemies of political equivocation.

  181
  These "enemies of England," as the right hon. Gentleman will find, are pretty impartially distributed among the constituencies of the country, and, unless all the omens are deceptive, are likely to continue to show their enmity whenever they have an opportunity of doing so. The Prime Minister is preserved by a sense of humour, and by a regard for the amenities of political controversy, from resting his case upon any such hypothesis as that. The right hon. Gentleman says that this has always happened, especially under Radical Governments, and they have never paid any attention to a long series of electoral disasters as a ground for a dissolution; and by way of maintaining that proposition the right hon. Gentlemen rather unhappily took the period between 1868 and 1874. He said quite accurately that there was a net loss to Mr. Gladstone"s Government of twenty-four seats, but he did not point out that of the twenty-four seats so lost nine were lost in the final year of that Administration—between March, 1873, when Mr. Gladstone resigned, and the Tory Party were either unwilling or unable to take his place, and February, 1874, when he finally dissolved. The right hon. Gentleman, when he said that Mr. Gladstone did not look upon these by-elections as an important factor in coming to a judgment as to the expediency and propriety of a dissolution, made a statement which I noticed at the time was received with the greatest surprise by Mr. Gladstone"s biographer. With the assistance of my right hon. friend I have refreshed my own memory, and I find that the right hon. Gentleman"s statement is not consistent with fact and history. What happened was this. The letter will be found in the second volume of Mr. Gladstone"s "Life," page 485. In his letter to the Queen announcing the intention of the Cabinet to dissolve Parliament in February, 1874, he placed in the very forefront of the grounds which had moved them in doing so this expression—
  "Mr. Gladstone laid before the Cabinet a pretty full outline of the case as to the weakness of the Government since the crisis of last March, and the increase of that weakness, especially of late, from the unfavourable character of the local indications."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman by "local indications" means by-elections?
  MR. ASQU1TH: Mr. Gladstone did.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Gladstone, did use the word "by-elections" specifically in the letter to Lord Granville, which dealt with the constitutional point. The reference quoted by the right hon. Gentleman does not deal with the constitutional point.
  MR. ASQUITH: I am citing the grounds which Mr. Gladstone gave to the Queen. At any rate, here is Her Majesty"s responsible First Minister on behalf of his Government advising her to dissolve Parliament; and the first ground which he suggests is the unfavourable character of these "local indications." It accounted for the growing weakness of the Government since its defeat, and this is the first ground that he alleges. So that, whatever may be said in defence of the Prime Minister"s constitutional position, at any rate let us have the authority of Mr. Gladstone as he himself defined it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must contradict the right hon. Gentleman. I must say specifically that Mr. Gladstone laid it down that it was not a reason, and that it would be an evil precedent to make it a reason when the Government lost by-elections. That is my statement, and it is a true one.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not think it possible to have a document of higher authority than the statement made by the First Minister to his Sovereign as to the grounds on which he advised her to take such a serious step as dissolving Parliament.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Have you a record of it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Gladstone made two statements.
  MR. ASQUITH: It is the letter to the Queen which is published in Mr. Gladstone"s biography.
  MB. CHAPLIN: By whom?
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by that, We have the authority of his own account; there is the document in extenso, and the right hon. Gentleman can read it if he likes. There is a third thing which apparently the Prime Minister resents more than the two suggestions I have hitherto dealt with. That is the notion that there can be in the mind of any reasonable and intelligent man a doubt, a shadow of a doubt, as to the exact meaning and scope of his own fiscal policy. The right hon. Gentleman regards it as an outrage on common sense that there should be any doubt, but all the same such doubts do exist. They are entertained bona fide; they are not felt merely by the malevolent or the stupid; they prevail in his own Party as much as in the Party of his opponents. I should have thought that this matter was worthy of more investigation. My right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition last night quoted the statement of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, in a letter to a correspondent, that there was "in principle" no difference between the Prime Minister and himself. The Prime Minister in his speech made no reference to that. That surely is a very plain question. Do you or do you not agree with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that in point of principle there is no distinction between your position and his? [OPPOSITION cries of "Answer."] I say that this is a plain question which does admit of a monosyllabic answer. Let the House remember that there is no sort of doubt what is the principle of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham"s policy. I am going to state it in terms to which I believe he will himself assent, for I may say that I have been a careful, even a laborious, student of his speeches. The policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, as I understand it, is in principle made up of two heads. In the first place, the abandonment, in the interest of British trade, of the antiquated system of so-called free trade, which he has told his audiences over and over again that we alone persist in pursuing in defiance of common sense and the common practice of the rest of civilised mankind. In the second place, the creation, in the interests of Imperial
  184
  unity and strength, of a preferential system based on the taxation of foreign corn and flour. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will differ from me.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN; If the right hon. Gentleman appeals to me, I beg to say that I neither accept nor deny.
  MR. ASQUITH: I must be content with that answer, but I regret to see that the malaria of ambiguity, one of the most contagious poisons in the political atmosphere, is beginning to cross beyond the Gangway and to attack those who at any rate hitherto have been completely free from its maleficent influence. I will take, however, the right hon. Gentleman"s answer; he does not deny. If he wants chapter and verse, I would refer him to the speech which he made at Limehouse in December last. He said there, "I am going to submit to the country two issues"—and they are precisely the two issues I have just described. I do not make that quotation with a view of suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of anything in the nature of arrogance in using the first person singular, and in regarding himself as the arbiter of the situation. On the contrary, I think that he showed true political instinct, for it is better to have plain language. It is the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and no other, that the country will regard when the election comes to be held. But I want to know from the Prime Minister, does he or does he not agree in principle with these two propositions? If I may slightly expand them I would ask, does he, as he has more than once suggested, think that it is only stupid and antiquated prejudice which historical associations and sentimental follies have engendered in the mind of the people of this country that prevents them from accepting a change in their fiscal system which involves the taxation of food? Does he or does he not sympathise with the efforts which the "missionary of Empire" is making to dispel the clouds and cobwebs which at present prevent our people from looking for fiscal salvation in that particular

  185
  direction? They are very plain questions, and not difficult to
  answer.
  But the matter does not rest there. I said something about the condition of the Party opposite. It is quite true, I admit, that it is no longer embarrassed by those difficulties of nomenclature and classification with which it had to contend last year. The fence, of which we have all heard, which was then crowded with dubious and balancing figures, is now altogether vacant. A considerable number of them, including some of the most respected names in this House, unable to face the choice that lay before them, have resolved to commit political suicide, and no longer are appealing to their constituents to return them. Another large and important section have become out-and-out followers of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Whether they call themselves protectionists or not, they are in favour of preference sans phrase. But as to the rest—those whom I may call the pure Balfourians With or without Chamberlainite hankerings—we know very well the formula of the pure Balfourian:—"I am in favour of the clear and statesmanlike policy which has been indicated by the Prime Minister, and for the moment at any rate I take my stand upon that. But at the same time, do not let it be supposed that I do not regard with cordial, and even with ardent, sympathy the patriotic efforts which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham is making to introduce a still more extended change in our fiscal system." That, put in more elegant language, will in substance be the staple of the election addresses of a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen opposite. What is the pure Balfourian? He is a man who, having tried for a year to live up to the Sheffield programme, now finds an exhaustive statement of his fiscal creed in that lucid and comprehensive sheet of notepaper which was exhibited at Manchester. I want to imagine one of those Gentlemen at the approaching election appealing to the electors for their confidence. What is he going to say? Of course, he will begin with the conventional little prologue about retaliation—about the importance and the supposed necessity, never discovered until the right hon. Member for
  186
  West Birmingham proposed to tax food— [Cries of "No."] well, it may have been discovered as a matter of scientific interest, but it was never advocated as a practical policy in this House—he will begin with the importance or necessity of what is absurdly called "recovering our fiscal freedom." That particular topic will not last him long, for the simple and sufficient reason that, apart from the sugar duty, no human being has yet been able to suggest when, where, and how, in respect of what commodity, or against what country, this doctrine of retaliation is to be given practical effect. There are two or three elementary questions in regard to it, which I put a year ago in this House, and which no one has yet attempted to answer. Are you going to create a general tariff which is to be applicable at the will of the Executive of the day? Or are you to have two tariffs, as so many protective countries have, or are you, as is much more probable, to remain exactly as you are? In other words, are you to remain with the power which we have never surrendered, and never shall surrender, of dealing as we please and in regard to the merits of each particular case, and with each foreign country, subject to the control and consent of the House of Commons? I do not believe the true Balfourian would pass a satisfactory examination in those questions; and I think he will soon leave the unpromising topic of retaliation, and draw out the only other arrow in his quiver, and that is the colonial conference.
  The Prime Minister went through the whole of his speech last night without a single reference, direct or indirect, to the colonial conference—a really remarkable achievement even for so accomplished a master of the art of opportune taciturnity. What are the pure Balfourians going to say about the colonial conference? And here I should like to put some plain questions to them, and to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Are our representatives to go into this conference, as far as the fiscal question is concerned, with blank instructions? Are they to raise the fiscal question on their own responsibility, or are they to wait until it is

  187
  raised by some one else? Are they to be authorised to make any proposal, and, if so, what, on behalf of the Imperial Government? Are they to have authority to entertain in principle any proposal made by any one else which involves the taxation of the food which comes to us from abroad? And, above all, is the next Parliament, assuming a conference to be held, and the fiscal question to be discussed at it, and assuming some provisional scheme to be arrived at—is the next Parliament to be disabled from acting on any conclusions which the conference may come to? "Is it to have its first and only practical result, at the earliest, after another general election here, and after a series of elections throughout the length and breadth of the Empire? I know that the Prime Minister would answer the last question in the affirmative. He has said so more than once. But what is the opinion of the right ton. Member for West Birmingham? I read his speech at Luton, in which he stated with unanwerable cogency and force the practical objections to this preposterous proposal. He pointed out that it would involve interminable delay; that the whole trade of the country and of the Empire would be hung up in suspense for years and years until the final settlement was attained; that in the meantime other issues might and probably would arise; and that, whether you regarded the maintenance of the existing system or the introduction of a new one as the first interest of the Empire, this scheme of a general election referendum was absolutely impossible. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has modified or withdrawn any of those objections. In his speech at Gainsborough after the Prime Minister had reiterated his original position, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham did not renew his objections; but he used a remarkable phrase. He said—
  "You are asked to meet your own friends and relations and see whether, both having the same object—namely, to unite the Empire more closely together—you can find some means of doing so on the basis of a preferential policy."
  Thus, the conference, as it is contemplated by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, is to proceed on the basis of preferential policy. One would
  188
  like to know from the Government whether in their view, if they are responsible for the conduct of the conference, the representatives of Great Britain will be authorised to treat on the basis of preferential policy. The issue is, What instructions are our delegates to receive? This leads up to the conclusion to which I ask the House to come—namely, that this intolerable confusion, menacing and perilous as it is to our industry and Empire, can only be cleared up in one way, and that is by a prompt and direct appeal to the people. That brings me to my Amendment, which is very short and in these terms—
  "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that, the various aspects of the fiscal question having now been fully discussed in the country for nearly two years, the time has come for submitting the issue to the people without further delay.
  In moving that Amendment I believe that I am in the happy and perhaps unique position of making a proposition which, it it could be discussed and decided on its merits, would receive in this House a practically unanimous vote of assent. The right hon. Gentleman last night imagined a secret ballot being taken. Suppose we had a ballot on this Amendment now. I should count with great confidence on the vote of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. I should even be sanguine of obtaining the vote of the Prime Minister himself; because I do not really believe that in their heart of hearts and mind of minds either of those right hon. Gentlemen contemplates the prolongation of the existing state of things without apprehension and alarm. Is there any candid disputant who will deny the modest statement of fact that this matter has been very fully discussed, not, I admit, in this House, but in the country during the last two years? When I say that, I do not for a moment imply that argument is exhausted or the evidence closed, or that the last word has been said. Nothing has been more remarkable in the course of this two years controversy than the additional strength which has been given to our case, day by day and month by month, by our industrial experience. From the very beginning many of us thought that this so-called movement of tariff reform was vitiated by

  189
  bad history, bad logic, and bad arithmetic; as it has gone on it has been further condemned by bad prophecy. Almost every one of the predictions which were made, and confidently made, when the campaign was started have been falsified by the actual experience of the two years that have since elapsed. But it will not be denied either, I am sure, that the controversy is not in any sense academic, not in any sense even of that much-abused term; for let us remember that these changes were put forward by the authors of them, and by no one with more emphasis, and, indeed, vehemence of language than by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, as of vital importance and imperious urgency. The right hon. Gentleman has hardly made a speech without uttering a note of warning as to the evil consequences which must happen to us if we do not adopt this new departure; and even the Prime Minister, when he was putting forward the comparatively nebulous formula of the Sheffield programme, even he announced—and that was nearly two years ago— that he was in favour of a fundamental reversal of our fiscal tradition. Well, now, Sir, one set of tariff reformers say that the Existing state of things is sapping slowly, but surely, the very foundations both of our trade and our Empire; the other set, the Prime Minister and his particular followers, say that it leaves us defenceless, like an army without quick-firing guns in the presence of our better-equipped rivals and enemies on the battlefields of international trade. On their own showing, then, both wings of the party of so-called fiscal reform are in this dilemnia—either a great part of what they have been talking on the platforms during the last two years is idle and insincere rhetoric, or they are deliberately prolonging a situation which is full of the gravest dangers both to our commerce and our Empire. And yet, Sir, I know very well—at least, I suspect very strongly—that there is no Amendment which will be moved to this Address which is likely to bring together in the division lobby to oppose it a larger number of the Party opposite. That is one of the ironies of the position. Dr. Johnson said of a celebrated criminal
  190
  of his day, who spent his time in literary activity between sentence and execution—
  "Depend upon it, Sir, when a man is going to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
  In the same way experience shows that there is no expedient which is more effective for concentrating a majority, particularly a disintegrating majority, than anything which brings nearer to their doors the shadow of a dissolution. Therefore, I am not surprised, or I shall not be surprised, if hon. Gentlemen turn out in great strength in the division lobby. Yes, because when the accused is able to dominate the tribunal he naturally gives himself the benefit of the doubt. But, Sir, whatever the division may be, there is no man in this House, whither he believes in a fiscal change or whether he does not, there is no man in this House who does not know that the uncertainty and the unsettlement which now prevail are in the highest degree prejudicial to the best interests of the British Empire. The idea that this controversy can be allowed to go simmering on from general election to general election, both here and throughout the Empire, is an idea which I venture to submit to the House is preposterous in theory and unworkable in practice. The people recognise that, whatever may be the formula that politicians devise, the real issue for them is between preference and no preference, between drawing freely for their supplies upon all sources or only upon some, between the taxation and the free admission of corn and flour and meat. They know the facts; they have listened to the arguments; vast interests, industrial and Imperial, are involved in and wait upon their decision. Let them decide.
  Amendment proposed—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words, "And we humbly represent it to Your Majesty that, the various aspects of the fiscal question have now been fully discussed in the country for nearly two years, the time has come for submitting the issue to the people without further delay." "—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: None of us on this side of the House complain that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen the earliest moment open to him to bring before the House the Amendment, the advent of which has been so loudly proclaimed. The right hon. Gentleman has brought before the House a clear question of confidence in my right hon. friend the Prime Minister and in the Government which now exists, and we are as ready and anxious as he to have the verdict of the House on that question. [OPPOSITION fries of "The Country."] He inquires of my right hon. friend what has become of the Party to the leadership of which he succeeded. That, Sir, is what the division on this Amendment will show. We shall see then whether there is any foundation for the taunts which the right hon. Gentleman has hurled across the House, or whether the disunion which has become chronic, so chronic that it no longer excites attention, on the benches opposite has spread like the malarial affection to which he referred to this side of the House. I confess that I think not less extraordinary than the speech in which the right hon. Gentleman has supported his Amendment were the terms of the Amendment itself. The Amendment is, as he said, a brief Amendment. It declares that the fiscal controversy having now been fully discussed for two years, an immediate appeal to the country upon that issue is desirable. Yet from beginning to end, whenever he touched on the fiscal question, the right hon. Gentleman complained that he was still without light, without understanding, without knowledge as to what were the issues involved or the proposals which we submit. The right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks referred to the answer which my right hon. friend the Prime Minister made last night to a demand for an immediate dissolution based upon the figures of our electoral returns. The right hon. Gentleman thought he had disposed of the quotation which my right hon. friend made from Mr. Gladstone"s letter to Lord Granville by producing another quotation from Mr. Gladstone in a letter to the Queen, which on a cursory and careless perusal may appear inconsistent with it. It is not my business to reconcile Mr. Gladstone"s Deeming inconsistency. That he would
  192
  have shown that his later letter to the Queen was not inconsistent with his letter to Lord Granville no one can be more confident than I. But I am content to recall the actual words of his letter to Lord Granville in which he dealt with this demand as a constitutional problem. He said—
  "A Ministry with a majority, and that majority not in rebellion—"
  [Cheers.] I expected those cheers. I invite my hon. friends to take note of them. Is the Party in rebellion? The division lobbies will show. This at any rate we do know. We have received from our hon. friends on this side of the House a constant and loyal support which has enabled us to do the work which we were sent here to do, and to place on record, both in our relations with foreign Powers and in the legislative sphere, great and far-reaching measures which, in our opinion at any rate, are of the utmost consequence to the future of the country. But I will return to the quotation from Mr. Gladstone—
  "A Ministry, with a majority, and that majority not in rebellion, could not resign on account of adverse manifestations, even of very numerous constituencies, without making a precedent, and constitutionally a bad precedent."
  I think that is conclusive as to Mr. Gladstone"s views on the subject, and if he attached more importance to elections after he had been defeated in this House, well, we will not wait for any further test. If you withdraw your confidence from us we will resign the duties with which we are at present charged. The right hon. Gentleman is now clamorous for a dissolution upon the fiscal question. I contrast his attitude with that, I think, of himself, and certainly of his friends, when this question was first brought before us in its present form for our consideration. Lord Rosebery—I quote with hesitation any Leader of the Party opposite for fear that what is the manifesto of to-day should be disavowed by the Chief Whip to-morrow—but I presume I may still class Lord Rosebery among the Liberal leaders. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!] Faint assent from a recent adherent of the Party, who, perhaps, will pardon me for saying that he is not yet competent to speak in their name, but a nod from the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me may encourage me to

  193
  proceed. What was Lord Rosebery"s first observation on this question? He did not say that the question was so urgent that you must have recourse to the country at once, but his one absorbing fear was lest the country should be rushed into a premature decision.
  MR. BAYLEY: What was the date of that.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That was on November 9th, 1903. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are now agreed that it would have been wrong to bring this question to an immediate issue in November, 1903; but such a change, it is contended, has now taken place that a moment"s delay is ruinous to the country. I confess this exact apportionment of the time necessary to the consideration of a great question does not seem to me capable of the scientific precision which the right hon. Gentleman arrogates to his calculations. I suspect that if we lived in the Palace of Truth we should find the change in his view to be due not to any regard to the merits of the question itself, but to some calculation which he has drawn from recent electoral successes which leads him to think, on general grounds, that the present is a desirable time for a general election. What constitutional justification is there in practice or precedent for this new theory that when some great question is being discussed in the country an immediate appeal to the electorate is necessary? Take this very question of fiscal reform. Was that course pursued when the great revolutionary change from which our present fiscal condition dates was enacted? No, Sir; the Parliament which carried out those fiscal changes met with no conception whatever that it would be called upon to perform any such task. The country was not consulted on this issue until after the change had been made. I do not criticise the action of Sir Robert Peel. I do not desire to say whether in the circumstances of his time he acted rightly or wrongly; history has not dealt altogether kindly with him in that respect, but, at any rate, in the circumstances of to-day, my right hon. friend has chosen the more liberal course, the more democratic course, of saying that the Government will propose
  194
  no change until an appeal has been made to the country, and the country itself has given him authority to deal with the question. When did the right hon. Gentleman develop the doctrine that when a question has been sufficiently discussed you must take the immediate decision of the country on the subject? I will tell the House he has developed it in opposition; he would have repudiated it with scorn when he was in power—or, rather, I should say, when he sat upon this side of the House. There is power and power; and, weak and discredited as the Opposition are pleased to say the present Government is, there has not been a day of its existence when it has not had greater confidence in this House, a freer power and a greater influence on legislation and administration than the last Liberal Administration could arrogate to itself at any point in its career. The right hon. Gentleman had not discovered the sanctity of this doctrine when he was a member of the last Administration. Home Rule was discussed, some of us thought sufficiently, and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues thought more than sufficiently; but, when the Home Rule Bill was rejected in another place, did the right hon. Gentleman appeal to the country on that issue? No, Sir; there was nothing from which the Liberal Government would have shrunk more; and they were right, because when an appeal was made it was shown that they had not the confidence of the country on this subject.
  I invite the attention of the House to the terms of the Resolution. It is one calling on the Government to appeal to the electors on the policy they intend to pursue in the future. I should have thought that in the circumstances it would have been more in accordance with precedent and constitutional usage that in the Resolution to which the House is asked to commit itself some indication should have been given of the policy which our successors would pursue. If the subject has been sufficiently discussed, why should not the Opposition tell us clearly in the Resolution itself what are the principles to which they adhere, and what is the mandate they seek from the electors? We are driven to investigate their speeches to get some glimpse of

  195
  what their policy would be. In his speech to-night the right hon. Gentleman confined himself to pure negation, and made not one single constructive proposal, not one single suggestion, for dealing with any of the admitted evils of our present social or industrial state. But we are not left wholly in ignorance of his views, because the right hon. Gentleman has made many speeches. What is the mandate for which he asks? To stimulate bounty-fed competition with our own industries, to maintain our present system of free importation without free exchange. According to their own constitutional maxims, that is the only subject with which the Opposition would be entitled to deal if, as the result of the adoption of this Amendment, they came into power.
  The right hon. Gentleman says we are to make an appeal at this moment, because the present state of uncertainty is disastrous to trade and industry. But almost in the same sentence he boasted to the House that we never had had two such magnificent years of trade as the last two years, and that the Board of Trade Returns were sufficient to dispose of the whole case for fiscal reform. The right hon. Gentleman has no positive proposals to make for admitted evils. What is his answer to the statement that we have 13,000,000 of people on the verge of starvation? He says you must have more education and drink less. Manufacturers are to be told, if they find increasing competition in all their markets, that the reason they do not do so well as before is that they are lacking in enterprise, education, and adaptability. Where, according to the right hon. Gentleman, are manufacturers in such circumstances to go to learn their business? To Germany, a country where a high protective tariff has, we are told, killed all incentive, energy, and enterprise. The reason why the American or German manufacturer is more ready to adapt himself to circumstances, to sacrifice capital invested in machinery that is no longer the best, to embark new capital and run new risks, is because he has some security that he will enjoy the fruits of his labour, and will not be subjected to competition which is artificially produced and artificially stimulated. I am not afraid for the future of our
  196
  industry if we have fair terms and no favour. But we have not got them, and under our present fiscal system we are making no advance towards obtaining them.
  The policy of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends may be summed up in much less than the proverbial half-sheet of notepaper. It is, "Do nothing, change nothing, shut your eyes to all that is passing around you. Neglect the signs of the times; do not attempt to forecast the future, but cling [Opposition; cries of "To office"] with all your faith and all your strength to the wisdom of your ancestors and the tradition of sixty years ago." His Majesty"s Government are not prepared to adopt that attitude in face of the problems with which we are confronted. We are not content to sit still and make no effort to remedy a state of things which no candid man can view without some anxiety, and to leave, without any attempt at redress or remedy, evils which every man is forced to admit. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister has asked on his own behalf and on behalf of his Government for greater liberty in dealing with fiscal questions. He has asked that we should cut ourselves adrift from the growth which has crystallised around our present fiscal system, and that we should resume to ourselves the liberty which, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we have perhaps never constitutionally lost, but which requires nothing less than a revolution in our fiscal system to use effectually. We ask for greater liberty in respect of the taxes which are imposed to meet the expenditure of the State, and to render effective negotiations which may be undertaken with foreign Powers in regard to our commercial relations with them. The right hon. Gentleman professes his inability to understand how we could use such a power if we got it, and he administered an interrogatory of several questions as to the exact methods and means which might be adopted of putting it into operation. I do not propose to respond to that interrogatory. I think that a man who, on going into negotiations with foreign Powers, lays down beforehand exactly what he will do and what he will not do,

  197
  and who pledges himself not to consider this means or that, but only to move in one particular path, has done his best to render his negotiations abortive before they are begun, and to render improbable the attainment of the very object for which he has set out.
  I will say in a word what appears to me is the only reasonable position for any Government to take up on this question. We desire to have full liberty to make the representations which are demanded by our trade, to enforce those representations by effective measures of fiscal change, if persuasion and argument prove ineffective, and to employ whatever methods are needed in order to carry that policy to a successful issue. The right hon. Gentleman says that this need for a power of retaliation against those who treat our commerce unfairly is a new discovery, invented by my right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham in the course of the last few years.
  MR. ASQUITH: If the great invention is to be attributed to its real and original discoverer, I think it is the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir; will the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his fiscal researches, refer to a not unknown book by Adam Smith? Will he ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose, who sits next to him, to point out the relevant passages in the works of John Stuart Mill, or, if for the opinion of mere economists he does not care, will he read the weighty words of Lord Salisbury, addressed to his Party and the country on more than one occasion, with his unrivalled experiences of foreign affairs and of these very commercial negotiations? Lord Salisbury pointed out that we had voluntarily deprived ourselves of the only means of making our representations effective, that all around us negotiations for commercial privileges and reciprocal arrangements were going on, that each country showed great anxiety to obtain the best terms possible from the others, but that none of them cared about us. Why was that? It was because we went empty-handed to market, and he who goes empty-handed to market will come
  198
  empty-handed away. We have voluntarily given up the only means of influence which we possessed, and, therefore, the representations which we have made have been treated with neglect, or waived aside with a polite refusal. I am unable to understand the attitude taken up in this matter by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who consider themselves to be the heirs of Mr. Cobden"s policy, and the true prophets of his doctrines; and who, I suppose, would defend as warmly his French treaty as they would denounce any attempt on our part to purchase a similar treaty to-day by similar methods of negotiation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose shifts uneasily in his seat. He has been the special champion of these methods of negotiation. What does he say in his life of Cobden? He says—
  "It is not enough, therefore, to remove our own protective duties, though Peel may have been right under the circumstances of the time in saying that the best way of fighting a hostile tarriff is by reforming your own. It is the business of the economic statesman to watch for opportunities of inducing other nations to modify duties on imports; because the release of the consumers of other nations is not only a stimulus to your own production for exportation, but has an effect in the supply of the imports which you declare to be the real object of your solicitude."
  I can guess the right hon. Gentleman"s reply to this argument. He would say that the treaty with France was not a treaty with France only, but with all the world, that the benefits were not exclusive to France, but were given to all other nations. Yes; that is the reason why, with no other nation in the world, have we since been able to make an equally satisfactory arrangement. We had already given them all we had to give before entering into negotiation. So much for that branch of the question.
  There remains one other purpose for which His Majesty"s Government desire greater liberty of fiscal action. It is in order that they may seek freely in every way open to them and along every line, without having one single line closed, to promote a closer union between ourselves and our colonial possessions beyond the seas. I wish I could convey to the House some sense of the profound importance which I attach to this side of the question. It is, I believe in my heart of hearts, big

  199
  with the fate of Empire; and I can conceive no subject demanding more than it does the earnest and dispassionate attention of our country, and more fraught with good or evil for the future of our Empire and of the race of which we are a part, none on which a wrong decision come to now, permanently and finally, would bring more certain disaster in the future, or a heavier weight of responsibility for this generation in the eyes of posterity. The last century was remarkable for the growth of national feeling and for the building up of great and still growing nations, and it was only with the closing years of the century that that national feeling became merged, or I would rather say expanded, into a great Imperial and world policy on the part of the great Powers of the world. I beg the House to consider what is to be our future position. We are 40,000,000 of people in these islands, a race endowed with much energy, great activity, great enterprise, a race of born colonists and explorers and leaders of men, who have played a big part in the past in the development of the world. What part are we to play in the future? If you look only to these islands, they are already over-shadowed in area, population, and resources by great Powers in Europe and America. But beyond the seas we have new nations of our own blood and kinship, growing into force and strength. We have vast possessions in other climes, not suited to white colonisation, which render the Empire capable of producing almost everything that we want and of developing a great and increasing inter-Imperial trade. What is to be the future of this great inheritance? We cannot stand for ever as we stand now. Forty or fifty years ago it seemed impossible that peoples and nations so widely scattered should be for ever closely linked in the bonds of common government and common purpose, and the statesmen of those days thought their highest duty was to prepare the way for the peaceful and friendly separation of those who sooner or later must part. Are any of us prepared to accept that solution of the problem to-day, who will bid farewell for ever to the hope of maintaining these scattered portions of our race
  200
  still bound together for a common purpose, and by a common tie? If we are not prepared to sacrifice that great ideal, would it not be mad of us to close the door on any road by which we may approach it, to refuse to consider any suggestion which has for its object this closer union?
  The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Prime Minister had said nothing about the proposal for a Colonial Conference. My right hon. friend was replying to the Leader of the Opposition, whose only reference to the subject, I think, was an inaccurate reminiscence of an answer my right hon. friend gave in the House last year. My right hon. friend is alive, no one more than he, both to the great possibilities and perils of the future. We have a great problem to deal with, such as has never confronted any race in the history of the world. He desires that we should enter into conference with our fellow-subjects from across the seas, freely, unfettered—listen to all they have to say, and bring our views and our arguments to bear on them. [OPPOSITION cries of "What are they?"] The right hon. Gentleman called that proposal for a conference a preposterous and fantastic scheme, but afterwards explained that he is all in favour of a conference, only it must be of a different kind. If he has his way the Government of the United Kingdom are to issue to all the self-governing Colonies an invitation to attend a conference to discuss affairs of common interest, but they are at the same time to inform the Colonies that the particular subject that interests the Colonies most must not be mentioned. I suppose he will have a detective at the door to examine these colonial representatives, and see whether they have in their pockets any scheme which suggests preferential relations, and, if so, to exclude them. The subject which has excited the greatest common interest throughout the Colonial Empire is to be tabooed at this great Conference.
  MR. ASQUITH: I never said so.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  MR. ASQUITH: I have always said exactly the same thing. In the first place the quotation that was made was on the proposal that we should have a Colonial Conference summoned for this purpose, and for this purpose alone, with no reference whatever to the Colonial Conference as now proposed.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdissented.
  MR. ASQUITH: That was the proposal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
  MR. ASQUITH: It was so understood. What I have said, and say now, is that in any Colonial Conference any constituent member of the Empire can, of course, raise any question which they regard as important. We ourselves, if we go into such a conference must send our delegates with definite instructions as to what attitude they are to take.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not lay any stress on the word now when I say that that is now the position. The colonial representatives are welcome to come and raise this question if they like, but the right hon. Gentleman warns them beforehand that if they do he will have nothing to do with them, he will not entertain it for a moment. No matter what arguments they may adduce, what facts they may bring to his knowledge, what offers they may make, what sentiment they may represent in other parts of the Empire, he and his Party refuses to touch the accursed thing, and any representations they may make will find him deaf to all their offers.
  MR. ASQUITH: In regard to the taxation of food.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Then with what power or influence would he go to urge on those colonial representatives other questions in which we in this country are greatly interested, but in which our colonial kinsmen perhaps see the common interests of Empire less clearly? What chance will he have of persuading them to take a larger share in the responsibilities and liabilities of
  202
  the Empire? The idea of such a conference as that is indeed as preposterous and fantastic a scheme as, in his own words, has ever been evolved from the brain of a statesman. But I appeal from the right hon. Gentleman to wiser and more far-seeing heads in his own Party. Lord Rosebery, anticipating the proposal for such a conference, said—
  "One thing was certain, that before any real change was made in our fiscal system we must, as a practical measure, have a conference around a round table or square table, as the case might be, a private conference,"
  And I agree with him, private—
  "not for the delivery of speeches to the gallery, but a real and business conference between the best financial and commercial experts of this country and of the Colonies to say whether such a new system of tariffs was practicable and advisable or not."
  That is our view, and we must have a conference at which neither our representatives shall have their hands tied, nor the colonial representatives. I regret that such a proposal should, even for a moment, have become a matter of Party controversy or a dividing line between the two sides of the House. I still hope that from amongst the members of the Party opposite many will be found who will listen to wiser counsels, and take their share in endeavouring to frame by constructive statesmanship bonds of union amongst the British race where-ever it may be found. But if it is to be a Party issue I know of no Party which, by every tradition of its existence, by the faith which its leaders have preached, by its daily principle and past practice, has a greater claim to make that policy their own than that to which I have the honour to belong.
  MR. ELLIOTsaid that it was a melancholy thing that the question whether or not the Colonies should be heard should be made a matter of Party controversy. But the question, if he mistook not, had been already settled, and a conference would in due course be held, whichever Party was victorious at the polls. He must say he regretted the tone that had lately become common, amongst those who advocated these new fiscal reforms, with reference to our colonial relations. A repeated attempt

  203
  was being made to persuade our fellow-subjects in the Colonies that the home country was shutting the door upon them and treating them badly. The reverse was the truth. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we must remember we were a small country, with greater areas and rapidly growing populations round us. Did he forget that in spite of those disadvantages our Fleets, our commerce and our trade covered every portion of the world? And how? By the methods we had followed during the past forty years. By the fact that as traders and merchant-men we had looked to the enterprise and the, energies of our own race, and had looked to the removal of restrictions to secure the pre-eminence we now enjoyed. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if he had never looked back to the system in our Colonies in former times. When a different system prevailed our relations with the Colonies were not such as they were now. Then, indeed, there was much trouble, and there would be again if there was an attempt to revive the worn-out and exploded commercial policy which formerly prevailed. Were we to be asked to enter into negotiations which would hamper the individual Colonies in the exercise of that freedom which they now enjoyed, and which left them as free as we were to enter into negotiations and to make arrangements for themselves? Those who knew the Colonies best knew that they would be indeed unwilling to depart from that system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had talked of the desire to give freedom to this country in regard to trading matters with the rest of the world. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman: In what respect were we hampered at present? Could we not put up and down the taxes upon any import whatever except sugar? There for good or evil, we had lost our freedom. The results, which would be shown by more experience, would make us better aware of the effect of the Convention. Let the House recognise this, at all events, that the Convention had not freed our hands but had tied them in regard to the commodity of sugar. The British Government, by the methods known to and approved by the House and the people, except with reference to sugar
  204
  alone, could make what arrangements it chose. We had supreme command of the taxing of commodities which came into, and, for that matter, of commodities which went out of the country, except sugar.
  Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINmade a remark which was inaudible in the Press gallery.
  MR. ELLIOT: During the currency of the Convention, are we not bound by its terms?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The terms do not include any provision that we shall raise or lower the tax on sugar.
  MR. ELLIOTasked whether there was any commodity besides sugar which came to this country as to which we were under a similar disability. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer that question. He himself knew of none. Therefore, do not let us talk of regaining our freedom in this country. That was the way to tie our hands and not to gain our freedom.
  He wished to say one or two words on the Amendment to the Address, and upon the position in which that Amendment put the House, and also on the position in which the country found itself. His right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt with the question of fiscal reform in a vague and perfunctory fashion. He did not blame him for taking that course. It was not suitable for him to go into the wide and extensive and, to a certain extent, the detailed policy which had been put before the country. But the policy had been before the country for nearly 100 years, and if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Gentleman on the Front Bench, desired that the policy should have been fully discussed it might have been tabled, and it might have been gone through point by point. They might have considered one point after another in relation to duties on imported manufactures and duties on the commonest articles of the food of the people, and after a proper and enlightening debate they would have seen the proper and straightforward

  205
  course for the (Government to have pursued. That, policy had been before the country, and it was because of the fact that the policy had been before the country that it became material for the House to review the situation.
  He had begun to think that it was hopeless to get from the Prime Minister a simple answer to the question whether he was for or against the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Of course, he was told when he left the right hon. Gentlemen"s Government, which he did with great sorrow, that he was showing a want of confidence in the fiscal policy of the head of the Government. He felt that want of confidence still, but he should have been glad if in time past some efforts had been made to remove that want of confidence. His right hon. friend the Member for West Birimingham had detailed his policy. There was no mistake about his position. He entirely disagreed with his reasoning and his conclusions. He believed his policy would injure this country in its material prosperity, and that it would tend to produce bad relations between the Central Kingdom and our Colonies, and also have a demoralising influence on British policy. At the same time he admired his frankness and the ability with which he had presented his policy to the country. But they had a right to know what the Premier thought and believed as to the merits or demerits of that policy because he was claimed as a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. If anyone was claimed as a supporter in his own presence, and he did not condescend to negative the claim, he gave some kind of approval to it. Ever since this controversy began he had looked not only at the reasoning of his right hon, friend at the head of the Government, but also at the conduct of the Government in dealing with the matter. What was the use of, he was about to say pretending, not to be in sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham when in the constituencies they did all they could to bring forward, and press forward, the representatives of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman. He had heard mutterings and grumblings from hon. Members who asked why he did not cross the floor of the House, and make his
  206
  speeches from the other side. He would tell hon. Members that he would do so the next time he rose to catch the Speaker"s eye if the Prime Minister told the House that his policy as to the fiscal question was that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. This position he had taken in that House, and on the platform. He would not remain a member of any Party which made a system of antiquated protectionism a principal part of their policy.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have never claimed the Prime Minister to be an antiquated Protectionist.
  MR. ELLIOTreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had claimed that in principle the Prime Minister was a supporter of his policy. If that were so, and the Premier said it was so, he and not a few others would find it necessary to cross the floor of the House at once. This was not a question between one right hon. Gentleman and another, but a question of policy. Was the House to be kept alive in order that tactics might be pursued rather than that it might aid effective debate and discussion of the great issue in the mind of the public and in which alone the public was interested? They had been told on the one side that it was the duty of the Prime Minister to dissolve, and on the other side that it was his duty to prolong the existence of the House of Commons. They had heard of precedents as to the influence of by-elections and as to what Mr. Gladstone had or had not done, but, after all, these were subsidiary to the great principles which every one of them knew ought to govern the case. What was the distinct feature of the House? It was that they were not speaking merely as individuals, but as representatives, and that whenever a great change had come over the whole condition of things, it should be followed by a dissolution. In this case they had not only changed the Sovereign, but the Prime Minister and the Ministers who were his chief supporters. The whole conditions had changed, in fact, and a new policy was now before the country. He sympathised enormously with the difficulties in which the Prime Minister was placed. But he must say that it was with a feeling

  207
  of deep despondency that last night he had heard the right hon. Gentlemen treat a very serious question, which the country regarded as serious and on which the country was feeling deeply, as a matter of Party chaff. What they wanted, and what they had a right to expect from the Prime Minister, was a little guidance on the main issue. He wished to speak of the right hon. Gentleman with great respect, and he regretted more than he could state that the right hon. Gentleman had not seen his way to take a firmer line, and to lead the public on this great issue. But the right hon. Gentleman had not done so. He knew that the Prime Minister was feeling how essential it was that his Party should be kept together. That was from no selfish interest of the right hon. Gentleman"s own, but from what he conceived to be his duty. His own Party feeling was not so intense as to make him feel that the business of the country could not be carried on if this or the other Prime Minister were not in power. He believed that this was a self-governing country, and that if half-a-dozen Prime Ministers were to disappear, the country, though it might suffer great loss, would find some way of getting on. What they could not afford was that the best minds and characters among them should not take the place that belonged to them, but leave the country in the net of mystifications set before them in the unhappy policy presented by the right hon. Gentleman. To say that this was not a case in which there was difficulty within the Party was, as everybody knew, contrary to fact. In every constituency in the country at the present moment there were many hundreds and even thousands of men who had been good Conservatives and Liberal Unionists all their lives, and who were now determined to go over to the other side rather than enable the Government to carry into effect the fiscal policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. Therefore, he appealed once more to the Prime Minister to see where he stood on this matter.
  This vote would be taken—he hoped the House would remember it—and rightly taken for or against the fiscal policy of the right hon. Member
  208
  for Birmingham. The country liked to look at things rather broadly, and they would know that real free-traders, men who were prepared to sacrifice something for free trade—old co-operation, for instance, with friends and relations—must vote for the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Chancellor of the Exchequer"s intervention certainly had not tended to clear the position, either one way or the other. It seemed to him to make the connection somewhat closer between the Government Bench and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. Well, where were they? Where were they in this House, and in the constituencies? The constituencies had a right to be taken into the confidence of the Government. Was preference to be made effective at once as representing the views of the Government? If the Government wished to stand clear with the country, let them answer that question. He hoped that in the coming struggle, which ought not to be very far away, the people would look upon this as the greatest issue ever put before them for many a long year. He hoped that they would do as they had done eighteen or twenty years ago on another great issue. There could not be a doubt—as every right hon. Gentleman on the Government Bench knew in his heart—that if the country was fairly consulted, on the question of free trade on the one side, and the fiscal policy of the right hon. Member for Birmingham on the other, the country would give an enthusiastic and overwhelming verdict in favour of the case for free trade.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid that the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member for East Fife had been enforced by a reference to the by-elections; but he should like to point out that the policy of both the Prime Minister and of the right hon. Member for Birmingham had been utterly misrepresented at these by-elections. That was within the knowledge of all, and he thought that the Prime Minister had some reason to complain of the speech which had just been made by the hon. Member for Durham for the misrepresentations therein made. He remembered well what the Prime Minister said at Sheffield. He was present and listened

  209
  to that speech, and had also read the pamphlet "Economic Notes," and had heard all his speeches in public and in the House. To his mind these were perfectly intelligible, and it was quite clear—he spoke his own views—that the Prime Minister sympathised with the policy of the right hon. Member for Birmingham. The Prime Minister at Sheffield pointed out that the old fiscal theory had broken down in practice, and that the time had come when that policy ought to be reconsidered. There were, as he understood the Prime Minister to have said, certain difficulties in the way of adopting the wider policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, and that these difficulties hung round the question of the taxation of imported food, which would be a necessary part of preference. He thought he was right in his recollection that the Prime Minister"s statements were not in any sense hostile to anything said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, but rather pointed to this: that the proposal to tax imported food was in his opinion one which the country was not at the present time prepared to accept. He agreed with the Prime Minister that to-day this country was not prepared to go the whole length of the right hon. Member for Birmingham; but the time was coming when that policy would be less misrepresented and better understood. He was heartily in support of the policy of the Prime Minister. It seemed to him that the Prime Minister"s views were clear and definite, and that the policy of recovering our powers of negotiation with those countries which at present did not treat us fairly was of the very greatest value, and might well stand apart by itself. As a tariff reformer he welcomed that policy. He, however, did not regard the two policies as antagonistic. The policy of retaliation was in itself a wise one, and it seemed to him that those who sought to defend the present fiscal system of the country must necessarily find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They were bound to show either that they were the only depositories of wisdom, or that all other countries which were protectionist were foolish. Now he did not think that they could show either the one or the other. He believed that business men—not
  210
  of narrow, but of wide experience,—were thoroughly convinced that our competitors in Germany and the United States understood their own business interests quite as well as anybody in this country, and that they were by no means the fools hon. Gentlemen opposite imagined them to be.
  Reference had been made to the by-elections. They had one coming on in Liverpool next week, in the Everton Division. It was said that one ought not to prophesy unless one knew, but he was as certain as he stood there that, if all other questions were eliminated, the fiscal reform candidate would win that great constituency. The Liverpool constituencies were mostly in favour of the retaliation policy of the Prime Minister, while others also approved the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. Being connected with the shipping trade, he was in a position to tell the House that the leading shipowners in Liverpool, almost without exception, were not only in favour of retaliation, but also looked with a kindly eye on the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. They included such men as both the present and late Chair-man of the Liverpool Steamship Owners" Association, as Sir Alfred Jones the President and Mr. Welsford the Chairman of the local branch of the Tariff Reform League, and practically very nearly the whole of the steamship owners who were engaged in the general cargo trade. There was however, no rule without an exception, and the exception frequently proved the rule. Who were the people who were opposed to them? There was one Gentleman whose name was known to this House—Sir William Forwood. He had taken a conspicuous part in Liverpool in endeavouring to raise an agitation against the fiscal policy of the Unionist Party. Sir William Forwood was formerly a partner in the firm of Leech, Harrison & Forwood, but the West Indian shipping business in which he was at one time engaged had been sold by his successors to the Hamburg-American Company; and the firm of Leech, Harrison & Forwood remained the agents of the company. That ought to keep Sir William Forwood quiet, because he could not possibly speak with authority as a Liverpool shipowner. He did not in the least

  211
  suggest any corrupt influence on the part of Sir William Forwood, who was far too high-minded for that; but he thought that Sir William"s former association with the firm of Leech, Harrison & Forwood, who were now so closely connected with the Hamburg-American Steamship Company, was not unlikely to have affected his views. Mr. Charles Booth, junior, read a paper in Liverpool the other day, and took a view in opposition to those he had endeavoured to express; but it should be remembered that a far wiser man, his senior partner, the Right Hon. Charles Booth, the chairman of the great shipping company of which he was one of the directors, was a member of the Tariff Commission. Another gentleman, whom it would not be fair to name, because he had not as yet taken any conspicuous part in opposing the policy his brother shipowners believed in, was interested in the China trade, and had very close and intimate relations with the North German Lloyd. They employed Chinese labour also largely in their ships, but he did not blame him for that. He thought these circumstances would probably keep that gentleman quiet. His case was that the people in Liverpool who had most to do with the general cargo carrying trade were almost, if not absolutely, without exception in favour of the policy of the Prime Minister. He could assure the House of that; he knew the people and spoke with full knowledge of their views. Why was it so? Because all in the shipping business who were engaged in the general cargo carrying trade had seen and felt the increase in foreign competition and in unfair competition. The South American Republics, for instance, were growing in prosperity, wealth and importance. At one time, the importation of manufactured goods was almost entirely British; now Belgium, Germany and the United States were, thanks to their fiscal system, making a heavy inroad into that business. The result was that these Republics were now trading more largely with the Continent and the United States than with us. They in Liverpool knew the reason why; and for business reasons, whether they were Unionists or Liberals, they were almost without exception in favour of the policy of the Prime Minister. The
  212
  returns of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board furnished a very fair indication of the general trade of the country. The Chairman of the Board the other day pointed out how great the increase in trade had been; but he wished to point out what the character of the increase was. The returns of the Board showed an increase in almost every item of revenue except one. Everything which competed with the agricultural and manufacturing industries of this country showed an increase. Although the dock rates and town dues on imports last year as compared with the year before showed an increase of £13,353, the receipts from exports showed a diminution of £1,156.
  MAJOR SEELYasked if the hon. Member had seen the figures which showed an increase in the trade of Liverpool of £36,000,000.
  MR. DAVID MACIVERsaid he did not know to what figures the hon. and gallant, Gentleman referred; but they did not affect his argument. Their free trade friends were never weary of telling them that all was well with the trade of the country. He would endeavour to prove that this was by no means the case, and he would call as a witness Mr. John Williamson, a gentleman not of his politics, but a well-known Liverpool shipowner of great experience, who was till quite recently a director of the Cunard Steamship Company. At the 27th annual meeting of the Chamber of Shipping, held in London on the 5th of February last, Mr. Williamson read a most important paper, which deserved their very serious attention. He pointed out that the statistics of exports as usually presented related only to values, and that such statistics might sometimes be misleading, inasmuch as prices of the raw materials for our industries were subject to very considerable fluctuations. For instance, as happened some twelve months ago, cotton: rose in price, and immediately the value of every bale of manufactured goods went up because the price of cotton had gone up, but nevertheless a bale remained only a bale although its export value might have increased. The same kind of thing was true of other manufactures, and, of course, when raw material went down the process.

  213
  would be reversed. Quantities might remain the same, although statistics based upon value seemed to show either an increase on the one hand or a decrease on the other. Mr. Williamson pointed out that the true basis for statistical comparison was not value, but volume. Mr. Williamson, at the cost of much tedious labour, had succeeded in transforming the Board of Trade statistics of value into statistics of volume for every year since 1869 down to the end of 1903. Looking at it from a shipowner"s point of view, he took the trouble of turning the Board of Trade values into tons of twenty hundred-weights as regards dead weight cargo, and into tons of forty cubic feet as regards measurement cargo. The results were most remarkable, and showed that, taking the whole of our export trade, foreign and colonial together, we had, so far as our manufacturing industries were concerned, been losing ground steadily for the last sixteen or seventeen years. He began with the year 1869, and gave every year separately, but for the sake of brevity he would merely give the round figures of every tenth year. The exportations of manufactured goods in 1869 came on this basis to 5,497,000 tons; in 1879 they were 6,065,000 tons; in 1889 they were 8,927,000 tons; but when they got to 1899, a "change came o"er the spirit of the dream." Hostile tariffs were then effectually doing their work and our exports of manufactured goods showed a drop of about a 1,000,000 tons. The position had steadily worsened since, and our exports of manufactured goods last year were another 1,000,000 down. He thought that was a state of things which no free trader could by any possibility explain away. Mr. Williamson"s figures made it clear beyond any sort of reasonable doubt or question that as regards manufacturing industries the export trade of the country was, under our existing fiscal system, going steadily and rapidly to the bad. His figures showed 7,942,000 tons for 1899, and only 7,092,000 tons for 1903. The figures for 1883 were 8,342,000 tons, and the conclusion therefore appeared inevitable that our manufacturers were to-day doing less export business than they were twenty years ago. The increase of our exports consisted absolutely and entirely of coal.
  214
  The shipowners of Liverpool were, as he had said, almost unanimously in favour of the policy of the Prime Minister and of the greater and grander policy of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Why were not all business men in favour of it? The reason to anyone who "knew the ropes" was perfectly obvious. The banker, the broker and the middleman wanted to earn commissions. Capital was cosmopolitan, and from a banking point of view there was more money to be made in financing the business of our foreign competitors than in helping traders at home. The banker made legitimate profits out of all financial transactions of every kind involving a money payment for importations. Comparatively speaking, he got nothing if we paid for importations with our wares. He got much when we paid for them by transfer of securities. Improvement of the export trade in manufactures was therefore by no means specially desired by some of our banking friends. Their interest did not lie in that direction, nor was it particularly wanted by those shipowners who never carried manufactured goods, whose ships were not good enough for the job, and who had no ambition higher than coal currying. Such shipowners were either indifferent to the proposals of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham or opposed to them, and the reason was obvious—they had nothing to gain. They might even have something to lose if by any chance these proposals led to others, such as might well arise if our existing fiscal system came to be so completely reversed that the country woke up to the fact that excessive coal exportations were perhaps not altogether desirable. There were those who believed that in sending abroad large quantities of the more valuable qualities of South Wales coal we were parting for an inadequate consideration with national capital which could never be replaced. To the Liverpool shipowners, who expected to make their living out of the carrying of British products, fiscal reform would make all the difference in the world.
  The real difficulty in the way of the policy of the Prime Minister and that of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was that there were a number of vested interests which it

  215
  would not suit to see the present conditions altered. The fiscal policy of this country could not be varied without affecting those who made their living out of the existing state of things. To such it was a matter of life and death that the country should continue on the present system, but this was not in the interests of the people of this country. This free-trade country of ours—GreatBritain—was the only civilised country in the world of which it could truly be said that one third of the people were underfed and living upon the verge of hunger. He looked upon the free food cry as one of the greatest impostures of the age. The free-fooders did not seek to diminish the burdens on our food in any way. They did not seem to care what burdens fell upon the producers in this country. It was only the protective taxation of food that they objected to; and when they declaimed against food taxation, it was the taxation of foreign food that they meant. Now, whatever doubt there might be as to the incidence of the duties levied by the Customs, there could be no doubt whatever as to the incidence of local taxation. Whether the burden was distributed equitably or not, it was all paid by ourselves. He had had some difficulty in finding out what the rates and taxes amounted to, but he found, according to the Local Taxation Returns, that the local taxation of England and Wales in 1902–3 was £129,206,784. Much of this was a charge upon the food-producing and manufacturing industries of this country. The actual sum drawn from the people of this country in the shape of local taxation was larger than that drawn from them in normal years by Imperial taxation. Let us free the food we grow at home, and let us free our manufactures. As a business man, he asserted that what governed the incidence of Customs taxation was almost entirely the question of supply and demand. The countries which sent corn to us could not sell it elsewhere except against import duties much higher than any which were suggested by the right hon. Member for Birmingham. Such import duties as had been suggested would not have the slightest effect in reducing the volume of importation. The shilling import duty on wheat had no effect in raising prices, nor did
  216
  the remission of the duty cause prices to go down; and he believed that a two shilling duty on wheat would have no more effect. Such a duty would not be large enough to restrict the supply, and the foreigner, confronted as he would be with the competition of free colonial production, would have to reduce his price sufficiently to enable him to sell his wares. The working man certainly would not suffer. The larger duty which would fall upon flour as a manufactured article would tend to encourage the importation of wheat. Wheat would come instead of flour. The shipowner would have more to carry, which would mean more work at the docks, more work for our milling industries, and cheaper offals to help to feed the cattle of our agriculturists. The interests of the country were bound up with the interests of the argiculturists, and it was one of the most serious factors in the present situation that the number of people engaged in agricultural pursuits should be diminishing.
  The sugar-refining industry was brought to ruin by unfair competition, but the Sugar Convention had already had some effect in bringing about a better state of things. Personally he regarded the Convention as a somewhat clumsy free-trade device, and he would have preferred to see countervailing duties. As to the contention that the Convention formed any part of the wider policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, one had only to point to the fact that it contained provisions which prevented the giving of any preference to our Colonies to show how absurd the contention was. The pretence that the Convention had had anything to do with the rise in the price of sugar was an absolutely hollow one. The quantity of sugar previously received from countries that were now prevented from sending was so small compared with the total quantity consumed that it could have had little or no effect on price. In conclusion he desired to express his strong disapproval of the Amendment before the House, and his hearty support of the policy of the Government.
  MR. EMMOTTsaid that in regard to what had been said by the hon. Member who had just sat down he wished to state that he had been informed

  217
  by one of the large shipowners he had named who was a supporter of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, that protection would not be a good thing for the shipping trade, although he believed it would be a good thing for the country as a whole. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a speech which seemed to be of great importance, and he had dealt at considerable length with the question of colonial preference. The right hon. Gentleman accused the Opposition of desiring to exclude the discussion of colonial preference at the suggested conference, but when a Liberal Government came into power they would be willing to discuss any questions of that kind introduced by any Colony. What they complained of was that the prime Minister would not state whether, if a scheme involving the taxation of food was recommended by the suggested Colonial Conference, he would recommend it to the country or not. It was trifling with the British Empire to talk about such a conference without first of all settling whether they were going to tax food or not. The right hon. Gentle-man the Member for West Birmingham was perfectly straightforward upon this, for his contention was that they ought to decide this question first, but the Prime-Minister, in order to keep a semblance of Party unity, adopted another attitude and it was because of his manoeuvring with this question that the country had become disgusted with the present Government. The case of Lord Peel cited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was absolutely different to the present situation, for Peel resigned when he changed his mind and the Opposition of the day agreeing with him in his new policy declined to take office. In the present case a new question had been sprung upon the country by the Member for West Birmingham. The Prime Minister had stated that he regretted the raising of this issue, but it had been raised, and it would be the principal issue at the next election; and yet the Prime Minister was putting off the next election upon no grounds which he could explain to the House, and in the hope that something would occur in his Party to give it a better appearance of unity than existed at the present time.
  218
  He wished to speak upon this matter from a business point of view. The best that could be said about the new fiscal proposals was that they would help some trades whilst they would injure others. If they helped agriculture, they would certainly injure the general body of consumers because they would have to pay more for their food. They might help the earlier stages of the iron and steel trade, but only at the expense of the. tin-plate and machinery trades. The real question they had to consider was, were those trades which would be injured of greater magnitude and importance to the country than the trades that would be helped? The silk and glass trades which would be helped by protection were very small and minor trades, but great trades like the iron and steel industry, as a whole, would certainly be injured by protection. The cotton trade would be ruined by protection, the woollen trade would be made worse, and the greater trades as a whole would suffer under a protective system. Under these circumstances each trade wanted to know definitely what was going to happen. A feeling of uncertainty was a very bad thing for trade, and the matter ought to be settled by an appeal to the country. Although they were allowed to discuss the question they were not allowed to decide it upon the. fair and square issue of protection and free trade. A great deal had been said about Cobden, but Cobden was never afraid of debate in the House of Commons, and he converted the country to his views about the Corn Laws by constantly debating the question in the House of Commons. Why the Government and the tariff reformers were afraid of debate in the House and a division on a fair and square issue he could not understand. It was monstrous that such a great change, affecting every man, woman, and child in the country, should be debarred from their decision.
  As to how the cotton trade would be affected, he had never heard even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham attempt to show how protection would do any good to the cotton trade, which had nothing to gain but everything to lose by protection. The export trade of cotton from this country for every man, woman and child

  219
  amounted to between 35s. and 40s. per head; for Germany the amount was from 5s. to 6s.; France, 3s. 7d.; United States, 1s. 6d.; and Russia, 2¾d. The exports varied inversely with the amount of protection. Those figures did not form a very strong argument in favour of protection. Why were they able to beat other nations in the cotton trade? Because the cost of mills, machinery, and plant in this country was so much lower than in foreign countries. With regard to the United States, it was a very curious fact that wages should have been so largely reduced at Fall River, whereas they were talking about an increase of wages at home. It had been calculated by experts that the cost of even a 5 per cent, all round duty on food and manufactures would amount to a tax on the cotton industry of £600,000 per annum. The cotton trade was threatened by two different changes, the one proposed by the Prime Minister, which was an unreal policy backed by consistent arguments; and the other put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, which was the real policy backed by extremely inconsistent arguments. At present the greater part of cotton trade was good and Lancashire appeared to have made up its mind that the country was not going to have protection, for it was rapidly extending its cotton mills. Far-sighted men, however, most naturally recoiled from new ventures, because they did not know what the new tariff was going to be; and even if protection would be for their advantage it was of the utmost importance that they should get this matter settled.
  Just one word about the matter as it affected other nations. There had, of late years, been a tendency to recoil form protection in foreign countries, because high protective duties meant a diminution of exports. In America they were talking about the reduction of the tariff, but the most important case at the present time was the case of Germany. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talked a good deal about Germany and the German protective system in modern years, but the trade and exports per head of the population decreased from the
  220
  time that protection came into force until the period of 1892 when the tariff was reduced. For the years, 1882–3–4, the amount per head was £3 10s., in 1890–2 £3 3s. 2d., and the great increase had come since and was now, for 1900 to 1902, £4 0s. 2d. per head. Now they were putting up the tariff again. That must check the export trade. He did not think there was an economist in Germany who pretended anything else. They were increasing their agricultural duties. The effect of this new tariff had been undoubtedly to make Russia, Austria, and Switzerland, the three neighbours of Germany, put up their tariffs. He thought we might learn a lesson from this. Retaliators might learn the lesson that when they put up their tariffs their neighbours were liable to do the same. He maintained that it was very important that we should settle this matter without delay. The question of protection was trembling in the balance in other countries as well as here. It was very noticeable that the campaign of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had been welcomed by protectionists in all nations and in our own Colonies. In the campaign textbook of the United States of America, much use had been made of the statements as to the decadence, of this country, which had been so largely made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. England had been the one great argument by which free-traders all over the world had stood, If we gave way there might be an orgy of protectionists in other countries. If we stuck firm to our free-trace practice he was as convinced as he could be that, before long, both in the United States and in Germany, there would be a recoil from protection, and that they would resort to a system in which tariffs would be less than they were to-day. He hoped this question would, without further delay, be put to the country, and that the country would decide upon it.
  MR. PURVISsaid hon. Members on his side of the House were very much impressed by the hurry indicated by the Amendment that the fiscal question should be submitted to the people. Why was it absolutely

  221
  necessary to have a general election without further delay? There was, he suspected, something behind the proposal, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife had added to the suspicion. He and his friends were strongly of opinion, and the opinion was growing stronger every day, that the Opposition had a lurking fear that time was on the side of the tariff reformers. That lurking fear told them that they should try to snatch a short spell of power before time had done its work. They wished to snatch a verdict amid the confusion—the natural confusion—in the public mind, caused by the novelty of the proposals. If they were not afraid that time was working against them they would not be so desirous of a general election. Why raise this terrible stir throughout the country? The tariff reformers proposed to tax goods from foreign countries, because foreign countries taxed the goods which we sent to them. He denied the accuracy of the term "free trade" as generally used. Free trade was a perfectly free exchange between different countries, but we had no such thing here in England. Virtually free trade did not exist. It was a complete misnomer for their opponents to call themselves free-traders, and he said that they were sailing under false colours. On the other hand he denied that the term "protectionist" applied to the class to which he belonged. Protection was an old exploded policy by which certain products were protected from fair competition, and not unfair competition by foreign countries, as was the case now. There was a cry about the taxation of food by free-trade politicians. It was not intended to resort to the old sliding scale which put 38s. 6d. on the quarter of wheat and raised the tax to 50s. That was protection with a vengeance—protection of home industries from the competition of foreign countries. The shilling a quarter duty which was imposed in 1902 had no effect whatever on the price, and he submitted that the imposition of a two shilling tax would not have had an appreciable effect. But even if there was any increase in the price of food by such a tax the impost would be counterbalanced by the remission of taxation in other ways. That would
  222
  be protection in the proper sense of the term. These were easy things to realise, but their opponents gave them the go-by.
  The increase in the price of sugar was due to an accidental cause—namely, the short crop of beet. When bounties were paid on beet sugar by foreign countries cane sugar could not compete against it, and the result was that our great sugar industries in the West Indies were ruined. That was not all. The importation of beet sugar already refined had the effect of destroying the sugar-refining industries of London, Bristol, and Greenock. It was all very well for their Cobden friends to say that cheap sugar was so much the better for our confectioners and jam makers, but now the cry of distress arose from them and kindred trades. The time had arrived for foreign countries to withdraw bounties on sugar. The confectioners had built up their prosperity on a false foundation of cheap sugar, which was obtained far below its cost. What had happened to the confectionery trades only showed the effect of dumping and the necessity for fiscal reform. The same effects would be felt by every other industry unless we were wise in time and put an end to dumping of every sort before it was too late. Our Colonies had only shown us the way, and why should we scorn their counsel and co-operation. We must learn to think Imperially, for he believed that if our Colonies began to make reciprocity treaties with foreign nations the idea of Imperial trade, one system of defence, one Flag, one Throne, would be gone for ever. That must not be, and when the proper time came the House and country would declare that it should not be.
  MR. LOUGHsaid that the statements made in the course of the debate were most amazing. The hon. Member who had just sat down had commenced by saying that owing to the extraordinary situation at present, certain industries, formerly very flourishing, were suffering very greatly. The hon. Gentleman said that these industries had built up their prosperity on a false foundation; but that was not very consoling to them. Who could tell whether or not

  223
  they were built on a false foundation? They must not begin examining these things too closely. If they did so with the whole national trade they would land themselves in very curious conclusions. His hon. friend said that considerable prosperity had been enjoyed by the sugar-manufacturing industries, and now he admitted that they had been destroyed. There were valuable witnesses on the other side who said that delay in bringing this issue to the country had prevented the Government redeeming the pledge given to the House. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that this new policy would not be introduced in the present Parliament, but their own supporters did not confirm that at all, because the new policy was going strong at the present moment and formerly prosperous businesses in the country were suffering. He had been greatly amazed at the line of argument taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, considering that the right hon. Gentleman was an eminent exponent of Parliamentary procedure. The right hon. Gentleman had said scarcely anything at all about the Amendment, which practically set forth that we had carried on this discussion long enough and that it ought to be decided by a reference to the people of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, had made the most protectionist and preferential speech that any right hon. Gentleman holding his position had delivered in the House for the past sixty years. It was little less than shocking for the chosen representative of the trade of this country under free trade to go almost out of his way to lay down the foundations for protection and preference—the very policies which were not to be spoken of in this House for a year or two. He thought that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer only reflected on the injury he might cause to the vital interests of this country by even talking in that way he would be a little more careful in what he said in the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was, in his opinion, not free to take that tone, seeing the position he held in the Government. The right hon. Gentleman was supposed to be a follower of the Prime Minister and they could not get him to admit that his policy and that of the Prime Minister were the same.
  224
  The Prime Minister"s attitude was very curious. He was asked by his own supporters to state plainly whether he agreed or not with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, and he refused to give any answer, but sat strangely silent. He supposed the silence of the right hon. Gentleman gave consent. It was said that the Party"s allegiance to the Government depended on whether that pledge was given, but the Prime Minister did not give any indication, even by a nod of the head, of the mind of the Government on this matter. That was a state of things that could not be prolonged. It was so early in the session that the House had not had time to exactly realise what was the situation; but if they saw what was going on outside, they would recognise that the situation here was nothing more than a farce and could not be prolonged. The Government were not able to keep the promise they had made to prevent the discussion of the fiscal policy. Large experiments were being made in the way of protection.
  He wished to say a word in regard to a certain business which had been affected most disastrously by the policy which the Government were pursuing—he meant the growing and distribution of tea. A most powerful deputation had been organised in connection with that business. He had nothing to do with that deputation himself, but it had gone to three different members of the Government in succession for the purpose of laying before them the case of their ruined industry. First, they went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who indicated that he was limited at present by the condition of the finances, but there might be a change in the condition of the country which would enable their burdens to be reduced. If that promise was to be given to large businesses, ought not the Government to take steps to enable the promise to be fulfilled? He believed that the promise was that two-thirds of the duty on tea would be taken away, although they had the Government deciding to put on an additional duty. Between the promise and the performance a great national industry was brought almost to ruin. Then the deputation went to the Secretary of State for India, who took the opportunity of making the most interesting speech on tea he had

  225
  ever heard, but the right hon. Gentleman did not give the deputation any help. He said that their sufferings were inevitable, that the people were saturated with tea, and that if the tea-growers were practically ruined the Government could not help it. It was for the general good! What a position for a Government to take up!
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINasked if the hon. Gentleman was referring to him?
  MR. LOUGHsaid his complaint was that they could not get the Government to listen to what they said. They were talking about the Prime Minister and the Secretary for India, but they were not present. He understood that the deputation from this ruined industry next went to the Colonial Secretary and, so far as he could make out, they got no more satisfaction from him. The only other Secretary of State which the deputation could wait upon was the President of the Poor Law Board who might find for them an ultimate refuge in the workhouse! This was not a matter on which to joke. The hon. Member for Peterborough had spoken of another ruined industry, although there were others which had been most injuriously affected by the state of indecision which existed in the public mind in regard to the fiscal policy. This was the great finance market of the world, and the state of the money market had been most injuriously affected by the situation and the condition of the national funds. That condition could not recover until the country adopted some settled policy, and until the great financiers knew in what direction the country would proceed. Our great national financial securities were not alone affected; the difficulties of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of our municipalities, and of everybody engaged in commerce, were increasing. It was extremely difficult to start any new enterprises, and he believed that the ranks of the unemployed were greatly swelled by the extent to which industry was affected throughout the country by the prolongation of the existing situation.
  He thought the Government ought to give a more reasoned answer than they had done to the appeal which had been made to them. Precedents had been
  226
  referred to, but these were not of any great help. They were, in an entirely new situation from that in which they were forty or fifty years ago. The people were tired of this fiscal question and wanted to have a general election, and have this subject brought to an issue at once. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, made a long speech on quite another subject. In their secret hearts he believed that the Government were aware that the farce could not be carried on too long. The Government ought to consider the feelings of the country. See how the private business of the country was being affected, and how the business of this House was being thoroughly disorganised by postponing the dissolution. Why should any time be wasted? The Government ought to decide what was the most convenient time for taking this important step. There was another reason, which might not appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, but which was a very substantial one. The beginning of the year was the best period to consult the opinion of the people of the country. If the question were delayed people who were now entitled would not be able to vote. This was the time when a vital question of this kind should be referred to them. He thought some members of the Government ought to give the House an answer as to what was the real Ministerial mind with reference to the Amendment. No one would deny that there was not a feeling of unrest and unreality and that there was a situation which it would be to the interest of the country to put at rest.
  MR. COHENsaid he had followed the debate with the closest attention, and had, during the period he had been in the House, rarely heard a number of speeches so little calculated to support the contention which the speakers had in view. His hon. friend and colleague charged the Chancellor of the Exchequer with being one of the members of the Government who did not explain the position. He would have expected that his hon. friend would have been the last to make that charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did not state that the Government were disinclined to consult the electorate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer devoted

  227
  one of the most powerful passages in his extremely powerful speech to showing why the decision of this question should not be hurried. The right hon. Gentleman"s contention was that the electorate should have the facts fully and squarely before them. The hon. Member for Oldham said that the Government had shown themselves unwilling to allow the fiscal question to be discussed in the House; they were frightened, he said, of the decision. As a matter of fact, during the two days of the session the House had been discussing scarcely anything else but the fiscal question. He did not say that that was desirable; indeed he did not think it was. He thought that the time of Parliament could be better disposed on other matters which had been submitted to it. He would not say that the time of the House had been wasted, but it had been spent wholly and exclusively on a question which the present House of Commons would not decide. They would have done better to have concentrated their attention on the very urgent questions which had been submitted to them in the Speech from the Throne, and which would not have aroused such an amount of Party feeling as did the fiscal question. There was the question of the unemployed, that of valuation, and other questions which were referred to in the gracious Speech from the Throne. He was not confident that all these questions would be discussed, because of the concentration of the time of the House on an issue which had been repeatedly declared by the members of the Government as one which would not be decided by the present Parliament.
  In the extremely powerful speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife, he was good enough to state the several divisions into which, according to him, the Unionist candidates would be divided at the next election and he referred mainly to the candidates whom he called not very elegantly "pure Balfourians." If he understood the right hon. Gentleman"s contention, he himself avowed himself a "pure Balfourian." By that he meant that he agreed with every word which the Prime Minister had said at Sheffield, Edinburgh, and Manchester. Although he did not differ from everything
  228
  that had fallen from the Member for West Birmingham, yet he would not be able to follow him with that absolute concurrence with which he was able to support the Prime Minister. He understood that the Prime Minister was anxious for a Colonial Conference. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to know what the Colonial Governments were about to offer in return for advantages they asked from this country. He was anxious that preference should be given to the Colonies, but he was not willing to pledge this country before-hand to give preference to the Colonies, until he knew that they were about to give in return a preference which he believed would be beneficial to the entire Empire. That was a business-like attitude to adopt. He had been brought up on the Stock Exchange and spent a great portion of his time there, and the first maxim—he might almost say the first axiom—taught him was that he should not indulge in a certain loss for a doubtful profit. There would be nothing more prejudicial to the interests of the Empire at large than that the working classes of this country should acquire the idea—he would not say the conviction—that their food was being made dearer simply for the purpose of promoting the prosperity of the Colonies. He did not believe that the Colonies wanted that, and he did not believe that that was the intention of the Government. Accordingly he supported the proposal of the Prime Minister, because he had stated over and over again that he desired to send the representatives of this country into a conference with the Colonies unfettered and unbound. They wanted to know what the Colonies had to offer, what their concrete proposals were, and what they were prepared to exchange for the preference which he himself was only too anxious to extend, and which, in his opinion, the Colonies would be glad to accept, in order to promote real union between the Colonies and the mother country. He thought that the Government should not be afraid of submitting that issue to the country when the proper time came. He very much deprecated that the time of the House should be wasted in discussing the fiscal question instead of proceeding with the questions of the

  229
  unemployed, valuation, and redistribution, which he considered were very urgent.
  .MR. CATHCART WASONsaid he did not know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer would appreciate the speech which had just been made when he thought of the one which he himself had delivered a few minutes ago, when he appealed to a united Party to support him in the division lobby. If they did support the right hon. Gentleman it would mean that the Unionist Party pinned their faith to the policy of protection and nothing but protection. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was a long tirade in favour of protection, and in the course of it he tried to bring in other countries in order to assist the Government and draw a false trail over the real issue. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to drag the Colonies into a domestic affair of this country. No statesmen did so much harm to this country and the Empire as those who were following the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had reproached the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Fife because they deprecated the way in which the Colonies had been dragged into this discussion. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House approved of Colonial Conferences from time to time. It was not the right hon. Member for Fife who wished us to go to these conferences with tied hands; it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham who said—"If we are not going to lose the Colonies we must tax the food of the people here; if we do not give the Colonies a preference we shall lose them, and in order to give them a preference we must tax the food of the people." As one familiar with the Colonies he could emphatically declare that there was a considerable amount of opposition in every colony to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. He did not doubt that the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite to promote the prosperity of the Empire was just as great as that of hon. Gentlemen who sat in opposition, but hon. Members must remember that our Colonies were independent States and that our
  230
  relations with them in the future were not to be those of treaties, but what they always had been, relations of brotherly love and affection. We were deeply attached to our Colonies, and they to us, and he was satisfied that this suggestion for the taxation of the food of the people did not in any way come from the Colonies. There were no starving millions there. In their manufacturing industries they had an eight hours day and 8s. a day, and often far more; the farmers were all well-to do and were the very last men in the world to ask English labourers who had to struggle on on a few shillings a week to tighten their belts, in order that they might get a little extra profit on their wheat, or, so far as South Australia was concerned, on their wine. This demand never came from them. In Canada and New Zealand they had differentiated between British and foreign goods by imposing a tax on the latter, and in that way given a preference to British goods, but what was it worth?
  "With the permission of the House he would like to read a letter from a personal friend, a prominent member of a New Zealand House—
  "It angers me very much to read references to "what the Colonies have done," "New Zealand's noble action," and all the rest of it, and I am amazed that those opposed to Mr. Chamberlain"s scheme should not have taken the trouble to examine and analyse just exactly "what New Zealand has done".New Zealand has done me nothing—for England. New Zealand never intended to do anything—for England. New Zealand says in the Act itself that for value received she is willing—nay, anxious—to chuck England to everlasting blazes. That is New Zealand as represented by Seddon and his infernal Act.
  "The Act does not reduce duty on British goods. It simply increases duties on foreign goods. Three months before he introduced the Bill, which he forced through at one continuous sitting of thirty-six hours directly after its introduction, Seddon observed—5th August, 1903, Hansard, Vol. 124, p. 262—"At the Conference of Premiers in London. it had been proprosed that a rebate of 10 per cent, should be made on British merchandise carried in a British ship: but he had been afraid it would weigh upon their own struggling industries, and proposed, as a remedy, increasing the tariffs on goods from other nations. This course would not increase imports from the mother country but would check imports from alien countries." Yet that was the course followed in this Bill which, he called loud and long, was essential if England was to be saved from overwhelming ruin. Section 13, too, simply means that if America, we will say, or Germany, would

  231
  remove the duty upon our meat or wool, we would make a corresponding reduction upon American boots or German pianos, and the British manufacturers could whistle.
  "I am opposed to Mr. Chamberlain"s scheme, whether for Britain or for the Empire, and I voted against Seddon"s Bill with both hands. But if I had been a supporter of Mr. Chamberlain I must have voted against Seddon all the same. For his Act is from first to last nothing but an excuse for another measure of protection for New Zealand spoon-fed industries (so-called), and to pass it in the name of Imperialism amid all sorts of maudlin blubbering about" "the dear old Motherland" was sickening hypocrisy, of which even Seddon might be ashamed. On top of all this he has the assurance to declare that if England will not "reciprocate" that is by taxing food stuffs (see same pp. Hansard) or by exempting our loans from stamp duty (Vol. 123 p. 573), New Zealand "will be driven to make arrangements with other countries."
  "This precious Act could only be forced through (1) at one continuous sitting of thirty-six hours; (2) at the fag-end of the longest session on record; (3) in which long hours and legislation by exhaustion had reached their high-water mark; (4) as a question of dissolution or not, for Seddon made it a No Confidence Motion, and you know what that means. So if you ever hear of "what New Zealand has done" and so forth, you know the answer to it all."
  He could assure the House from his own personal knowledge that the writer of the letter was a man of position and was the last man in the world to write such a significant letter unless he was perfectly satisfied that he had a large body of colonial opinion behind him. This scheme was not a scheme of the Government, but one to he put before the country at the next general election; it was a most intolerable scheme, and one which could have no other effect than straining the bonds which held us to our Colonies. Upon this question the Colonies had made no offer at all. If 40 per cent, was put upon our goods it was no comfort to them to know that 60 per cent, would be put upon German goods. They might be certain that the manufacturing interests in the Colonies would not admit British goods free, because in this country in regard-to production they enjoyed so many advantages and could manufacture much cheaper. The only advantage they would get would be a small export duty upon corn which would go into the pockets of the landowners. He was sure that the Democratic Party would scout any proposal to give the farmers an advantage which would cause the labourers and manufacturers to suffer by their industries
  232
  being shut out. The Colonies never would allow English goods to compete with their own, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham could not make them do this even with his great abilities, all the forces which money could command, and the newspapers which he got hold of in one way or another, by means of which he was able to disseminate false and spurious opinions throughout the country. They should be very careful how they dealt with proposals for putting an extra tax upon food. The unity of the Party opposite had been spoken of by right hon. Gentlemen, but they all knew that every hon. Member who was not prepared to swallow everything that came from Birmingham was hounded out of the constituency he might, perhaps, have represented for so long and with so much honour. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon deserved the greatest honour for having repealed the tax on bread, and what was his reward—drummed out of his Party and supplanted by a fervent supporter of the Birmingham policy.
  MR. EVELYN CECILsaid the object of this Amendment was to strike a destructive blow at the Government. The question of the necessity for an immediate dissolution was not one of which the Opposition were the best judges, and there was no constitutional precedent for a Prime Minister dissolving Parliament at the bidding of the Opposition unless a hostile vote was obtained. Of course he did not blame the Opposition for angling for the support of hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches who attached more importance to particular grievances than to Conservatism as a principle. As for the junior Member for Oldham, who had transferred his allegiance bodily to the other side, he reminded him of some lines which he believed had been quoted before in the House, about Canning—
  "The turning of coats so common has grown, That no one would think to attack it; But no case before was so flagrantly known Of a school boy turning his jacket."
  That seemed to him applicable to his hon. friend, and he trusted he would take it to heart. The Amendment before the House suggested that

  233
  this subject had been fully discussed. He thought there were a good many people in the country who had some doubts whether the discussion had been so ample; at any rate a good many had not fully made up their minds. There were still a considerable number of persons sitting on the fence, and so long as that was the case he was not sure that they could say that full discussion had taken place. Why, there was even dispute as to the precise meaning of free trade. The Opposition maintained that free trade meant free imports, and it was worth quoting the evidence of Sir Robert Giffen before the Steamship Subsidies Committee, when that recognised authority said—
  "There is quite a common opinion that free trade means free imports and nothing else. That is not my opinion, and I believe it is not the opinion of economists who have studied the subject."
  Fiscal reformers did not desire any policy which merely bolstered up industries. They did not want what his friend the hon. Member for Durham had called antiquated protectionism. What they did desire was to introduce some system of tariff reform which would prevent that unfair foreign competition to which our industries were now subjected. Nearly every trade was more or less in an unsatisfactory condition.
  MB. GEORGE WHITELEYremarked that the operatives in the cotton trade were asking for a 7½ per cent, advance in wages because the trade was so prosperous.
  MR. EVELYN CECILobserved that this was not borne out by the figures of the last two years. Take the shipping trade. It was true that, judged by the standard of continued increase, certainly British shipping creditably holds its own; but when a comparison is made between the increase of British and the increase of foreign shipping a very different story was told. Between 1880 and 1890 British merchant tonnage increased from 8½ millions to over 9½ millions or 12·8 per cent., and from 1890 to 1902 the increase was equivalent to 16·2 per cent., whereas the increases in foreign tonnage in the same periods were 2·2 per cent, and
  234
  23·6 per cent, respectively. So that the foreign percentage of increase had been roughly from 2 to 23 per cent., as against the British 12 to 16 per cent. A disquieting result was also obtained by a comparison of some of the returns from British ports. In the large Bute docks at Cardiff, for instance, the proportion of British to foreign tonnage in 1897 was 81·6 as compared with 18·4, but in 1902 the proportions were 70·7 to 29·3. In Hong-Kong since 1886 the tonnage of British ships had increased only 30 per cent., while that of Germany had increased 80 per cent., and that of Japan 100 per cent. He did not contend that tariffs were the sole cause of these differences, but they were certainly contributory causes. Our present policy discouraged the exportation of our own articles into foreign countries. He trusted a Colonial Conference would do much good, for our present policy had largely resulted in London being no longer the clearing-house of the world; the centre of the world"s markets had been shifted to the Continent, and the maritime link between Great Britain and her Colonies had been loosened by substituting foreign produce and communications for her own.
  MR. AINSWORTHsaid he would like to refer to one or two instances of so-called unfair competition which might be of interest in view of what had been stated by the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member had stated that our trade was in a deplorable condition at the present moment. He did not think that statement would be confirmed by any person who knew very much about it. It was certainly not true so far as the iron trade was concerned. He had received information from a Glasgow firm in regard to an order for pipes which was obtained from the United States. The firm were told that unless they could offer at a certain figure they need not offer at all. In order to execute the order they tried to get pig iron in the British market cheap enough but failed to do so. Then they tried Germany and Belgium but could not obtain the raw material at a sufficiently low price. When they were about to give up the idea of tendering, a member of the firm suggested that they should try to get

  235
  pig iron from the United States. They did get it there and were able to accept the contract. That was an instance of what some might call "unfair competition" They might call it what they liked, but that was the way in which contracts were sometimes got in this country, with the result that labour was provided and wages paid to the working classes. He knew further that large shipbuilding orders had been placed on the Clyde in the last few months. He thought that was a good sign, and it was an argument that ought not to be put on one side. No doubt instances of that kind could be easily multiplied. He would like to ask whether there was any man in this country who was really afraid of competition. He supposed there were ups and downs in all trades. About the seventies the British iron trade was in a most depressed condition and many men were out of work. The price of steel rails then was about £7 per ton, but since then it had been under £4 per ton. If foreign pig-iron had been kept out of the country the result would have been that the steel rail trade would have left the country. He would give another instance of colonial preference. When it was proposed to benefit the Colonies by means of tariffs the intention was to benefit the Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Irish who had gone to the Colonies. But, as far as Scotsmen were concerned, they had gone not only to the British Colonies, but to almost every country in the world where there was some profitable business to be done. There was a very large and increasing trade in sheep farming, for instance, in South America, in which Scotsmen played a large part. Why were we to encourage the trade of Scotsmen in Canada and refuse to do so in Patagonia?
  Before going into an argument it was most important to know what they were going to discuss. Were they, or were they not, to know if they went into a conference what they were going to discuss with the colonial representatives? Hon. Members who had read Thackeray knew that in one of his novels there was a father and mother who were very nervous as to the marriage of their daughter, and determined to consult a friend who was a man of the world on the matter. The friend"s reply
  236
  was that it was a very easy thing to go to Jerusalem, but a delicate thing to know what they were going to do when they got there. The Government could call a conference to-morrow morning if they liked, but the difficult thing was what they were going to put before the conference as their colonial policy. Another matter of importance was how far the Prime Minister supported the right hon. Member for Birmingham when the latter said that the Prime Minister was at one with him in principle. It seemed to him that the illumination of that principle had been decidedly wanting in the whole of this discussion. When that question had been answered, the decision of the House would be arrived at a great deal sooner, and the decision of the country would not be very far off.
  MR. PARKESsaid he had been very much interested in the speeches delivered on this question, particularly in that of the hon. Member who had just sat down, who seemed to have very optimistic views as to the state of trade in this country. The hon. Member, in his opinion, took a wrong view of the state of the iron trade. He did not know where the hon. Gentleman got his information from, but certainly it was not borne out by the facts. He believed that the Annual Trade Returns showed a diminution in the iron trade of something like £2,000,000 in exports, and that the great prosperity in the manufactures of the country was brought about by the largely increased export of cotton goods. If the hon. Member looked at the reports of the various iron companies in the country, he would not find a satisfactory result, for the dividends had, in many cases, been much smaller than in the past. So far as the Midlands were concerned, and Birmingham especially, he was sure that the iron trade was in a depressed condition. The trade of the country was not altogether ruled by exports. They had to take into consideration the demand from the internal trade of the country, and if the hon. Member went to the representatives of any particular manufacturing industry in the Midland districts he would find that these trades were suffering a great deal from foreign competition, and that they were in a most undesirable and disastrous condition. If that were not so, There

  237
  would not be so many men unemployed .as now.
  He would not enter into a discussion of the fiscal question. It was too wide and too large a subject to be discussed there. Two questions had been raised in connection with this subject. First of all, the relation between the views of the Prime Minister and those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. They, on that side of the House, would be quite as justified in asking hon. Gentlemen opposite what their opinion was in regard to Home Rule. It would be much more relevant to ask them what they were going to do on the question of Home Rule, if they came into power, than to discuss the fiscal question. The other question asked over and over again was why this matter should be delayed, and not discussed and answered by the country at once. The speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the fiscal question showed a state of fog, uncertainty, and want of knowledge, and the necessity of further discussion of the matter before any final decision was come to. One hon. Gentleman opposite had remarked that the Colonies would not give us anything in return for preference, and that they would not receive our goods; but the Colonies had really shown an inclination to take an increasing quantity of our goods, and that should induce sympathetic consideration for them on our part. The question of free trade was agitated for a period of between twenty and thirty years before the whole of the taxes on corn were abolished, and yet hon. Gentlemen opposite insisted that in the course of the two years in which the present demand for tariff reform had been discussed, the country had become so fully informed in regard to it that it was ready to give a verdict upon it immediately. Why should hon. Gentlemen expect them to take a premature decision on this great question?
  There was another and more important reason why premature and immature decision should not be given on one of the greatest questions which occupied their attention at the present time. An essential condition for the right understanding of the question was a
  238
  knowledge of colonial opinion; and that could only be authoritatively ascertained through a conference such as had been suggested. Hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they did not know what was the opinion of the Colonies—whether they had given an offer or whether they had not—but the only way to ascertain definitely was to invite the Colonies to a conference with this country. The discussion on this question could not be complete until they had obtained the opinion of the Colonies. To have a conference, however, which would have intructions as to what it should or should not do would be a mere travesty; and he believed that colonial representatives would not attend it. For himself, he hoped that this question would not be rushed. The Prime Minister stated he was not prepared to rush it; and it might be years before a definite conclusion was arrived at regarding it. There was no doubt that the question once having been raised, public opinion would not be satisfied to shelve it in the manner proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It would, however, be altogether wrong to try and bring the matter to an untimely conclusion. The country wanted information, and the opinions of many people were as yet unsettled. He desired to give the House an illustration of what the views of the Colonies were. Two years ago there was a meeting of the Associated Chambers of Commerce at Montreal. He himself attended that conference, and a resolution was passed desiring an alteration of fiscal arrangements in order to bring the Colonies into closer union with the mother country; and to that end they were willing to make sacrifices on their part. That resolution was reciprocated by representatives of the business of the whole Empire with absolute unanimity. It would be altogether wrong to the Colonies and to this country to put a veto on this question; and he hoped the Government would remain in power until a conference was held and the matter was seen through.
  SIR WILLIAM HOLLANDsaid that as a business man he desired to express his hearty concurrence with the Amendment. He thought that the interests of

  239
  business men were more or less injured if their attention was distracted by such important questions as those which were now hanging over their heads. Confidence was necessary if business men were to pursue an even and prosperous course, and that confidence was interfered with as long as the present controversy continued. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that they on that side were satisfied with the present condition of affairs. With all respect, that was not a correct representation of the case. Whether the state of things was good or bad at present, in their judgment it would be likely to be made infinitely worse if some of the suggestions promulgated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were carried out. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the conference at Montreal. He himself attended it; and although he agreed with the version given by the hon. Gentleman of the resolution passed on that occasion he thought it was only right to inform the House that it also contained the following words—
  "Due regard being paid to the fiscal and industrial needs of the component parts of the Empire."
  Those words contained a very important element; because he was afraid that if the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were adopted, very serious injury would be done to some portions of the Empire. That was a reason to give them pause. He should be glad to see the hostile tariffs of other nations much lower that they were now; but he denied that these tariffs could be lowered by weapons of retaliation such as were suggested by the Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his speech stated that the fiscal question was of vast importance and was very urgent. If it were of vast importance and urgent, why not take the issue at once to the country. For himself, he did not wish to disparage the preference that some of the Colonies had given to this country. He himself had derived advantage from the preference which was given by Canada. He did not wish to disparage the preference that some of our Colonies had given to us, but, while in the colonial markets the consumer paid less after preference had been given, in this market the consumer
  240
  would pay more. That entirely differentiated the two positions, and showed that what might answer very well and be easily carried into effect in the Colonies would not answer here, and would be very difficult of application. With regard to the question of a preference on wheat he could testify that at the congress referred to every colonial who spoke heartily repudiated any desire to adopt any course which might be injurious to the mother country, and if we saw that any injury was likely to be done, it was our duty to our colonial fellow-subjects to point out how that injury would be done.
  With regard to the suggestion of a Colonial Conference, if a conference was to be held, it was essential that all portions of the Empire should be represented at the conference, and that each part of the Empire should be proportionately represented. Moreover, if we considered that the taxation of food should not be a subject of discussion at the conference, the Colonies should be informed of that fact. With regard to the colonial contribution to Imperial defence, it seemed to him to be rather a curious way of drawing the Empire closer together to put the screw on the different portions of the Empire to increase their contributions to Imperial defence. The loyalty of our Colonies was a precious asset which had sprung up and had reached its present proportions under the system of freedom, and liberty conceded to them; but if we bound them in a cast-iron system, as a result of the conference, who-could guarantee that in future their loyalty to the mother country would be as real and great as it had been hitherto? In his opinion the views of the Prime Minister and those of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham were diametrically opposed to each other and were mutually destructive, for one claimed a freehand to negotiate with other countries, while the other sought to bind us hand and foot in a cast-iron agreement with the Colonies. It was high time that the question should be decided by an appeal to the country.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till the Evening Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  KING"S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [15th February], to Main Question [14th 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. Mount.)
  Which Amendment was—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words, "And we humbly represent to Your Majesty that, the various aspects of the fiscal question having now been fully discussed in the country for nearly two years, the time has come for submitting the issue to the people without further delay." "—(Mr. Asquith.)
  Question again proposed. "That those words be there added."
  MR. RENWICKassumed the object of the Amendment before the House was to bring about an immediate dissolution on the ground, first, that the by-elections had gone against the Government, and second, that the proposed fiscal policy had been fully discussed by the country. In his opinion neither of these reasons were sufficient to advise His Majesty to dissolve the House. Everyone must acknowledge that the by-elections had gone against the Government, but such a thing was not unusual when a Government had been long in power. The Chief Liberal Whip had, he observed, at a recent meeting, advised his supporters not to take any notice of by-elections, and, for his part, he also was quite prepared to accept that advice. He ventured to traverse the statement that the fiscal policy had been fully discussed during the last two years, because the House knew that instead of allowing this question to be fully and freely discussed, hon. Gentlemen opposite had done their best to befog the electors and prevent
  242
  their coming to a decision. The Government had been attacked by the leaders of the Opposition with a virulence beyond all precedent. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife seemed to have forgotten that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham resigned his high office in the Government for the definite purpose of educating the country in regard to these fiscal proposals. It was admitted both by the right hon. Gentleman and most of his supporters that it did require a considerable time to educate the country in regard to so great a change, but instead of discussing that matter fairly, hon. Gentlemen opposite had gone down to the constituencies and endeavoured to draw the proverbial red herring across the path by discussing Chinese labour, the Aliens Bill, and the Licensing Bill. Many hon. Members opposite had never put forward this question of fiscal reform at all. During the whole of the controversy of the last two years, he had known of no fiscal reformer who had been weaned from his desire to bring about this great change by any of the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Leader of the Opposition had said that the Prime Minister still strutted the quarter-deck. That was true, and those who sat on the Government side of the House hoped he would continue to strut it for some time to come, and hon. Members would do well to think twice before they gave a vote which would prevent the right hon. Gentleman from continuing to do so. As an example of the way in which this issue was put before the country, he would quote from a speech delivered by the hon. Member for South Shields at Blyth. Instead of showing that the Government were proposing a moderate system of taxation reform the hon. Member said—
  "If they excluded food in England the result would be absolute starvation for two-thirds of our people. If they hampered the importation of food they would have distress in proportion to the extent they hampered it, as seventy-eight loaves out of every 100 come from abroad. And, above all, he hoped they would not allow statesmen to gamble with the food of the people."
  No one wished to prevent the importation of food into this country, and it was by gross exaggeration of this description that the issue had been burked. And it was because still further time was required to put this great issue fully and

  243
  fairly before the country that it was the duty of the House to vote against the Amendment of the right hon. Member for East Fife. The right hon. Gentleman speaking at Inverness, said—
  "In his many speeches on the fiscal question he had never spoken without pointing out that we were hard pressed in the race of industrial rivalry, and that if we were to hold our own it could not be by simple folding our hands and living upon the past."
  But that was exactly what hon. Gentlemen opposite wished us to do. We were Out-paced in the race; there was something that required consideration, and he confessed he was glad to think that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had decided to call attention to this state of affairs and endeavour to find some remedy for the evil to which he had called attention. The right hon. Member the mover of the Amendment said at a meeting held in the Forest of Dean—
  "The reason that exports had not increased in the same ratio as before is not because of hostile tariffs, it has nothing to do with hostile tariffs. It is because our manufacturers and those they supply are busy meeting the demands of the home market that they have not the time or the machinery to meet the demands from abroad."
  A more misleading statement had never been made by a responsible statesman. It was notorious that what we-had been suffering from for years in this country was foreign competition, which had de-pressed our Home Markets. Yet the right hon. Gentleman made that statement which proved, if it proved nothing else, that he did not know much of the commercial state of the country. Nearly all hon. Gentlemen opposite had admitted that these tariffs did us harm. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose at Arbroath, said—
  "I am not prepared to dispute that the merchants of Dundee were suffering from these abominable tariffs."
  Another right hon. Gentleman at Bradford said—
  "No one disputed the fact that tariffs had injured their trade with the United States."
  If that was true, was it not the duty of these right hon. Gentlemen to endeavour to get rid of the tariffs from which they were suffering. The Duke of Devonshire also said—
  "I admit that the excessive tariffs of other countries have inflicted, and do inflict, a great injury upon some of our principal industries."
  244
  He (Mr. Renwick) contended that the industries of this country could not be greviously injured without the whole of the country being affected, and that it was because our industries had been injured by these tariffs that so many of our people were unemployed. The right hon. Member for Berwick, speaking at Belford, said—
  "He thought it very foolish of foreign countries to put high duties on our goods. It did harm to us but more harm to themselves."
  What did we care what harm it did to the foreigner. The foreigner could take care of himself. We were the only country in the world which was afraid to do anything to help our own industries. The same right hon. Member said at Carnarvon—
  "The tinplate trade no doubt was injured by the McKinley tariff, but since then had been partly revived by opening new markets, partly by the increased home consumption due to the expansion of the jam trade."
  That was an extraordinary statement to make to the tinplatemakers of South Wales. The tariff had enabled the United States of America to manufacture their own tinplates and supply their own markets. One hon. Member opposite, the Member for Oldham, a would-be statesman, in a letter to the Daily Telegraph of 16th August, 1903, said—
  "There was no doubt that the tariff walls which foreign nations put up against our goods did us a great deal of harm, and that, if they would, pull their walls down and do unto us freely and fairly as we did unto them, our trade would become much better, and so would their trade."
  The only remark that he would make upon that statement was that we could leave the foreigners to look after themselves, but that if we, by retaliation or otherwise, could get rid of these tariffs which were doing us so much harm, it was our duty to do so. He declared that since the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham two years ago, hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had ceased drawing doleful pictures of our state of unemployment and pauperism, and had drawn glowing pictures of our great prosperity. By way of testing our prosperity he quoted figures showing the increase of pauperism in the Kingdom, and maintained that so long as we had an enormous amount

  245
  of pauperism, and so long as we had a great number of unemployed, there was ample justification for the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham calling attention to the state of things. It was time to do something more than fold our hands and live upon the memory of the past; and they were going to compel the country to face the question. ["When?"] When they got a fair and clear issue put before the country. Only a year ago the bad condition of the cotton trade was the subject of a reference in the King"s Speech; and whenever a shortage occurred the same condition of affairs would arise; therefore they ought not to be too elated by the state of that trade at the present time. As to the shipping trade, he was aware that a large number of new ships had been ordered recently, at which he was much surprised as there was nothing in the present state of the freight market to justify such new orders. At the present time Great Britain possessed only about 50 per cent, of the shipping of the world; consequently we could not be the carriers of the world. In 1893–4 the British share was 58·21 per cent,; in 1903–4 it was only 50·67, a decrease of 7·54 in ten years. That meant a considerable increase in foreign competition, while the evidence before the Steamships Subsidies Committee showed that foreigners were making more headway than we were with the provision of the fastest, largest, and finest-equipped ships.
  What was the policy proposed by the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham? The Prime Minister desired to adopt the policy of negotiation in the endeavour to get rid of the present abominable, tariffs, and, if that was not successful, to have the power to retaliate. That was a very proper power to ask for. What, necessity was there for a foreign Power to pay any attention to Resolutions setting forth the injury that was being done to our industries by its tariffs? If, however, we had the power to retaliate, he believed foreign countries would soon be brought to their senses. The writings of Adam Smith, himself, bore testimony to the fact that retaliation would have the effect they desired. He did not
  246
  think there was the slightest danger of commercial war, inasmuch as our market was much more important to foreign countries than their markets were to us, and they would hesitate before doing anything to injure their entrance to this country. As to the colonial aspect of the question, he was entirely at one with the Prime Minister in desiring to provide some means by which the Colonies might be drawn into closer union with the mother country, and he welcomed the announcement of a Colonial Conference to discuss this great question, not with any preconceived notions as to 5 per cent, or 10 per cent, duties, but with free and unfettered hands to endeavour to find means by which the desired end could be achieved. The Colonies had shown by the preference already given, and by the Resolutions they had passed, that they were ready and willing to back this country in regard to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and when he considered how hard run we were for markets for our produce, the state of pauperism, and the number of the unemployed, he said all honour to the statesman who had brought this issue before the country.
  MAJOR SEELYcontended that unless hon. Members opposite wished to hamper and prevent the free importation of food they would not get the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford or of those who believed that by raising the price of corn they could increase agricultural profits. It was mere trifling with words to say that by taxing certain sources of food supply they would not hamper the importation of food. As to the taunt that the Opposition were not prepared to do anything to meet the industrial competition of foreign nations, they were prepared to do a great deal, but they believed that protective taxation was the worst possible means of dealing with the matter. Advocates of tariff reform apparently held the view that to impose taxation made a country rich, from which it would seem to follow that if a town was not prosperous all that was necessary was to put another 2s. on its rates. The State could do much to help industry, but protective taxes, so far from helping, tended to strangle industry, and brought

  247
  countless evils in their train. The Opposition were prepared to admit that foreign tariffs might injure the trade of this country, but what they wanted to know was how trade could be helped by retaliation without the gravest risk being run of doing infinitely more damage to the delicate fabric which had been built up under a system of free trade. How, when, and where were the advocates of fiscal change to apply the principle about which they talked so glibly? The hon. Member for Newcastle had made some extraordinary statements about the shipping trade. According to Lloyds Register, of the steam tonnage launched last year, Great Britain built and launched over 1,100,000 tons, while the rest of the world built and launched only 600,000 tons, so that this decaying industry——
  MR. RENWICKsaid he did not call it a decaying industry.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid the exact expression was that the industry was in "a delicate state" so that last year this "delicate" industry launched nearly twice as much shipping as the whole of the rest of the world.
  AN HON. MEMBERpointed out that the figures quoted by the hon. and gallant Member referred to steam shipping launched and classed in Lloyds' Register, but a large number of ships were built by foreign countries and not so classed, and those were omitted.
  MAJOR SEELYsaid he was quite aware of that fact, but if they took as a test of the prosperity of the industry not only the steam shipping, but the steam shipping which was the most efficient, and which, therefore, had the greatest earning power, and then found that one country with 42,000,000 of inhabitants built nearly twice as much of that efficient shipping as the rest of the world, he submitted that to speak of that trade as being in a delicate state was to trifle with words; and to deny that by our system of free imports we had built up one of the most amazing systems of shipping the world had ever seen was the act of one who shut his eyes to facts and would deny anything. It was unfortunately
  248
  true that a large amount of unemployment and distress existed in this country, but it was also true, according to the last Blue-book, that in protected countries the unemployment and distress was as great as, or greater than, in our own. What he protested against was trifling with the people of the country by telling them that all their distress and unemployment would be swept away by the adoption of protective taxation, and then, by a series of Party dodges and Parliamentary manoeuvres, putting off the happy day when all their sorrows should be swept away. According to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, if the importation of foreign manufactured goods ceased and the articles were made at home, employment would be found for so many thousands of people at 30s. a week. But retaliation, if successful, would increase the importation of those goods and thus increase the distress and lack of employment. If, however, it were true that all this distress, sorrow, and hunger were caused by the importation of foreign manufactured goods, and that by a stroke of the pen, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had declared, it could be put a stop to, and, further, that the foreigner could be made to pay the taxes, what was to be thought of a Government which, after the question had been discussed for two years, simply said they were going on very well as they were, but that in the dim and distant future they might possibly begin to relieve the distress? This was not a matter to be trifled with in that way. The sorrow and suffering of the poorest of the poor was real and great, and if it were possible—which he strongly denied—to relieve it by protective taxes let it be done at once, but let them be done with the farce by which the Government, through Party manoeuvring, stood between the people and the decision they wished to take.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsubmitted that not a single remedy for the present state of affairs had been suggested by any Member on the other side. He disputed entirely the assertion that our shipping trade had been built up by the system of free imports. Its pre-eminence was first secured by the strongest system of protection the world

  249
  had ever known, viz., that under Oliver Cromwell and the Navigation Laws. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had
  stated that relation would increase the importation of foreign manufactured goods. [Major SEELY: If successful.] He failed altogether to see how the entrance into foreign countries of British goods or of more British goods would cause an increase in the importation of foreign goods into this country.
  MAJOR SEELY: The Prime Minister himself has stated that retaliation would increase exchange, and therefore more goods would come from foreign countries to us and more from us to them.
  Mr. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid there was not an hon. Member on the Ministerial side of the House who objected to a free exchange of goods between this country and foreign countries. If any foreign country would take English goods in free, this country would let their goods in free also. His argument was that in our threat to impose a retaliatory duty caused a reduction of the duties placed upon our goods by foreign countries then the trade of the two countries would be increase, and this country would send a larger share of goods to that particular country than we did before. The foreigner would be able to send us the same amount of goods as before, but this country, in consequence of the reduced tariff charged against us, would be able to send more goods over to them, and that would be a distinct benefit to England. If in addition to this the trade of both countries was increased so much the better. The Government desired nothing more than free exchange, and they were, really, the free-trade Party in this country. They were not free importers, because that Party was represented by hon. Members opposite. No one disputed that foreign tariffs were hostile to British trade. As to the suggestion which had been made of allowing a proper proportion of representation to the various Colonies according to their importance, that was a view which he felt sure the Government would be ready to take notice of. When the conference was held he did not think it would be right to give a very small colony exactly the
  250
  same weight as a large colony. With regard to what the hon. Member for Argyllshire had said, he wished to point out that no one on the Government side of the House had ever suggested that if the price of an article went down 50 per cent, duties should be imposed so as to allow home manufacturers to get the original price. They could not possibly do that, and it had never been suggested. They had never said that in cases where foreigners were clearly able to undersell us, or where the price had actually gone down through fair competition, that any duty should be put on to keep the price up. That suggestion was nothing less than a travesty upon their arguments, and they were not willing to do anything which would keep up prices to an abnormal level. The same hon. Member also asked why should they not treat a Scotsman who happened to be living in Patagonia in the same way as a Scotsman living in one of the British Colonies. He did not think there was a single Member of the House who did not desire that the trade between England and her Colonies should be encouraged, and the only difference of opinion was as to how this should be brought about.
  The hon. Member for the Northern Highlands had given them a most cheerful view of the prosperity of the Colonies, and he was sure they were all delighted to hear it. The hon. Member had, however, read a letter which drew a somewhat different picture, and which appeared to imply that the New Zealander was a selfish person, with little or no love for the mother country. He would not believe that the New Zealander, or any of those living in our Colonies, had lost their affection for the mother country, It had been stated that under no consideration would our Colonies ever admit British goods in free competition with their own. Even admitting that contention, it should be borne in mind that the Colonies were now importing goods to a Very considerable extent from European countries, including the mother country. Under these circumstances would any hon. Member opposite contend that it would be no benefit to this country to have British goods admitted to their Monies at lower duties than those which were placed upon foreign goods? He

  251
  thought that a preference of that kind would be a vast benefit to this country.
  The hon. Member for Oldham had complained that the Prime Minister had not stated what he would be willing to do in case the conference decided upon a policy involving the taxation of food. Had anybody ever heard before of a subject being submitted to a Committee for investigation, and the Prime Minister being asked what he would do in certain events? Such a proposition was preposterous, and the Prime Minister could not do anything of the kind. He was quite sure that the hon. Member for Oldham, upon further consideration, would see that it would be absolutely impossible for the Prime Minister to lay down any rule as to what he would do in the event of certain recommendations being made by the conference. It had been suggested that the conference should be started with tied hands, and that certain lines should be laid down beyond which they should not pass. Such a proposal was inconsistent with the practice of the House, for in every case where a Committee or a Commission were appointed it was left a free hand. To declare beforehand that they were not to consider a particular matter in a particular way was really to make the inquiry useless. He could not himself see why hon. Members opposite should object to the conference having a perfectly free hand, and being able to recommend whatever the members of the conference thought would be best under the circumstances. Whether the House should adopt the policy recommended by the conference was quite another matter.
  In his opinion, there was also another solution of the problem altogether different to that which had been proposed for benefiting the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham suggested that a tax should be placed upon corn, that the Colonies should be relieved from that tax, and in order to prevent the consumers in this country having to pay more for their food other taxes on food should be reduced. They all wished to know whether in time of war they would be able to obtain their supplies of food from their own Colonies. They wished to know whether if all foreign ports were closed against
  252
  them, they would be able to obtain a sufficient supply of the necessaries of life from their own Colonies. To ensure this it was necessary that their Colonies should grow corn to a far more considerable extent, and the conference might very well consider whether it would not be a wise thing for the British Empire to encourage the growing of corn by granting something in the nature of a bounty to those who grew corn in this country, and in our Colonies, and imported it into this country. The benefit of such a policy would be manifest to all hon. Members. In the first place they would be encouraging the Colonies to grow that supply of corn which they desired to ensure in time of war; and, in the second place, they would be encouraging in the same way local farmers in this country, and they would consequently have more men engaged upon the land. He was aware that the expense had to be taken into account, but the country would gain, because, instead of the price of corn going up, there would be a tendency for the price to come down, not simply by the amount of the bounty, but to a much lower extent, and so the consumer would, in this way, gain an advantage which would be an incalculable benefit to him. The difficulty, he was aware, would be the question of money, but, by what he preferred to call a policy of reciprocity, they might, by a tax upon manufactured goods from abroad, raise a sufficient amount to pay a bonus to those who grew corn within the limits of the British Empire. This was a question which he hoped would be considered by the conference. As for the Motion before the House he ventured to say that it was one which they ought not to accept.
  MR. JOHN ELLISsaid that in some great public controversies there was an advantage in looking back over the road travelled and noting the principal milestones. It should never be forgotten that this subject was first raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, when he was still a member of the Cabinet, in a speech he made in Birmingham in May 1903. He ventured to say that they might ransack the history of Cabinets and they would

  253
  not be able to find a similar example of a man holding a high Cabinet position going down to his constituency and springing upon the country without notice to his Cabinet colleagues a great revolution in the accepted fiscal policy of the country which had been in operation for sixty years. Whilst still a member of the Cabinet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham came to this House on 29th May, 1903, and in the course of his speech said—
  "Therefore we come to this, if you are to give a preference to the Colonies—I do not say that you are—you must put a tax upon food."
  There had been various endeavours to do a way with the full effect of those words, but there they stood on record. He wondered how many hon. Members who were tariff reformers, up and down the country, had really stood by their guns before their constituents in this matter. That was the key-note and basis of the whole controversy. The right hon. Gentleman resigned his position in the Cabinet in a very remarkable way, and the letters which appeared in the Press from the Prime Minister and right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham would bear reading again and again. Both right hon. Gentlemen used very curious phrases. The Member for West Birmingham said—
  "The result is that for the present, at any rate, a preferential agreement with our Colonies involving a new duty, however small, on articles of food hitherto untaxed is … unacceptable to the majority in the constituencies."
  "For the present." Then the right hon. Gentleman indicated that he would go and preach the gospel. Later in the letter he said—
  "I suggest that you should limit the present policy of the Government."
  In a manner he indicates again the word "present." The Prime Minister accepted that policy, and in his reply used curious words. He said—
  "The loss to the Government is great indeed, but the gain to the cause you have at heart is greater still, and, therefore, what can I do but acquiesce?"
  Therefore in the most public manner the right hon. Gentleman sent the Member for West Birmingham away with, his blessing on his labours, while agreeing "for the present" to restrict the policy of the Government. Thus they had the
  254
  basis of the whole policy of the taxation of foodstuffs, which the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged was unacceptable to the country, and he went forth on his efforts to win over the country to that. What had been the propaganda sine? In this House, in May 1903, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham used these significant words—
  "I am prepared to go into any mechanic"s house, or any labourer"s house, or to address meetings of workmen or labour leaders, and, taking certain hypothetical calculations, for instance, that there was to be a shilling or two shillings on corn, say to them, 'Now this policy, if it is carried out, will cost you so much a week more than you are paying at present for your food. I set aside altogether any economical question as to whether they would or would not have to pay the whole of the duty that might be imposed; I will assume for the sake of my argument that you pay every penny of the duty, and having assumed that, I will tell you what the cost will be. I know how many loaves you consume, how much meat you eat, and know what yon take of this, that, and the other, on which it may be proposed to put a duty, and I will give you a table from which you can tell for yourself how much extra wages you must get in order to cover the extra expense of living.' "
  It was perfectly clear, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman contemplated an addition to the cost of living of the workman. But the workman was very shrewd in that matter. He knew very well that his living would be increased in cost, but he knew that he would look in vain for extra wages. He was bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman had been as good as his word. He had been on many platforms, advocating his propaganda with sincerity and courage. The right hon. Gentleman addressed a meeting at Welbeck, in Nottinghamshire, primarily, he said, to the agriculturist. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman had not much practical experience in agriculture, and there were many ludicrous inaccuracies in his speech. He actually told them that the country was getting poorer in regard to stock, but in the figures given he forgot the distinction between sheep and cattle. There were more cattle, although there was a loss of sheep. He must say that if the right hon. Gentleman was well satisfied with his visit to Welbeck, free-traders in the county of Nottingham had no cause to feel aggrieved, and he ventured to invite the right hon. Gentleman to go there again. If the results

  255
  of the right hon. Gentleman's propaganda had been the same in other parts of the country as in Nottinghamshire, and in the parts with which he himself was familiar, he could not congratulate him. He believed as a matter of fact that it was pretty well accepted now that the thing had not succeeded with the working classes, who were perfectly conscious that their cost of living would be increased by the adoption of the right hon. Gentleman"s proposals. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that he saw no difference in principle between his policy and that of the Prime Minister? The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that afternoon was a proof that there was no difference of opinion. The position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was perfectly intelligible and clear. He understood that, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor his followers liked the word "protection," and he would not use it. At all events, what they advocated was an artificial enhancement of the price of food and other articles for certain purposes. The fact of the matter was that the situation was summed up by the leading organ of the Government when it said that the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were a pair of consummate whist players, both of whom knew their game. The Prime Minister was watching and waiting until the country was ripe for him to take his stand side by side with his fellow whist player.
  This Amendment had been termed a dissolution Amendment. He thought it was abundantly justified. The Leader of the Opposition had pointed out with the greatest force what had been the results of the by-elections, and the Prime Minister had replied by quoting what Mr. Gladstone said about by-elections in a letter to Lord Granville. He had been at some pains to look into this matter. It was perfectly true that Mr. Gladstone wrote the letter which had been referred to. It was dated 8th January, 1874, and contained the following sentence—
  "The general situation being thus unfavourable, the ordinary remedies are not available. A Ministry with a majority, and with that majority not in rebellion, could not resign on account of adverse manifestations, even of very
  256
  numerous single constituencies, without making a precedent, and constitutionally a bad precedent, and only a very definite and substantive difficulty could warrant the resignation without dissolution, after the proceedings of the Opposition in March last, when they, or, at any rate, their Leaders and their Whips, brought the Queen into a Ministerial crisis and deserted her when there."
  Mr. Gladstone, with his chivalrous devotion to the Crown, had that "desertion" in his mind. He was casting about for reasons for not recommending a dissolution and not resigning, but he used further language in his letter to the Queen. They were very memorable words, and very much ad rem. In that letter to the Queen, dated 23rd January, which would be found at pages 486 and 487 of the second volume of "The Life of Gladstone." Mr.Gladstone said—
  "When he had the honour of seeing Your Majesty at Windsor the course of the local elections had been more favourable and Mr. Gladstone had not abandoned the hope of retaining sufficient strength for the due conduct of affairs in the present House. On this question the events of the last few weeks and the prospects of the present moment have somewhat tended to turn the scale in his mind and that of his colleagues.
  It was evident, therefore, that the elections of the last few weeks had tended to turn the scale in his mind and that of his colleagues. But what was the House to think of the present Prime Minister, who, contrary to constitutional propriety, had put the letter of another Prime Minister to a colleague before the letter of that Prime Minister to the Sovereign. If the right hon. Gentleman treated his own letters to colleagues and Sovereign in such a way he was more unfit to occupy the position of Prime Minister than some people thought. After all, the present situation could not be judged of without taking the whole circumstances into account. Since the last general election they had a new Sovereign, a new Cabinet, a new Prime Minister, and a new policy. If, when all these things were put together, they did not constitute a demand for a dissolution he did not know what did. There never was such a conjunction of circumstances as these four, and if they wanted any additional reason for dissolution it was to be found in the condition of the House itself. It was like a man suffering from a stroke of paralysis. Members familiar with the ordinary

  257
  routine of the House knew very well that both as regards the House and its Committees Members could not be got to their places, and the benches were evidence how this Session was beginning. The pass to which things had come ought to be put an end to. The Government might be able to command a majority to-morrow night, but had they the constituencies behind them? Speaking on behalf of those who sent him there—and he would represent them if he was a candidate at the next election—he said unhesitatingly that the time had come for it to be dissolved, so that the House of Commons might be refreshed by contact with those from whom it alone derived authority.
  SIR. THOMAS WRIGHTSONsaid he regretted the small attendance of Members on the Government side of the House, but if he were asked to account for it he would say that it was because the supporters of the Government knew what the opinions of their leaders were, while on the other side the Opposition refused to divulge what their leaders were going to do if they came into office. They had not heard any proposals made from the other side, although challenges had been thrown out to them to give assurances as to what they were going to do. The members of the Opposition said that, the fiscal proposals which had been put before the country from his side of the House would bring evils into existence which would be worse than those they had at present. It seemed to be overlooked on the other side that something like one-third of the population were suffering from want of labour. They did not deny that. [Cries of "Yes."] They would admit, at all events, that the air was full of reports as to the want of employment throughout the country. Why did that state of things exist? It was because our markets had been taken from us by the foreigner. If hon. Members would study the returns of the Board of Trade they would see that a large amount of merchandise was imported which could be equally well made in this country by our own workmen. He would like to direct the attention of the House to a matter—much more serious than the question of price, of which so much has been said in this controversy. The question he
  258
  alluded to was that of cost. The terms have been confused, especially by those consumers to whom price was the only consideration and cost of production nothing. Mr. Gladstone had stated years ago that so long as we could work cheaply we should maintain the supremacy of our manufactures, and he was perfectly right, but the way he looked at the question was simply in relation to our ability to buy cheap food. Another state of things had arisen. Owing to changes in the way in which industries were conducted, there was a far greater cheapening effect by keeping mills and works full of employment. Factories were laid out to produce a maximum of work, and it was under those conditions that production was cheap. If factories were worked only to the extent of half their maximum productive capacity, the cost of production would go up 20 to 50 per cent. Mr. Gladstone expressed his view at a time when cheap food was a much more important factor in the making of the cost of production cheap. Now we had a totally different state of affairs, and unless we remedied our policy with regard to foreign countries, and took some steps to oblige them to reduce their tariffs, we should get less and less volume of trade, and our manufacturers would thereby be handicapped and their industries eventually destroyed by the increase in the cost of production. He supported the Prime Minister, and should vote against the Amendment.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The hon. Baronet who has just sat down is a firm believer in a change in our fiscal system, which he says he understands. He is so convinced that that change, which we call protection, would bring increased prosperity to this country, that I am very much surprised that he does not at once give a vote in order to precipitate the election, until the advent of which, as he knows from the mouth of his own Leader, the change cannot take place. I am quite clear as to the nature of the hon. Baronet"s convictions, and the way in which ha arrived at them; but I do not get that clearness from his speech this evening, but from a letter which he wrote to The Times a year and a half ago. This letter was to the effect that, under this

  259
  change in fiscal system which he desires, our home manufacturers—I think, including himself—would get enhanced prices for what they produce, and so would be able to produce more cheaply for export. In other words, they would charge higher prices to their own fellow-countrymen at home, and then sell more cheaply to the foreigner. A few of them would reap large profits, but the great staple industries of this country would inevitably surfer.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: Just what the Germans do.
  SIR EDWAKD GEEY: I am perfectly willing that we should have a comparison with Germany; you will find constant complaints of the rings and trusts in Germany having killed promising branches of German industry, which have thriven in other countries which open their markets. But I do not desire to go at length into the arguments on the fiscal question. I want to examine a little some of the reasons that have already been given for the Amendment before the House; and I should like, to a certain degree, to pay attention—because the Prime Minister himself, I think, desires it—to the Prime Minister"s own policy. I cannot agree with an argument which I heard from the hon. Member for Hackney just now—that the election should be postponed because there are some hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House who have not yet made up their minds. There always will be a certain number of people who will not make up their minds till the election comes, and that argument will always be available, however long an election is postponed. But I think it is time that, at any rate, we were quite sure what the mind of the Prime Minister of this country is. The Chancellor of the Exchequer deplores the fact that the Imperial policy, as he calls it, of colonial preference, has become a Party question. We all deplore that fact. It was not a Party question two years ago; we all approved of the policy of the conference in 1902; we all approved of the policy of periodical conferences; and we all approved, at that time, of another conference being held at the date then fixed—namely, 1906. But, it has become a Party question since.
  260
  It is not we who have made it a Party question. It is the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and of the Prime Minister, that have made it a Party question; and if we had accepted their utterances that would not have prevented it from becoming a Party question. They have made it a Party question on their own side. I think it a great pity; and when I hear it said that the policy of a Colonial Conference is the policy of the Prime Minister, some special policy of his own, I say that that is an entire inversion of what is the true state of the case. The policy of a Colonial Conference did exist. It is the Prime Minister who has spoiled the policy of a Colonial Conference. His policy is now that it is not worth while to have a Colonial Conference unless you are prepared to commit this country to a scheme of preferential duties. What, then, is open to the conference of 1906? We understand from the Foreign Secretary in another place that next year we shall be engaged with a Redistribution Bill, and we shall not have had an election. May I ask the Colonial Secretary, in the absence of the Prime Minister, if no election takes place this year, will the conference be held in 1906?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON,): nodded assent.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: It will be held, but the question of preference, of closer commercial union, will not be brought before it; because, from the Edinburgh speech of the Prime Minister, we understand that this question of closer commercial union with the Colonies was not to be brought forward before the conference unless his Party was in power after an election. Well, then, in 1906, according to the Colonial Secretary, if no election has taken place, this Colonial Conference will be held under the understanding that its lips are sealed on the question of commercial union, but that another conference will be summoned after the election, which may take place at the end of 1906 or at the beginning of 1907. This is to reduce the conference of 1906 to a farce. It is not we who wish to muzzle that conference. It is

  261
  the Government who will be muzzling that conference. And this is the true Imperial policy! The Prime Minister admits that this matter is important, that things cannot go on as they are between us and the Colonies. That statement in Edinburgh must not be left in doubt; it was very important, but before a conference is held to deal with this question and to clear it up, an election must be held; and then the Prime Minister adopts the policy of postponing the election as long as possible. That is not an Imperial policy. That is a policy of Party convenience. The Prime Minister, no doubt, promises us more than one election. After that election, soon another election. [Ironical OPPOSITION laughter.] Well, that is his policy in regard to elections. We must not have an election now, but to make it up we are to have plenty of them at short dates at a future time.
  I deplore what I am convinced is a misunderstanding which is being created by this between the mother country and the Colonies. I have no doubt the Colonies have left us in no doubt as to what their proposals were at the conference of 1902. Mr. Fielding, the Canadian Finance Minister, has told his own fellow-countrymen that at the conference of 1902 the colonial Premiers, certainly the Canadian Premier, assured the Imperial Government, this present Government, that as between the British manufacturer and the colonial manufacturer they had gone as far as they could, but that they were willing to increase the duties against the foreigner under certain conditions. If there is any colonial proposal at all, it is a proposal not to reduce the duties on British goods, but to increase the duties against the foreigner, and when you hear the colonial offer talked about, as it is so frequently on platforms by the other side, what is really in mind is not a colonial offer at all, but the offer which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is understood to be making to the Colonies. And the impression which has got abroad of the offer which he makes is that, in his opinion, it would be fair that the mother country should impose, for the sake of the Colonies, and in their favour, taxes upon our food at home, while
  262
  leaving the Colonies free to impose duties still upon British goods, provided they still further increase the duties against the foreigner. That is where the misunderstanding lies. The impression that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham gives at home is that he is working for free trade within the Empire. The impression he gives to the Colonies is that he is going to leave them freedom to protect themselves against the import of British goods, while we tax our food in their favour. I deplore this on Imperial grounds. We know very well that the policy of holding the Empire together by force has been tried and has failed, and nobody would think of reverting to it. It is true that the present Government, at any rate, does not try the foundation of force. But now we have a new basis for the union of the Empire, the foundation of taxes. Next to that force, I think the foundation of taxes the most insecure on which the Empire can be based. When I hear it said that this is the Imperial policy, I should like to revert to the original policy of Colonial Conferences, held periodically, held freely, free to discuss whatever the Colonies wish to propose, we on our side to be equally free to speak what we believe to be the mind of the country. I believe a conference of that kind—ungagged, unmuzzled, summoned without prejudice, summoned on terms under which opinions may be plainly expressed on both sides, is the only way by which it is possible to remove the misunderstanding which has been created between ourselves and the Colonies. They have never asked that we should impose taxes to suit them. Some of them did suggest that, if we were imposing taxes for I ourselves, we should give a remission of those taxes in their favour; but they have not asked that we should impose taxes which we have not got, and which we did not need for our own purposes, in their favour. I believe that a conference, summoned on these questions, without prejudice, to make the Colonies understand what is the position over here, and make them understand that nothing short of free trade within the Empire would do, and that to remove duties would be anything but a barrier to unity—I believe that a conference of that kind would remove misunderstanding

  263
  and relieve suspicion between the mother country and the Colonies. So much on that point.
  I return to the policy of the Prime Minister. He asks us why we do not discuss his policy. It is because he gives us nothing to discuss. What is his policy? Liberty to negotiate—retaliation as it is called sometimes. Who can discuss retaliation in the abstract? What does he mean by liberty to negotiate? He means liberty to retaliate, liberty to make commercial war. Who does he want to make war with? You cannot discuss war in the abstract. Does the Government ask for liberty to make war without telling you with whom they are going to fight, what they are going to fight about, where they are going to fight, and what weapons they are going to use? It would be laughed out of court. It is just as unreasonable for the Prime Minister to ask us to discuss retaliation when he makes no proposal to the House or the country as to how the retaliation is to be carried out. Of course the Government have power to propose retaliation now. They need have no election. Let us know whom the quarrel is with. Let us know the special taxation by which you propose to bring the foreign country to its knees. Make your proposal to the House and it can be judged on its merits. Why postpone that until after an election? Only, I think, for one reason, that if you make any proposal of that sort you would have to submit it to the House of Commons. Are you at the election going to ask for power to impose retaliatory duties without coming to the House of Commons? That question the Prime Minister never answered; and if that be in his mind, I admit, indeed, that there is need for appealing to the country before he proposes anything of the kind.
  But, Sir, even retaliation, if we had the proposal before us, becomes very nebulous. You may impose a duty and call it retaliatory if you please, but after it is imposed it becomes a protective duty. If your retaliatory duty does not succeed in its object, in reducing the duty imposed by foreign countries, then it is a nuisance to ourselves without achieving the object that we wish; but if it does succeed, then it will have to be removed;
  264
  and to remove it you will have to destroy vested interests to which the hon. Baronet opposite has referred—vested interests which would plead, and, I think, plead with great force, that the Government which had created them could not justly undertake anything which would destroy them. We had an example in the corn duty. That was not a protective duty when it was imposed. It was imposed, we were told, as a revenue duty; it was not to operate in a protective sense at all. It lasted, I think, for a year, but within that year already it had come to have protective effect, and there were bitter complaints from the milling industry when it was proposed to remove it. This is the policy, so far as we know it, of the Prime Minister. But even about this he leaves us in doubt with regard to the future. At Sheffield he told us that he would lead the Conservative Party. There were some questions as to where he was leading them to, but I do not dwell upon that. He has spoken since at Edinburgh, and at Edinburgh he spoke more doubtfully. He was not then quite sure that he would lead them. On the contrary, if the Conservative Party adopted protection as a policy, he thought he would not lead them, but though he would not lead them, he would continue to support the Party not less zealously and earnestly than before. This is a great struggle, and I commend this to hon. Members on the other side of the House who are opposed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, but follow the Prime Minister. In a struggle of this kind you must rely upon somebody on whom you can depend to oppose the policy in which you disbelieve; and if the Prime Minister is going to support the Party opposite not less zealously and earnestly than before after they become protectionists, what is the value of his opposition?
  Now, Sir, I think in all this is to be found the reason of the ambiguity of the Prime Minister. Take what he has said sentence by sentence and I admit it is clear enough, but the meaning of the whole leaves everybody in doubt. He gives plain answers, but he never answers a plain question. He shows great ingenuity in giving answers to questions that have never

  265
  been asked, but he evades questions upon which it would be perfectly easy to give an answer if he has a clear mind. What, for instance, is his opinion with regard to the average duty of 10 per cent. on manufactured articles advocated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham? Is that or is it not part of the policy of the Prime Minister? That surely is a plain question. He has said, especially in regard to his Edinburgh speech, that nobody who is not stupid or malevolent—I think that was the phrase—can fail to understand it, and I want to ask him this. The noble Lord the Member for Ealing, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, and others place one interpretation on that Edinburgh speech, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham places a directly opposite interpretation upon that speech; and I would like to ask the Prime Minister in this difference of interpretation who is stupid and who is right? That is a plain question that may be answered. I think I can tell hon. Members opposite one difference between the speeches of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. The Prime Minister always says the same thing, but his meaning is always obscure; the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is never obscure, but he does not always say the same thing. That reduces discussion in the country and in this House, so far as discussion is allowed, to a farce. You have the two protagonists playing this game, and the issue is admitted by all to be most important, and on this side we believe it to be vital to the
  266
  interests of the country. The game is not edifying politically, and it is bad for the country materially. You find it admitted everywhere that the suspense in which the question now rests is bad for the business of the country. The hon. Member for Newcastle spoke somewhat doubtfully of the revival of trade If encouragement be needed—and I think it is needed—for trade, surely one form of encouragement would be to let business men, at any rate for the next four or five years, know where they stand and what to expect. I think there is a moral obligation on the Government not to postpone an appeal to the country. The Prime Minister makes light of by-elections; he has cited precedents under which by-elections were held not to legitimately influence a Government in continuance of office; but the present is not a normal, it is an abnormal situation. The last election was abnormal. Never before was an appeal made by the Government of the day to a Party disagreeing with them on all subjects of home policy to support the Government for that occasion only. I will not dwell on the position, it is well put by the hon. Member for Partick sitting opposite and who is not suspect in regard to tariff reform. His words were—
  "He did not think a general election was very far off, and the sooner it came the better. The time had not yet elapsed for which the present Government were elected, but still the circumstances had altered so completely, the questions now dividing men"s minds were so different from those of the autumn of 1900 that the time had come for a deliberate expression of the opinion of the country; it was not satisfactory to pass session after session in evading discussion of the subject uppermost in the mind of Members."
  Every word of that is true. The importance of the question to the country is admitted; it is a question the Prime

  267
  Minister thinks the present House of Commons is not fitted to discuss. The House is not merely a legislative authority and controller of the Executive of the day; it should be the guide and counsellor of the nation on a matter that intimately concerns it; and to have this propaganda instituted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, with the blessing and good will of the Prime Minister, to have it going on in the country, and at the same time to have it definitely laid down that the present House of Commons is not fitted to deal with it, not suited to its discussion, is to bring an air of insincerity into our proceedings, and to make them more or less a farce. That air of unreality hung over us last year, it has not been diminished by the lapse of time, and the Government contemplate its continuance, and I understand that we should, after that, have another session of Parliament in addition. I will conclude by quoting, in regard to the situation, words used by the Prime Minister himself with regard to a situation of ten years ago and somewhat analogous to this of to-day—
  "I do not believe that in the whole of our Parliamentary history you will find a case in which the Government has deliberately come down to the House and said, 'We have a revolution' (that is not too strong a word for a change in fiscal policy that has endured for sixty years) 'in store for you, to be embodied in terms not yet decided upon, to carry out a policy on which we are absolutely divided, which we mean to put off for one month, two months, three months, so long as it suits us.' The House of Commons ought not to make itself a party to any such electioneering transaction as that."
  Now I will go on still expressing myself in the words of the Prime Minister—
  "I think myself bound to dissociate myself from any manœuvres so utterly discreditable to the ancient honour and glory of this House."
  And I shall vote for the Amendment.
  MR. LAMBTONsaid he agreed with every word which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Berwick had uttered on the fiscal question, but he could not agree with him in his remarks about the other part of the Amendment relating to dissolution. The right hon. Gentleman, as a reason why the, House should agree to that part of the Resolution which referred to dissolution, quoted the opinion of his hon. friend the Member for Partick; but that opinion was, in his view, the very reason why they ought not to have a dissolution. The right hon. Gentleman, in the early part of his speech, had told the House that this was not a Party, but a national question, but the Amendment of the right hon. Member for East Fife had made it a Party question. He maintained that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife and the Opposition had, by this Amendment, committed a tactical mistake, and were making this question, as far as lay in their power, a Party question. He knew that on this point he was not agreeing with the speech made by the hon. Member for Durham. Hitherto that hon. Gentleman and himself had agreed in thought and in action, but he could not agree with him as to the action of free-traders on that side of the House crossing to the other side. He had always maintained in the past and had announced to his constituents that he could not follow with approval the fiscal policy of the Government; but to ask those on that side of the House who condemned a change in fiscal policy to say so was one thing; to ask them to vote for dissolution was asking them to go rather far. They disapproved strongly of the fiscal policy of the Government, but if they passed this Amendment, what

  269
  would be their position in the remaining months of the session? Were they to do their best in the future, and on every possible occasion, to turn out the Government? If the hon. Member for Durham voted for the Amendment and acted up to what he had said he would have to take every possible opportunity to turn out the Government he was returned to support. He himself had no intention to aid in turning out the Government unless it announced itself as a protectionist Government. The Prime Minister had told them that he was not a protectionist.
  He knew that hon. Gentlemen opposite had told them that the policy of the Prime Minister was not understood in the country nor in this House: but the vast majority of hon. Gentlemen on that side said they understood the Prime Minister"s policy. There seemed to be very few of them present that night. He had expected that he would have got a cheer when he said that. He had hoped that perhaps he might induce those hon. Members to get up and tell the House what that policy really was. For his part, he confessed he did not understand it. The Prime Minister said he was surprised that hon. Members did not understand it. Hon. Members behind him said that they were also surprised. He himself confessed that he also was surprised. He thought it astonishing that anything obvious to the intellects of those behind him should be obscure to the intelligence of his friends around and below him. If that were the case, he submitted to the Prime Minister that they ought rather to be pitied than condemned. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Berwick, had just now stated that the Prime Minister had attributed this failing either to stupidity or to
  270
  malevolence. He did not attribute it to stupidity, but rather to ignorance and innocence. They were naturally ignorant because they had not been enlightened. The Prime Minister did not answer the simplest question put to him. Ignorance could be removed by enlightenment; stupidity was ingrained. He did not think that the Prime Minister gave sufficient attention to that combination of ignorance and innocence which affected some of his followers. One came across instances in which persons had been mistaken in regard to the commonest objects. For instance, he remembered once asking a lady—an elderly maiden lady—where she had been walking, and how far she had gone. She told him that she had been to Hyde Park as far as the statue of Minerva! He did not argue the point with her, because he was quite sure he knew what she meant, and how far she had been. He did not argue with the Prime Minister for the different reason that he had not the slightest notion of what he meant, or how far he meant to go. All they asked was that the right hon. Gentleman should give them a sound fiscal policy, with the genuine hall-mark of free trade—no Sheffield-plate or Birmingham brass.
  He maintained that the present state of ambiguity which existed ought to advance, and would advance, the cause of free trade. That was one reason why he would not vote for the Amendment. The Prime Minister"s policy was not understood, and was not gaining adherence in the country, and every month that passed without a general election reduced the prospects of the Birmingham policy. Hon. Gentlemen might think that he was not considering this question seriously; there were, however,

  271
  so few of its protagonists present that it was hardly worth the labour to get up at all. Hon. Gentlemen might think that his hon. friends and himself were not in earnest, but he could assure them they were. They were fighting now with masked foils, but it might be war to the knife later. He maintained that Unionists were doing more in the permanent interests of free trade by voting against the Amendment on this occasion than by voting for it. He knew that many Unionists, in the country had changed their views with reference to protection; and if Unionists were to be hunted out of the Unionist Party or to be cajoled from the line they had taken up, they would not secure that permanent and emphatic national verdict which the country would give if the question was submitted to it as a national and not as a Party question. He hoped there would be no misconception as to his free-trade principles or as to his discouragement of the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Government in not giving them a free-trade lead in this matter; but he should not vote for dissolution because he believed that by so doing he would rather hinder than encourage the cause of free trade.
  MR. LEVYsaid that the Prime Minister led them to believe that his policy would improve the condition of the people, and would give employment to workers now out of employment. The fact was, however, that any system which would keep out of this country manufactured goods would be detrimental to employment. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman"s policy, instead of increasing employment, would reduce it. Immediately exports
  272
  and imports were cut down employment would decrease. During the last fifteen years them were two, 1893 and 1894, in which trade was more depressed than in any of the other years; and in these years both the, imports and exports were smaller; the number of unemployed was greater, the, number of paupers per head of population was greater, and bankruptcies were more numerous. At present an immense quantity of goods was imported into this country; but the fact remained that they had less paupers and less unemployed and a far greater export trade. What did the proposed Colonial Conference mean? They were told that the colonial representatives were to discuss whether this country should or should not tax the food of the people of this country. What for? Certainly not for the benefit of the people of this country, but in order that the Empire might be bound together. Surely there were other methods of binding the Empire together than by taxing the food of the people of this country. What about India? India imported one-third of the amount of manufactured goods which we exported to our Colonies and possessions and purchased but a trifling amount of manufactures from the protected countries of Europe and the, United States of America. What then could India give in return if the policy of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted? Absolutely nothing. If there were any attempt to add to the cost if manufacture in the cotton industry, which must inevitably follow retaliation or preferential treatment, the major portion of our export trade of cotton goods would disappear. He thought it would be admitted that the export trade to India was of vital interest

  273
  to the working people of this country, and of far greater importance than the export trade to any one of the Colonies. India would not gain by the right hon. Gentleman"s policy; but a very considerable hardship would be inflicted on the people of this country.
  The idea appeared to be that more corn was to be grown in the Colonies and that a corn tax would not make much difference in price. But when hon. Gentlemen visited their constituencies they declared that the corn tax would be of considerable benefit, because it would raise the price and thereby bring more land into cultivation. If, however, a 12s. duty did not bring more land into cultivation in France, it was certain that a 2s. duty would not be effective in that respect in this country. How were the Colonies to be benefited? They could not be benefited by corn alone. Was this country to tax its raw material. They had the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that they had no desire to tax raw material, but it was perfectly plain that if their policy were adopted raw material would have to be taxed. Would that increase employment in this country? Certainly not. Then it was said that this country could get its food supplies in time of war from the Colonies. Had any one considered what Navy would be required to convoy across the ocean vessels carrying food to this country. For all these reasons he supported the Amendment; and he hoped that free-traders opposite would also support it.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the debate be
  now adjourned."—
  MR. WINSTON CHURCHILLsaid there was a quarter of an hour yet, during which the debate might be continued. To adjourn now would be an unthrifty way of using the time of the House. Under the circumstances, he hoped the House would not accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman, and if necessary he would divide against it.
  SIR WILLIAM TOMLINSONsaid that on the previous night the House adjourned early in order to enable a right hon. Gentleman opposite to speak to-day. He himself did not see the utility of proceeding at that hour; but, nevertheless, he hoped that his hon. friend would not persist in his Motion.
  MR. ERNEST GRAY saidhe was not quite sure whether he was in order; but he wished to state—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman, having moved his Motion, cannot speak again.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid he understood that his hon. friend wished to withdraw the Motion.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman desire to withdraw?
  MR. EARNST GRAY: Yes, Sir.
  Objection being taken, the Question was put and negatived.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he was surprised that the Opposition should insist on the discussion being continued, as they on that side had readily consented to the adjournment of the debate early last night for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That courtesy might have been reciprocated. He desired to place a few simple facts in connection with the Amendment before the House. The Government were asked to resign, presumably in order that control might be placed in the hands of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It might be that the attitude adopted by the Prime Minister on this question was obscure. He would not argue that. But one thing was perfectly certain, and that was that whatever were the views of his constituents on the fiscal question, there were several items in the social programme of the Government which they desired to see accomplished before the Government relinquished office. He would wish to point out to his free-trade friends that there was work which the Government had expressed its intention of accomplishing, but regarding which there was no hope from hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Aliens Bill was of extreme importance to his constituents. The recent election in the East End was fought on that issue. What hope was there regarding it from the other side? If the Amendment were carried they would have the criminal classes from foreign countries—[HON. MEMBERS: No, no!] He attached more importance to what went on in Committee last year than to shouts of "No."
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member
  276
  cannot discuss the merits of the Aliens Bill on this Amendment.
  MR. ERNEST GRAYsaid he would not trespass beyond Mr. Speaker"s ruling, but he thought it would be within his province to show that work could be accomplished, by the Government which would not be attempted by the Opposition if returned to office. Apart from the Aliens Bill, there was the question of the unemployed. They had been told, again and again, during the debate that all was well with this country; yet tens of thousands of men were parading the streets of London and other large cities looking for work. How, then, could all be well? Reference had been made to the speech at Limehouse of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The Leader of the Opposition also went to Lime-house, but before he was permitted to address the public he had to receive a deputation from the unemployed. Ha looked forward to what would happen next winter with reference to the unemployed. What would they be likely to get from right hon. Gentlemen opposite if they came into office? Towhom had the unemployed to look for assistance except to the present Government. There were also other questions in the social programme of the Government which should be considered before the dissolution.
  And, it being Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
  Adjourned at one minute after Twelve o'clock.