from us in the last few years. There are the recent losses of the markets of the Phillipines and Hawaii and Cuba and Puerto Rico, and also of Tunis and Madagascar. It is not an exaggeration to say that the unoccupied portion of the world in which we have no treaty rights, or which do not come under the British flag but which are absorbed by another nation, pass into that division of protected markets in which our trade is constantly dwindling. Should we have no opportunity of retaliating again in such a case, may we say, as Madagascar and Tunis? Therefore, I say, in the view of the Government, the case is established. There are black clouds on the horizon, and there are signs which reasonably cause great misgiving. Now I would ask your Lordships another question. Are we right or are we wrong to revolt, because that is a word that may be fairly used, against this exercise of authority which would debar us from examining as to whether our prosperity is really due solely to this system of free imports? Let us try and get at the historical truth of this matter. Even to-night I have heard expressions which would lead one to suppose that those who use them think that our prosperity only began sixty years ago. I think my noble friend Lord Tweedmouth said it was during this period that London had become the commercial centre of the universe. LORD TWEEDMOUTH: No. *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Some other noble Lord used that expression, but let your Lordships consider there was not one of our great industries which was not in existence sixty years ago. Sixty years ago we were commercially supreme, and had no rivals. Sixty years ago London was the commercial capital of the world, as it is to-day. But Hamburg and Antwerp to-day are great rivals. Every one of our staple trades-iron, cotton, wool, linen, was established long before sixty years ago, and, my Lords, the truth is not that our prosperity was created by the policy adopted sixty years ago, but that it has greatly increased under that policy. I am glad to see that the noble What I want to find out to-night is, what is the historic test in this matter? The first test I apply is the noble Duke's own test. The noble Duke a little later said— "The Board of Trade has made an estimate, an estimate which I have not seen questioned, that, measured by a constant and not by a fluctucertain year, and assuming those prices to reating standard, computed at the prices of a main the volume and quantity of our trade has increased in the last thirty years-as to our imports it has doubled, and as to our exports it has increased by 60 per cent." Now I agree with the noble Duke that this is an interesting test of the measure of prosperity, but I think he forgot to apply that same test and that same standard to the thirty years before free imports. The figures of the Board of Trade for the period, and I have them here, show instead of an increase of 60 per cent., an increase of over 300 per cent., and that is the period as to which the noble Duke says he cannot understand anybody saying there was any prosperity in it. But there are authorities to be found on this matter. Has the noble Duke ever studied the classical work of that time— Porter's 66 Progress of the Nation? It is a voluminous work of infinite research, which goes through every trade and class of population; the work of an enthusiastic free-trader and an out and out supporter of Mr. Cobden and of the repeal of the Corn Laws. The because the Corn Laws had been repealed. author thought the millennium had come He was perfectly fair in the treatment of his subject and you will find, my Lords, many allusions to the dark shadows of that time. The misery of the population is depicted in glowing colours; but judging the nation as a whole by the facts as he found them and by the statistics of that time, what is the judgment of this man of the state of the prosperity of the nation? The year is the year 1847, and this is what he says at page 530 "Not only is the proportion of persons in the community who pass their lives in active industry labouring with their hands or their heads greater in this than in almost any other great cities and in their powers of conwell-peopled country in Europe, but the amount sumption. Yes, my Lords, but it may of skilled labour performed in a given time by be replied to that, that Sir Robert Peel any given number of their countrymen is commonly greater than that accomplished by the changed his mind a year or two later. like number of any other people in Europe. That is quite true. Why? Because at To this circumstance it is in a great part owing the time I spoke of he was looking only that, with a higher rate of daily wages paid for fewer hours of toil than are required in other at the present prosperity. He shut his countries, our manufacturers have been able eyes to the clouds on the horizon until under other adverse circumstances to maintain he was overwhelmed by the storm and superiority over their rivals." had to yield to facts. Perhaps history will repeat itself. And on page 600 there is this remarkable verdict "This fact appears so amply confirmed by proofs that meet us on every side-proofs admitting of no doubts and incapable of receiving any other interpretation that it is marvellous how they can escape the notice of any one or fail to produce the universal conviction that if we have not made such progress as our means should have enabled us towards the well-being of all classes of the community; we have yet during the present century, and especially within the last twenty-five years, made great advances in that direction, greater perhaps than were ever before realised by peaceful means and by any community in any equal period of time." Now, my Lords, I think that those quotations prove, that judged by the standard of that time, not by our standard-judged by what the world then knew and the conditions of other countries in the world -England at that time was prosperous. The fact is, that exactly the same argument that is now used against the Government for raising this question and the arguments drawn from the prosperity of the country by the present opponents of the Government are the same as those used by the supporters of the old system against the anti-Corn Law League of that time and no less a person used it than Sir Robert Peel. This is what he said on 11th. February, 1839 "That statement must have confirmed those who were formerly wavering in their support of the Corn Laws, must have removed the doubts of those who hesitated and had not made up their opinion, and convinced all men that the manufacturing and commercial interests of this country were in the most flourishing and prosperous condition." On the 15th March, a month later, he made exactly the same speech mutatis mutundis and used the same arguments as Lord Goschen used last July. On 15th March, reverting to the same subject, he went through the trade returns and savings bank returns, in great minuteness, showing how great had been the increase in population and wealth of Now, my Lords, dealing with this question of free imports. It is a fair question to ask, and it has never been fairly answered: if all our prosperity has been due to free imports, to what has the prosperity of other countries been due? The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that their prosperity was in despite of their fiscal system. I do not think that is a reasonable answer; for most Germans would claim that their prosperity was due to protection, and that would be as fair an argument for them to use as is Lord Avebury's claim, that all our prosperity is due to the system of free imports. The fact is, that the effects of both these systems have been exceedingly over estimated by their respective advocates. I say that both these fiscal systems have been but small contributors to the aggregate of causes of prosperity. What has been the real operative cause of the great prosperity of this country and of other countries in the last half century? It is that their natural resources, their position in the world, the characteristics of their people, and the natural products of the soil, all these giant resources have been raised from their long slumber by the fairy touch of steam and of gold. It is the world-wide influence of steam transport with the great lubricating influence of gold that has been at the root of the prosperity of this country and of that of other nations, and it is because we hold this view that we do not propose this policy of retaliation with the fear and trembling of our opponents, and that we do not bar the consideration of this question by the plea of an infallible system. After all, it would have been strange indeed if the system of free imports had produced all the great results attributed to it, considering that no man ever devised the system, and that it was the result of a great though honest miscalculation. We believe Sir Robert Peel improved the system he found; we believe it is in our power to improve the system we find, and we do not believe that the fiscal system is the only part of our political system in which no improvement is possible. We believe in retaliation as a policy and as an instrument. We do not believe it is impossible for us to use it with great advantage. We do not share the views of our opponents that it is a weapon too dangerous to be touched, and we are quite unable to agree with them that in the whole field of human experience the only bargain in which you do better for yourself by having nothing to give and nothing to withhold is, a commercial treaty between two nations. Now, why do we not answer the Questions put to us by our opponents; Questions which endeavour to extract from us in advance the methods by which we shall carry out this policy if the country trusts us? The reason is, my Lords, because we know those questions are only devised with the object of tying our hands. We do not pretend to see all the circumstances which may face us when we come again to power. of their convictions upon this subject by the magnitude of the risk they are prepared to run. They are prepared to run the risk of putting into power men who, if they could, would undo the work which they themselves have devoted their lives to during the past eighteen years. They are prepared to run the risk of Home Rule for Ireland and of wrecking that educational policy to which we and they alike stand committed. Therefore we are able to measure the strength of their convictions. Why is it so? It is because we are confirmed supporters of retaliation, because we refuse to join in the ban of preference to our colonies. It is one of the principal causes separation between us that we refuse to join them in banning preferences. They have their ideal, but it seems to us dwarfed by excessive veneration of the past and undue timidity with regard to the future. We know they are genuine, but we, too, have our ideals. It has been insinuated, not in your Lordships' House, or by anyone who has spoken to-night, but it has been insinuated more than once that those who differ from us are the only ones who reckon in any way on the moral forces that makes a nation. That statement is as clearly devoid of truth as it is divorced from charity. We desire that this country should not only remain a great commercial nation, but the pre *A NOBLE LORD: That may be a long dominant commercial nation. We do time. *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: We have never had any idea of withdrawing this question from the control of Parliament. We could not if we would, and we would not if we could, but, as the Amendment of my noble friend shows, we are not prepared to lay down stringent and minute rules in advance for the guidance of Parliaments which have not yet been born. On this question it has been a great mis fortune to us to differ from some of our closest and most intimate political friends. That difference is no light matter. We have not been in close comradeship with them for the last eighteen years without realising the priceless value of their personal and political friendship, and we know from experience that the only motives that guide them in these matters are motives of patriotism and of duty, and we are able to measure the strength of not desire our population to dwindle. We desire that the rate of growth of population should increase, and we desire by our policy and by our acts to enlarge the area of employment for the people of this country and so continue the process of the development of their welfare, and it is with that object in view that we take up retaliation as a practical means to a practical end. We refuse to join in the ban of preference not because preference is the policy we are putting before the people, but because the future consolidation of this Empire is to us a noble and glorious ideal, and we will not join with those who, whether they share that ideal or not, say in advance that there cannot be any road to progress in that ideal through any form of preference. LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: My Lords, not being a financier or an economist, I should not have risen at all there were dark clouds on the horizon very in this debate, but that I wish to call attention for a few moments to one aspect of the question which has not yet received much attention either in Parliament or out of doors. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughmore, who spoke recently from the Government bench, alluded to the bearing which this question has to Ireland. That is the aspect that especially comes home to me, and I am glad that this sentiment finds an echo on the Treasury Bench. I was somewhat disappointed, after my hopes had been raised by the noble Lord, at his not pursuing the subject a little farther and explaining to us in what way the Government policy would benefit Ireland. But before I go into that more elementary portion of the question I wish for a very few moments to say a few words on the more general part of the subject. My Lords, the noble Earl dealt, in the eloquent speech he has just delivered, largely with retaliation, and his speech also contained a defence, I think, of the principle of I think we all want to know in what protection, because, as I understood, although he did not go the length of saying it, that free imports were responsible for our failure to maintain our predominance in trade, or, at all events, we could not set down to the credit of free imports our commercial prosperity- *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am sorry if the noble Lord misunderstood me. I did not argue in that direction in the least. What I said was that neither the free imports of this country nor the protection of Germany were the true causes of the prosperity of those countries. LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord. I understood him to say that free imports and protection had been regarded with undue importance in both countries, and I understood that the moral he drew was that retaliation was the one road to salvation. *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: No, the moral I drew was that there was not this grave danger lurking behind the reversal of our present fiscal system that others seem to indicate. LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON : I understood the noble Lord to argue from If the state of our affairs is so serious, the way to combat that is by a satisfactory fiscal policy to deal with a great emergency. The Motion of the noble Earl which is upon the Paper deals, I think, chiefly, if not exclusively, with retaliation, and Iwish therefore to address myself to that question. As I understood the noble Earl, noble Lords on that Bench are not against retaliation in principle if it can be shown to have a fair chance of proving effective, and if it can be shown that you have a chance of carrying it out without incurring greater disadvantages than those which you remove. But spirit retaliation is to be carried on. enough to give serious pause to us before *THE EARL OF "SELBORNE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the noble Lord rather misrepresents me. I did not in any way stand godfather to the quarrel between Germany and Russia, but gave it as an historical case, and I think it met the question. LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON : the state of affairs he presented that I thought that the Question the noble Lord, Lord Coleridge asked was, whether there was any case of successful retaliation, and I understood the noble Earl to quote this case. I should like to ask the Government now, if no answer has been given to the Question already, can they point to a case of successful retaliation where the retaliation has produced the desired effect which they aim at? As regards the tariff war to which the noble Earl referred I believe, in that case, there was great injury inflicted on both sides, stringent measures were taken, heavy taxes were imposed, neither side would give way, and that condition of things went on for years. sections, and we are told that we cannot know what is to be done in this matter until after the general election. But when we are asked to accept the policy and asked to write a blank cheque in this way now, I think it is a very dubious proceeding. Coming to the question as to how retaliation would affect Ireland it seems to me that retaliation can have very little effect in Ireland one way or the other. The only large industries upon which it could have any beneficial effects are the linen and shipbuilding industries. Now, my Lords, everybody knows that the shipbuilding industry THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: For would be very seriously injured by any nine months only. LORD MONTEAGLE OF BRANDON: Well, for however long it lasted, it will not be disputed that large losses were incurred; that the parties arrived eventually at the status quo ante, and that it was really a drawn battle. I do not suppose that the tax of which Germany complained was withdrawn or that Germany attained her ends through that tariff war. But, my Lords, my point is that though I should be quite glad to see retaliation tried as an engine of free trade, I should very strongly object to see it used as an engine of protection. You have then a serious danger of its becoming an engine of protection. How is it to be carried out? I must say that I agree with the Government that it would be very difficult effectively to carry on negotiations between this country and another, unless the Government have something in the nature of a mandate. I think it is only natural that the Government should ask for a mandate, but when we come to consider how this power which is to be given to the Government, if the Government succeed in obtaining the mandate, is to be used, I think the danger of its leading to protection is very great, and that it becomes very important indeed to see what control should be exercised over it. I think the Questions which the noble Earl has asked are extremely pertinent to the issue. When we are asked to trust a Government in this matter we want to know who we are to trust. We know that there are in the Unionist Party two VOL. CXXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] seem to tampering with free imports, and that |