To ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, seeing that delegates elected by the settlers in Rhodesia will, at the request of Dr. Jameson, shortly arrive in this country for the purpose of discussing with the directors of the Chartered Company terms under which the charter shall be cancelled, he will give the House an assurance that no terms will be agreed between the Government and the company which may involve any financial obligation on the Exchequer, before such terms are first submitted for the approval of the House. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) His Majesty's Government have not been approached, either by the Chartered Company or by the Rhodesian settlers; and there is no reason for thinking that the contingency contemplated in the second part of the Question will arise.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a statement, made by the chairman of the Upper River Committee of the Thames Conservancy Board on 25th July, that many large steamers and launches on the river were floating beer-houses, open all day and night, and that neither the Conservators or licensing magistrates on the Thames had any control over such steamers, the owners of which could sell as much liquor as they liked; and will he, therefore, introduce legislation bringing the sale of liquor on river steamers under the licensing authority of the magistrates on the Thames. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) I have seen a newspaper report of the meeting of the Conservators to which the hon. Member refers. The question of the sale of intoxicating liquor on steamers in inland waters has been more than once under consideration; but it has not hitherto been found possible to frame provisions likely to be satisfactory and effective amendments of the law. I cannot say more than that the matter will not be lost sight of.

To ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when and how it is proposed that a decision should be come to on the proposed Army scheme, allowing of the commencement of enlistment of recruits for the infantry of the Line on the new conditions of service; and also when and how a decision is to be taken by the House or country putting an end to the existing uncertainty with regard to the future of the Militia. (Answered by Mr. A. J. Balfour.) The Estimate for the War Office, if agreed to, seems to afford an adequate basis for any changes, not requiring legislation, which may be announced as in contemplation. As regards the second part of the Question, it would be desirable to wait until the second debate has taken place on the Secretary of State's scheme.

To ask the Postmaster-General can he state the total amounts respectively of Post Office Savings Bank deposits and withdrawals in the year ending 31st December, 1903, and the six months ending 30th June, 1904, the total balance due to depositors (including interest) on 31st December, 1903, and 30th June, 1904, respectively; can he explain how it occurred that, on the 31st December 1903, the assets valued at the market price of the day, held by the Government on behalf of the Post Office Savings Banks, were insufficient to meet the total amount of deposits by the sum of £11,033,060 12s. 1d.; and can he explain why his Report for the year ending 31st March, 1904, is not yet issued. (Answered by Lord Stanley.) The deposits in the Post Office Savings Bank during the year ending the 31st December, 1903, amounted to £40,857,206, and the withdrawals to £42,786,025. The corresponding figures for the six months ending the 30th June, 1904, are £19,502,295 and £20,309,709 respectively. The total amounts standing to the credit of depositors on the 31st Decemher.1903, and the 30th June, 1904. were £146,135,147 and £147,083,000 respectively. The latter figure is only approximate. The reason why the liabilities of the Savings Bank were in excess of the assets, valued at the market price of the day on the 31st December, 1903, is to be found in the fact that the greater part of the Consols and other Government Stock held by the National Debt Commissioners on behalf of the Bank were purchased at a higher price than that current at the date in question. As pointed out, however, in my Answer to the hon. Member for North Camberwell on the 28th March, † a comparison of this nature is misleading, and does not give a correct view of the

† See (4) Debates, CXXXII, 814

situation, seeing that the payment of the lawful claims of depositors is guaranteed by Government, and that they have as security the whole credit of the nation My Report for the year ending the 31st March, 1904, is now in the press, and will be issued shortly.

To ask the Secretary of State for War what is the ultimate total of the automatic increase in the Army Estimates before any actual reduction of Estimates can begin. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am afraid it is impossible for me to give with any degree of certainty figures in regard to what the Army Estimates will be several years hence. The automatic increase or decrease must depend largely upon factors which cannot be calculated at the present time. New Army Scheme—Earl Roberts' Views.

To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will ascertain what parts of his Army scheme Earl Roberts considers detrimental to the interests of the Army; and will he convey Earl Roberts' opinions to the House. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) I am glad to say that Lord. Roberts has been so good as to make me fully aware of his views, which are of great assistance to me. I have no authority to communicate his views to the House.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state what action has been taken by the Local Government Board for Scotland with a view to secure a suitable water supply for the village of Lochcarron, Ross-shire. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The Local Government Board, on learning that the water supply to Lochcarron village was defective, at once drew the local authority's attention to the matter, and were informed in reply that in January last the local authority had given instructions to have the pumps repaired. The Board now learn that the water supply is in good order and the pumps working well, with the exception of one, the supply for which passes through crofters' ground, who oppose the opening of the drain until the crop is lifted. The chairman of the water supply committee is acting as interim water inspector to see that the plant is attended to and kept in repair.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Chanonry Ferry, between Fort George and Chanonry Point, Fortrose, has been closed since May last; and, in view of the inconvenience which the closing of the ferry causes the public, will he consider the expediency of taking such steps as may be necessary to have it reopened for traffic. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I have no information of the fact mentioned in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, but in any case it is not a matter calling for the intervention of the Secretary for Scotland.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland if, when considering the Report of the Departmental Committee on Poor Law Medical Relief in Scotland, he will take into consideration the position of those medical officers situated in remote Highland and Island parishes who, owing to geographical difficulties, are unable to name substitutes to act for them during illness or holidays; and, in view of the fact that those public servants have had no holiday for a number of years, owing to the high fees charged by locum tenens, he will cause arrangements to be made whereby these medical officers may have a free annual rest, such as can be enjoyed by their colleagues in other districts, and all other parish officials. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) The revision of the rules for Poor Law Medical Relief in Scotland will be proceeded with as soon as legislative authority can be obtained, and due consideration will be given to the difficulty experienced by medical officers of remote parishes in procuring substitutes; but without legislation no alteration can be made on the existing rules. The question of holidays for medical officers has received the careful and sympathetic attention of the Local Government Board, as will be seen from their 6th Annual Report, pages xxv.-vi., but they have at present no authority to do more than they have there indicated.

To ask the Secretary for Scotland if his attention has been drawn to the dismissal of the parish doctor by the parish council of Durness, Sutherlandshire, and to the fact that the doctor entered an action in the Court of Session, with the result that he was reinstated in his office and the parish involved in legal expenses amounting to over £200; that protests were lodged with the council against the doctor's dismissal by a majority of the ratepayers; and, if so, will he consider the advisability of taking steps to protect medical officers in crofting counties against such treatment, and to save the ratepayers from being burdened with legal expenses in similar cases in the future; and whether, seeing that this parish council disqualified two elected members of the council who were said to be friendly to the doctor, and replaced them by two others, one of whom was as similarly disqualified as the ejected members, steps will be taken to prevent the recurrence of such action. (Answered by Mr. A. Graham Murray.) I am informed that the Local Government Board for Scotland are aware that the medical officer of Durness was recently dismissed by his parish council, and that he entered an action in the Court of Session, with the result that he was reinstated in his office, and expenses adjudged against the parish council. But the medical officer is the servant of the parish council and not of the Board, and legislation would be required to make him removeable from office only by the Board. As regards the latter part of the Question, I have no reason to anticipate the recurrence of such action on the part of a parish council, and am not prepared to take any steps in the matter.

To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state when the establishment of a Royal Naval Reserve station at Ullapool is likely to be proceeded with. (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) The necessary sites have been secured, and contract particulars for the erection of the buildings are in hand.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of R. S. Clarke and others, tried at last assizes at Guildford on the 19th instant, and to the finding of the jury that they were of opinion that the Horton Lunatic Asylum had been grossly mismanaged, and that the conduct of the persons responsible for the administration of the asylum should be at once seriously inquired into; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas.) My right hon. friend has asked me to answer this Question. I am informed by the Lunacy Commissioners that the matter is receiving careful consideration, and that they are awaiting the report of a sub-committee appointed by the Asylums Committee of the London County Council to inquire into the question.

To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the high death rate amongst infants in populous centres, and its connection with improper feeding, he will direct the attention of the Poor Law authorities to the importance of supplying out-relief children, who are hand fed, with pure milk and propel feeding bottles when the parents are unable to provide them. (Answered by Mr. Walter Long.) In the Answer which I gave to the Question put to me by the hon. Member on 16th June† I promised to bring under the notice of the inspectors his suggestion with regard to an allowance of milk in certain cases of out-door relief. This I have done. I will also draw their attention to the further suggestion now made by the hon. Member.

:To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at an inquest recently held in Liverpool upon a man who had died from anthrax, it came out in the evidence that the deceased was shaved by a barber in Liverpool shortly before his death who, at deceased's request, cut open the swelling upon the deceased's face, thus causing a serious risk of anthrax being further spread; and, if so, will he take steps to prevent a recurrence of such action. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers-Douglas). I am informed that the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. The matter is entirely outside the scope of the Factory Act, and I have no power to take any action; but I may say that I am advised that the risk of anthrax being spread in this way would be small.

:To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will make any representations to the Governor-General of Crete, with the view to the extension of clemency to Dr. Jaunaris, who is still in confinement in Crete. (Answered by Earl Percy.) The case is not one in which His Majesty's Government can properly interfere.

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the respective total production, during the years 1901, 1902, and 1903, of the distilleries of England,

† See (4) Debates, cxxxvi, 264

Scotland, and Ireland, classifying the distilleries of each country under the headings of distilleries using pot stills only; distilleries using patent stills only; and distilleries using both pot and patent stills. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain). Table showing the total production of

To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the early closing of banks, insurance companies, and places of business generally on Saturdays or on some one other weekday has now become practically universal, he will arrange that the State shall extend the privilege now enjoyed by many Civil servants to all, as there are still a number of departments where the staff only leave early on every alternate Saturday; and whether, in view of the inequalities arising from the present system of decision by heads of departments, the Treasury will issue instructions to all departments to establish the uniform practice of closing early one day in each week, subject to the exigencies of the public services in cases of urgency. (Answered by Mr. Austen Chamberlain.) The rule of the service, as laid down in the Orders in Council of 21st March, 1890, and 15th August, 1890, is that clerks giving a daily attendance of seven hours may be allowed a half-holiday on alternate Saturdays, provided the state of public business permits. I am not prepared to sanction any alteration of this rule in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the teacher's salary in school roll No. 1424, district 24, circuit 9A, was considerably reduced owing to a decrease of a unit in the average attendance, due to causes over which the teacher had no control, as certified by the medical officer of the district; and, in view of the fact that the requisite average has since been maintained, whether the teacher's claim to full salary will be reconsidered. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The teacher was paid at the rate of £72 per annum to 31st December, 1903, but as the average attendance of pupils at the school for the year ended on that date fell below twenty his salary was reduced to £56 per annum from 1st January, 1904, in accordance with the provisions of Rules 200 II. (i) and 212 (b) of the Code. The required average of twenty has been maintained for the quarters ended 31st March and 30th June, 1904, and should the average for the year ending 31st December, 1904, reach twenty the question of restoring to the teacher his former rate of salary from 1st January, 1904, will be considered.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a public grant of £40,000 was made in 1801 by the Parliament of that time for the construction of a canal in Ireland from Monasterevan to the collieries of Castlecomer, and that this grant was never used for the purpose indicated; and, if so, can this money be now rendered available to provide a connection by railway between these same collieries and the railway system of Ireland. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The hon. Member has communicated to me a statement from which it appears that the directors of inland navigation proposed to make a grant-in-aid, to the amount mentioned, towards the cost of construction of a canal between Monasterevan and Castlecomer, the payment to be conditional upon the execution of the work. The money was otherwise expended, however, and consequently is not available for the purpose referred to.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland how much money is due on foot of mortgages on the estates of the honourable the Irish Society in Ireland other than to the Commissioners of Public Works, the names of the corporations or individuals by whom the mortgages are held, the amount thereof respectively, and the rate or rates of interest payable thereunder. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) The Government has no information in respect of these matters.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that public-houses in Pallynahinch continually sell drink on Sundays and other times contrary to the licensing laws, he will direct the attention of the police authorities to this illegality, with a view of putting a stop to the practice. (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) There is no such general practice at Ballynahinch so far as the police are aware. The police are constantly on the alert to detect breaches of the licensing laws, and they will continue to give the matter their close attention.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under the new scheme of Army Reorganisation, the depot of all Ross-shire regiments will be established at Dingwall, the county town. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The new scheme of Army Reorganisation is still under the consideration of the Army Council, and it is at present impossible to give any details regarding it.

To ask the Secretary of State for War whether, under the Army Council Bill, should it become an Act, Orders in Council relating to the War Department will in future be based on representations from the Secretary of State for War submitted for the approval of the King in Council, made on the advice of the Privy Council, and issued by the direction of the Secretary of State for War; and, if not, what form is in future to be adopted with regard to War Department Orders in Council. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The reply is in the affirmative. The procedure will be as hitherto.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether officers in the Colonial service, who served in British New Guinea before the transfer of that territory to the Australian Government, are entitled to have their service there taken into consideration in computing. the amount of their pensions on retirement; and, if not, whether he will state for what reason such service is excluded from consideration. (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) All officers serving in British New Guinea, previous to tho transfer of its administration to the Australian Government, were appointed on the distinct understanding that their appointments were provisional, and liable to be terminated at any time without notice or compensation. They are therefore not entitled to any pension in respect of such service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the ultimate total of the automatic increase in the Army Astimates before any actual reduction of Estimates can begin.

I am afraid it is impossible for me to give with any degree of certainty figures in regard to what the Army Estimates will be several years hence. The automatic increase or decrease must depend largely upon factors which cannot be calculated at the present time.

But cannot the right hon. Gentleman give the amount of the ultimate increase?

I am afraid not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when it is proposed to commence recruiting for the general-service and home-service Armies.

As I informed the hon. Member a few days ago in reply to a similar Question, I cannot yet give the date at which recruiting for general-service and home-service, respectively, will be commenced.

† See (4) Debates, cxxxviii. 1332.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will ascertain whit parts of his Army Scheme Earl Roberts considers detrimental to the interests of the Army and will he convey Earl Roberts' opinions to the House.

I am glad to say that Lord Roberts has been so good as to make me fully aware of his views, which are of great assistance to me. I have no authority to communicate his views to the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what agreement the Chinese Government is providing the depots for the reception of indentured labourers; can he say who is paying for the labour and material which is being used in their erection; and when Article III. of the Convention, which provides that the British Government shall erect and fit up these depots at its own expense, was varied or abrogated.

There is no agreement other them the Convention. The position and obligations of the Chinese Government are there defined. See especially Articles 1 and 3. The depots are being erected at the expense of the Transvaal Government. As I explained to the hon. Member on 1st May, the British Government is responsible to the Chinese Government under the Convention on behalf of any Colonial Government which may desire to import indentured Chinese labourers, but the charges will be borne in each case by the Colonial Government.

Last Thursday the right hon. Gentleman told me the Chinese Government were erecting these buildings, and now—

Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss previous Answers.

I want to know who is paying for the labour and material.

† See (4) Debates, cxxxv., 434.

The Transvaal Government are in the first instance liable.

Who is paying out the money?

I presume the Transvaal Government are. I have not traced the cheques, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire? If the British Government are paying out the money, clearly there should be Parliamentary authority.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any official information showing that a vigilance committee of whites has been elected at Johannesburg and has already lynched a native in that city; whether, in the event of his having no information upon the subject, he will make inquiry as to the truth of the alleged facts, and will insist that steps shall be taken by the Government of the colony to prevent lawless interference with the course of justice.

Lord Milner informs me that the report of lynching is absolutely unfounded, and is due to the discovery of the body of a native who was clearly proved at the inquest to have committed suicide. He is satisfied that the idea of the existence of a secret organisation to punish natives assaulting white people is pure imagination.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made in this House on 22nd June, 30th July, and 11th August, 1903, by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, with regard to the proposed deportation to South Africa of the small white Colony in the Island of Tristan d'Acunha; and whether any further steps, and if so what steps, have been taken in the matter.

It was arranged with the Cape Government that they should send a Commissioner to the island to make an offer on their behalf to the Islanders for their removal to the Cape Colony. This gentleman proceeded in the "Odin" and interviewed the Islanders in January last, but they decided to remain.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he has made any inquiries as to the authenticity of the statements of Mr. Arnold Forster with reference to the manner in which recruiting labour is carried on in China for the Transvaal.

I have sent a copy of the Reverend Arnold Forster's statement to Lord Milner asking for his observations upon it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will state his computation of Tibetan killed and wounded to the present date.

Estimates of the losses inflicted on the Tibetans have only been received in respect of five actions, and for these the figures are 1,065 killed and wounded and 270 prisoners. In other engagements it has presumably been impossible to determine the enemy's losses.

Can the right hon. Gentleman specify the killed and wounded?

I am afraid I cannot, I can only give the figures as they reached us.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the progress of the negotiations with the French Government for the settlement of the claims of the British merchants in the French Congo, and with respect to the interpretation of the free-trade clauses of the Berlin Act.

I can make no statement at the present stage of the negotiations.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have taken any steps, either alone or in conjunction with other neutral Powers, to call the attention of the Russian and Japanese Governments to the extension of articles which have been proclaimed by them respectively to be contraband of war; and whether they have protested, or propose to protest, against the assumption by those Governments that it is for belligerent Powers to declare what articles are or are not contraband of war, without reference to the rights of neutrals.

His Majesty's Government have instructed His Majesty's Ambassador to lodge a protest with the Russian Government against the inclusion of foodstuffs in the list of articles declared by them to be contraband of war. With regard to the latter portion of the Question, His Majesty's Government do not consider that the present moment is opportune for making a public statement of policy.

asked whether the protest applied to cotton, which was also declared to be contraband.

The protest applies to the inclusion of food. The hon. Member is aware that it was explained that the inclusion of cotton only referred to cotton destined for the manufacture of explosives.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to make any protest against the absence of any provision in the Transvaal Estimates for the year ending 30th June, 1905, for the first instalment of the war contribution.

No. Sir.

I beg to ask the Postmaster-General, can he state the total amounts respectively of Post Office Savings Bank deposits and withdrawals in the year ending 31st December, 1903, and the six months, ending 30th June, 1904, the total balance due to depositors (including interest) on 31st December, 1903, and 30th June, 1904, respectively; can he explain how it occurred that, on the 31st of December, 1903, the assets, valued at the market price of the day, held by the Government on behalf of the Post Office Savings Banks were insufficient to meet the total amount of deposits by the sum of £11,033,060 12s. 1d.; and can he explain why his Report for the year ending 31st March, 1904, is not yet issued.

Perhaps, as the Answer is a long one, my hon. friend will allow me to circulate it with the Votes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if he proposes to take action on the Report of the Departmental Committee on Physical Degeneration, with reference to the recommendation that in all towns above a certain size the local authority should establish and maintain an accurate register of owners, and that this practice was one of the first desiderata towards dealing with slum property.

The Report of the Departmental Committee on Physical Deterioration has only been issued within the last few days, and the evidence taken by the Committee has not yet been published. I have not at present been able to consider the recommendations made by the Committee, though of course I shall do so. I may, however, say that the particular suggestion to which the hon. Member refers is not a new one, and there would be considerable difficulty in giving effect to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his atttention has been called to a recent Old Bailey case of counterfeit coining, in which the prisoner admitted that he had learnt how to make counterfeit coin from a full description of it in a daily newspaper by a criminal; and whether, in view of the opinion expressed by the jury and by the Common Sergeant condemning the action of such newspaper, he will state whether he can take any steps to prevent such facilitation of crime in future.

Yes, Sir; and I have consulted the Common Sergeant in the matter. I fully agree with his opinion as to the mischievous tendency of the article in question, and that the newspaper which published it is deserving of the gravest censure. I cannot, however, say more than that the whole question of incitement to crime by means of such articles is receiving the attention of my Department and of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state on what date the Departmental Committee for the consideration of Amendments to the Workmen's Compensation for Accidents Acts was appointed; how many sittings it has held; whether its Report has yet been presented; and whether he still proposes to introduce a Bill on this subject this session.

The Committee was appointed on the 16th November, 1903. It has held thirty-seven meetings, all of which, except four, were full day meetings. It has examined seventy-six witnesses. The work of the Committee has been exceedingly laborious, and in addition to the evidence taken at the meetings the Committee has obtained a large amount of information in writing from County Court Judges, Employers' and Workmen's Associations and Insurance Companies. I understand that the Report has been signed to-day, and I hope to lay it on the Table without delay; but a I stated the other day, I cannot hope to introduce a Bill on the subject this session. When hon. Members see the Report they will, I think, recognise what an extremely heavy task the consideration of any such legislation necessarily is.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state on what date did the Reverend Mr. Gleeson, P.P., of Roundstone, complain verbally to the district inspector and head constable regarding the conduct of Sergeant Ryan and Constable Laidley; on what date did he make his written complaint to Sir Antony Mac Donnell; whether he can state the nature of the charges made in both cases; were the policemen supplied with copies of these complaints; were there any unfavourable marks entered against Sergeant Ryan and Constable Laidley, transferred as a result of these charges.

No verbal complaint was made to the district inspector or head constable. On the 17th August, 1903, the Rev. Mr. Gleeson wrote to the Under-Secretary complaining of the conduct of Sergeant Ryan and Constable Laidley n respect of a display of flags from licensed premises at Roundstone, viz.: that the sergeant and constable had notified the proprietors of licensed houses that it was against the law to have their houses decorated. On the 18th August, the Under-Secretary forwarded Father Gleeson's letter to the Inspector-General for report. The Inspector-General sent the letter on to the local police officers. On the 21st August the district inspector reported. that all publicans denied having been spoken to except one (Mr. Tuchy) He added that he did not think the action of the police prudent. On the 23rd August, the county inspector reported that the police had acted very improperly. On the 2nd September the Inspector-General concurred, and recommended that the sergeant should be warned and that Constable Laidley should be transferred in pursuance of a report made against him in respect of another matter by the county inspector on the 15th August, that is two days before the Reverend Mr. Gleeson complained. The complaint and decision were communicated to the men on 17th September. They represented that they had not been previously informed of the nature of the complaint. This was a regrettable omission on the part of the local police officers. The whole matter is an exceed ingly small one, being confined to whether the police acted prudently in discussing with a publican the legality of putting out flags, and whether they acted properly in doing so without reporting the matter and asking for instructions. No unfavourable records were entered against the men. Sergeant Ryan was not transferred. Constable Laidley was moved to another district, but, as I have said, not in connection with this incident.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the old pier at Kinvara Harbour recently gave way, precipitating a horse and cart and several people into the water below; whether he is aware that the harbour is becoming more dangerous; and, if so, whether, in view of the effect of the condition of the entrance to the basin and the present state of the pier upon the trade of the district and the potato and barley market, and in view of the promises given by the Galway County Council, the Congested Districts Board, and the Agricultural Board, to assist in putting the pier and harbour into a fit state for trading, he will take steps to have the necessary improvements carried out.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the similar Question addressed to me on Monday last by the hon. Member for Limerick.†

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the close season for salmon fishing begins on 5th August for the No.17 (1) (Drogheda) district, whilst that for No. 17 (2) (Dundalk) does not begin until October; and whether, seeing that these districts extend respectively south and north of the mouth of the Boyne, and that complaints have been repeatedly made as to the destruction of spawning fish approaching the Boyne along the 17 (2) district, and the consequent reduction of spring fish in the river, the Department of Agriculture has powers to unite these two districts and fix on the same date for the commencement of the close season for bath; and, if not, what steps, if any, are to be taken to find if the complaints are valid, and, if so, to remove the cause.

The close season for salmon netting in tidal waters commences in the Drogheda district on the 5th August, in that part of the Dundalk district which adjoins the Drogheda district, on the 20th August, and in other parts of the Dundalk district on 16th September and 1st October respectively. In the present state of the law, the Department is unable to alter existing close seasons. The amalgamation of the districts, even if carried out, would not have the effect of assimilating the close seasons in the two districts. In reply to a further Question by the hon. Member, Mr. WYNDHAM said he could not undertake to initiate legislation in the question this session.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord-Lieutenant has received a petition praying for the construction of a line of railway in the district of Tireragh, county Sligo, between Collooney and Ballina, signed by merchants, landowners, and

† See (4) Debates, cxxxviii., 1056.

representatives of public bodies in Sligo and Mayo; and, if so, whether, seeing that the ratepayers of Tireragh have offered to give a guarantee, and that nothing has been hitherto done by the Government to assist in developing this district, he can hold out any hope that effect will be given to the prayer of the petitioners.

The petition has been received. There are no public funds available out of which to contribute towards the cost of construction of the proposed line of railway.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that John Maguire, of Adoon, Gorvagh, Mohill, county Leitrim, has applied to the Estates Commissioners for reinstatement in the farm from which he was evicted, or in the alternative for a new farm, and has received no reply from the Commissioners; and if he will state what steps he proposes to take to redeem the promises which he held out for the restoration of such people when promoting the Land Bill of last year.

The Commissioners have informed this evicted tenant that his application was under consideration, and that they would again communicate with him as soon as they were in a position to take action in his case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Nicholson Estate, situate at Castlebaldwin, near Riverstown, county Sligo, and at present administered by the Land Judge's Court, contains a large grazing farm surrounded by uneconomic holdings; and whether, in the event of the sale of this estate to the tenants taking place, he will see that this ranche be utilised for the enlargement of the small holdings surrounding it.

There is some difficulty in identifying this estate from the information given in the Question. I have asked the hon. Member to supply me with further details.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Cork port sanitary authority have requested the Local Government Board to make regulations with reference to smallpox so as to enable them to make by-laws similar to those made by the Barry and Cadoxton Local Board; that the Local Government Board have declined to make such regulations on the ground that there is no section in the Irish Public Health Acts corresponding to Section 125 of the English Public Health Act, 1875, under which these regulations are made; and whether, seeing that the Local Government Board have made regulations of a similar nature with reference to cholera, yellow fever, and plague, he will explain why regulations cannot be made with reference to smallpox.

The hon. Member is under some misapprehension. The General Regulations made by the Local Government Beard in Ireland under Sections 148 and 149 of the Irish Public Health Act, 1878, which deal with cholera, yellow fever, or plague are identical with those made by the Local Government Board in England under the corresponding sections of the English Public Health Act of 1875, namely: Sections 130 and 134. But the local authority in England has, under the 125th Section of the English Act, power itself to make regulations, to be approved by the Local Government Board, dealing with persons suffering from infectious and dangerous disorders brought within their district by any ship or boat. It is under this latter section that regulations were made by the Barry and Cadoxton Board referred to in the Question. There is not any section in the Irish Public Health Act corresponding with the 125th Section of the English Act, conferring this power on the local authority.

But what difficulty can there be in giving them the same power?

It would need an Act of Parliament.

Is it not possible to confer the powers on the Cork authority under a Provisional Order which is now before Parliament?

I believe not, but I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the proposal of the rural district council of Longford to obtain an additional loan of £100 for the completion of the new burial ground at Ardagh will be sanctioned; and, if so, when.

The application for the loan was received only ten days ago. The decision of the Local Government Board will be communicated to the council as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state whether the Estates Commissioners have yet come to a decision on the subject of the issue of a request for the sale of the Dopping Estate in North Longford.

No request to the Land Judge has yet been issued by the Commissioners in respect of this estate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the delay in regard to the hearing of the land appeal case of Mr. T. Mahony, 35, Wellington Road, Cork, which was entered in the chief Land Commission Court in April, 1902, and has not yet been heard; whether he is aware that the Commissioners sat in Cork in June, 1903, only to hear postponed cases; that they sat again in May of this year, and did not hear any of the cases listed from Cork division; and whether he can say when Mr. Mahony's case is likely to be heard.

I am informed that this case was on the list for hearing in May, but that it could not be dealt with within the time at the disposal of the Commissioners. It accordingly stands over to the next Cork Sitting on the understanding that it will be placed first in the appeal list for hearing at Cork.

When is that likely?

I do not know.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state when the decision of the Local Government Board will be given on the appeal of the Rathmines Commissioners from the order of the Dublin County Council; and if he can state the cause of the delay.

It is impossible to state, even approximately, when the Board will arrive at a decision in the case. I am informed that important questions of law have arisen in connection with it, and that upon these the Board is taking the opinion of counsel.

was understood to ask if the right hon. gentleman would take steps to expedite matters?

I can add nothing to my Answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has considered the action of Mr. James Shanks in signing a licence certificate for a canteen situated in the county Wicklow, Mr. Shanks not being a magistrate for that county, and the local magistrates having refused to grant the licence on the ground that the canteen had been conducted in a disorderly manner; and whether he can now state what decision the Lord Chancellor has come to in regard to Mr. Shanks' action.

Mr. Shanks has informed the Lord Chancellor that at the time he signed the order he was not. aware that an application had been made to, and refused by, the justices at petty sessions. He was, moreover, under the impression that the camp at Kilbride was in the county of Dublin and within his jurisdiction. The Lord Chancellor has accepted Mr. Shanks' explanation and does not propose to take any further action in the matter.

asked if it were fitting that a man who professed so much ignorance of his duties should remain on the bench.

did not reply.

I shall let the right hon. Gentleman know more of this scandalous case on the Vote for his salary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the total amount of money expended in the drainage of the Rum and Black River drainage district; for how much of this ratepayers in county Longford are responsible; and what is the amount in the £ levied on these ratepayers this year?

I have no information as to the amount expended by the drainage board, which is a private body, in this particular district. Sums amounting to over £37,000 have been advanced by the Commissioners of Public Works to the drainage board for expenditure on new works, and the final instalment of repayment falls due on the 1st November, 1905. The persons liable to pay are not the ratepayers of county Longford, but the owners or occupiers of improved land, and they pay not by a rate in the pound, but in proportions assessed on their share in the improvements.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the deduction made from the salary of Mr. Evans, National Library of Ireland, was properly made, in view of the fact that no deductions were ever made from the pay of the other eleven members of the permanent staff of attendants in the National Library of Ireland for the purpose of entitling them to pension, whose appointments were made on exactly the same terms; and whether, in view of this fact, the money should be refunded to Mr. Evans.

I have already informed the hon. and learned Member that the deduction was properly made and cannot be refunded. Mr. Evans' original appointment differed from those of the other eleven members of the permanent staff, as it was prior to 1891 when a title to pension was first granted to the staff. By submitting to the deduction he was enabled to count the whole of his previous service from the age of sixteen, so far as it was remunerated from public funds.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that certain temporary assistants in Government offices in Ireland working seven hours per day receive 30s. per week, and those in other offices receive 35s. per week; and that, when certain of the former were placed on the permanent staff as assistant clerks, a deduction of 10 per cent. per annum was made from their salaries, whilst in the case of the latter a deduction to £90 per annum only was made; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to place the clerks thus added to the permanent service on an equal footing with each other.

If the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars of the cases to which he refers I will inquire into the circumstances and inform him as to the result.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what were the conditions attaching to the grant in aid of Irish art purposes, out of which the cost of the addition to the National Gallery has been defrayed; and whether all those conditions have been fulfilled.

The Countess of Milltown offered a collection of pictures, etc., to the National Gallery of Ireland in 1898 on condition that provision should be made for their separate exhibition. The gift was accepted and the necessary addition was made to the building at the cost of the Government. The hon. Member will see that this expenditure was in compliance with a condition, and not subject to a condition as he seems to suppose.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Disorders in the Church will issue its Report.

I understand there is no prospect of this Report being issued in the course of the present year.

Seeing the great interest that is taken in the inquiry by a great number of people, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to get an interim Report?

I am quite ready to consult with my right hon. friend the Chairman of the Commission. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the work is extremely important, and the evidence given extremely valuable, but whether anything would be gained by an interim Report I am not prepared to say.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to proceed with the Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill this session.

Unless this Bill should prove quite uncontroversial, I am afraid it has little chance of passing this session.

This is practically a non-controversial Bill. It em- bodies principles which are working well in Scotland, and which are very much needed in England.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member. The sooner England adopts that and many other Scottish Acts the better for England. But that does not get over the difficulty. Even though England may be panting to take the reform which we have so long adopted in Scotland; there may be a few recalcitrant English Members who may wish to discuss it at length; and I am afraid that in that case lunacy must wait for another session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, can he state whether any decision has been arrived at by His Majesty's Government with reference to the recommendation of the Committee on National Expenditure, that an Estimates Committee should be appointed at the commencement of each session for examination and report on one class of Estimates annually.

No, sir, no final decision has been arrived at. I gave my hon. friend the views of the Government some time ago in answer to a Question—views that had been come to after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, though, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is in no sense responsible for anything I said. I have nothing to add to that Answer.

Is there any chance that the First Lord of the Treasury will find a day before the end of the session for the discussion of the Report on National Expenditure.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to point out, as I have been referred to as recalcitrant, that at the time I was far from being recalcitrant, and rather urged upon the right hon. Gentleman that a day ought to be given for the discussion.

I think it would be an interesting and profitable employment of Parliamentary time to discuss both the Report on National Expenditure and the Reports of the Public Accounts Committee; but I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will agree with me that neither he nor I greatly desire to stay for that discussion.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, can he now state what arrangements have been made for the allocation of a day during this session for the reception and discussion by the House of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.

I do not think it possible to find an opportunity this session for the discussion of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee.

Could not one of the three extra days to be allotted to Supply be devoted to it?

Oh, yes, if the House generally agree to give up to the subject one of the three extra allotted days, it might be clone, but I do not think such general agreement is likely.

Why not take Friday next?

I am afraid we have business more important for that day.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that only a half day has been spent in the discussion of Scottish Estimates, he can see his way to set apart a day before the end of the session for their further consideration.

I believe that the day devoted or intended to he devoted to Scottish Estimates was interrupted by one of the Motions for adjournment on the subject of labour in the Transvaal, and therefore was not fully available. I cannot promise a whole day for the continuation of the discussion, but I trust some further opportunity may be afforded before Supply closes.

I rise for the purpose of moving: "That this House regrets that certain of His Majesty's Ministers have accepted official positions in a political organisation which has formally declared its adhesion to a policy of preferential duties involving the taxation of food." Sir, in seeking to commend this Motion to the House, it will not be necessary for me to concern myself with the merits or demerits of the two fiscal policies between which the Government has fluctuated—one, the policy, so-called, of Sheffield, which they support, but, so far as we can observe, with no great degree of enthusiasm or real sympathy; and the policy of Birmingham, with which they do sympathise, although they protest that as a body they cannot support it. Which is the more powerful immediate political factor, their sympathy or their support, is an interesting question which cannot now engage our attention. But what we wish to do at present is to ascertain from the Prime Minister how he reconciles with his Ministerial statements regarding the policy which is avowed the action of certain colleagues of his, members of the Government, in giving their open support to the policy and propaganda which are publicly disavowed and disclaimed. The Prime Minister will not deny that the adherence thus given to the cause of the right hon. Member for Birmingham is a fit subject for us to interrogate him upon. There is surely something left, there is surely still some little force ill the recognised doctrine of collective Ministerial responsibility. It is true the doctrine has been considerably shaken of recent years. Taking one matter which is perhaps more a matter of taste than a rule of order, everyone has observed the growing tendency on the part of Ministers to supersede the personal pronoun plural by the personal pronoun singular. In all the statements that they make as to policy and administration there is much more of the "I" than the "we." It is a small matter, as I said, but it is indicative and significant all the same, and it shows that the same process is going on all over. The Government is nothing, if not an independent Government. It is trying, and has tried for years, to be, so far as it may, independent of the House of Commons. It boasts and acts, or fails to act in consequence of its boast, that it is independent of the electorate. And now, apparently, they are not satisfied without being independent of each other. These are all parts of the Same destructive and unconstitutional process. But the theory, at all events, of collective authority and responsibility remains, and therefore my Motion is directed not only against the individual members of the Government who have hoisted protectionist colours, but against the Government itself, which has sanctioned, or at all events acquiesced in, such a proceeding. How is the action of Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selborne and the Secretary to the Treasury held to be compatible with the official position and declarations of the Government? Of course we are here also led to consider the policy of the Government itself, as to which we are more than ever in perplexity after the demonstrations that have been made at the Empire Theatre and the Albert Hall. We want a clear statement which may enable the House and the country to understand the nature of the fiscal principles which have obtained the mastery of the mind of the Government, the principles upon which their convictions have, we presume, by this time been formed and settled, the principles which in a concrete shape they intend to lay before the electorate at the general election. And, even more, we desire to know whether the Government still regards its programme as distinct from and incompatible with the other programme which is actively and conspicuously supported by certain of its members, and which has the unabated sympathy of the Prime Minister himself. In that case it ought to be unnecessary, I should think it must be unnecessary, to point out that their assurance, if given in the affirmative, that there is still a clear distinction between the two policies, will have little weight unless the Prime Minister can tell us he has invited the resignation of their offices by those of his colleagues who differ from him on this vital point. The answer, in short, which we shall expect is one which will accord with the recent proceedings, as well as with the previous verbal pledges given by the Government. Now let us examine the nature of the proceedings that have taken place. The Foreign Secretary and the First Lord of the Admiralty have accepted the position of high officials under the right lion. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in an association whose delegated members passed with acclamation a resolution in favour of preferential duties—that is, the taxation of food and raw material. [Cries of "No, no!"] I do not press the raw material point, because of controversy with the right hon. Gentleman; but, of course, we all know that there are countries and colonies with which you cannot have preferential treatment unless you tax raw material. I do not wish to go into the merits of this question at all. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Why?"] Because it is out of order to begin with. Lord Lansdowne says—"Why should they not do this? Why should they not accept these positions? Why should they not indicate their sympathy with something beyond the Government programme?" He talks of the new doctrine that the leaders of a Party have no business to take any part in the proceedings of their followers, if these proceedings carry them beyond the officially accepted programme of the Government, and he finds an example in the National Union of Conservative Associations, which repeatedly passed year after year protectionist resolutions, the meetings of which, notwithstanding, Lord Salisbury used to attend, and no one, he points out, was a penny the worse. Sir, there really is no analogy between the two cases. No one paid any attention to resolutions passed at the National Union of Conservative Associations. They were very interesting as an indication of the movements and feeling within the Party to those who cared to watch them, but they had no effect on the political situation at the time. Certainly Lord Salisbury never expressed his "unabated" sympathy with the resolutions, and with the cause which was in those days associated mostly with the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Sheffield. There was a Sheffield policy in those days as well as now, but it was a policy of a very different sort. Its ultimate end was probably the same; its ultimate consequences certainly were the same, and its ultimate intention may have been. Of that we cannot speak with certainty, but its method and its manner were entirely different. It was unambiguous, intelligible, straightforward. When I compare the Sheffield policy of the past and the Sheffield policy of the present, am reminded of a passage in which Dr. Arnold describes his feelings towards members of the Church of Rome on the one hand, and towards members of the Church of England on the other hand, who, in his view, were engaged in aping and imitating the doctrines and the practices of that Church. He says—

"One is a Frenchman in his own uniform within his own principia; the other is a Frenchman disguised in a red coat and holding a post within our concilia, for the purpose of betraying."

And lie goes on to say—

"I honour the first and would hang the second."

Now, as far as Lord Salisbury is concerned, and as far as his influence was exerted, it was directed to damping down the protectionist tendencies among his followers and dissociating his Party from it. I am aware that is not the universal view. There was a shrewd observer who had his eye upon it in those somewhat distant years in 1885, and he said—

"I will say that Lord Salisbury does intend, he and his friends, to put a duty on corn, although he does not think it convenient at the present moment to say so, and although he allows some members of his Government to argue in favour of it in one place, he enjoins on the other members of the Government the duty of repudiating everything about it."

It is almost prophetic, the personages and the circumstances being somewhat changed. That was the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and he drew this final moral lesson from the contemplation of Lord Salisbury at these meetings of the Conservative Union—

"Remember this is rot a question upon which the Government can be allowed to have two voices."

That is the right hon. Gentleman's view of Lord Salisbury, but I am bound to say that, although I never had such full opportunities of knowing Lord Salisbury as he had, this is not my view either of his conduct at that time or of his general character. I believe that Lord Salisbury certainly never endorsed any such resolution, and I very much doubt whether he ever knew of its existence. Contrast this with the circumstances in which the Prime Minister's colleagues, with his apparent sanction, have become associated with this organisation. The circumstances are fresh in our memory. The Liberal Unionist Association, of which the Duke of Devonshire was president, suffered shipwreck on a question which had nothing whatever to do with Liberal Unionism. It split on the rock of protection, and when the right hon. Member for West Birmingham came forward and reconstituted the organisation he never disguised his intention—I will say that this is very much in the right hon. Gentleman's favour, and that he is not a man who deals in disguises—to identify it with the cause he has at heart. The Ministers knew perfectly well what they were doing, and what significance would attach to their action when they accepted positions as office-bearers directly this violent disruption had taken place. They must have known what conclusions would be drawn throughout the country. They must have known that the Prime Minister knew it would be inferred in the country that the cause of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was winning with the Ministry, that the Birmingham propaganda and the Birmingham theory, that the Empire can only be maintained by preferential duties and that British trade depends on protection, was no longer ruled out of the official programme. The inference is not merely not unnatural; it is the logical and proper deduction based on the belief in the prevalence of the doctrine of Cabinet authority and responsibility. The general purpose, design, and intention of the new organisation is notorious. We might rest there. But I have more to advance. What was the resolution passed at the council meeting immediately before or simultaneously with the announcement that those members of the Government had joined? It was not the original resolution on the agenda paper; it was cut down and tampered with to meet the case of those new office-bearers. The excision of the President's name from the resolution appears to have removed whatever apprehension may have been originally felt. Here it is—

"That this council, believing that the time has come for a complete reform of our fiscal system, approves of the demands made by the Prime Minister for increased powers to dell with hostile tariffs and the practice of dumping "—[that is the orthodox policy of Sheffield]—" and further expresses its earnest hope that the ties of sympathy which already unite the British Empire may be strengthened by a commercial union with the Colonies based on preferential arrangements between them and the mother country."

There you have it, the fusion of the two policies—the official policy and what was supposed, down to the other day, to be the non-official, or quasi-official, policy of preference and food taxes. I say it was supposed, because after the unequivocal adhesion which the acceptance of office in the council of the right hon. Member for Birmingham involves, and after the message, ostentatiously public and openly conveyed, of the Prime Minister's "unabated" sympathy, how are we to know it remains the official policy any longer? Lord Lansdowne, indeed, disclaims identity, sees no modification of the Sheffield policy, no irreconcilable antagonisms between retaliation and preferences, points out that if you carry the practice of retaliation yon will destroy all opportunity of introducing preference. He disavows any intention on the part of the Government to put the issue of food taxes before the country. Of that I say, Que diable allait-il faire dans cette galère? If these are the principles, what is he doing as a member of this new council? Why did he become a vice-president under the right hon. Gentleman's presidency? These Ministers have not divested themselves of their Ministerial capacity by merely donning the uniform of the Tariff Reform League, and they cannot becomeanti-food and orthodox Sheffielders by merely taking it off again. Lord Lansdowne's arguments imply that this persuading to the accepted policy is fatal to the grander policy which, as vice-president of this preferential association, he hopes and trusts will be accepted by the nation. Neither the Prime Minister nor the right hon. Member for West Birmingham are troubled with these misgivings, and I think it would be more becoming when the master craftsmen have agreed that the pieces dovetail, if a mere journeyman artificer like Lord Lansdowne had submitted his judgment in this matter to the higher authority, We have to ask the Prime Minister to explain to us to-day—recalling and bearing in mind all the assurances that he and his colleagues have given—how it is that he has not asked his colleagues to take their choice between the offices they hold under his control and the offices they have accepted in the Cabinet of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. One point we must always bear in mind is this—that this is not a matter which admits of long delay. It is an urgent and vital matter, The country is perplexed and disquieted by the enigmas of the Prime Minister's statesmanship. Let it be borne in mind that it is not a mere speculative, sentimental, academic, or partial question. It is universal; it is instant; it is intensely actual; and it is confusing and hampering the trade of the country. The men who carry on the commerce and the great industries in this country are entitled to some consideration at the hands of those who have proposed to save them from the horrors of free trade. They are entitled to know on which shore it is proposed to land them when they have escaped from drowning, and what will be the means employed for their resuscitation—whether the humble means of the Prime Minister or the more heroic processes of the right hon. Member for Birmingham. But the trade of the country cannot wait for whatever may follow upon the next election, or the next election but one, or the next election but two. Contracts are being entered into. Capital is being invested and business must be carried on. It cannot suspend its operations until the dialectical complications of the situation, so fascinating to certain minds have been made intelligible to the mass of the people. While politicians scheme and dialecticians refine, trade suffers. But has the House observed another aspect of the case? The Prime Minister has proffered his sympathy, and certain of his colleagues have given more than their sympathy, their active co-operation. In what spirit has it been accepted? Does the president of the reconstituted Liberal Unionist Association take it as a contribution to his fund of ideals and aspirations, or does he seek something much more tangible? He acknowledges its receipt, not in the spirit of philosophic detachment, but as the president of this fighting association. He says—

"We, the Liberal Unionists of the country, appeal to our Government,"

and the word suggests a proprietorship which I daresay was not immediately intended—

"We do not dictate to them. We have no such presumption. We appeal to our Government, and we promise them our support if they will march in front of us to victory."

But when is the march to begin? Is it to begin at the next election, or at an election further on? And where are they to be taken to when the time comes? Evidently one thing is certain—they must go. There is an old saying—and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not object to the comparison, which at least does full justice to his power—"Needs must when the devil drives." A few days later at Stafford House the right hon. Gentleman spoke again as president of the Tariff Reform League.

I ant not president.

Well, as one having something to do with the league. The league on that occasion was said to be engaged in perfecting the work of Mr. Cobden by bringing the Anti-Corn Law League up to date. Said the right hon. Gentleman—

"We are more fortunate than Mr. Cobden. We have always enjoyed the sympathy of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. I wish it had been a little more than sympathy; but everything comes to him who stands and waits."

The right hon. Gentleman has his own ideas of standing and waiting. To the outer view of a plain person like me it seems that there is very little standing in it and still less waiting. It makes us wonder what the measure of the right hon. Gentleman's activities will be when something more than sympathy arrives from the Government, and he begins to get into motion. The right hon. Gentleman improved this placid interval for standing and waiting. The other day a dinner was given to him by his Parliamentary supporters. [MINISTERIAL cheers.] The Gentlemen who were present have such agreeable recollections of it that they cannot withhold a cheer. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire was in the chair, and he did a rather unusual thing—he proceeded to count noses—to count the heads of his guests, and to separate the sheep—that is, those who were at the banquet—from the goats—that is, all the Unionist Members who happened to be dining somewhere else. He found 200 guests present, either in the body or in the spirit, leaving a balance, as he said, of 148. He omitted the Ministers. He was sure of them. There were 148 who, he said, were free-traders or sitters on the fence; and then at the meeting of the Tariff Reform League the right hon. Member for West Birmingham took full advantage of these figures. After dilating on the sympathy of the Prime Minister and his colleagues, the right hon. Gentleman said—

"We have the support of 200 Members of the House of Commons. We have the aid of the most influential portion of the Press. We have the enthusiastic approval of the vast majority of the Liberal Unionist Party."

Why, what more need the right hon. Gentleman stand and wait for? No impartial person can doubt that he at least does not see any great difference between the support of the followers and the sympathy of the leaders. But then what becomes of the defence that the sympathy is only academic, and that office-bearing in the council of the Liberal Unionist Association is non-committal? At the next general election the right hon. Gentleman will set his forces in order to help forward his policy of food taxes and preferential tariffs, boasting of the Prime Minister's support, counting the Prime Minister's colleagues as his colleagues, and he will have his 200 Parliamentary supporters for his army. But, on the other hand, what have we? The Prime Minister dangling before the country his dilettante Sheffield policy, which no one understands, and which no one cares for, and making believe that that is the issue before the country, although, no doubt, he will be ready to send encouraging messages to the Birmingham candidates as he did the other day at Oswestry. Why, Sir, what difference can plain men find between sympathy and support when that day arrives? It will all be the same thing. The truth is that the Government's tenure of office has been, and is being, used for the purpose of sapping and undermining the fiscal system of this country. And the machinations and manœuvres and finesses of the session prove it. On three occasions in this session we have tried to get a guarantee that the leaders of the Party opposite will abstain from committing their Party to protection and preferences. We had, first, the Amendment to the Address of the right hon. Member for Montrose, which talked of the removal of the protectionist duties being a great advantage to the country, and said that their restoration would be a fatal injury. Then we had the Motion of the hon. Member for Aberdeen condemning protection and preferential tariffs and blaming those Ministers who favoured them. Thus we tried blame. Then came my hon. friend the Member for Banffshire, who, thinking that praise might soften the Government, moved a Resolution welcoming the declarations of Ministers in a contrary sense. But what happened? The first was negatived by a point-blank vote against free trade; though there was no doubt the convenient cover of the Address; and any one who was in the least conscience stricken could say that he had voted against an Amendment to the Address and not on the merits of the question. As to the Motion of the hon Member for Aberdeen, Ministers refused to condemn preferences under a protectionist tariff. We had the episode of the Wharton Amendment, which approved of the explicit declarations of His Majesty's Ministers that their policy did not include either preference or taxation of food. But the Wharton Amendment was dropped at the command of the Government and out of deference to the protectionists. What did that mean? It meant that the Government would have been beaten if they had carried their explicit declarations to the length of the division lobby. Then we had my hon. friend the Member for Banffshire welcoming the assurance, and the Government themselves then moving a vote of confidence in themselves, and voting that discussion of the subject was altogether unnecessary. What weight attaches to assurances given in a free-trade sense when Ministers and their supporters follow them by giving votes recorded to all intents and purposes in favour of protection? What authority are we to assign to the declared policy of the Government when the most they do is to declare that it is inexpedient to discuss it? While they have not hesitated to give their votes against any condemnation or repudiation of the Birmingham scheme, they have never yet come forward like men to carry out the Sheffield policy—though it happens to he the very policy which the Prime Minister informed the Duke of Devonshire in a memorable letter the Administration was constructed on purpose to carry out. The conclusion is that a thing so fragile as this Government's Sheffield policy, so fragile that it cannot be avowed or discussed, still less be put into operation, is not seriously put forward as a policy at all, but must be relegated to the category of political shams and fictions. Who could be enthusiastic over a policy of pretence? The Prime Minister himself professes no enthusiasm for his own policy. His sympathies are with the Member for Birmingham. He told us so long ago. He told us that he has only refrained from advocating it because his countrymen, in their dull, stupid way, were not ripe to receive it. He has never suggested that he would not be an unwilling worker in the field when the sheaves are to be gathered in, and the harvest is ripe. I turn from him to his colleagues. One of them, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, accepts the Birmingham policy in all its branches. The Colonial Secretary said at Leamington on 26th January, we should sooner or later certainly come to colonial preferences: that is, if we began by revising our fiscal system on the Sheffield lines. Thirdly, the Irish Secretary on 28th October, insisted "that you must have that method or another method. The thing has got to be done." What is the thing? The thing is the fiscal unity of the Empire. The Home Secretary, on 19th January, says that he feels certain "that it will be possible, by an alteration in the duties imposed to get a solution of this question"—that is, the condition of agriculture—"which would confer benefit upon all classes in this country and which in the aggregate would not raise the cost of living to the citizens of this great country." We all know what that points to. It points straight to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham. That is the Home Secretary's view as an individual. But for a short time he appeared on that Bench as the chosen representative of the Government, and in that capacity he told this House on the eve of a momentous division that the Government were opposed to food taxes and even to those particularly lucrative taxes which are to put money into the pockets of the consumer. The anthology might be extended to any extent. No one is called to account. It is perfectly proper for the men who said these things on platforms to repudiate them on behalf of the Ministry in this House. And if a Minister is opposed to protection and speaks out he is told, as the President of the Board of Trade was told by the Member for Partick, that his speech on behalf of the Government was a mere interim report and that it is not in the power—these are the words—" of any one to say what the issues of the general election will be, and that no declarations now made could hinder the Prime Minister or the Party from going to the country on the larger policy of Imperial consolidation and preference to the Colonies, if and when it seemed to them expedient to do so." So we are told that not only may the pledges and assurances of Ministers be cynically contradictory of each other, but, whatever they are, they are of no binding effect whatever. I say, enough of this pitable spectacle, for pitiable it is. This is playing with the country. It is treating the trade and prosperity of the country as mere counters in the squalid game of political ambition. It is destructive of the constitutional theory of Ministerial responsibility. It is degrading to Parliament. It puts an end to the old frank and candid relations which obtained when Governments avowed their policies and acted up to them. It is chaos and anarchy introduced into our public life. If ever censure was called for it is here; if ever a vote of censure was justified it is now; and I am happy to be the man to move it.

When I came down to the House this afternoon it was not in the anticipation of speaking, but my noble friends Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selborne are not present; they are office-bearers in the Liberal Unionist Association; and I do not wish to separate myself for one instant from them. If I had been asked to be an office-bearer in the Liberal Unionist Association I most certainly would have accepted. [OPPOSITION cries of "It is not too late."] Inasmuch as my noble friends are absent, I desire to say a few sentences in answer to the attack which has just been made upon them. I do not profess at any time to be able to rival the Leader of the Opposition in neat and pointed wit; but I listened for an argument in his speech directed against my noble friends and myself, and I trust that I do not err in respect to him when I say that the argument which he has addressed to the House leaves very little for me to say in reply. He has spoken of the finesse and the subtlety that it requires to maintain the position which His Majesty's Government have maintained through three or four votes of censure this session upon this subject. I confess that I must disown altogether such qualities myself, and that I can see absolutely no reason for their possession to defend actions such as were taken by my noble friends and myself, they in accepting the office and myself in speaking on the occasion of the meeting of the Liberal Unionists. I have always taken this position for myself, and I think my noble friends have taken it also. We have said that we entirely agree with the Prime Minister's policy of retaliation, and in saying that we sympathise with the ideal of colonial preference. I would ask the House, is it seemly, is it fitting and right, that when the Colonies have gone the distance which they have gone—[Cries of "What distance?"] in according to us preferential duties and in actually carrying out the policy which they brought forward by formal resolution in 1902—would it be right to say no; although they, the great self-governing Colonies of the Empire, have come forward and not only approved of this policy but given genuine earnest of their determination to carry it out—this Policy, advocated by a great Minister for Colonial Affairs, who knows the Colonies better than any man in this House, must be ruled out of the programme of the Party for all time, and that not merely at the present moment, but even after the next election we must say that our minds are not open even for discussion of the topic? 1 might have cited the most distinguished Member of the other side in another place, Lord Rosebery, as one who at this time, if he has not given a clear expression of sympathy with that policy, has at all events gone a very long way in that direction. [Cries of "When?"] I do not think I should be very far off the mark if I were to say that some of the right hon. Members opposite have also indicated leanings in that direction. If that is so, why should my noble friend and myself refuse to become office-bearers or to speak at a meeting where a resolution is proposed with every word of which we are in entire sympathy, simply because it is proposed by a body which has to deal with the question of the unity of the Empire at home? Why should not we go and do that which I now do for the last time this session, implore those on our side of politics not to shut the door to an aspiration which I have never denied from the first presented in carrying out great difficulties of method and detail, but which is a great aspiration and worthy of acceptance? The right hon. Gentleman has not read the resolution to which Lord Lansdowne and I spoke, but some other resolution.

This was the afternoon resolution.

I daresay it was. It is remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman should select the resolution moved at the afternoon meeting, which was not attended by the Ministers who have been referred to, and should abstain from reading the resolution passed at the evening meeting, which they did attend. The right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to extricate himself from the precedents afforded by the National Union of Conservative Associations, which passed resolutions entirely different from the policy which was the immediate policy of the Party to which it belonged. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's description of the resolutions passed by private members of that association in the morning as evidences of the tendency of opinion. If the right hon. Gentleman considered that Lord Salisbury was right in speaking in the evening after resolutions in favour of protection had been passed by the union, how can be have the face to ask the House to censure men who went to an evening meeting of an association which had passed a resolution—

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to point out that he did not casually drop into the meeting in the evening? The Ministers of whom we are speaking were appointed vice-presidents of this association, and we know that the right hon. Gentleman claims it as the same continuous Liberal Unionist Association. Perhaps he will then explain why it is that the Duke of Devonshire left it.

The right hon. Gentleman has not drawn a very effective distinction. Lord Salisbury was president of the National Union of Conservative Associations. I entirely fail to understand how he can possibly differentiate the two cases. [An HON. MEMBER: Lord Salisbury repudiated the resolution.] It has been said, or implied, that the action of the Prime Minister in this matter has been ambiguous. unintelligible, and unstraightforward. It is not necessary that I should say a word to those on this side of the House with regard to the straightforwardness of the Prime Minister. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite think they perceive a difference—and I admit that there is a difference of opinion on this subject among the supporters of the Government. They wish to widen the cleavage, and that is the reason of the step they are now taking. It is simply a move in the Party game. My right hon. friend's speech at Sheffield was perfectly clear. I ask any man not an imbecile to say whether it was not a perfectly intelligible and unambiguous statement. The Prime Minister stated his policy with regard to retaliation, and he stated his sympathy with the idea of colonial preference, but said he would not pursue that policy during the present Parliament. He said, in perfectly plain English, that in regard to a policy which might involve the taxation of the food of the people he considered public opinion was not ripe, and that, as the leader of the Conservative Party, it was not his duty to go forward with that proposal. although in its main outline he expressed sympathy with it—an expression of sym pathy which was repeated by Lord Lansdowne on his behalf at the Albert Hall. Hon. Gentlemen cheer that statement very loudly. Is it an ambiguous statement? Is it unintelligible? [An HON. MEMBER: It is quite clear now.] How does that summary differ from the Prime Minister's utterance at Sheffield, of which the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the manner in which he has characterised it, has not been able to read a single passage as being ambiguous, unintelligible, or unstraightforward. If objection is raised to my citing only Conservative precedents, I would ask what is the position of the right hon. Gentleman himself with regard to some very important questions of policy. The other day the right hon. Gentleman, after denouncing for many weeks a certain policy in Africa as slavery, or something akin to slavery, was challenged as to what he would do in regard to that question when he came into office, and replied, "Put me in and I will tell you." Can you imagine a better instance of the view that Ministers are concerned only with the policy which is declared to be theirs, and not with some indefinite future. Burning with indignation on this subject, the right hon. Gentleman is unwilling to pledge himself before the general election takes place.

Sir Robert Peel on one occasion said he would prescribe when he was called in.

I think these two instances justify the course which the Prime Minister has taken. I would ask one further Question: What is the position of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to Home Rule? Is that a question which has or has not been amply discussed, and on which hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be in a position to make up their minds? I think any candid man would say that an hon. Gentleman ought to have a definite and permanent opinion on that topic now, when he might well be excused, having regard to the enormous complexity of the subject, if he said he approved of the principle of colonial preference. I admit that there are many points of detail and method which require most careful and minute examination. Of course the right hon. Gentleman has exhausted his speech; but I would have liked immensely if, after sixteen or seventeen years discussion of Home Rule, he would have got up in his place and given us definitely his opinion in regard to that subject. Possibly my curiosity in that respect might have been gratified by the right hon. Gentleman; but there are some of his colleagues whose opinions on that matter it would be particularly interesting to hear. If that were so—(I am not blaming hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in the least—it would be impertinent for me to do so)—what I say is this: is it not rather remarkable, to put it no higher that those who differ fundamentally between themselves—as we all know they do, notwithstanding what they may say—on such points as that, should take up this attitude against the present Government, when we know perfectly well that the raising of that point, directly they came into power, would be a matter which would cause a schism in their ranks. [OPPOSITION cries of "No, no!"] I hear some not responsible Gentlemen say "No." Will any responsible Gentleman here, in this debate, get up and say that in any policy of that kind he would commit his Party to it? Notwithstanding what they may say, they have fundamental differences. I do not blame them for it. Any person who has acquaintance with the history of politics in this country in former times, as well as at the present moment, who asked himself this question and expected to receive a candid answer, would say, "Are there not many topics upon which it is impossible for any body of gentlemen to act together without very long debate on the subject, and unless, what everybody admits there cannot possibly be at present, the subject is ripe and fit to bring before the actual Parliament of the time?" There must be hundreds of such subjects. One such is Home Rule, another such is Disestablishment, and I freely admit another such is that which my right hon. friend has proposed in regard to colonial preferences. These are subjects that must be before the country for some considerable time. You have to get them into the sphere of action; but until you can have that actual opinion upon them, it is absolutely vain and hopeless to suppose that there can be other than some degree of liberty, even for members of the Government, for expression of views on such a topic. I thank the House for having heard me so patiently. I ask the House to reject this Motion, and to reject it, I may say, as not a very serious Motion on the present occasion.

said many hon. Members must have been astonished at the extraordinary speech they had just heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary on the subject of colonial preferences. The right hon. Gentleman began by describing the distance that the Colonies had come in the direction of colonial preference. He observed a slight but very significant change of phraseology in relation to that mythical colonial offer. Now, the Colonies, at some distance, had power to make an approach to the mother country, but was that a distance which they traversed with any idea whatever of promoting protection, even in the mother country? It was perfectly well known to all who had watched colonial politics that the movement in favour of so-called preference to the mother country was essentially a free-trade movement. It was an endeavour by the free-trade Party in the Colonies, who, finding themselves unable to introduce free trade as a whole, hoped at least to procure some measure of it by the aid of Imperial sentiment. And what the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had done was to turn that movement—which was a growing movement, and which would have more and more increased the relations between the Colonies and this country on terms advantageous to both—into a protectionist movement. But the Colonial Secretary asked them whether it would he decent to refuse discussion of the offer which he implied that the Colonies had made. He went further, and said that he himself approved colonial preference, and in another phrase, which he believed would be carefully noted, the right hon. Gentleman pledged not merely his own sympathy with the policy which admittedly involved the taxation of food, but pledged the sympathy of the Prime Minister to that policy. That was a statement which he had heard with surprise, because at the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary's own reelection—which was conducted on the general lines of the Party, and, therefore. his responsibility for what was done at it could not be wholly ignored, although, from circumstances over which the right hon. Gentleman had no control, he took no active part in it—was it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency was placarded, and that every dead wall lived, with the assertion that it was a lie to say that he was in favour of the taxation of food. And was there anyone on the Opposition Benches who had not at one time or another been accused of misrepresentation, because they had said it was their belief—now apparently justified by the speech of the Colonial Secretary—that the Prime Minister, in spite of all the twists and turnings of his subtle speech was also in favour of the taxation of food? Not long ago the Prime Minister, in a moment of inadvertence, referred to himself as being among those who favoured colonial preference. Perhaps there was a little inadvertence in the speech of the Colonial Secretary that afternoon. Blessed was inadvertence! It was the only thing, in certain conditions, which gave the truth a chance. They had got the truth at last; and they would not grumble at its having come inadvertently. This was another example of the danger of purely extemporaneous speech. The Colonial Secretary then referred to the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to Home Rule. Again hon. Members had heard that point brought up as if it afforded a complete parallel. He would tell the House what would be a complete parallel between the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to Home Rule and the conduct of the Prime Minister on the fiscal question. It would be a complete parallel if the Leader of the Opposition, when in office, denounced Home Rule, and then sent two or three of his colleagues to make a bargain with the Irish Party in its favour or to join the Home Rule movement.

Is the hon. and learned Gentleman going to denounce Home Rule?

said that if the right hon. Gentleman would do him the favour to listen to his remarks, he was endeavouring to establish that it would be a complete parallel if the Leader of the Opposition approved Home Rule and then sent two of his colleagues to join the Liberal Unionist Association. But he would pass to what seemed most vital in this debate. The conduct of those Ministers who had joined this association was of minor importance, and its main interest consisted in the indication it gave of the views of the Prime Minister. When Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selborne joined the Liberal Unionist Association it was to be assumed that they did so with the assent of the Prime Minister. What did that assent involve? Did it show that he approved of their conduct? They knew that the right hon. Gentleman had encouraged the most diverse and contradictory views on the part of his followers in regard to his own convictions. Sonic of his followers would vote for him in that debate, because they thought that at least he had given assurances on fiscal freedom of trade adequate to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. Others would vote for him with better reason, because they saw him in active, avowed, and sympathetic cooperation with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the preference Party. The right hon. Gentleman said. "Never mind what my sympathies are; never mind what my intentions are in regard to the future of the country. You are only concerned with my immediate programme, and my immediate programme excludes the taxation of food and preference." But they were entitled to know from the Prime Minister whether he intended to exclude that programme from the consideration of the electors, when he again invited their confidence. Was it to be the issue, the main substantial issue, at the next general election? The right hon. Gentleman indulged in a display of academic didactics; but the elections would not be academic elections. Were the by-elections academic elections? Why, not a single protectionist candidate had yet escaped the right hon. Gentleman's blessing; and a very unfortunate blessing it seemed to be in some instances. He would go further and say that the right hon. Gentleman was bound to tell the House in frank and plain terms what he meant to do at the next general election in regard to this question. He would remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman's partner in this combination in favour of colonial preference told the country what the right hon. Gentleman meant to do. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham at Tynemouth pledged not only himself but the Prime Minister to lay this question before the country at the next general election. He said—

"We claim that the matter must be discussed in all its branches; and therefore it was that Mr. Balfour, in making his speech at Sheffield, and I myself, in making a speech at Birmingham, pointed out to the people of this country what were the tremendous issues which were now placed in their hands, and implored them to consider them before the next general election."

That was a very significant observation on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and one which had not yet received that attention it deserved. It made an end of all the talk about the fiscal question in this form being outside the range of practical politics. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister intended to bring it within the range of practical politics; and he had no right to evade discussion on it by treating it as if it were outside the range of practical politics. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Prime Minister were at one in their determination to make this the vital question at the next election; how, therefore, could it be treated as outside the range of practical politics? Yet the Prime Minister at Sheffield excused himself for not dealing with the taxation of food, knowing, of course, that if he did it would bring him into controversial conflict with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. The right hon. Gentleman excused himself on the ground that it was outside the range of practical politics. He hoped the House would remember the Cabinet revelations of the noble Lord the Member for Ealing. The noble Lord told them that a few weeks before the Prime Minister went down to Sheffield to treat this question as being outside the pale of practical politics he had, in some mysterious document, submitted this very question to the Cabinet for practical and immediate consideration. There was only an interval of two or three weeks between the two events. He would ask the House and the country to note carefully the juxtaposition of the dates. How could a question which was worthy of immediate Cabinet consideration at the beginning of the month be, at the end of the month, merely an academic problem? If the closeness of the dates were considered, they would get some light on what the right hon. Gentleman's admirers were fond of calling his strategy. Strategy was a very fine thing, and it had its own legitimate sphere in political life; but this strategy, as applied to controversial arguments, was perilously near to what was popularly, usefully, and accurately described as misrepresentation. He did not like the use of the word strategy, nor was it very common in this connection. However, they must accept it. They knew what the aim of this strategy was. It was to lure free-traders into voting for a protectionist Ministry, who had devised a policy, protectionist as far as it went, in order to facilitate a further advance in the direction of protection. He did not like this kind of strategy. It seemed to him to cut at the very root of political argument, and the Prime Minister was one of the last which many of them would have expected to stoop to it. He wondered what would have been said by the right hon. Gentleman or his Party if any of the right hon. Gentleman's distinguished predecessors—Mr. Gladstone, for instance—had had recourse to this sort of device in order to facilitate the progress of a policy. Why, the Tory Party would have exhausted the English language for epithets; and the very worst epithet would have at least one merit, it would have been accurate. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham rejoiced in the sympathy of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol also rejoiced in what he believed to be the sympathy of the Prime Minister. Which of the right hon. Gentlemen was right? He thought they could decide that for themselves by the application of a very simple case. Let them suppose that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was beaten at the polls, as he was fairly reasonably certain of being. Let them suppose—it was only a hypothesis—that the Prime Minister was successful at the polls, and that he brought back a majority of the House pledged to some measure of the policy of retaliation. What would happen then (and to this he would invite the attention of the free-trade Unionists)? The policy of retaliation was frequently referred to as if it were some sort of compromise. In the admirable speech to which they had listened with such delight from the Leader of the Opposition, his right hon. friend perhaps too readily accepted for the purpose of his argument the view that the policy of retaliation was a middle policy—something less extreme than the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He ventured to say it was a more extreme policy. It might perhaps be not so insidious; but it was far more dangerous. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition was right in treating it as a policy put forward as a halfway-house policy. That was the way it was desired by those who put it forward that it should be taken. But it was in fact a most dangerous policy. De Quincy started the autobiography of some imaginary criminal by saying—

"I began my career with manslaughter, of which I thought very little or nothing at the time."

The Prime Minister now proposed to begin with a tariff war or two, of which he thought little or nothing. There was nothing more dangerous than a tariff war. It began in one country, but it was bound to be carried into other countries, because the susceptibilities and the alarm of other countries would be aroused. What he wished to discuss, however, was the way in which the policy of retaliation would be worked by the right hon. Gentleman's majority. Who would dictate the spirit in which it was to proceed? They all knew very well that the Party the right hon. Gentleman would bring back would be in heart and spirit and belief a protectionist Party. The Tory Party had never been anything else. They had altered their policy during the last sixty years; but they had never for a moment altered their convictions. They were protectionists now, and they would be protectionists if they were again returned. They would try retaliation at once, but who would inspire their policy? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He would see that the Prime Minister worked retaliation in a protectionist spirit. The position of the Prime Minister reminded him of the lines in "The Ancient Mariner"—

"Like one that on a lonesome road,

Doth walk in fear and dread,

And having once turned round, walks on,

And turns no more his bead,

Because he knows a frightful fiend

Doth close behind him tread."

The Prime Minister would have to march, and that was the spirit in which he would march. A great many free-trade Unionists hugged to themselves the belief that after all the right hon. Gentleman did not mean it, that he would drop retaliation just as he had dropped old-age pensions. It was comparatively easy to deceive the people; but it was not so easy to deceive the class the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had gathered together, and from whom he had taken large and secret subscriptions—secret because they did not desire that the contributions which they gave for the taxes they were going to get should be known. Retaliation would not be dropped. He would do the Prime Minister the justice of saying that he did not think the light hon. Gentleman meant to drop it. The vital part of this controversy was, What were the real convictions of the Prime Minister? The historic and now almost antiquated volume, "Economic Notes on Insular Free Trade," which the right hon. Gentleman published, ought in itself to enlighten every free-trade Unionist. They would discover there was not a single fundamental proposition of protection that the right hon. Gentleman did not hold, and they would also find there was not a single fundamental proposition of free trade of which he did not disapprove. First of all, the Prime Minister treated as inadequate and incorrect the idea that it was probably better for economic tendencies to follow their natural course than to substitute for them a State-contrived scheme and artificial action by the Government. Economic tendencies were nothing but the tendencies pursued by men in their own interests, and in the view of the Prime Minister it was better that business men should not be allowed to pursue the search for their own interest with unfettered freedom but that the State should take it up for them. It would be better, in the right hon Gentleman's opinion, to leave their interests in the hands of a statesman, for instance, who placed a tax of 50 per cent. on the wholesale value of an article and declared that it would not affect the price. The right hon. Gentleman had also expounded the doctrine that to sell to our customers things which added to their productive power and capacity was a pernicious thing. There was no doubt that that was protection in its very essential conception. It was in the interest of every class of trader to make his interest universal. But the Prime Minister further suggested all he dared against foreign investments, in a way that he should like to place before the Stock Exchange. In short, the right hon. Gentleman wished to substitute for our present world-wide business some smaller area, while free-traders desired to have nothing less wide than the world itself. When protectionists talked about a self-sufficient Empire they were really proposing to destroy our national trade, without which our Empire would not retain its strength or integrity for twelve months. On each of these fundamental propositions the Prime Minister was at one with the protectionists. Now it was all clear. The Liberal Party would go to the country with the perfectly clear understanding that the Premier was in favour of a policy which involved the taxation of food.

said it was very natural that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, should in their addresses to the House attempt to make capital of the differences which, in their opinion, existed among the various members of the Unionist Party. Anyone must have noticed that, particularly from the latter portion of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He did not say that the question of protection could be regarded as an irrelevant from the particular Motion raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but it only arose in the second degree, and it was going outside the terms of the Resolution to discuss at large words said to he used on various occasions either by the Prime Minister or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He did not appreciate what the hon. and learned Member had said on the question of protection; he did not agree that the selfish competition, as the hon. Member had called it, was the last word to be said either morally or economically, on any great trading question. He went so far as to say that competition in excess was morally wholly unjustifiable and economically wholly wasteful. The question had always been, and would always be, not a matter of mere abstract doctrine, but whether, under particular conditions, and having regard to the social conditions of the country, the Government was justified in interfering more or less with business relations. There was the illustration of the factory legislation which was intended to protect the children of this country, but which would have been entirely inconsistent with the only test the hon. and learned Member would apply, namely, the opinion of business men. It was a Whiggish archaism to go back and say that anyone who opposed the extreme doctrine of laissez faire, that anybody who admitted a policy of limitation on this question, had adopted either the theory of protection or some of the other reactionary theories that the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to. Free trade was founded on the doctrine of the whole world being one industrial entity, and if the whole world were one industrial entity it was to the interest of the community at large that the industrial powers in the aggregate should be utilised to the greatest advantage. If the premises of the extreme view held by Mr. Cobden could be established, no one would be a more earnest supporter than he of the Cobdenite view; but it was best in dealing with a business matter to recognise that the Cobden doctrine had not been established, and that in place of one industrial entity we at present had separate industrial entities raising tariffs for the purpose of protecting their own industries and injuring the trade of this country. He had no desire to dogmatise upon this matter, but supposing he could prove to the hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other hon. Member opposite, that under existing conditions we were not getting fair treatment as regarded our industrial interests in this country, would it not be only reasonable that we should insure, as far as we could, that our industries and our working men should not be unfairly handicapped? That they should have fair if not free competition, which was the nearest we could get to the ideal of Mr. Cobden? It was no good putting considerations of fact on one side; it was no use to talk of "natural conditions," which did not exist at the present moment. He could not agree with those who, as he understood, would, under the form of this doctrine, have us tie our hands and so restrain ourselves as not to be able to insist on fair competition in trade with other countries. Ha doubted whether the Unionist free-traders were really so much in antagonism with those who on this subject appeared to differ from them. Supposing they were satisfied that as regards one of the great industries of this country we were suffering under a disadvantage owing to the action of some foreign competition, and that we could get rid of that disadvantage by a system of retaliation, would they, under those circumstances, say "Perish justice to our industry, in order that free trade may be preserved." He could not imagine a more deadly way of approaching the industrial questions of a great country than to go on an abstract theory of that kind, hypnotising ourselves as to the actual conditions of everyday life, allowing industries to suffer under unfair conditions, and debarring ourselves from taking the natural way of devising a remedy. This merely because there was brought forward an abstract theory, admirable in itself, but not applicable to the present conditions of industrial competition. But what were the real issues raised by this vote of censure. He realised that a vote of censure was a Party move, and it would be quixotic in this House to blame people for taking advantage of Party moves of this description; but he did hold that whatever might be the result of immediate elections or of the next general election, it was far more important for a great Party to say what they thought was true and right on this fiscal question, than to be governed by such passing considerations as the results of the next division or the next election. It could not be held that the doctrine of the collective responsibility of Ministers was applicable to a question which, at the moment, was not within the purview or area of practical politics. Could there be a more fatal way of preventing some of the most acute and statesmanlike minds in the country from approaching the consideration of problems which must, in the first instance, be fought out in the abstract before they could be discussed in their practical bearings? Moreover, such a proposition was absolutely inconsistent with constitutional doctrine and precedent. Was Canning debarred from stating his views on Catholic disabilities by the fact that the Government with which he was connected was opposed to him? Was Lord Palmerston debarred from expressing his views on such questions as the ballot and the reform of representation at a time when a large number of his Government were avowedly working in the opposite direction? The constitutional principle was that in matters of immediate concern there must be collective Ministerial responsibility, but as regarded matters outside immediate practical politics there was and there ought to be no rule by which statesmen would be prevented from dealing with questions which were often more important than immediate politics, and upon which the future of the Empire might in the long run depend. The Resolution submitted by the Leader of the Opposition might be divided into two parts: one dealt with preferential duties, and the other with the taxation of food. It was true that as regarded the question of Imperial solidarity there might be two schools. There were those who believed that true political union was impossible without first establishing commercial union. That was the view expressed by the Prime Minister at Sheffield, and held, he believed, by the great majority of the Unionist and Conservative Party in the country. Starting from that premiss, what was the next question? He did not commit himself personally to the suggestion that the preferential duties necessary to constitute commercial union would necessitate the taxation of food. Taxation of food in one sense we had always had in this country; it was not to be connected with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, or with one particular Party, or with one particular Budget. The only alternative to some form of taxation of food was a graduated income-tax much larger than had ever yet been levied—a proposition to which no Party had ever committed itself. But that was not the question. The supporters of this view held that they could bring about this commercial union which they so ardently desired between the mother country and her colonies, without adding one farthing, either directly or indirectly, to the budget of the poor man. Supposing it could be proved beyond doubt that by a readjustment of taxation for the purpose of colonial preference the burdens on the poor man would be not greater than before, could the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite raise a theoretical objection and say, "However much I believe that commercial union is a condition precedent to closer political union, I would sacrifice the Empire rather than have any readjustment of the kind, although it might be a benefit to the working man."

asked whether the hon. and learned Member had any such scheme in his mind?

said that not only had he such a scheme in his mind, but it had been proved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that by such a readjustment of taxation as would be sufficient for carrying out the commercial union, the working man would be relieved to a certain extent from burdens which now affected him. He was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Oldham should be led away by prejudice upon a question of this kind. The proposition he had just put forward had been proved by statistics. And was not that what had to be done? If we were to hold out our hands to the Colonies, and the Colonies were to come into commercial union with this country, ought not statesmen to see whether it could be done without adding to the burdens of the people? It was no good falling back upon prejudice and appealing to the working man on topics of prejudice. He (the speaker) did not believe there was one word of truth in what had been said over and over again on that point. if there was one matter worth working for or one subject outside the ordinary run of political life it was the necessity of finding a permanent and solid foundation for the relationship between the mother country and the Colonies. It was upon those lines that the Conservative and Unionist Party were agreed. The question of means and methods was one upon which they might well differ. He found no fault with those who thought that at present the solution had not been found. But let them not go off the real point of the discussion. Let them realise where they agreed and discuss fairly and openly the points of difference which might arise. With regard to the "free-fooders" as against free-trade Unionists, he understood that they concentrated their views upon the question of free food. Having assented to the taxation of sugar and tea, they could not object to the taxation of food. It was a mere commonplace to say that they desired to keep that taxation as low as possible. They objected not to the taxation of food, but to what they called the "protective" taxation of food. In other words, they were willing to tax sugar and tea, but unwilling to tax corn, because in the one case the theory of protection did not arise, whereas in the latter case it did. But what by itself was a protective duty was not a protective duty if a corresponding Excise was levied. They objected to protective taxation on food because further taxation was not put upon the agricultural industry. If such a tax were put upon the agricultural industry, their objection, so far as protection, would go, and as regarded taxation on food, they had assented to it as one of the necessary methods for raising the enormous revenue which was necessary for the government of this country. Let them discuss this question on its true lines, and make up their minds whether they wanted an Imperially consolidated Empire or not. If they were in favour of further colonial solidarity, and if they had a conference between British and colonial statesmen, could anyone doubt that it was within the power of statesmen to solve this question in a way which would throw no burden upon the working men of this country or those living in any other part of our Colonial Empire. Those who supported the present policy in its main lines as put forward by the right hon. Gentlemen the Colonial Secretary and the Prime Minister, thought they could not have an Empire upon a permanent footing unless they had commercial union. Let them, as a Party, work for that great ideal, and do not let them be frightened by mere abstract propositions and doctrines hurled at them from the other side of the House. He was considered to have taken rather a Tory view on many questions, but he was not so Tory as to bring forward a fossilised reactionary doctrine and attempt to hypnotise the country as to the real issue, and on those grounds to oppose every step which ought to be taken at this moment to promote some great scheme of colonial solidarity. They knew that they had the sympathy and loyalty of their colonial subjects at the prseent moment. He hoped that under the Prime Minister's guidance the result of this policy would be a work worthy of their Party and a great statesmanlike work which would put in the end our colonial dependencies on a solid and permanent basis to the benefit of the whole civilised world.

said his hon. and learned friend had said that a great edifice was going to be constructed upon which a great Empire was going to be built, but he invited the House to look at the foundations upon which it was proposed to build. When he did that he found to his astonishment that his hon. and learned friend would build this great Imperialism upon the taxation of bread in the United Kingdom itself, because a tax on corn was a tax on bread.

said that there must be a readjustment of taxation that would not affect the budget of the working man. He did not think that it would be necessary to tax either bread or food.

said that was not the policy which had been placed before the country by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. His hon. and learned friend had said that the differences between Unionists were only skin deep, but he viewed with the greatest dislike and absolute disbelief the financial principles upon which it was proposed to draw together the whole Empire, and to draw mighty revenues which would come from Heaven knows where. He confessed that he was a little disappointed when he heard the Colonial Secretary speak of what was happening that day as a mere move in the Party game. In politics there were always two Parties, and discussions would always assume a more or less Party aspect, but his right hon. friend would be woefully mistaken if he thought the discussion which was taking place not only in the House of Commons but in every town and city in the country was based merely upon Party considerations and Party lines. It was nothing of the kind. They had not been asked to insist that every Minister and servant of the King should have precisely the same views upon every question which might not be ripe for immediate settlement, and when the hon. and learned Member spoke of the open-mindedness of the present Government upon this question. where was the evidence of it? Where were the free-traders who were members of His Majesty's Government? It appeared to him that it was not open to a free-trader to be a member of the Government unless he chose to keep his free-trade principles to himself and advocate them only in the sanctity of his own bosom and the privacy of his own room. Many members of the Government had given expositions of their views which would be extremely palatable to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birtnin4am. He had seen letter after letter written by one Minister after another urging the electors to support protectionist candidates, but he had not seen from any member of this open-minded Government any letters in favour of free-trade candidates. The Cabinet had been broken up upon this very question. Instead of treating this as an open question when it was brought before the House the first thing they experienced was that the Prime Minister treated it as a Party question; it was declared to be a vote of censure; they heat the Party drum and all the appliances were brought to bear to make this a Party question and nothing else. He was as strong a Unionist as anyone in this House and he was a Liberal Unionist a long time before a good many hon. Members who now boasted about being Liberal Unionists. He suffered in his early Unionist days by being turned out of the Eighty Club by his right hon. friend the present Colonial Secretary because he was a Liberal Unionist, but his right hon. friend afterwards saw the error of his ways. He did not yet despair that his right hon. friend the Colonial Secretary might join the Unionist free-traders, and do great service to that cause, as he had done good service to the cause of the Union. They must keep their eyes open to what was going on throughout the. country. His hon. and learned friend did not make one single reference to the controversy which was raging throughout the country, namely, the controversy between free trade on the one side and protection on the other. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and his supporters had been round the country and they had preached purely and simply the doctrine of protection. The supporters of this policy put forward the belief that it would be a very admirable method of improving our industrial position in this country to keep out foreign competition in order that our home manufacturers might get increased prices. That was part of the policy now advocated by means of a vigorous agitation throughout the country. That was operating on the minds of certain interests and classes whose natural object and desire it was—they were men like other men, with more or less selfish interests of their own—to enhance the price of the goods they sold to the consumer. He believed that to be a mistaken policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had said that it would be out of order to go into the great question of free trade and protection. To his own mind the interest and object of this debate was to enable His Majesty's Government to say in clear and unmistakable language what it was that thee held with reference to the policy which had been put before the country by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. His right hon. friend the Prime Minister had spoken and written often on this subject, but two sentences would make the whole matter clear. An elaborate policy had been put before the country by the late Colonial Secretary, having for its main incidents taxes upon imported manufactures, and taxes upon imported food. Did that scheme and policy recommend itself, or did it not recommend itself, to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman? The House of Commons and the country really had some right to know what was the view held by the leading statesman of this country at the present time on that subject. His hon. and learned friend said they must not deal with the politics of the indefinite future. Why! these were the politics of the moment. These were the questions upon which elections turned. It was no use to say that it was not before the country, because every elector thought it was before the country, and holding that view gave his vote one way or the other. Surely it was time that the House of Commons had a distinct lead on this matter from the right hon. Gentleman. If this debate passed over, as others had done, without any indication as to the view taken by His Majesty's Government as a Government what were they to do? Well, he was a Unionist free-trader. He was happy to say he was not the only Unionist free-trader in the country or the House of Commons, and he knew that Unionist free-traders saw quite clearly what was ahead of them. They were not going to have their Unionism made a stalking horse in order to have that carried out which they believed to be contrary to the interests of the country and the Empire. He must say a word or two as to the strange attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to the Liberal Unionist Association. From the beginning he had been a member of that association. He hardly recognised some of his old Liberal Unionist friends tricked out in protectionist garments, which suited them very badly, and made them appear to be very different men from those with whom he was so long associated. The Liberal Unionist Party was being split from top to bottom, as the Liberal Party was over the question of Home Rule. What was meant by the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as leader of the Liberal Unionist Party in place of the Duke of Devonshire? Every man knew what it meant. It meant that the Liberal Unionist Association and the Liberal Unionists throughout the country were to be rallied as a Liberal Unionist Tariff Reform League, and at the very moment the rupture took place three of His Majesty's Ministers thought it suitable to go down to the Albert Hall and ratify by their presence, approval, and speeches the policy of the Tariff Reform League in calling for the support of the Liberal Unionist Association. He could not tell, no one could exactly tell, what the main question at the next general election would be, but so far as their short sight could glance into the future, it did appear that there would be no greater question before the country than this fiscal revolution in the sense of departing from our fiscal policy of free imports, whether the goods were manufactured or not, and of imitating the system known in America, Germany, and Continental countries which, he ventured to say, had done those countries no good, and had done nothing toward promoting the welfare of the working classes in Germany or in any other country in Europe. Our own country afforded higher wages than other countries to the working classes of almost every kind, while at the same time in respect of living, winch was as important a matter as wages, the articles of ordinary consumption were cheaper here than they were elsewhere. How could any man who knew anything of the subject at all compare the position of the working men in Germany with those of this country? Of course in America the case naturally was different. There was a demand for labour in that country, but he thought he had heard the hon. Member for Battersea in that House draw a graphic description of the sort of life the ironworkers led in that country. The hon. Member thought that even with the working classes of America our own compared very favourably. The matter they had now to deal with was this so-called reform. What they wanted above everything was frankness on the part of His Majesty's Ministers. Let the country understand how these matters stood. He knew the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had an extremely difficult position. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was right to feel the great importance to the country of avoiding a disruption of the Party. He gave him credit for all that. But the rupture had occurred, and he hoped that before the debate closed the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say wherein he differed, if he differed at all, from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. If before the debate ended they had a frank expression of the right hon. Gentleman's policy, then he thought that, although at the eleventh hour of this session, the vote of censure would not have been brought forward in vain.

said the hon. Member who had just sat down in a speech of great ability had brought back the question which they were discussing from the region of fiction to the realm of common sense. As he entirely agreed with the main arguments which the hon. Member had used, he would not waste the time of the House in following his arguments in detail. But he wished to refer to two arguments used by the Colonial Secretary. When he was speaking the right hon. Gentleman asked whether the House considered that it would be right or decent for His Majesty's Ministers, having received so much in the way of preferential treatment from the Colonies, to shut the door on the question of colonial preference. And he said that Lord Rosebery and some of those who had been associated with him had expressed themselves very much in favour of the same system of colonial preference. He did not know why Lord Rosebery had been brought in.

I said I thought he has shown leanings towards a system of preference.

Shown leanings! Lord Rosebery and those who thought with him were as intensely anxious to bind the Colonies to the Empire as the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Lord Rosebery had shown leanings in the direction of binding together the Colonies and the mother country, but he said words to this effect, "As soon as they began to consider fiscal federation they immediately broke their teeth on the question of the taxation of the food of the people at home." The complaint of the Opposition was that the Government were playing with this question and were not telling them their real belief. They were trying to make the Colonies think they could devise some scheme of colonial preference; but they did not say frankly whether they were in favour of the taxation of the food of the people, which was said to be a necessary part of colonial preference. To this question the House and the country were entitled to a reply. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, in excusing the action of the Ministers who had become members of the Liberal Unionist Association, said there was no difference between their action and the action of Lord Salisbury in connection with the National Union of Conservative Associations. He could not conceive how the right hon. Gentleman attempted to prove that to himself. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham left the Government he deliberately broke up the Liberal Unionist Association in order that he might make it a branch of the Tariff Reform League. He did not think this was doubted. That being the case, two of His Majesty's Ministers im- mediately joined the association as vice-presidents. Their action differed toto coelo from anything Lord Salisbury ever did in connection with the Conservative Association. Indeed on more than one occasion Lord Salisbury went out of his way to repudiate the doctrine of protection. He thought too that it was a very unworthy charge for the right hon. Gentleman to make when he said this was a mere Party game. He admitted that Party tactics were necessary and that Party manœuvres were often indulged in. But this was not a mere matter of "outs" and "ins." If it were out of mere curiosity as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government that this Motion had been moved they might with some reason refuse to gratify that curiosity. It was not so much that they, on that side of the House, were wanting this information, as the country. He believed that this prolongation of silence on the part of the Government was of advantage to the Liberal Party; that if they could have no clearer reply from the Prime Minister than from the Colonial Secretary it would be of more advantage to them than to the Ministerial Party. But independent of hon. Members on that side of the House who supported free trade, there were many on his side of the House, for whom he might speak, who put this question as the first political question before the country. They felt that this was a great crisis in the history of the nation, and they were determined to fight all they could on this question, and to make sacrifices as regarded Party in order that the battle might be successfully won. They believed that if this question of free trade was lost and protection was to become the rule of this country, almost everything else they cared about would go. They believed that it would diminish the purity of political life. They believed that sane Imperialism would be a thing of the past. They believed that the old ties of affection with the Colonies would be superseded by a system of bargains, and bargaining with the Colonies meant retaliation in the long run. They believed that the social reform, which they wanted, would go. They believed that there was a great danger of a truculent foreign policy being introduced. And believing all that, they believed that if the free-traders were going to lose this battle, steps would be taken from which the country could never recover, and that, as far as the Liberal programme went, it would be for generations a thing of the past. So, to all of them on that side of the House this was not a mere Party struggle at all. They were fighting for ideas in which they fundamentally believed. So far he had spoken about his own Party. Let him deal with another class. Let him deal with the ordinary business men of the Conservative turn of mind. He knew numbers of them, men whose families had been Conservatives for generations. They did not care two-pence about Cobden or a farthing about theory. They would much rather have followed Mr. Chamberlain and thrown over Cobden if they could have convinced themselves that that was the right thing to do. What happened? The autumn campaign began. They looked forward to it eagerly, anxious to find excuses to follow Mr. Chamberlain, and they saw that intellectually the campaign was a failure. And, examining their own business, they had to come to the conclusion that as far as they were concerned they had to stick to free trade. Where were they now? They had had the first section of the Tariff Reform Committee's Report, which reminded him of the quotation: "Parturiunt montes, nascitur ridiculus mus" turiunt montes, nascitur ridiculus mus." This report again dealt with dumping; we were going to be ruined by dumpers. What were the facts shown in Government publications? The imports of pigiron from Germany for the first four months of this year were less than half what they were for the first four months of last year. What had happened in the United States? Were all their workers kept employed? Were they going to dump on us ten million tons of iron, as Mr. Chamberlain promised? Nothing of the kind! An enormous number of their furnaces were blown out, and the fear of wholesale dumping from the United States was stopped. Well, then, we were told that we had not got free trade now. If not we had at any rate got a system under which we tried as far as possible to raise taxes for revenue purposes only, and we chose those subjects for taxation which would not, when taxed, give protection to manufacturing interests in this country. If it were argued we had not got free trade, it could be argued just as well that we had not got freedom. For example, the Prime Minister's motor-car, when it went too fast, was interfered with by the police. But at any rate the business man said: "I do not care about your words, but about your things; your plan is a plan which will make matters worse, and I do want to know what the Government really mean." Take another point. The great manufacturing industries were in suspense, and must be in suspense until this question was settled. They were suffering from the after-effects of the war, and from the ordinary trade wave depression following the boom year 1900. Many wealthy manufacturers often used bad times for extension; but now think what any man would ask himself if he proposed extension. Take the cotton trade. He would look at the Tariff Commission Report on the iron and steel trades, and say, if those things were going to be taxed 5 or 10 per cent., there would probably be a tax on machinery; at any rate, it would cost more to make machinery, whether a tax was put on or not. And not only machinery, but every thing he built a cotton mill with would cost more. Bricks would cost more, because wages would be raised, they were told, to provide for the extra cost of food. The doors and windows would cost more, many of them coming in a half-made condition from abroad. His engines and gearing would cost more. Everything needed for building the mill would cost more. What was the result? He would say to himself, "To-day I can build a mill here in this country so much cheaper than the Germans, that when I have built it I can afford to pay every hand employed in it 10s. a week more and be as well off at the end as the German. I am going to sacrifice that if the principles of this iron and steel trades report are carried out in this country. And more than that, when I come to manufacture in that mill, all the stores I use are going to cost more, even if the cotton does not, the oil, and flour, and leather will all cost more, so my finished product must cost immensely more. Where am I going to get it back. You can put 100 per cent. on my goods, it will not affect me. Out of every £10 worth I make, £2 10s. worth is used at home, the rest goes abroad. What does the foreigner send me? For every £10 worth I send him he only sends me £1 worth. I can tax his £1, and I might make some of those goods, but I cannot recoup myself by any system of Customs duties for the increases in cost that Mr. Chamberlain's scheme would add to the charges that I have to pay." That was the way the quiet business man was dealing with the matter, and he had a right to know what the Government really meant. It might be said that the Government had put their programme before the country, but had it been put before the country in a way that any reasonable man could fairly understand? There was only one powerful man in the Government, the Prime Minister, and he seemed to believe theoretically in universal free trade; but he repudiated the idea that taxes for revenue purposes were necessarily to be non-protective. He thought we might use a system of retaliation, and that with regard to food it would not be wise to introduce taxes on food at present, though he would be willing to do something in order to bring about federation of the Empire. So the Prime Minister tied himself in this knot. He advocated retaliation, which would only apply to manufactured articles, and not food or raw material. In that case his scheme was unfair to agriculture, he could not retaliate successfully on Russia and the United States of America, and he could oily deal with countries like France and Germany, which treated us much better than Russia and the United States did. If the Prime Minister intended to start that system of negotiations. did he intend to have a general tariff or make a special tariff for each country, and in either case how could he prevent it slipping into a regular scheme of protection? The Secretary of State for the Colonies had quoted Carlvle in favour of food taxation, but Carlyle was a most bitter opponent of the corn tax in his own day, and thought anybody a considerable fool if he did not believe that the corn tax would soon be taken off. What Carlyle did say was that the removal of the corn tax would not do all that everybody at that moment imagined it would do, that there were many other questions lying behind that; that, in fact, it was another version of what was said in the Old Book, "man doth not live by bread alone." In saying that he was perfectly right. Lord Lansdowne seemed to be a retaliator because he wanted some weapon to negotiate with. But what was the remarkable phrase he used in the House of Lords? He said that crossing the fence after the manner the Member for West Birmingham recommended might break every bone in the body of the British Empire. There they had an important Minister, holding an important post, who was still in a state of frank bewilderment as to his opinion on the scheme of the Member for West Birmingham. In this extreme medley of opinions what was an honest politician to think, and what did the plain man think? The plain man knew that the country depended on trade, that trade was the life-blood of the nations, and that the fiscal system of any country depending on trade was the arteries and veins through which its life-blood flowed. He knew that the previous treatment of the country's fiscal arrangements had been right, and now he found his old doctors differing about his condition, some saying he was ill and prescribing new treatment, while others said that the scheme of treatment if carried out might break every bone in the body of the Empire. What did the Prime Minister, the head of the Medical College, say? He said he would tell them at the time of the election, and what he did not tell them then he would tell after the election. What was the use of all this extraordinary mystification? There was only one thing really before the country—whether they were to have protection or free trade. The country would think of nothing else. It would put it thus: "Are we to follow the Member for West Birmingham. or are we to follow those who approve free trade?" The country would make a comparatively simple question of it, and for the sake of the Ministry, and of the portion of the Party which followed it, and for the sake of the country, they ought to make it clear whether they were in favour of colonial preference or not, and whether they intended to tax the food of the country or not.

said that the vote of censure was moved chiefly with the object of demonstrating a want of unanimity on the Government Benches. He listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had conclusively proved that unanimity on the Government Benches existed in a very marked degree. He would ask whether there was similar unanimity on the Benches opposite. Were the Labour Members, for whose ideals he had the utmost respect, going to support the Motion? [Several HON. MEMBERS: Yes.] Then he could only repeat the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and say "Que diable faites-vous dans cette galère." He had the welfare of the working men at heart; and hon. Members representing Labour would always find him with them in anything they proposed for the benefit of those classes. Were hon. Members representing Labour about to condemn a policy which was vital to the interests of the working classes? It was an incontrovertible fact that our fiscal policy was the only part of our national politics which had never been reviewed by the people. If a referendum of the people were taken upon fiscal reform alone, he would not pretend to say what the result would be; but if ever manhood suffrage were introduced—he assumed hon. Members representing Labour would not object to that—the first and immediate result would be the return of a protectionist Parliament. Protection and manhood suffrage were linked together in other countries. That was why he was anxious to see how the Labour Members would vote. They had been entering into strange alliances recently. Who would have thought two years ago that the hon. Member for Battersea, with his modern progressive ideas, would have welcomed the Duke of Devonshire as a partner, it was true only a sleeping partner. He could understand the Motion being supported by many Parties in the House. He could understand it being supported by those gingerbread Imperialists who had no use for the British Empire except in perorations. He could also understand it being supported by that weird assortment of out-of-place young gentlemen and old gentlemen out of place, who, for some unaccountable reason, called themselves free-fooders; but if there was a Party which should not support the Motion, it was the Party representing Labour. Why did they support it? Was it because they objected to protection? Why, the Labour leaders were the greatest protectionists in the country. Protection was the quintessence of trade unionism. How was it that the Labour leaders strenuously supported protection for the British. working man against the British capitalist, but opposed protection for the same working man against the foreign capitalist? A free-trade trades unionist was a political anomaly—he demanded free trade for every commodity except his own—his labour; for that he demanded protection. There could be but one outcome—protection for labour at home against labour abroad, or else free trade in labour. He appealed to the Labour Members to reject this Motion. He recognised the power they had, and the influence they exercised over the great mass of trade unionists at elections. But to-day the country was confronted with a question of great complexity, on which, he admitted, there was a great deal to be said on both sides. It was a question which had puzzled the brains of the world's greatest economists; was it, therefore, reasonable to expect working men to be able to understand it, in all its details, in a few months? The working men turned to their leaders for advice and guidance; and on the shoulders of these leaders rested a grave and great responsibility. The time would come when the working men of the country would know the truth; and if their leaders gave wrong advice now, they would be held to account for having sacrificed their vital interests on the altar of political expediency. The British working man was a protectionist at heart, and never lost an opportunity of showing it. He would give an illustration in point. At Alston some Italian workmen who were imported into its mines were attacked and stoned by the. Cumberland miners. If these Alston miners blindly followed the advice of the Labour leaders at the next election they would have the astonishing picture of seeing them voting for free imports in the abstract and stoning them in the concrete. The question was—Did Labour leaders in that House advocate the introduction of cheap foreign labour?

Well—Chinese we do.

Did they approve of the introduction of workmen who worked at a lower wage for a longer time? If so, he challenged them to come to Alston, or, indeed, any other industrial centre, and proclaim these views from the platform. He would appeal to those who had the interests of the working man at heart to oppose this Motion and not to take a purely parochial view of a purely Imperial question. He asked them to look at the United States of America, at Australia, and all the highly organised States of Europe. There they found Democracy in possession, Labour paramount, and protection almost universal. Had hon. Members opposite a monopoly of economic knowledge? Both Germany and Canada had tried our present system, and with what results? Labour lock-outs, stagnation, industrial depression. Both countries returned to the policy of protection, and now they saw Canada flourishing and Germany advancing by phenomenal strides. He contended that this vote of censure was a veiled condemnation of the policy adopted in other countries. It could not be denied that it was the commercial and imperial policy of Bismarck that moulded the great German Empire of to-day. But his project of protection was far from unanimously received. Leading political economists were at first against it, but time had proved it the salvation of Germany. Germany's struggle was now our struggle, her crisis our crisis. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had come forward to show that the future of our people lay in a future commercial and Imperial federation. The right hon. Gentleman had said there was no middle path between development and consolidation on the one hand, disruption and decay on the other. Beyond the voices of those who would vote for this Motion of censure he seemed to hear another voice which more correctly expressed the sentiments of the democracy of the Empire—the voice of our Colonies appealing to the democracy of Great Britain to protect the labour of the Empire against the encroachment of the rest of the world.

said that unless the Prime Minister, or whoever spoke on behalf of the Government, indicated that the Government had departed from the Sheffield programme it was his intention, and, he believed the intention, of a large number of other Unionist free-traders, not to take part in the division on the Motion. Such a course demanded a defence from many points of view. His hon. friend who had just sat down regarded the Motion as a declaration of disapproval of protection on the German plan. They should all vote in favour of the Motion if they took that view, and he was sure that many of the Ministers would also be found in the same lobby. But the speech of his hon. friend was very instructive. The hon. Gentleman, he noticed, observed that there was after all some object in the action taken by Lord Lansdowne and others at the Albert Hall. That showed that it was not only free-traders who had a difficulty in comprehending the meaning and intention of the spokesman of the Government. He thought they could not form a just estimate of the conduct of Ministers who had attended the Albert Hall unless they remembered the extraordinary circumstances that had led to that meeting—the reorganisation of the Liberal Unionist Party and the resignation of the Duke of Devonshire. All the analogies of the National Union of Conservatives and of the general duty of Ministers in respect to meetings of that kind were irrelevant unless that point was dealt with, because it was clear that that coloured the whole of the proceedings. It was not his business nor was it his desire to criticise any of the Ministers present personally; but he thought that if they were not in agreement with the right hon Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham—who, of course was justified in his action by a strong sense of public duty—it would have been more in accordance with ordinary good feeling for those late supporters of the Duke of Devonshire to have postponed till another day their assisting at what was the festival of his deposition. But he did not share the view which had been expressed by many speakers on the Opposition side and said freely in the newspapers that the presence of Ministers at the Albert Hall meeting indicated a change in the policy of the Government. He accepted fully the statement made by Lord Lansdowne on the subject in another place. Lord Lansdowne had said that he adhered to the statement he made at the beginning of the year that the Government was opposed to the imposition of duties on raw material and food supplies; and, further, that their policy, instead of leading to the Birmingham abyss, tended in the opposite direction. As he had said, he accepted that statement. But it was strange that Lord Lansdowne had not explained to the audience at the Albert Hall that, although he regarded their "aspiration"—to use the word of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary with approval and sympathy, he proposed to follow a policy which led in an opposite direction. There was a great deal to be said for taking up a moderate position or a middle course. But the Government had not taken a middle course. They had taken an ambiguous course, which was an entirely different thing. One might agree or disagree with t middle course; but that was a thing fundamentally different to an ambiguous course, which some people understood in one sense and some people in another. For instance, there was the question of retaliation. They did not know, and he most keenly desired to know, whether retaliation would be used against one particular country by way of a penal duty against that country, or whether it would be used by way of a tariff wall against all countries, with particular exceptions in favour of countries which came to terms. Then they did not know whether when a retaliatory duty was imposed, and it was found ineffective for retaliatory purposes, it would he retained for protective purposes. His hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade said that that was a matter for the Cabinet to answer. Let the House observe how secret the Government kept their policy. It was a matter of Cabinet secrecy, so that even their own subordinates were in doubt as to whether the retaliatory tax would be a permanent equipment of our fiscal system or whether it would be taken off if, and as soon as, it had been tried and failed of its purpose. Then, taking the matter of preference, the Prime Minister said the matter was not ripe; but he had not told them whether he proposed to assist in ripening public opinion or in ripening whatever was unripe in the matter, or to operate in the contrary direction, or to take no part in the process one way or the other. In respect to dumping, there was a good side to dumping as well as a bad, and he did not dispute that on the whole dumping was nimical to the industrial system of the country. But there, again, they were not told what the policy of the Government was, or whether the measures to be taken were to be of a protective character or not. His right hon. friend was in favour of a 10 per cent. duty on manufactured and half-manufactured goods all round, and they had never been told whether the Government were in favour of that or not. Finally, on the particular occasion under discussion, they were told that the sympathy of the Government with the object of his right hon. friend was unabated. What was meant by sympathy? In a certain sense they were all in sympathy with his right hon. friend, they all admired his right hon. friend's devotion to a great Imperial idea, but was that the only sympathy which stirred in the breast of Ministers? Or did they mean by unabated sympathy active co-operation and support? No fair-minded man could deny that the decisions on the points he had named would make all the difference between a truly protectionist system and the system of free imports scarcely modified. The ambiguity of the Government covered a range of the very widest character. Ambiguity was useful for only two purposes. It was useful for deception and for concealment. He was sure the Government did not intend to deceive anybody; he had not the least doubt they desired to be as truthful as any other persons. But he felt some misgivings whether, with the most honourable intentions, they were not pursuing a policy of concealment in such a way that it was producing the hardship of dislocation and arousing the antagonism which naturally followed upon a system of deception. They all remembered the moral propositions inculcated almost in the nursery that it was possible to start with concealment, never to tell the slightest falsehood, and vet merely by pressure of outside circumstances to get into a position essentially deceptive. He should himself feel some uneasiness if he saw that people understood him in two different senses. He did not refer merely to newspapers, though oven when newspapers interpreted him in one sense over a great period of rime on a question exciting much public interest it was almost impossible for a public man in a leading position entirely to ignore the circumstance. But not only newspapers, but speakers and writers of signed articles in magazines—everybody understood the Government in different senses. That was producing disastrous consequences. They were told they ought not to shut the door upon colonial preference. What he wanted to do was to shut the door upon protection. He did not believe in colonial preference, and the more he heard the less he believed in it; but his great and principal objection which turned his opposition from a read criticism into an enthusiastic opposition was that it meant import duties upon food, which were indistinguishable in their results from protection. That being so, he thought they aright be told what the Government proposed to do in respect to their supporters' position and their relation with their constituents. They were told this fiscal controversy was only an academic discussion to educate the public mind, and that was realty the attitude of the Government. Free-traders did not object to discussion; they only regretted that they were so seldom allowed to discuss this matter in such a way that they might express their opinions and record their votes without regard to the question of confidence or otherwise in the Government. If they were only sitting round the fireside talking over the fiscal question it was not desirable that some of them should be violently taken by the shoulders and thrown into the passage. Such a proceeding interfered with that calmness of mind with which they would like to listen to his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. He observed with very great regret that his right hon. friend the Member for Croydon, in consequence of division of opinion in his constituency on these academic matters, and because he did not feel himself strong enough to go through a bitter contest, was not going to stand again. He should not himself have taken the course his right hon. friend proposed to follow, but how was it possible to make relevant to this sort of discussion phrases about "not shutting the door"? The only person against whom the door was shut was his right hon. friend the Member for Croydon, so far as he could see. How were they to have a fair, open-minded discussion on a great Imperial question if the were not to be secure of their seats in Parliament while that discussion was in progress? What the Government were accused of doing—it was so base that he did not accuse them of it—was of keeping the matter nominally open while they allowed underground efforts to be made to turn their own supporters who did not agree with the new fiscal policy out of Parliament, and then, when that had been done, the machine would go on to carry out the dictates of his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. He was quite honest in saying he did not suspect his right hon. friend the Prime Minister of any such intention. He was not quite sure that he did not suspect his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham. Of course his right hon. friend did not depend on the support of Unionist free-traders. In East Herts he understood that his right hon. friend had an interview with a possible Conservative protectionist candidate, and pressed him to stand against his hon. friend.

was understood to say that he encouraged him.

submitted that such action was not calculated to create an atmosphere suitable for the discussion of this "academic" question with an open mind. Was it not manifest that while they were talking about discussion his right hon. friend was up and doing? The issue was now joined. Were the Government going to give no guidance as to what their decision was to be? See how they would be placed assuming their attitude was one of sympathy with his right hon. friend, but of disagreement on certain points. Suppose the free-traders won, evidently the Government would be left sympathising with his right hon. friend. If his right hon. friend won, they would be left disagreeing from his right hon. friend, but in either case their sympathy and disagreement would be of no importance because it would not have been effective in the time when the work was to be done. What was wanted was not a decision abstractly just in some future period but a decision on the present state of things. If the Government were against preference now they ought to say so. They might keep an open door for themselves and say that circumstances in the future might make judicious what was now injudicious, but that at present they disapproved of it and would give it no support: that would be a consistent and straightforward course, and if it was a true expression of their view he could not conceive why they should not take it. Therefore he was driven to the conclusion that they wished to help his right hon. friend, but would not publicly say so. He submitted that the Ministers who attended the Albert Hall had been guilty of what in the old sense of the word was a scandalous proceeding. He thought. it gave an occasion of stumbling and was intended to mislead opinion. It created what was strictly and properly a scandal in the Unionist Party. The hon. Member for Norwich, in an interesting letter to The Times, suggested, as did also a phrase in the circular issued in the usual course from the Treasury Whips, that Ministers were entitled to every support because of the danger to the country from foreign complications. The hon. Member was entitled to use that argument, and he did not at all deny that it was a consideration which ought to be present to all of them on this occasion. But the Government were not entitled to use that argument. What were they to think of the Foreign Secretary who, knowing as he must know, that foreign affairs were in a complicated and dangerous condition, went to a meeting and took a course which he must have known would be most gratuitously offensive to a large section of his supporters; and then afterwards told them—Oh, the situation is so dangerous you must not censure what we have done? What was that but an open, unconcealed confession of a gross indiscretion? It was nothing but saying that what these Ministers did was to jeopardise national interests. If it did not mean that it meant nothing. Then the final defence was that Lord Lansdowne would exert a restraining influence over his right hon. friend. "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? Will he make a covenant with thee? Wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?" He disagreed with the action of these Ministers, and he disapproved it; and in these circumstances he might be asked, "Why not support the Opposition in the Division Lobby?" He drew a distinction between this and the earlier divisions. This Motion did not directly raise the issue of free trade and protection; it raised only the indiscretion of Ministers on a particular occasion. But the main reason which determined him was that he thought they ought to put aside from their minds all considerations of irritation, and decide what was best in the interests of free trade, best in the public interests generally, and best in the interest of the many objects that the Unionist Party had in view. The general policy of the country appeared to him, as a Unionist, better consulted by the continuance of the present Government in power than by the substitution of the Opposition. That was such an obvious consideration that he need not dwell upon it. He thought that Ministers were a much more, competent Government than any Government, likely to take their place. Was this, then, in the interest of free trade, and that was the supreme question with him? He thought that it was. He believed it to be supremely in the interest of free trade that they should not widen the gap between free-trade Unionists and the rest of the Party except when principle absolutely required it. A great many persons on both sides of the House said that his hopes were vain and delusive. They thought that the Party was absolutely committed to protection, and that it was only a question of time when the position of free-trade Unionists would become impossible, and that these hon. Gentlemen might as well recognise the facts now. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham thought that he possessed the majority of the Unionist Party and that the minority ought to give way to the majority. The right hon. Gentleman might or might not possess the majority now. It would not make any difference to him which way the majority thought, because he believed that there was no more ignominious form of idolatry than the worship of a majority. Whatever be the case now, he confessed that within the last few months he had felt a growing hope that ultimately the Unionist Party would return to free trade. He was aware that the Unionist Party was an Imperialist Party, but he was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's policy, from an Imperial point of view, apart from its economics, was a mistake. He believed that it started with the same mistake as the Manchester school made, namely, that it grotesquely exaggerated the importance of trade as a unifying principle. This unifying doctrine was one of the most difficult things to justify by any appeal to history. The English traded much more with the Germans than they did with the Italians, and yet they did not entertain warmer feelings for the Germans than were entertained for the Italians. It might be useful as a unifying element where, in the case of a great volume of trade, the destruction of it meant a grave commercial crisis, but it operated only to stop actual disruption. The establishment of a Zollverein would be a small matter politically considered; nor again, on the other hand, would a reciprocity treaty between Canada and the United States be the colossal danger which the right hon. Gentleman believed it to be. Canada would be just as loyal to us after such a treaty as it was now. Secondly, he thought that it was unproved that a Zollverein, in its general effect, had a unifying influence apart from the degree in which it encouraged trade. The House was always pointed back to the example of Germany. Had those who quoted the illustration of the German Zollverein ever reflected on this single circumstance? Thirty-one years after it was instituted Austria and Prussia were at war, and the Prussian kingdom annexed several other kingdoms which were members of the Zollverein. The hon. Gentleman thought that the right hon. Member for Birmingham was going to unite the British Empire in the same way as Bismarck united the German Empire. He sincerely hoped not. Any one who had read German history must be aware that the source of German unity was the military power of France and the military power of Prussia, which drove the smaller States into union. The Zollverein was a subordinate matter. He believed a Zollverein to be impossible in the British Empire for this reason—that the Colonies were at present protectionist. They would never admit our goods perfectly free unless they became free-traders. If they were prepared to throw down their tariff barriers and admit our goods free, it was clear that they would first of all have abandoned the whole protectionist theory of the protection of commerce. But whatever might be said about a Zollverein, preference was not a Zollverein. It was not like it, and he did not think that it would lead to a Zollverein. It was not a simple system of throwing down Customs tariffs within a certain limit; it was a capricious choosing of industries here and there for a special advantage. We were to pay more for everything, more, certainly, for corn for the benefit of the corn producer, while exporting more freely to Canada what we manufactured. A more capricious system, tainted with essential unfairness from top to bottom, he did not think could be devised; and he could not believe that it would have a unifying effect. It should not be forgotten, moreover, that it was for a great period of time the policy of this country. There was a differential duty in favour of Canadian timber as late as 1860. Timber was one of the great Canadian productions, but no one could suggest that Canada was more loyal or more attached to the Empire before 1860 than she had become since. What, then, became of the unifying tendency of preference? We ought to turn our minds towards Imperial unity away from trade in another direction. if we were to use the illustration of German unity as a model, it should be a Kriegsverein, and not a Zollverein. Something of the kind was revealed by the war in South Africa, where we had a military union. It could not be a very difficult thing to carry out what had been done temporarily by a more elaborate and worked-out system. He respected the Government for having admitted to the Council of Defence a Canadian member. That had an ease and a simplicity about it which contrasted very happily indeed with the fiscal policy. It was a national step, taken when the time was ripe for it; it was not a policy thrust down the throat of the United Kingdom by agitation, meetings, excitement, Party splits, and electioneering devices. He would like to see the Colonies taken into much closer confidence in all diplomatic negotiations. so that they might know not only what it was possible to see publicly, but what was known privately as to the genesis of ally great war. The Imperial service should be much more widely thrown open to the Colonies. It was in that direction, and not in the direction of trade, we ought to look for Imperial unity. Therefore, he did not think that the Conservative Party, because it was an Imperialist Party, was necesarily a protectionist Party. It was possible to dissever Imperialism from protectionism, and it would be better for Imperialism when this was done. The right hon. Gentleman would find, he was sure, that the Conservative Party was a bad instrument for revolution. It was a defensive and not an aggresive Party; and to use it for the purposes of revolution would he like trying to run a man through with a breastplate. Sooner or later he felt persuaded that the Unionist Party would return to its proper function of defending the great institutions that were threatened, the great interests that were threatened, against the most unwise attacks being made and that would be made. It would return to its proper enterprise and its proper tasks. Not to mention minor questions, there was the great growth of the labour movement, which would necessitate a readjustment of the relations between labour and capital. When that time came many of his hon. friends who thought badly of political economy now would take a different view of that science hereafter. They would not call it a collection of ship-boleths when they were dealing with a proposal to fix wages by law, and possibly they would look with a brighter eye than now upon the despised school of laisser faire. Personally he would hold the same opinion as he did now. He would be the opponent of labour movements such as he had indicated, and he was the opponent of the protectionist movement. Each had something in common, and the fact that it was so did not increase his confidence in the one or the other. He and his hon. friends would abstain from this division with their eyes fixed on the future, regretting the present divisions in the Party and looking forward to a day of union. In the contests yet to be fought it would be no light advantage to the Conservative Party that those contests should be fought while the necessaries of life were still cheap, and that the arguments of questions between capital and labour should not be confusedly any distress caused by the cost of living. After much obloquy and pain, and after having, perhaps, been excluded from Parliament by the arts of hon. Gentlemen, he felt confident that nevertheless, by reason of their good cause and their faith in it, the ultimate victory would rest with him and his hon. friends.

During the early part of this debate I thought it would be quite unnecessary for me to take any part in it, and that I might preserve a wholly detached attitude, because the object of the Leader of the Opposition was to show that His Majesty's Government was in entire agreement with me; and it was not to my interest to prove the contrary. If the right hon. Gentleman could convince me of that by evidence that I have not been able to discover, I could only be grateful to him. I should not have taken part in the debate, therefore, but for the very eloquent, moderate, and most good-humoured speech to which we have just listened, and the appeal which the noble Lord made to me in regard to a practical aspect of this question. My noble friend desires to see reunion in the Unionist Party, arid he complains that his position and that of his friends is made difficult by the intervention of myself and my friends in the constituencies. Well, Sir, he put it to me that I had advised a certain gentleman to stand for a constituency now occupied by a Unionist Member. I do not think I need go into the details of a conversation which I thought entirely idle at the time; but I admit that I did advise and even encourage what I thought to be the gentlemanly, laudable intention. But if that was wrong on my part what is to be said of those who issue manifestoes praying all Unionist electors to withdraw the support from any Unionist Member who goes further than my noble friend in regard to fiscal reform? What is to be said of the Free Food League, of which I believe my noble friend is a distinguished member, which goes down to Birmingham and opens an office there with the express object of defeating, if possible, the present Member for South Birmingham who stood as a Unionist candidate?

The Free Food League has never taken such action as a body.

I do not care a brass button whether it acts as a body or as a part of a body. I know they went to oppose the Unionist candidate, though the eloquence seems to have had very little effect. I think my noble friend himself went to Birmingham to address a meeting.

Yes, but not during an election.

But what was the noble Lord's object? He is not accustomed to waste his eloquence on the desert air; and if he went there and made a hot attack on me and my policy, surely the only conclusion is that he desired to produce on the minds of the constituents of myself and my colleagues the impression that they would be wiser not to return us again. All I wish to say to my noble friend is that it does not lie with him to throw stones. But do not let him suppose for a moment that I object to the course which he took on that occasion or to a similar course on the part of his friends. In his eloquent peroration the noble Lord must have convinced the House of the sincerity with which he holds his views. Will he not believe that those who differ from him hold with equal sincerity and earnestness their belief that the future of this country and of the Empire depend upon the adoption at no distant date of the policy which we advocate and at which we are aiming? So long as that is the case on both sides, I hope without any unfriendliness, we must carry our policies to their legitimate issues.

I said that the attitude which the right hon. Gentleman took up made the position of the Government a very unreasonable one.

There is one thing I might add to what I have said. As far as I know, no association with which I have been connected has ever instigated opposition to any other Member on our side of the House. Perhaps instigated is not the word, and I should say has never initiated opposition. What we have said is that this is a matter for the constituencies, and of course for the Parties in each constituency. On the same evening that the Liberal Unionist Council passed the resolution to which reference has been made, another resolution was passed declaring that the whole support of the association should be given to any Liberal Unionist candidate who was duly selected by his committee to support the Government, without reference to his views on fisca1 reform. To that resolution I most cordially subscribe; but if a Liberal Unionist constituency, through its representative association, declares that it is wholly at variance with the sitting Member, and will not select him again, and desires that another candidate should be selected, then I say undoubtedly that we are quite prepared to give our support to the candidate so selected, and we shall not complain in the slightest degree if the same measure is meted out to us which we have meted out to others. But the debate seems to have wandered from its original object, which was really a very narrow one. It was the desire of the Leader of the Opposition to identify the Prime Minister with my views on the subject of preference; and I understood him to suggest by that rather curious quotation from Dr. Arnold which he introduced, I thought rather irrelevantly, that it was his desire, if he could convict my right hon. friend of any special sympathy with me, at once to take him out and hang him. It is not for me to speak for my right hon. friend. Neither, perhaps, is it for me to accept a statement of his opinions which I do not believe to be accurate. If there is no difference between my right hon. friend and myself, why did I leave the Government? There was absolutely no necessity for my leaving the Government except this—that I held with sincerity the views which 1 have subsequently placed before the country. I recognised that my right hon. friend did not go as far as I wished to go, and that my continued presence in the Government would mean either that I should embarrass him or that I myself should be unable to speak freely. Therefore, I went to speak freely to the country on a matter to which I attached so much importance. I hear statements about the ambiguity of the Government's position. If my noble friend means to say that he does not know at the present time the whole mind of my right hon. friend on a subject not before Parliament, very likely he is right. But what right has he to inquire? On what principle has any Member of this House the right to criticise His Majesty's Government as to what may or may not be their policy or that of their successors years hence? Again and again I have heard Liberal and Conservative Governments absolutely refuse to give any information as to their policy for the next session of Parliament. How much less are they bound to say what their schemes and policies will be not in a future session but in a future Parliament? What my right hon. friend has said is this. When the Colonial Secretary repeated it to-night there went up a shout from those Benches as if it were something perfectly new. What my right hon. friend said from the moment I left his Government was that he sympathised with the great aspirations which I have put before the country; that he sympathised with the idea of preferential terms between the Colonies and ourselves, even though those terms may involve a slight addition to our duties on food. Have hon. Gentlemen heard that for the first time? Have they not read the letter which my right hon. friend addressed to me when I resigned? They will find it all there, as well as in the Sheffield speech and the Bristol speech. And now they have discovered this declaration apparently this afternoon, are they no longer going to say that there is any ambiguity about the position of my right hon. friend? He assured me of his sympathy, but at the same time he said that, in his opinion the policy was not at the present time a practicable one, or one likely to be accepted by the people of this country. There probably is the difference which existed then, and which I fear still exists, between my right hon. friend and myself. I myself think that this policy is ripe, at any rate, to be submitted to the people of this country. I do not say that the people of this country would accept it at the first offer. I have never pretended—I have been perfectly frank with the country and with my supporters—I have never pretended that a great change of this kind could be expected to be hastily accepted by a people who for sixty years had been going on under a totally different system. But that it will be accepted I am as certain as that I am standing here. As the consummation which I desire will come all the sooner the sooner the proposal is made to the country, for that reason, so far as I am concerned, the sooner the election comes the better I shall be pleased. Of course, if my late colleagues had accepted that view, which perhaps is a wrong one, there would have been no occasion for me to leave the Government, but as they did not accept it they are perfectly right in saying that they do not propose that policy to the present Parliament, and in saving that as to what they or any one else will propose to another Parliament is a thing which it will be quite time enough to discuss when that times come. In my own opinion, at any rate, that is perfectly consistent, logical, and defensible, and there is not the slightest ambiguity about it. My right hon. friend, as I have said, sympathises with my policy of preference, but the noble Lord almost went as far as that. This at least I may say of him, that he sympathises with the ideal which I have in view.

Hear, hear!

He sympathises with my object; it is merely as to methods or manner that he differs from me. Well, he has stated that in his opinion an arrangement such as I propose would not be a unifying arrangement, that it would be a capricious arrangement, and that the object should be sought by other means. A capricious arrangement! Then every treaty with every foreign nation for ally commercial arrangement whatsoever must be barred. I suppose the noble Lord, if he had been living at the 'time of Mr. Cobden, would have repudiated that great man when he made the French treaty. What was the French treaty? Was it not an arrangement ill which particular articles were picked out here and there and reciprocal concessions made? It was just as capricious as anything, and even more capricious than anything, that I have proposed. And if it is legitimate to make a reciprocal arrangement with a foreign country, why in Heaven's name should it not be proper to make an arrangement with your own kinsmen? Why are they the only people with whom you refuse to treat or make a two-sided bargain? My noble friend said it was not a unifying arrangement. He differs ill that respect from all those who ought to know. Who is it that wants this arrangement? The Colonies. Does anybody doubt that? [HON. MEMBERS: Yes.] What proof would satisfy hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that the Colonies do desire such an arrangement as I propose Take Canada, I should have thought we had the most absolute proof that could be given, short indeed of an actual treaty. You have had statements of the Prime Minister of Canada, when, with the other Prime Ministers, he unanimously proposed to this country that they should undertake negotiations for the purpose of making such a preferential arrangement. You had the Budget speeches of Mr. Fielding, the Minister of Finance. I myself quoted some time ago a letter which I received from him in which he said that all Parties in Canada were in favour of preferential arrangements. Although there might be difficulties, he for one did not believe that British and colonial statesmen, coming together, would not be able entirely to overcome them. Do you think that these gentlemen are not entitled to speak for their people? Will you take the boards of trade? They are precisely those representative associations where you would expect most opposition, because they generally represent the manufacturers. Yet there is not an important board of trade in Canada which has not passed a strong resolution in favour of preference. Are you doubtful about Australia? Will you accept the views of three successive Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth—Sir Edward Barton, Mr. Deakin, and Mr. Watson? Can you not see in all these declarations proof of what I assert—that they are favourable to such an arrangement, and that they desire that we should propose it? That, my noble friend says, will not be a unifying arrangement. To do something which the Colonies unanimously ask you to do will be to drive them away. To refuse to do what they ask and offer them something which they will not accept—that, forsooth, is the way to unite the Empire. I do not agree with my noble friend. Now, I venture very seriously, not to put a Question, because Questions in this House are not answered if they are awkward to answer. The Opposition have shown themselves quite as clever in evading them as ever we have been able to do. But I put this question for consideration before the Opposition. You condemn the Government, not because they are doing anything, not because they are proposing anything, but because you suspect, or suspect, at all events, some members of them, of sympathy—of what you called concealed sympathy, although 1 think it is open sympathy—with this idea of preference. You can only do that by yourselves frankly and definitely declaring that you have no sympathy with it, and will not look at it under any conditions. Now, is that your position? Is it your position as responsible people who may very shortly be occupying office yourselves, is it your position that, no matter what the Colonies say to you, no matter what offer they may make to you, no matter what advantages or concessions they will offer you, that you will shut the door in their faces and tell them, "No. We are opposed to preference? We wanted to hang one Prime Minister because we suspected him of it; and, of course, we should, ourselves, be ready to commit harri-karri if we had sympathy with it." Though I put the Question I do not press for an Answer, because I should be sorry to have it as positively given as I think it must logically be. But if you say, on the other hand, "No. We are prepared to meet an offer from the Colonies if it is good enough," then I should ask you another question—Will you agree to call the Colonies to your councils? I have been satisfied loyally to accept and support the position taken up by the Government in this matter. So far as their policy of retaliation goes, I entirely approve of it in principle. As to the details, I am content to wait till I see them. But I admit that, to my mind, the policy of preference is more urgent and important than the policy of retaliation. The policy of retaliation might, I think, be adopted at a much later stage, although, perhaps with less chance of advantage than at present. But the opportunity for the policy of preference is sliding away. If it be not accepted within a reasonable time, the offer will no longer remain open. I go, therefore, one step further than I have ever gone before in connection with anything that this Government may do, and I urge my right hon. friend the Prime Minister especially to consider whether, in view of the importance of this question, of the primary importance of knowing what it is that the Colonies really wish, and what is is that they are prepared to do, he should not ask them both questions, and should not call a conference from the Colonies, a conference of representatives to meet and consider this subject, in order that the House and the country may discover whether, in what I have said on this subject, I have based myself upon real knowledge and experience, or whether those are right who from the first, almost before they knew what my policy could be, determined to oppose it on purely Party grounds.

said when the Prime Minister was good enough to give the opportunity to discuss the question of free trade and protection before the country he should be prepared to take an active part in the discussion. The present issue before the House, as he understood it, was the neglect of the Government in not calling upon some of its members to give an account of themselves in associating themselves with an organisation, the ostensible object of which was to propagate the principles of protection throughout the country. He viewed this subject on lines on which he, among others, had been condemned at law for a great principle. The Government was the Executive of the Party in power, a great organisation, and the Prime Minister as the head was responsible for the action of his subordinates. Three years ago the decision of another House in the case of the trades unions was that those at the head of a union who associated themselves with the acts or action of the subordinate members or officials of the union who caused any injury to others, were to be held responsible. The union argued that this was not law, but was told in reply that it was common law based on common sense. If that was binding on a body of organised workers it was binding on any other organised body. The reason of that decision was stated by the Attorney-General, in the debate that took place upon it, to be the fact that the heads of the union had not taken the steps of calling upon the subordinate officials to resign, and he (Mr. Bell) maintained that, inasmuch as some of the subordinate colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had associated themselves with an organisation outside the Government which, in his opinion, was inflicting great injury on our trade and commerce at the present time, they ought to be called upon by the right hon. Gentleman to relinquish their positions in the Government or that the Government should be held responsible. He admired the candour and straight-forward manner in which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had put before the House and country the policy in which he believed. Whether they agreed with it or not they knew from him definitely what he proposed to do, and those who did not agree could only fight him on that policy. The hon. Member for Eskdale called himself the friend of the working man, and they had a large number of friends of the same kind who were prepared to support legislation for the benefit of the working man, so far as they could understand them. The difficulty was to get them to appreciate, in the same way as the Labour Members, those things which were good for the workers. The Labour Members surely should know something of what was beneficial to the working man; of his surroundings, and the necessity there was for greater comfort and happiness. But the answer to the hon. Member for Eskdale had been given by the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich, who stated that the Conservative Party was a defensive and not an aggresive Party. And they had certainly defended themselves against anything which had been brought forward to benefit the working man. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham now based his policy on the great desire for unity between this country and the Colonies, but the original reason given by him for the tax on corn was that the revenue received should provide old-age pensions. Nothing was now said as to that. The right hon. Member had jumped from stage to stage, and his third plea was that it would save the ruined industries of this country. The right hon. Gentleman had now got beyond that to the unity of this country with the Colonies. He was as anxious for that as the right hon. Gentleman, but the means he would adopt to bring about that end would not be identical with those advocated by the right hon. Gentleman. It was for that reason that he supported this Motion. He was anxious that the Prime Minister should let the House and the country know what was in his mind. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister could not defend the action of members of his Cabinet propagating principles in the country at a time when he himself entertained something quite different. The country did not know what it was to look forward to. They wanted to know what the Government policy was. So far every by-election had been fought on the question of protection versus free trade. If that was not the policy of the Government it was in the interest of the Government that they should declare that fact to the House so that the House might know what was the interest in this question. He and his colleagues in the House would fight this question for all they were worth; they would take part in every election where the issue was free trade or protection. He and all the Labour Members in the House would support this Motion, which they trusted would be carried.

said the arguments in support of the Motion had been confined to the question of the taxation not of food in general but of bread in particular. It was true that the fiscal policy of the Liberal Unionist. Council included a tax upon corn, but only in order that the amount obtained should be returned to the people in remission of taxation on other kinds of food. They allowed that their policy involved the taxation of corn, but they disclaimed the charge made in this Motion. The right hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion asked the Prime Minister how he reconciled the policy of Sheffield with that of Birmingham, but the Government and the Liberal Unionist Council and the Unionist Party were no more in favour of the taxation of every kind of food than the right hon. Gentleman himself. It might not be wrong to tax corn in particular because it was wrong to tax all food. All this arose owing to the opinion held by hon. Gentlemen opposite that we were going back to the days of the old Corn Laws, but the days of the old Corn Laws, with their sliding scale and all their shackles, were gone for ever. The aim of the fiscal reformers was not protection at all, they were as much free-traders as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. What they sought was a step towards universal free trade, but that was as far off at present as universal peace. They were endeavouring to obtain free trade within the Empire. They had it in the United States of America. The war between North and South was not a war fought primarily on the question of slavery but for State rights. The North wished to abolish State rights, the South to retain them, and Lincoln declared over and over again that if the Confederated States agreed to give up State rights, so as to make free trade within the United States of America possible, he would agree with them though slavery were not abolished. They fought the matter out, with the result that free trade within the Empire was secured and was now enjoyed by 80,000,000 of the human race. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham sought to secure the same result by peaceful means, for the benefit of one-fourth of the civilised world. This matter lay with this country and this country alone; the Colonies were ready and willing to join hands with us. Turn away from them and the Empire would he like a tree shorn of its foliage in summer, its life gone; but this surely would not be allowed to be. We recognised the wishes of our Colonies and agreed with them, and those wishes would realise themselves and this problem would be solved.

said it had been stated that the Unionists did not propose to tax all food, but only certain kinds. It was because they proposed to tax that kind which was most used by the people that they met with so much resistance from the country. It was also said that free trade within the Empire was a very desirable object if it could be attained. So he said, but no one would be more emphatic than the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in admitting that free trade within the Empire was utterly unattainable, because our self-governing Colonies were dependent upon their tariffs for their revenue, therefore it would be useless to ask them to sweep them away. The right hon. Gentleman quoted various colonies as being entirely favourable to his proposal, and he laid great stress upon the opinion of Canada. He did not pretend to set his opinion against the right hon. Gentleman's, but his experience at the congress of the chambers of commerce held in Montreal last year showed that although there was a large volume of opinion in favour of colonial preference it was on the distinct understanding that the preference should not inflict harm upon the industries of the mother country or other parts of the Empire. Canada recognised that if such an arrangement would inflict injury upon the mother country it would be only less disastrous than injury done to herself. While it would be easy for some of the Colonies who at present had a tariff wall round them to make a preference arrangement, it would be altogether a different matter for the mother country, who had no such tariff walls in existence. Not only Canada but our Colonies generally greatly valued their fiscal freedom. A system of Imperial preference would limit that freedom. The advantage of this freedom was shown in the case of Canada recently, when the preference of 33 1–3 per cent. on woollen goods from this country was reduced to 15 per cent., because the larger preference had the effect of closing certain woollen mills in Canada, and at the same time the preferences in respect of other articles were reduced from 33 1–3 to 20 per cent. Canada was undoubtedly acting within her rights in that matter. The right hon. Gentleman had said the impulse towards preference had come from the Colonies, and yet when the right hon. Gentleman was invited to visit Australia it was represented to him by Mr. Deakin that his visit would give an immense impetus to the preferential movement out there. That seemed to indicate that the movement was hanging fire in the Commonwealth, and that was not surprising in view of the fact that the chief export from Australia was wool, which would not be likely to get any advantage from the Birmingham proposals. He held that the system of preferential tariffs would involve us in great risks, whereas we should stand to gain very little in return. The system was by no means new. We gave a preference to colonial sugar from 1660 to 1854, to colonial corn from 1766 to 1849, to colonial wool from 1721 to 1860, and to colonial coffee from 1800 to 1851. They were dropped because they were found to do more harm than good. Very adequate reasons must therefore be shown before this country gave its consent to revive that old discredited policy. He did not reflect upon the wisdom of other nations when he held that free trade was the best system for this country. Under that system our industries had been built up, and he would never listen to any suggestions to discard it unless after full and careful inquiry, not with closed doors, but in a perfectly open way by an impartial Commission under Government sanction, who would receive evidence from men holding various fiscal views. Our industries had adapted themselves to existing fiscal conditions. Some industries had developed abnormally, but that fact only increased the danger of tampering with the system. The case of Germany could not be quoted in support of colonial preference, because that country had not adopted anything of the kind. Great Britain had as free access into German colonies as Germany herself. The hon. Member for Stretford had drawn an attractive picture of a system which would draw taxes out of the pockets of the taxpayers without their knowing it, but he could not help thinking of the advice that if one found oneself in company with a person who could extract money from people's pockets without their knowledge, the best thing to do was to get as far away from him as possible. Retaliation often did more harm to the country which retaliated than to the country which was retaliated upon. Retaliation also frequently led to tariff wars, which had proved highly injurious to the countries resorting to them. Take the case of the Franco-Swiss tariff war of 1893–5. What was its effect? Swiss imports from France fell off 42 per cent. Swiss exports to France fell off 37 per cent. And in the result third parties alone were the gainers, whilst Franco-Swiss trade had never since regained its former dimensions. While he should be willing to deal with each case on its merits, before he supported a policy of retaliation he would have to be assured that it gave promise of success that he should hit his opponent much harder than he would be hit himself, and that Parliamentary sanction had been obtained in each particular case. Those safeguards would be necessary to prevent abuse of the system. He believed this vote of censure was justified because of the want of candour which had characterised the attitude of the Government with regard to the subject. He thought the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had expressed his sympathy with colonial preference even if it should involve a slight taxation of food would perplex the country more than ever, because he did not see how such a statement could be reconciled with the declaration of Lord Lansdowne that the Government were opposed to preferential arrangements with the Colonies which involved the taxation of food. If Lord Lansdowne had said as much as that at the Albert Hall there would have been ructions, and he might have been invited to resign the vice presidency to which he had just been elected. They complained not so much of Lord Lansdowne's speeches, although they seemed to vary with his surroundings, as of his conduct in joining an association which had undergone reorganisation and was pledged to support the whole policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. It was unfair that Lord Lansdowne should have been persuaded to accept this high position, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham must be laughing in his sleeve at the way he was capturing one Minister after another. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of colonial preference being a more urgent question than any other. Surely that statement ought to have made Lord Lansdowne very careful before accepting the position of vice-president. Should Lord Lansdowne desire to contest that view with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, it seemed to him that he would now be entirely muzzled, for the chairman at that meeting said that it was the essence of the Party system that the minority should not use their power to hinder the work which the majority had decided upon. The Colonial Secretary that afternoon laid stress upon the alleged sympathy of the Prime Minister with the Birmingham fiscal proposals. He thought the Prime Minister had receded from the favourable view he held in this respect some time ago; for, speaking in Manchester on 12th January, 1904, he used these words—

"I have expressed the opinion both in 1902 and last year that a closer union with the Colonies must be looked for in the direction of fiscal union. Well, I have somewhat changed that opinion."

They all agreed that the idea of consolidating the Empire was a fine inspiration, but unless Ministers were very careful the result would be more one of disruption than consolidation. In the report of the interview with the Colonial Premiers in 1902 it was stated that the circumstances of the different Colonies differed so widely that it was apparent that no arrangement applicable to all the Colonies could be devised. He thought a more hopeful way would be by the federation of the Colonies with the mother country in some Imperial Council, and in that way they would give effect to the wise words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he said, "Call us into your counsels."

said that this debate was one which involved the commercial and industrial welfare, not only of this country, but also of the Colonies. The last speaker had said that tariff walls necessarily meant tariff wars, but that statement had been entirely disproved by experience. Where retaliation had been projected by one country against another a tariff war might have ensued, but it had not in the case where a majority of the commercial exploiting countries had adopted a protective policy. For instance, between Germany and the United States, or between France and the United States, there had not been tariff wars inimical to either or both of those countries. The proposition that they must not try an experiment in protective policy or retaliation, because they would endanger a tariff war, had not been proved by the evidence of the past. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich said that trade did not unify, and he instanced Germany as an example of federation secured by the sword. But whilst that was so, he would remind the noble Lord that in that case after conquest the States concerned combined for the purposes of a common commercial enterprise and a common exploitation of their general interests. They were used to hearing the statement that the United States was a combination of States with very different interests, but he thought the British Empire had more differing interests than the United States. Within the combination of the United States they had many nationalities, including Frenchmen, Spaniards, and native-born Americans, all combining first by conquest, and then by a common commercial purpose, for the general national benefit and interest. His noble friend the Member for Greenwich threw some doubt upon the possibility of our achieving any benefit front a combination with the Colonies—he meant in the sense of exchange carefully arranged. He had in his pocket a letter from one of the most prominent colonial statesmen in the Empire, and in that letter he said that if the British people granted the Colonies what they were asking for it would not be a sacrifice but rather a preference for a preference; the battle would be sooner over, and the British elector would come to the conclusion that no sacrifice would be required, but rather that there would be a general gain by an adjustment of interests with consideration for all local requirements. That might be a difficult matter, but he did not admit that it was impossible. He had heard again and again the statement made that they would invite irritation and opposition, and produce a danger to the very consolidation of the Empire if they attempted to arrange commercial treaties. Was it not the case that the true federations which now existed within the Empire were achieved upon the basis of compromise? In Canada they had complicated tariffs at the time of the federation. It was then asserted that if they attempted federation they would be faced by the perils of a tariff war, and that they would experience those very anxieties which had been prophesied if they attempted federation now. What had been the result? The seven colonies of the Dominion had combined for the common purpose of national development. In Australia they had six colonies combining, one of which had steadfastly stood out for free trade from the beginning, and they had sacrificed the immediate and local interests to the common and national good. It was said that in this case distance was a factor which would naturally prevent a harmonious combination. He thought they could devise a scheme of preference which would work to the common good. With the advantage they had of quick transportation nowadays there was constant communication with the Colonies, and Quebec was no further from London in this sense than Liverpool was from London forty years ago. Therefore the argument of distance fell to the ground. The argument of differing tariffs also fell to the ground, because what might be achieved by a small organisation might also be achieved in a larger one such as was represented by the Colonies of this Empire. The Leader of the Opposition said that they could not make a bargain with Australia because in order to carry it out they would have to put a tax upon raw material. A tariff in favour of wool would not benefit the Australian, because wool did not need stimulation, and the limit of wool production had been practically reached. It was, however, quite different with corn. Australia desired a tax upon foreign wool, foreign meat, foreign wine, and foreign corn, because at the present time there were twice the number of people employed in agricultural wine-growing pursuits in Australia than were employed in pastoral occupations. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields had informed the House, apparently without any knowledge of the exact conditions which pre- vailed, that this policy of preference was projected by the free-trade Party in the Colonies. That statement was wholly and absolutely incorrect. A Resolution in favour of preference was passed by the Canadian Parliament in 1892, and at that time the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol expressed a feeling in favour of a commercial Zollverein with the Colonies. There had been no question of Party in the Colonies in regard to this policy of preference. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham was, he believed, expressing the opinion of 90 per cent. of the people who lived in the Colonies when he said that they desired a closer commercial union with the mother country. This request of the Colonies for a closer commercial union was not a question of sudden growth. After twenty years of residence in the Colonies he expressed the conviction that this country need not fear the possibility of irritation, quarrelling, and conflict with the Colonies if such a commercial arrangement was made. Abraham Lincoln once said that "it is easier to make bargains with Your own kin than to make treaties with foreign countries." He ventured to say that there was very little faith in a man who would not at least give an opportunity for a fair judgment, and for himself he begged to say that there would be a good many repentances before this movement had reached its goal. Yes, repentances on that side of the House. He would say without any acrimony or feeling that hon. Members opposite would occupy the Benches on his side of the House in the ordinary accidents of time and fortune, and quite apart from the ordinary rewards of virtue. He said, with an absolute sense of conviction, that in opposing this movement, as they were doing, they were alienating the best thought and feeling of the Colonies. He said that because he thought he had more communication with the men who represented the opinion of the Colonies than any other man, except those who sat on the Front Bench of the House, and he said to hon. Members opposite that in the somewhat violent criticisms they had made on the action of the Colonies last week concerning their contributions to the Navy they did nothing to advance the end which they all aimed at, namely, to see a common contribution from all the Colonies to the defence of the Empire. But they would not get it by constantly nagging and by petty and petulant speeches in this House, such as he had heard ever since he entered it, upon the question of the Colonial contribution. Hon. Members thought it easy for the Colonies to understand how it was that they ought to contribute for the defence of the Empire. The Colonies thought it extraordinary that we should not understand how it was that a commercial union might be for the benefit of all. He would quote a portion of a letter he had received from a colonist—

"I notice an expectation in some of your circles that the Colonies should throw themselves into this movement. I do not think that such action would be wise at this juncture."

Could hon. Members wonder why? Were they to incorporate into local politics a great Imperial issue until we had decided whether we would present to them that great Imperial issue or not? The writer also said—

"I am surprised that so little use has been made of the official Paper put in by the Canadian Ministers at the Imperial Conference of 1902."

If he remembered rightly these Imperial Papers embodied not only a wish to give preference to this country, but a distinct promise that they would, when they returned to their own countries, present to their Parliaments proposals for preference. Since that time they had given us a preference of 33⅓ per cent. It was not a great deal. It had only doubled the trade of Canada with this country during the last seven years. Could any Member on the Opposition side of the House say that the Colonies had not given us an earnest of what they meant. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean had said that the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich was like the last sermon of a ritualistic parson before going over to the Church of Rome. Remembering how he was thrilled by the problems of Greater Britain and by the ends the right hon. Gentleman desired to see achieved for the Colonies, he felt that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was like the last effort of an evangelistic parson before turning infidel. The right hon. Gentleman represented a feeling which was common on the Opposition side of the House—a feeling of scepticism, agnosticism, and doubt. They would not believe, but he ventured to say that they would have an opportunity of rectifying their opinions when they themselves came officially in contact with the Colonial Administrations of the future. Whatever Party was in power they would do well not to reject those offers without inter-communion, by conference or otherwise, with the statesmen of the Colonies. If we were patient the Colonies would give much more than an occasional contribution to the defence of the Empire; they would give us the opportunity of commercial union.

said he rose to make a few remarks in support of the vote of censure. Although this was the first time he had spoken on that side of the House, he had not suddenly come to the conclusion that it was his duty to do so. He put aside all questions on which he had differed from the Government, such as the Chinese Labour question, the Licensing Bill, and the Army question, believing that if there was only the fiscal question it was his duty to oppose this Government. He regretted having to part from old friends, but there was only one clear issue before them—were they in favour of free trade or of protection and preferences involving the taxation of food? He had held the opinion since last October that the weight of the Government would ultimately be thrown into the scale of protection. He would ask the hon. Member for Gravesend what was Canada prepared to give us on our woollen goods.

What is this country prepared to give Canada on her corn?

said the hon. Gentleman seemed not to understand that we in England started on a different basis from Canada. We let her goods come in here free. He had asked the supporters of the Birmingham policy in the Division he represented in Lancashire what they could say for colonial preference, and there was not one man in any of the clubs throughout the Division who had a word to say in favour of colonial preference. He asked the Unionist free-traders whether this was a time to shrink back, to take cover and avoid the fight. What would their followers think if they either abstained from voting or voted with the Government? The country understood a fighter, and the followers of the Unionist free-traders would say that there was a fighter on the one side and not on the other side. Any responsibility there was for this vote of censure rested on the heads of the Government and of the Prime Minister, and he trusted that the free-traders in the House, if they believed, as he believed, that the Birmingham policy would be the ruin of the country and the cause of the disintegration of the Empire, would not by their action seem to acquiesce in it or acquiesce in the policy of a Government which, having been elected to carry out one policy, did its best to promote its exact opposite.

said he repudiated the notion of the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that the policy of the Conservative Party was identified with the doctrine of laissez faire. The legislation of the Conservative Party had been totally opposed to that doctrine. The hon. Member for Durham had said that the members of the Government who held free-trade opinions had not had liberty given to them of expressing their opinions. He himself could not reconcile that view with the fact that the hon. Member voted for a Resolution proposed in that House welcoming the assurances of certain members of the Government that they were opposed to protection and taxation on corn, and it was well within the memory of every one that the Lord Chancellor and the Postmaster-General had expressed strong free-trade opinions.

I think my hon. friend must be mistaken in citing the Lord Chancellor as having expressed strong free-trade opinions.

thought that what he said was absolutely correct. He could not very well understand the hon. Member's position. He was as staunch a Unionist as anyone in that House, but he must know that, if the Resolution were carried that the Union would be in danger, that our policy in South Africa would be in danger, and that the maintenance of a strong Army and Navy would be in danger. Why had he raised all these questions? Could it only be for the sake of the barren claim of an economic doctrine? If the Resolution were carried it would introduce the principle of tests into our political life, and establish in it a new "quicunque vult." It would mean that whoever entered into political life should of necessity hold the Cobdenite faith. If this principle of tests were admitted, how would the Government of Lord Aberdeen have stood when there were in it six Whigs, six Peelites, and one Radical? This question ought to be judged on its merits and not in the light of any old tradition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had put forward a great ideal. Although some of them were not convinced that the exact details of the proposals were the best, or were necessary to the attainment of the ideal, nevertheless, they must all give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the grandeur of the conception and the courage with which he had put it forward. Let it be judged on its merits, and not merely because it ran counter to a theory which had held domination over the minds of Englishmen for some time. There had been other theories in the past which were equally considered by public opinion to be vital to our national life; but these theories had disappeared and it could not be said that this last theory of our grandfathers was to stand for ever. The scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham might be right or it might be wrong, but if it was sound, they could not resist it.

said that in the speech which he had delivered the Member for West Birmingham had thrown his lasso over the Prime Minister, and, he thought, had very effectively caught him. Last week it was "stand and wait." To-day it was "stand and deliver." The right hon. Gentleman had been perfectly straight in regard to the course he had taken, and he had no quarrel with the political position which the right hon. Gentleman had created, so far as the right hon. Gentleman was concerned. He was evidently in favour of testing the opinion of the country on these proposals. The right hon. Gentleman, it should be noted, commanded 200 supporters on the Ministerial side of the House. That meant that a majority of the Members of the House were in favour of a dissolution. The Prime Minister, with a minority, for reasons of his own, withstood the desire for an appeal to the judgment of the country upon this great issue. After their recent experiences the Opposition were naturally anxious for a dissolution. Hen. Gentlemen opposite, on the other hand, had not much reason for satisfaction. No doubt when the dissolution came there would be a good many fiscal reform furnaces blown out. The most important thing in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the way he had endeavoured to commit the Prime Minister to his position, without any challenge or contradiction from the Prime Minister. He said that the Prime Minister had assured him that he sympathised with his scheme of colonial preference, even if it should involve a slight taxation of food. He went further. He said that all the Prime Minister was pledged to was not to propose such a policy to the present Parliament, and that what they meant to propose to the next Parliament was not the business of anybody. He asked the Prime Minister whether that really was his position. Of course they were entitled to know the Prime Minister's position with regard to a 10 per cent. tariff all round. As he understood from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the Prime Minister was only pledged so far as the present Parliament was concerned, but that he was not pledged not to go in for that in the next Parliament if he had a majority. The right hon. Gentleman had been holding out in the hope of something turning up. Supposing something did turn up and he was returned to power, did he hold that his pledge would extend to the next Parliament? That was a question he had never answered although it had been put to him by the country and by hon. Members opposite. What was the position at present? Here was the volunteer fleet of the right hon. Member for Birmingham raiding the high seas. Had it the Prime Minister's commission, or was it a piratical commission? It had sunk some very good vessels. It had sunk the Member for Croydon. Was that an act of piracy or had it the Prime Minister's commission? He thought really they were entitled to know that, and he trusted that right hon. Gentleman would answer the question although it came from a private Member. This was the sort of thing that had been going on. The Prime Minister and the Member for Birmingham recommended the same candidates at elections. They might not have the same concern, but they seemed to have running powers over each other's lines. Would they come forward at the next meeting of shareholders with a scheme of amalgamation? The Prime Minister had declared his sympathy with colonial preference, including the taxation of food. There was only one limit he put upon it. He said "I sympathise with it; I think it a great idea, and I should like to see it carried out. But it has one fatal defect: it is unpopular." The right hon. Member for West Birmingham admitted that it was unpopular, but that did not deter him from placing it before the country, and that was a position they could understand. But supposing the right hon. Member for West Birmingham succeeded in his campaign—as he naturally thought he would. That was the very essence of his courage. It was his hopefulness—and the last obstacle to the Prime Minister's conversion would be gone. Great was the Prime Minister's deference to public opinion. There were certain limits to his deference to public opinion. The reconstruction of the Army—that was a question to be decided by public opinion. Was the Militia to continue to exist or not—that was a question for public opinion. Was the whole Empire to be reconstructed—that was a question for public opinion. If public opinion was in favour of it he would accept it. The only limit to that deference to public opinion was when public opinion asked him to retire. Then he said, "I draw the line there; that would involve a disaster to the Empire."

I never said that.

said that evidently the right hon. Gentleman had not read the whip he received yesterday. On this point the right hon. Gentleman said his conscience was touched and he became a passive resister on the spot. Frankly, he did not think the position of the Government was a cerditable one. Why was the right hon. Member for West Bristol not present supporting his policy? It was for this reason. His opinion was that this policy would be beaten and that then it would be abandoned. There was no conviction, no principle behind it. It was purely a question of popularity or otherwise, and he thought it would be abandoned. Well, the right hon. Gentleman knew his Party better than he did. In his view, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the Government were climbing the same peak. The right hon. Gentleman was far in advance, but they were both on the same road. The right lion. Gentleman took all risks. He bridged the chasms, he cut the steps in the ice, he found the safe ways, he negotiated the difficult rocks. If he succeeded the Government would allow themselves to be dragged up behind him and they would rally round his flag on the summit. But if he failed they meant to cut the rope. That was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol.

How do you know?

said that if these were not the right hon. Gentleman's opinions, the right hon. Member for West Bristol would have been there to turn out the Government. He ventured to suggest that that was a very mean conception of the duty of a great Government to a great question. The Prime Minister's position was clear in one respect. He said to his Party, "Don't press me about this thing. The taxation of food does not bother me, or whether the federation of the Empire on these lines will succeed, but I am in difficulties and have to get out the best way I can." It reminded him of the speech of an Athenian general who thus addressed his men—"Fellow soldiers who are posted with me in this dangerous situation, I conjure you in your urgent extremity to throw away all superfluous wisdom." That was the policy of the Prime Minister. It was a position which no House of Commons which had any regard for its own dignity or for the efficiency and power of the Government could ever tolerate without making its opinion perfectly clear.

This debate has been in my opinion a very good debate. I think the speeches from both sides of the House—including the speech which we have just heard—have been of their respective kinds very excellent, with some of those exceptions which I am afraid we must always expect in a debate which lasts through a full Parliamentary day. But none of that credit, I think, is due to the Resolution we are discussing. It seems to me to be one of the most foolish that ever was put upon the Paper of the House of Commons. An hon. Gentleman, speaking for a few moments from the unaccustomed position of the other side of the House, said that this Resolution gave us, for the first time, I understand, the opportunity for a fair and square division upon the respective merits of free trade and protection. Let me read the Resolution which affords us this happy ground for our manœuvres. [An HON. MEMBER on the OPPOSITION Benches: "On the Foxhills."] It is a perfectly justifiable analogy. Now this is the Motion:—"That this House regrets that certain of His Majesty's Ministers have accepted official positions in a political organisation which has formally declared its adhesion to a policy of preferential duties involving the taxation of food." Are Gentlemen opposite so ill-acquainted with the real essence of the contest between free trade and protection that they think the issue is raised, except in the most remote and indirect fashion, by that Motion? The truth is that the whole interest of this debate has turned upon matters which are only just within the limits of order, as connected with the Motion, and even the right hon. Gentleman who put it upon the Paper and moved it hardly touched upon it at all. I suppose I must pay it, in passing, the respectful attention of telling the House why it is foolish, as it appears to me. The principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, both in regard to Ministerial responsibility and the relations of Ministers. of the Crown to the organisations belonging to their Parties seem to me to be utterly subversive, not merely of the constitutional traditions of this country, but of any traditions which we could allow to be framed so as to govern the action of our successors. As regards the Ministers of the Crown, an hon. friend of mine well acquainted with the Colonies who touched upon this question quoted a sentence from Lord Macaulay about the traditions which prevailed a little more than a hundred years ago. That quotation indicates what nobody can doubt, that in the gradual evolution of this House of Commons two things have happened. One is that if you are to carry on the business of the country it is necessary that Party ties should be drawn closer than they were in Mr. Pitt's time, and, in the second place, that Ministerial responsibility and the absolute identity of opinion with regard to current matters is a new doctrine, but, I think, an inevitable doctrine. I do not quarrel with it. I think it is not the old tradition of this House. There was a time, and not very long ago either, in our constitutional history when no attempt was made to draw as tight as the right hon. Gentleman desires for the moment—I fancy only for the moment—the ties among members of the same Government. Let us remember, as the constitutional question has arisen, that there is something more at stake in this part of the question than the fate of this or any other Ministry. What is the principle upon which Governments are formed, and upon which they can only be formed? I have been reproached by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down that I did not give a pledge with regard to my opinions not only in the next Parliament, but the Parliament after, and I suppose all Parliaments until in the course of years I shall be withdrawn from these debates.

I said the next Parliament.

I do not know how long the hon. Gentleman's tests are to apply, nor does he. But I am not only to be expected to give pledges as to what my own opinions are to be months or years hence, when the whole circumstance of the case may have changed, but all my colleagues are expected to give pledges that they shall always agree with me upon all subjects that are to be brought forward. [OPPOSITION cries of "Oh, oh." !] I think that is not merely absurd, but I think anything at all resembling it would be wholly destructive of every form of Cabinet or Parliamentary government. I will not say, although it is obvious, that it makes impossible any coalition, because I am not sure that coalitions in this country have been great successes; but whatever the crisis the country was passing through, whatever the distribution of Party in this House, however difficult it may be to form a homogeneous Ministry out of a single Party, you must put coalition on one side. The Opposition say, "Here are gentlemen who are only agreed upon the policy of the session. But we want more than that. We want them to subscribe to some test to show that after this Parliament is dissolved, and possibly after they have been out of office for years, after Parliament is dissolved, they are to come back one homogeneous body, subscribing to one single system of fiscal doctrine." I am certainly not going to make any pledge for myself, and I am certainly not going to ask any pledges from my friends. After all, the only question immediately raised is whether a Minister of the Crown ought to belong to an association representing his Party in which resolutions are passed with which he does not agree, or in which he is not obliged to agree. [An HON. MEMBER:" Do you or do you not agree?"] Well, Sir, I remember Lord Randolph Churchill voting for a resolution in favour of protection. That did not bind the leaders of the Party in his day, nor their successors. I do not know why less liberty is to be allowed now. For my own part, I think it wholly improper that any attempt should be made to control the resolutions passed by the National Union of Conservative Associations. No attempt has ever been made to control them. I do not know how right hon. Gentlemen opposite manage their affairs. Perhaps their followers are better drilled but, unless I have been misinformed—I do not know whether it is true or not—the Trade Union Conference in 1893 passed a resolution in favour of the nationalisation of all the mineral resources of the country, and the hon. Member for Morpeth, for whom I have as great a respect as I have for any Member of the House, was a member of that conference, and also a member of Mr. Gladstone's Government. They passed such a resolution, and why should they not? And why should the hon. Gentleman not have remained a member of that Government? This idea of restricting the liberties of these representative institutions may find favour upon that side of the House, but as far as I am concerned, they shall never find favour upon this side, and I shall never recommend friends of mine who belong to the Liberal Unionist section of the Party to bind themselves in the sort of fetters which apparently commend themselves to the right hon. Gentleman opposite and his friends. We have been told that the Government ought to speak with one voice. I think a Government ought to speak with one voice; but if you want them to speak with one voice, human nature being what it is and human beings modifying their opinions as they do, it must be for a limited time. Can you ask The members of a Cabinet to agree for more than the Parliament in which that Cabinet leads? If you are to lay down that doctrine. how on earth is the Radical Party ever to come into power? I quite admit that the divisions on this side at this moment are greatly occupying public attention and are greatly embarrassing, if you please, to the members of the Party themselves; but one must get accustomed to a disease. Everybody knows that there is an immunity derived from long suffering under certain microbic invasions. Hon. Gentlemen are immune from this particular disease, because, as everybody knows, they have had divisions from time immemorial. And their divisions are far more fundamental now and are going to remain more fundamental than any which exist on this side. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] Well, now, who is bold enough to challenge this? Here we have hon. Gentlemen opposite, some of whom are fervent believers in Home Rule. There are others who think it is an academic question, like the right hon. Member for East Fife, and there are others who hate the name. How many of them would agree that we ought to nationalise the mineral resources of the country? I see some hon. Gentlemen who would be seriously embarrassed if that particular policy were ever carried into effect. In truth, at this moment they are agreed on only one subject, and that is the question how they are most quickly to get into office. Their eagerness may be a matter of surprise, but it is a perfectly legitimate object of ambition. But, after all, it is an inadequate bond for a great Party. It hardly provides a sufficient basis for agreement on which to carry on a solid and patriotic policy for the country at large. I do not complain of their difficulties, from which I anticipate considerable personal enjoyment in the future, but what 1 do complain of is that they should turn upon us and reproach us as if they were a united family, bound together in the bonds of brotherly love, having but one opinion upon all the great questions that can divide the country, including fiscal reform. I think that absurd. And inasmuch as it is absurd, I perhaps may be allowed to leave the Motion which is immediately before the House and deal with more interesting and important questions. I cannot conceal from myself that this vote of censure, though nominally directed against Lord Lansdowne and Lord Selborne, against my hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury and other of my Liberal Unionist friends and colleagues, is in reality and in truth a vote of censure on myself. I have no objection to that. I have very little complaint indeed to make of the extraordinary wealth of adjectives hurled at my head in the course of this debate, and in previous debates on the same subject, in connection with the line I have thought it my duty to pursue. I have made a list of these adjectives; it is rather long; but perhaps I can sum it up by reminding the House that I have been accused of being a kind of Macchiavelli trying by mere dexterity, mere manœuvring—the phrase was loudly cheered—having no strong opinions of my own, of being desirous only of maintaining, as far as may be, the union of the Party which I lead, and of keeping office for myself and friends as long as possible. That is the expurgated substance of the attacks made upon me this afternoon and on previous occasions. Of course there are a certain number of politicians whose whole stock-in-trade consists in first misunderstanding and then in misrepresenting their opponents. I hope and believe that there are few in this Assembly, and if there are, I never wish to deprive a poor man of his livelihood. I am the last man to complain of any Gentleman who thinks it is the proper and best way of carrying on a controversy; but I believe that the vast majority of Gentlemen on both sides of the House are not desirous to indulge in deliberate misrepresentation, and are really anxious, if it does not cost them too much trouble, to make themselves acquainted with the point of view even of those with whom they most differ. It is to the second class and not to the first class I appeal. I do not in the least mind. I think the House will give me credit when I say that no man minds hard words less than I do. I am not raising this point in order to defend myself and to make an attack on any individual who may have thought it part of his duty to attack me; but the misunderstanding is so great that something may be gained by clearing it away. Hon. Gentlemen think that I have treated them badly by clouding my opinions in ingenious phrases, by never making a declaration of policy, by attempting to hold the balance between the two extremes, and by various Parliamentary artifices which, if ever justifiable, are not justifiable in regard to any prolonged discussion of any national issue. My view is that I think I have done more than any man in my position, than any previous Minister or Prime Minister, has ever done to make his position absolutely clear. I have not dealt with these subjects for the first time, nor since the fiscal controversy came into an acute stage. I have been interested in economics for many years. I have spoken on them before the fiscal question came before the country in its present stage. I have spoken and written upon them frequently since. Any one who will take the trouble to read through these various speeches and writings I have made in the last twenty years of my political life will see that everything I have said on these economic subjects belongs to one consistent body of doctrine. It is possible, though I doubt it, that there may be here and there a verbal inconsistency; 1 have not read these back numbers, but that there is a substantial inconsistency I do not believe, and it is evident to any one who looks at the documents in a fair and honest spirit, that from first to last I have uttered the opinions I formed quite independently of the present controversy. No man, however much trouble he took, can preserve that verbal consistency for all these years. I have taken no trouble. I have spoken on each occasion for the occasion, and any critic with the smallest perspicuity or fitted with an elementary knowledge of the subject discussed would see that the docrines I have recommended to the country are not doctrines intended to harmonise any possible extremes, not doctrines to meet a particular occasion in a particular way, not examples of superhuman dexterity combined with superhuman infamy, but simply an exposition of views long held and maintained, consistent with themselves, economically sound, and which even the trade economists who differ from my conclusions will admit are not open to the charge that I had fallen a prey to any idols of the market-place or to the popular fallacies into which we are apt to fall when addressing popular audiences on these great and difficult questions. I do not charge hon. Gentlemen opposite with any desire at any time to deliberately misrepresent; and that being so, I have tried to think why it is that they have attributed to me motives which were never in my mind and doctrines which I never professed. I believe it to be due to two causes. In the first place they think that I am bound, holding the general views that I have expressed in the country, to explain in detail how, if I am a member of a Government returned to power after the next general election, I mean to carry my views out. I think that a most unreasonable claim, and one that I would not give way to on any subject on earth. Think of any policy you choose. The Minister who should not merely express his general concurrence with a general line of policy, but should go into details as to the way in which it was to be carried out, would evidently lay himself open to such a degree of criticism as would embarass both himself and his colleagues in a manner which I do not mean to do. I do not think that any Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite would ever think of doing it. Why ask me to do what no Prime Minister has ever done before? Why ask me to go into details when I have been perfectly clear and explicit with regard to general principles? All that can be asked of me is general principles, and those I have given in unmistakable terms. What is the second ground of misconception on which, I think, hon. Gentlemen innocently have made me a victim? They are unconsciously irritated at not being able to squeeze my opinions—which are my opinions—definitely into any of the divisions in which they prefer to carry on political controversy. They have one or two epithets on which either they plume themselves or which they throw at the heads of their opponents; and if my doctrines do not exactly square with or fit into these hard-and-fast divisions they think I am to blame. I would remind them that it is possible that they may be to blame—that it is not the speaker or writer, but the hearer and the writer who have misunderstood. I say it with. all respect. To-day we had an instance of it. The hon. and learned Member for South Shields made one of his characteristic speeches, one of those speeches with all its characteristics of style. He ended by saying that a certain pamphlet which I wrote carried on the face of it protectionist doctrine. He then proceeded to give not the words of the pamphlet—naturally he thought he could express my views far better than I could express them myself, for I do not pretend to rival his mastery of exposition. I acknowledge him my superior there, but where he failed was to understand what I meant. It may be my obscurity. I have been told that there are gentlemen who do not understand that document. But it is not because I have used ambiguous phrases or that I have wrapped up my meaning in vague and cloudy rhetoric. I have attempted in that pamphlet, as in my speeches, to state with the utmost precision. in phrases as clear as my poor powers of style enable me to use, the belief that I really entertain.

rose. Mr. A. J. BALFOUR remaining standing.

The hon. Member has no right to continue standing unless the right hon. Gentleman gives way.

sat down.

I only desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will answer the Question of the noble Lord about the 10 per cent. duty on manufactured goods.

Order, order! The hon. Member has no right to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman with a Question of that kind.

I have been asked, among other things, whether I am a protectionist or a free-trader—two terms which particularly commend themselves to hon. Gentlemen in conducting this controversy. Well, I am a free-trader. I have always been a free-trader. I quite admit that when I hear free trade expounded by some of its disciples on the other side I begin to hesitate as to the accuracy of the definition. There is the hon. and learned Member for South Shields, for example, who told us that free trade was co-extensive with human morality—a rather serious reflection, when we remember that that would confine human morality to the British Isles and the Turkish Empire. But in truth, though I do not think that the hon. Member for South Shields knows much about free trade—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, I never make these assertions without reasons. I have given one reason; I will give another. The hon. and learned Member said that it was the essence of the free-trade doctrine that in a community of nations where free trade existed, that must be necessarily the best for all parties concerned.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for interrupting him, but I uttered neither of those propositions. I never dreamt of saying that free trade was co-extensive with human morality; indeed, I said nothing of the kind. Nor did I make the second point.

Well, I think if the hon. Gentleman looks at his speech he will see that I had reason for my views, but, of course, if he disavows them I am the last man to press them upon him. But whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was accurate or not as to the essence of free trade, I thought an excellent definition of it was given by my hon. friend the Member for Durham, who made one of the many good speeches made during the debate. He described protection as a policy which aimed at producing high prices in order to benefit the manufacturers. Well, that is a very good definition, I think, and that certainly has never been my principle. It has never occurred to me, nor have I ever suggested in public or private, that the policy of this country should be to produce high prices in order to benefit the manufacturers. But I think that free trade, or at all events the older school of free-trade economists, have shown themselves, naturally, incapable of foreseeing all the conditions with which we have to deal now. One of the things in which they have shown themselves most wanting is in the power of foreseeing that protection adopted by our rivals in trade would not produce all the evils to those rivals in neutral markets and in our own market which they anticipated. The old doctrine of free trade and protection was this—that if a country had protection it would in the first place render itself incapable of keeping to the front in the matter of invention, having no healthy competition. Invention would slacken, production would diminish in efficiency, and, therefore, that country, however secure it might be in its own markets in consequence of its protectionist system, would not be able to compete with a free-trade country like ourselves in neutral markets. Well, that is all wrong. I think it was a most natural hypothesis, but I think experience has clearly shown that it is incorrect. The three great manufacturing protective countries which we need most to consider are the United States of America, Germany, and France, and I venture to say all those three countries show at least as much power and skill in adapting new scientific researches to industrial purposes as we have ourselves shown. That was the first mistake that was made. Then they greatly underrated the evils that would ensue to a free-trade country in commercial contact with great protectionist countries on account of the mobility of movable capital and of the enormous increase in the amount of immovable capital—which requires movable capital to make it worth anything—which was part of the equipment of the free trade-country. It is too late to go into an analysis of this point now, though it is extremely important. It is one you will not see mentioned in the older text-books at all, but I am perfectly convinced the more you study the conditions of modern industry the more you will see that these protectionist countries obtain an unfair advantage over a non-protectionist country. The last of these errors which I wish to mention is that which is due to the older economists not having realised that any fiscal arrangement which gave a protected country the power of running its mills in certain industries at an even rate gave them an artificial advantage over countries which, owing to their free trade, could not run at that even rate. The hon. Member for Oldham laughs,—

I laughed because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said a few months ago that 10,000,000 tons of iron and steel would be dumped into this country from America, whereas the facts are that there is a much greater stoppage of work there now than in this country.

I am making my own speech, and am expressing my own opinions to the best of my ability; and I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman interrupts me on a totally irrelevant issue. It is perfectly true that these protectionist countries carry out this process at great cost to them selves, but that is no comfort to us. They do carry it out, and in my judgment it is part of the duty of those who are responsible for the policy of this country to see whether the evils which protection is producing in neutral markets as in home markets, as well, of course, as in protected markets, cannot by some means be mitigated. Removed they cannot be, but I do not despair of their being mitigated by any Administration which is not hide-bound in maxims which were applicable in the days not only of Adam Smith, not only of Ricardo, but much later than that, but which are not applicable to the modern conditions of industry. I have attempted within the conditions of time to summarise certain of the strictly economic doctrines which I hold, which I have endeavoured elsewhere to explain, and which I believe are of enormous importance to this country. But political economy is not the only thing to be considered. No nation worthy of the name has ever considered political economy only, and, when you go outside the bounds of political economy, you have to consider how much you lose and how much you gain morally and materially by any particular policy which may be suggested. I will put a very extreme case, because extreme cases more easily illustrate general principles. Suppose it could be shown, which I do not think can ever be shown, that not only did our race utterly deteriorate when transplanted to urban districts, but that there was no possible hope of making those urban districts so sanitary that the evil effects upon the physical well-being of our people could ever be obviated, is there a man in this House who would not say that, at whatever cost, means must be taken to keep a large population in the agricultural districts? That would not be a protective policy, that would be a sanitary policy. Then it is evident that everything turns on a matter of degree—what you give in the way of money and in other ways, and what you get in the way of money and in other ways, whether it be in national greatness, wealth, or health. It is a balance of good and evil. It is perfectly plain that there are circumstances under which it would be the duty of this country to put a tax on food. I do not say any such circumstance has arisen; I do not think it has. When, therefore, I am asked to lay it down as a principle that this country is never to put any tax, however small, upon food, how can I lay down such a principle? I was a member of the Government that put a tax on food to raise revenue, and most of my free-trade friends voted for that. If you put a tax on food to get revenue you may put it on for other purposes which are as great as, or greater, than revenue. So much for the theory. Then I am asked whether I think a tax ought now to be put on for any purpose of colonial preference. I have expressed my view in the clearest language on that point, and I see no reason for altering it. That reason is not founded, as I understand the reason of some of my hon. friends is, upon some immutable scientific and economic ground. It is based upon the fact that, I believe, for historic reasons, there is a feeling about all taxation of food, however insignificant—or, at all events, all taxation of wheat, because we tax food already—altogether in excess of any damage which a small tax is likely to produce. I have expressed that view over and over again. Anybody who looks back upon my speech on the introduction of the corn tax will see my economic views upon that subject put quite clearly. That was long before the fiscal controversy arose. They will also see these views put to the deputation which met me when the corn tax was repealed, and the views which I then expressed before the fiscal controversy started are the views which I hold now. Where is the deception? Where is the shiftiness; where is the lack of definiteness in this statement of policy? But if I am asked whether I think colonial preference is a cause worthy of our attention, I must express my strong dissent from the views of my noble friend, admirably expressed earlier in the evening. He thinks that to take the Colonies into our confidence upon foreign affairs is quite a simple operation. Well, it is difficult enough for the Government to take the House of Commons into its confidence on foreign affairs. In fact, there are always aspects of foreign affairs which never are and never ought to be made a question of debate in this House. How, then, is it possible to carry out my noble friend's suggestion of drawing closer the union with the Colonies in that way? Whether in time to come some great constitutional inventor will find a method of having a representative institution dealing with the whole affairs of the Empire I know not, but I think my noble friend will admit that at present we are very far indeed from that. But as to the ideal which my right hon. friend has sketched out, that we should draw, if possible, closer the commercial bonds between us and the Colonies—that it is our business to find out what they can give and what we can give, what they want and what we want—of that I never have had a doubt and I have never expressed a doubt. I have always told the House and the country, and my views are unalterably fixed upon that subject. [OPPOSITION cries of "What are they?"] That being so, it seems to me that I have absolved myself to-night from the charge, if I ever was open to the charge, of keeping the House in ignorance of my views. [OPPOSITION cries of "No."] I may not have dissipated the ignorance of the Member for Oldham. But to more impartial, I will not say to more favourable, hearers, whether on that side of the House or on this, I think I may say that the statement I have made to-night, consistent in every particular with the statements I have made before, is lacking neither in clearness nor in candour.

The right hon. Gentleman began his speech with something in the nature of a complaint that the debate had travelled beyond the limits of the Motion. I must say he has bettered any example that has been set him in the course of his own observations. If the debate has gone beyond the scope of the Motion, as it undoubtedly has, that is largely due to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will not allow us any other opportunity of discussing the fiscal question except; on a vote of censure. The right hon. Gentleman, conscious of the embarrass- ments of a position which, as his speech shows, is logically indefensible, has, not for the first nor for the second time, endeavoured to escape from the difficulty by a very familiar, but a very futile rhetorical device—the device, I mean, of asking what, in some contingency which has not occurred, a body of persons who are not at present responsible for the government of the country would do or would not do. The right hon. Gentleman appears to forget, but the House does not need to be reminded, that we are discussing the conduct of the responsible Ministers of the Crown in relation to a question which does not belong to the dim and remote future, but which is at this moment, and will remain until the general election, the paramount issue in our domestic politics. Of what relevance is it, when that is the subject under discussion, to put hypothetical questions as to what somebody else would do in another set of circumstances? Sir Robert Peel defined the function of the Leader of the Opposition perfectly clearly when he said, "I will prescribe when I am called in." The right on. Gentleman said, "I am not in." He is in. He is in the sick room, at the bedside of the patient, a patient who, according to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, unless some drastic method is appiled, will soon be in articulo mortis The right hon. Gentleman who is in, and is the chief physician of the body politic at such a time, thinks it consistent with his duty to the House of Commons and the country to mumble a half-hearted approval of some homœopathic but undefined measure of retaliation while, as this Motion points out, he allows and even encourages his colleagues to go into an adjoining room and start a loud agitation in favour of a good strong searching dose of protection. When the right hon. Gentleman seeks to find some way of escape from the difficulties of his position by imagining difficulties for us, I make this answer. When a Liberal Government is sitting on those Benches, if it pursues the same ambiguous strategy as he and his colleagues are pursuing in relation to Home Rule or in relation to Disestablishment or in relation to any other question, I care not what, the right hon. Gentleman, if he is sitting on this Bench, will have abundant opportunity and, in my opinion, will have ample justification for moving a vote of censure upon them. It is curious that the right hon. Gentleman does not yet appear to understand the gravamen of the charge conveyed in the Resolution of my right hon. friend. He speaks of the action of those colleagues who have joined—I was going to say the Tariff Reform League, for it really is the same thing—as if they had become members of the committee of the Psychical Research Society. He ignores the whole history of this matter. I need not go back as far as the resignation of the five Cabinet Ministers last autumn. One of them, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, pointed out this afternoon with perfect clearness that the only point on which he for his part differed from the Prime Minister, was in their relative views as to the ripeness of public opinion. Their aims were absolutely the same. Their methods would be the same, only they differ as to whether public opinin owould stand it or not. Public opinion sometimes ripens very rapidly. Sometimes, on the other hand, public opinion makes a very slow response to the most assiduous and skilful agricultural operations. I shall never withhold the tribute to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham of my opinion that, however deeply and profoundly we differ from him, and no one differs from him more profoundly than I do, he took the only manly course when he laid down his office—an office which he cherished, and in which even his most severe critics will admit he performed great services to the Empire—and went out into the wilderness as a missionary, regardless of the consequences and determined to convert his fellow-subjects to what he believes to be the truth. That is the position and the only position, except indeed, that of those colleagues who retired on entirely different but equally conscientious grounds, which history and posterity will regard with honour or even with tolerance. I must come to a later period, if the House will forgive me for bringing them back to the Motion. What was this meeting which the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman attended and at which they were created officers of this association. It was not an ordinary meeting of the Liberal Unionist Association to denounce Home Rule, or alien immigration, or any of the other spectres of which some of them are afraid. This was a meeting to celebrate the triumph and reap the fruits of a successful revolution. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had succeeded in transforming the association from an oligarchy managed by dukes and people of that sort into a republic. And the peculiarity of this new republic was this—that, whether from ostracism or voluntary withdrawal, not a single free-trader was to be found within it. The Liberal Unionist organisation had been not only democratised, but purged. It was on such a body, so reconstituted, and at such a moment, that these three members of the Government were invited to accept, and accepted, responsible positions. I will not say much about the resolutions. They knew what those resolutions were. The resolution passed in the afternoon must have been known to them, although it seems to have been doctored and diluted in the evening, in order to suit the less robust digestion of my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Colonies; but it was a resolution in favour of the scheme for preference, and when at the evening meeting Lord Lansdowne, one of the representatives of the Government, made some hedging observations with regard to the difficulties which might attend the realisation of this splendid ideal, we are told that they were received with marked coldness by the audience, and I did not observe that they were repeated, either by the Secretary of State for the Colonies or any subsequent speaker. Now, Sir, just to sum up matters. Here you have three Ministers of the Crown joining a protectionist organisation from which free-traders have been completely excluded. That organisation is a body whose president has declared and does declare that one of its main objects is the promotion of preference. which involves the taxation of food. They join it at a moment when it has formally and explicitly passed a resolution in favour of preference, and they take with them the unabated sympathy of the Prime Minister with the object in view. That was the language used, and yet we are told that all this has no actual political significance, and that, after it all, the Government, as a Government, may be treated as neutral or even hostile to the taxation of food. I say that is flying in the face, not only of probability, but of common sense. I will pass to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He was very indignant—I will not say indignant, but surprised, pained, and startled that his opponents should have charged him with playing in this matter a Machiavellian part, that he appeared, at any rate, to collude with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in his schemes and projects. I do not think that charge proceeded in the first instance from the right hon. Gentleman's political opponents. I remember a passage in a great organ of public opinion favourable to the Member for West Birmingham, in which, with many admiring phrases, the right hon. Gentlemen were compared to consummate whist players who understood one another's hands, and who adjusted their play accordingly. It was not with those ignorant, stupid, and malevolent opponents that the charge in the first instance originated. The right hon. Gentleman tells us by way of apology that his whole past economic record is so clear, so consistent, that he who runs may read, and that there is no excuse for any doubt or ambiguity as to his real views. For twenty years, he says, he has been putting forward these same opinions to the public. I could not help distrusting my memory for a moment when I heard this; but I verified my recollection and I have discovered that as lately as June, 1903, he informed us in this House that he should consider he would be ill-performing his duty—

"I will not say to my own Party, but to the House and to the whole of the country, if I were to profess a settled conviction where no settled conviction exists."

Pretty good for a consistent economist! I remember very well that the right hon. Gentleman used another phrase about the same time, which he applied to himself and his colleagues. He said they had open minds, and it was for the purpose of settling those unsettled convictions and closing those open minds that the inquiry was ordered, on the pretext of which we were debarred from all effective discussion on the matter. I should not have alluded to this, had the right hon. Gentleman not laid claim to praise for consistency. Bat whatever way have been his opinions in the past, is there any man now sitting on those Benches who can tell me what his opinions are today? [An HON. MEMBER: Not one.] The right hon. Gentleman was put two or three very plain, unambiguous, and simple questions, and to not one has he vouchsafed an answer. He has told us he is a free-trader. How does he proceed to justify his appropriation of the name? By pointing out that protectionist countries have discovered fundamental errors in the doctrine of free trade, that they have by abandoning free trade pro tanto stolen a march on us—the inference being, if these remarks were intended to lead to anything at all, that if we are to hold our own in the race it can only be by abandoning free trade and following their example. The right hon. Gentleman's zeal for free trade is on a par with his economic consistency! There is another point on which we are more anxious still to obtain information, and that is with regard to this simple question. Is he, or is he not, in favour of the proposals of the Member for West Birmingham? I say no real answer has been given to that. The only answer the right hon. Gentleman has made is this, "I do not think that public opinion in its existing condition would tolerate such a thing." There is no objection in principle Apparently such a tax would, in the right hon. Gentleman's view, be not inconsistent with what he understands to be the doctrine of free trade, and so far as I am aware—and I am one of those who have tried patiently, laboriously, and conscientiously to understand what he means—so far as I can understand him, his sole objection to the imposition of such a tax is the stupidity or backwardness of the opinion of his fellow-countrymen. Why does he not follow the example of his late colleague? Why does he not join in the crusade to enlighten ignorance and to bring public opinion into conformity with what he says, could it only be carried out, would be a splendid and ennobling idea? I say the net result of the right hon. Gentleman's speech is in exact harmony with the inference we draw from the action of his colleagues, that the Government is a protectionist Government. that their sympathies are with the Member for West Birmingham, and that they are only restrained to the extent that they are restrained from active co-operation by the fear of public opinion. I will not impute to the hon. Gentleman the same motives which he has imputed to us, but I will say that they believe it is of paramount importance to the interests of the Empire that they should retain office. But I must point out that the country makes no distinction whatever between these two policies. The candidate is sent down to the constituency. He may be one of those mealy-mouthed gentlemen who say they cannot see their way at present to go further than the Sheffield programme. Or, on the other hand, he may go down with ail the pomp and circumstance, with the cymbals and brass, of the Tariff Reform League. It makes no difference. The electors do not discriminate between them. They recognise that the return of either would mean a step towards protection; they recognise that the rejection of both is the only rational way to support the cause of free trade. We are told that we ought not to pass this Resolution because of foreign complications, because we might weaken the hands of the Government in face of the world. Is there a Chancellory in Europe which appraises at more than a few months purchase the political existence of this Government? This country at any rate has clearly made up its mind; it only awaits the moment for rendering its verdict and executing its sentence. For my part, I do not believe