less than ours. with those of protectionist countries. of which they complain? What repreFrance has about the same population, sentations have been made to foreign but her exports are about £120,000,000 countries. And what replies have been Germany, of which we given? Will any Papers be laid on the hear so much, though it has 16,000,000 Table? Take, for instance, shipping. more people, exports £58,000,000 less We allow United States vessels to take than we do. The Germans are an goods from any of our ports to another. intelligent, capable, and hard-working They refuse us the same freedom. This people. We might well be satisfied if, is manifestly unjust and unfair, and we man for man, our exports were equal to should be interested to know what repretheirs, but as a fact, while our population sentations have been made, whether a is much smaller, our exports are much suggestion so fair and reasonable has been greater; and yet we are invited to refused, and if so, on what grounds. abandon our own system and adopt From information given me I am distheirs. In fact, per head, our exports posed to believe that our merchants on are the largest in the world. Those of the Congo have great reason to complain, the United States are £2 18s. per head; but negotiations are pending, and I fully of Germany, £3 7s.; of France, £3 15s. ; trust that justice will be done. But the ours, £5 19s. most flagrant case, perhaps, is that of some of the Central American States. Look again at our trade with protectionist countries as against theirs with one another. In 1901 we sent £24,000,000 into France, as against £15,000,000 from the protectionist country, Germany; and £18,000,000 from the United States. Into the protectionist market of the United States of America we sent £28,000,000 as against £20,000,000 from Germany and £15,000,000 from France. Lastly into Germany nearly twice as much as France. Protection, therefore, has not given France, Germany, or the United States any advantage in each other's markets as against us. But has our trade been prosperous? In their impartial and authoritative Report the Commissioners of Inland Revenue say— "The growth of income in recent years has been so remarkable that we venture to offer a few observations on the subject." They have shamefully swindled English investors? They are large exporters of coffee, but other coffee is just as good, and a duty on coffee coming from those dishonest countries might be well worth considering and would be fully justified. There are therefore, I fully believe, cases which would justify retaliation, but we should be interested to hear under what conditions, and in what manner, it is to be applied. I trust it will only be, firstly, after every effort has been made by friendly representations and negotiations; secondly, if there is reasonable ground for expecting that it will be effective; thirdly, if it will not do more harm than good to British Commerce; and finally, that it should be, as suggested in the Resolution, subject to the assent of Parliament. But these are exceptional cases. They are no sufficient reasons to reverse our fiscal policy. They show that since 1870, that is The protective policy of other countries to say, in thirty-five years, our income returned for income-tax has increased no doubt unfavourably affects us, but from it is a much greater injury to themselves. £398,000,000 to £867,000,000, In If they to some extent close their markets a gigantic increase of £468,000,000! the last six years it has increased to us, they shut themselves out of other £90,000,000. I do not deny that there are some cases in which we have just reason to complain, and which would fully justify retaliation. The Resolution asks what steps the Government propose to take to give effect to their policy of retaliation, I should like also to inquire what steps they have taken to redress the grievances markets. If to some extent they are less good customers, they are far less formidable rivals. This fiscal agitation is greatly to be regretted, not only because it unsettles our commerce and manufactures, but also because it tends to deter foreign countries from lowering their duties. Abroad they naturally conclude that we are going to abandon free trade and this encourages protectionists all over the world. It surely is evident that the progress made by the United States and our colonies has not been owing to protection, but in spite of protection. If they had not forced the industry of their countries into artificial channels, they would have been richer and more prosperous than they are. The farmers in America and Australia are paying to bolster up other industries. Under free trade our manufactures and commerce have grown, are growing, and, I believe, will grow. As a humble supporter of His Majesty's Government I would express an earnest hope that they will not commit themselves to a commercial war with other countries, that they will not ask us to reverse the fiscal policy on which the prosperity of the country and the welfare of our people so greatly depend, or to adopt a course which would inevitably and gravely injure those industrial and commercial interests which both they and we desire to strengthen, to promote, and encourage. nature. Lord Tweedmouth maintains that protection is in Mr. Balfour's mind, and we have had a still more general comment on this point from the noble Earl on the Cross Benches in a speech he delivered at Edinburgh, when he said that retaliation covers a multitude of things. The policy of His Majesty's Government is most distinctly laid down in a pamphlet which has been written by the Prime Minister, and which is published at a price well within the reach of all your Lordships. On page 11 of that pamphlet it is most distinctly stated "I approach this question as a free-traderthat is, with a desire to promote free-trade as far as contemporary circumstances permit." That clearly recognises that we approach this subject as free-traders, and I do not know what clearer words could be found in the English language to explain our position. In discussing the fiscal question it is possible to discuss it from many standpoints. One can approach it as a protectionist or as an advocate of preference. We have not heard the subject approached from that position yet in the *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE course of this debate, but there is another FOR WAR (The Earl of DONOUGHMORE): standpoint from which it is possible to The noble Lord who has just sat down must approach it, and we have heard a great always, of course, be listened to with very deal from that standpoint; it is the great interest in your Lordships' House standpoint which is perfectly contented on any commercial subject which may with the present state of things, or at come before us. Your Lordships will any rate is not prepared to come forward have noticed in the speech he has just with any remedy. Noble Lords opposite delivered, and to which I listened very have, it is true, suggested one remedy, carefully, that practically the whole of namely, the remedy of education. I need his speech was an attack against the not remind your Lordships that two policy of introducing protection into this years ago an Education Bill was introcountry. I know that your Lordships are duced into your Lordships' House. It always very generous to any speaker who was a Bill which in the main was designed addresses this House, and who does not to vastly improve the educational system stick very closely to the point. I would of this country, and experience has shown remind your Lordships, however, that that in many parts of the country where this evening we are discussing the policy that Bill is now working without the that His Majesty's Government have interference of political agitators, the that His Majesty's Government have educational system of this country has announced, and which they are prepared been improved. I do not remember to place before the country at the next general election. Now it has been most any very great anxiety and keenness strongly and clearly stated that protection on the part of noble Lords opposite has nothing whatever to do with that to accept that Bill when it was inpolicy. Noble Lords opposite have refused to recognise that fact, and no doubt they will continue to refuse to recognise it. The noble Lord opposite, Lord Crewe, suggested that our difference upon protection was merely one of a technical troduced two years ago, but, be that as it may, I fail utterly to understand, and I shall be glad to be convinced, how education, even the highest technical education, is to help the British workmen to get his goods into a country that has tariff walls 100 per cent. higher than our fair exchange. We have had a very reown. I call that remedy, with great markable admission from the noble Earl respect, a very feeble one. I cannot who spoke first this afternoon. We have believe that it will help us very much in actually had an admission-no, I am the near or the distant future. Noble wrong, and I beg his pardon, it was an Lords see foreign nations putting up their admission by the whole of the Opposition tariffs and they make no protest what- in answer to a Question put by the noble ever. In fact it seems to me that they Marquess behind me that British trade is almost rather rejoice in it, because one not absolutely at its zenith at the present of the indirect results is that we get a moment. The noble Marquess asked-Is certain amount of goods back from that there anyone who will maintain that concountry a great deal cheaper. That is tention, and he received no answer. It not the sort of free-trader that I ever hope has certainly been part of the campaign to show myself in addressing your Lord- which has been directed against all fiscal ships. There is another sort of free-trader, reform, that nothing has been so perfect as a sort that I maintain we, the members of British trade at the present moment. A the Government, are, and it is the sort of most distinguished politician prescribed free-trader that the great reformers of for our present condition commercial sixty years ago were. They looked repose," and when the Board of Trade round and saw that Europe had been returns came out it was found that devastated with a great war. They saw the returns of exports and imports opportunities for commerce and industrial were greater than anything we had expansion which since then have been had before, and this was received fully realised, and they set before themselves a great ideal which was embodied in the word free trade, but what was that free trade? I was permitted a few weeks ago to look into an old autograph book, and I came across the following entry under the date of the 5th of December, 1845 "Ours the triumph be Round social earth to circle fair exchange, And bind the nations in a golden chain." Beneath those words were the signatures of Richard Cobden and John Bright, Their idea was "to circle fair exchange throughout the world, but that is not the sort of free trade we have got now. Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright were undoubtedly men of great ideals. Certainly Mr. Cobden's ideas on the Colonies were not such as we generally find amongst statesmen at this moment, and Mr. Bright held opinions as to the possession of India which might at the present moment have driven him into the wigwam of Little England. They were men who did a great deal to carry out great ideals, although they were extremely bad prophets. The noble Lord opposite said he thought they were rather good prophets, but there is a prophecy made by Mr. Cobden-it is rather old, and I do not want to bore the House with it he did prophecy that after ten years the whole world would be freetraders according to his ideal, which was 66 with a chorus of admiration by a few papers which support noble Lords opposite, and they adduced this as a convincing proof that no change of any sort was necessary. I am not one who maintains that British trade is on its last legs, and I believe myself that there is a great deal of life in the old dog yet. But there are disquieting things, and I think we should be lacking in our duty if we did not make some attempt to grapple with them. Mention has been made of the total volume of our trade. The noble Lord opposite also quoted it during various years, and maintained and thought he proved from that that the state of our trade was satisfactory at the present moment. Well, my Lords, I do not think that it is a proper comparison to compare our present trade with our past. The proper comparison, I submit, i., to compare of our rivals abroad. If your Lordships our present trade with the present trade will give me your patience for a few moments I should like to do that. My noble friend Lord Brassey appealed to the Board of Trade Returns, and for that reason I may be allowed to refer to a Board of Trade Blue-book presented in 1902 by Sir Alfred Bateman. In the last paragraph of his Memorandum upon the trade of the United Kingdom he says- manufacturing and industrial power. As with ourselves, so with these countries, the set of population has been to the towns; necessarily therefore there has been a more vigorous search than formerly for an outlet for the power above referred to. We are still ahead of either country in our power of manufacture for export, but, beginning from a lower level, each country is travelling upwards more rapidly than we are, who occupy a higher eminence. If peace is maintained both Germany and the United States are certain to increase their rate of upward movement, their competition with us in neutral markets, and even in our home markets, will probably, unless we ourselves are active, become increasingly serious." That is not the position we ought to contemplate with perfect equanimity or treat by prescribing repose. We are losing our former share of the trade of the world, and I am still of opinion that in the future the British share should be a licn's share, and I think it is our duty to try and keep it that size. I would like to turn your attention for a moment to one or two other points which I submit are disquieting causes. First, as regards our imports. I was taught at Oxford, when I first waddled down the paths of political economy, that imports always paid for exports and vice versa. Possibly that is so, at least I dare not have written anything else in my papers on political economy. The amounts never tally, and some of the discrepancies are explained, firstly by freights and insurance; and, secondly, by the addition of interest on the amount of our capital invested abroad. I have not been able to find any evidence that freights have very greatly increased of late years, but there is no question that the discrepancy between our imports and exports has greatly increased, and we are continually importing more than we are exporting to pay for them. I may be wrong in my deduction, but my natural deduction from this must be that our foreign investments must be on the increase. Now is that a satisfactory state of affairs, and does it not rather point to a blot on our industrial system that British capital finds more attraction abroad than at home. This is proved from the fact that British capital is going abroad in increasing quantities every year. Now I turn to another point, namely, to the tariff walls. I do not wish to weary your Lordships with the subject, because I suppose noble Lords opposite will admit that these high tariff walls do us a great deal of harm. There is one point however mentioned by Lord Tweedmouth to which I should like to refer. He mentioned at the end of his speech that the Colonies are more keen to keep our goods out of their markets than anybody else, and he asked what was the Government going to do with the Colonies? Were they going to retaliate against the Colonies? Members of the Radical Party always seem very keen to embroil us with the Colonies, and I have never known the reason for this. The noble Lord has shown that he has read his Blue-book with very great care; but I have found one page which he has evidently not read. This page gives the estimated average or ad valorem equivalent of the import duties levied by certain countries and colonies on the principal articles of export from the United Kingdom-and the figures given ad valorem are, Russia, 131 per cent.; United States, 73 per cent.; France, 34 per cent.; Germany, 25 per cent.; AustroHungary, 35 per cent.; Belgium, 13 per cent.; New Zealand 9 per cent.; and Australia and the South African Customs Union 6 per cent. I confess in the face of these figures I do not think there need be any great hurry on our part to consider retaliatory duties against our colonies in order to ferce ourselves into their markets. that I do not wish to detain your Lordships at great length, but I think there are a great many other subjects which give us room for dissatisfaction. Lord Goschen, who I regret is unable to be with us owing to the prevailing epidemic, quoted certain figures in your Lordships' House last year to show the prosperity of the country, and in doing so, with regard to some of them, I notice he pursued the usual anti-Government method of comparing the present with the past instead of comparing the present state of affairs in this country with that of foreign countries. He quoted saving banks returns. They had gone up, but now they are only £4 a head of the population. In Germany they are £7 per head, and in many other countries they are higher than in this. I am informed that where our income tax returns have increased 10 per cent. the Russian income tax returns have increased 45 per cent. Our population is increasing slower than that of any other great country except France. The number of small bankruptcies in this country have increased to nearly double what they were forty years ago. My Lords, all these are disquieting things, and call upon us to wake up from the sort of commercial repose that is prescribed for us. Now, my Lords, I want to refer to another small matter. The noble Lord opposite spoke of our commercial treaties, and I have heard our commercial treaties spoken of as the sheet anchor of the present fiscal system. I should not call them a sheet anchor, I would rather prefer to call them a volcano. Our present policy, which is declared to the world, is that the Government does not interfere in trade beyond making these most-favourednation clauses. Well, my Lords, I would remind your Lordships that the United States Treaty of 1815, the Russian Treaty of 1859, the Austrian Treaty of 1886, and the Italian Treaty of 1883 are all liable to be denounced at twelve months notice, and that if any of these or all of them are denounced at twelve months notice you have absolutely no weapon, if you discard retaliation, by which you can persuade those countries to give you any better terms than those they chose to throw at your heads. My Lords, we have been asked for different examples of the way in which we shall carry out this policy. Of course we cannot lay down any hard and fast rules. Every individual case must depend upon the individual distinctions of that case, and upon nothing else. Now, my Lords, before I sit down I wish to say a few words upon this subject that form a totally different point of view, and a point of view which I think has not yet been mentioned. I mean the Irish point of view of this question. Ireland has never up to this moment received very much consideration from the fiscal point of view. Originally, a century ago, our growing industries were practically swamped by the policy of the British Government of that time, and the only industry that was left to us, agriculture, was ruined by the free-trade policy of this country. Now, my Lords, I am not arguing this subject from the Irish point of view that you should bring back protection. But I do urge that this is the first occasion upon which Ireland has had a chance of being fiscally considered, if I may use the phrase, at one and the same time with, and as part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Noble Lords opposite have remedies for us in the way of education, but I cannot help remembering also that noble Lords opposite have a policy which must result in the end in cutting us off from any benefit that may accrue to us from any improvement in the English fiscal system. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships' House further. I hope your Lordships will reject the Motion of Lord Crewe and support the Cabinet, which has shown itself ready to help our people in the struggle for national life to which they are all naturally committed. * LORD COLERIDGE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down made a sort of complaint against the noble Lord who preceded him for not adhering to the point which is the point of discussion to-night. The noble Lord in his own speech has shown that the old proverb, "Imitation is the sincerest flattery," is only too true. We were treated to a homily on the dreams of Cobden and the views on India of Mr. Bright; to the conditions of Ireland; and then to the usual jeremiad on free trade; as to how we were being ruined by the size of our imports, and what a terrible thing it was for this country that we should make so much money as to be able to invest that money abroad. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord into these disquisitions, which, no doubt, are interesting, but which certainly are not pertinent to this discussion, but there was one thing which I noticed from the speech of the noble Lord and that of the noble Marquess who spoke before him, representing the Government. They told us the time had come for a reversal of our fiscal policy, but they carefully abstained from answering the questions put to them as to what were the measures they proposed. I should like again, if it would not be troubling the House, to appeal to the noble Earl who is going, I believe, to follow me in the debate this evening, and to ask him, although, I am afraid, in vain I put the question, on what, and against whom, are we going to |