*THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said that their trade had progressed at a greater rate than ours.

reduction of the duties on French wines protection than we had prospered under in the event of the conclusion of a treaty. free trade. The obstacle which prevented the conclusion of that treaty was the pledge which was given to Parliament by the Government-rightly given, I think, at that time-that they would not assent to any treaty which should provide for the imposition of higher duties than those which had been agreed to by the French Government in 1860. The French Government, I believe, were perfectly willing to comply with that demand on the part of our Government; and the obstacle which prevented the conclusion of a fresh treaty with France was the unwillingness of the protectionist majority in the French Chambers to agree to the proposal to which their Government were quite ready to assent. That negotiation, therefore, did not fail in consequence of the absence of anything which we had to offer in the shape of inducement. It failed on account of the rigid protectionist principles professed by a majority in the French Chambers.

From negotiation we come to retaliation. I suppose my noble friend Lord Selborne was under the impression last night that he was defending the principles of retaliation. In my judgment almost the whole of his speech, although he every now and then used a phrase about retaliation, might have been just as well made in defence of a policy of protection, or the policy proposed by Mr. Chamberlain. My noble friend used all the arguments which are so familiar in the mouths of protectionist speakers. He asserted that our country had prospered under protection and also that other countries had in recent years prospered more under protection than we had under free trade.

*THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (The Earl of SELBORNE): I made no comparison as to the respective degrees of prosperity. I simply said that foreign countries had prospered greatly under protection.

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I was under the impression that my noble friend used the words that other countries had prospered more in recent years under

THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I accept my noble friend's correction; but if that is his opinion why does he not boldly advocate a return to a system of protection in this country? It may be that protection is a very good system, and that other countries may have prospered under a protective system; but I do not think that my noble friend can point to any instance where a country has prospered under a system of negotiation and retaliation, or to any country whose fiscal system is based on a formula so unmeaning. But we are not to-night discussing protection. The object of this debate I take to be to endeavour to find out, what, if it is not protection, is the policy of His Majesty's Government. If we were to discuss the question of protection I should find it necessary to challenge most, if not all, of the statements and arguments that were contained in my noble friend's speech; and especially should I think it my duty to call attention to the fact that he based an argument as to the stagnation of our trade upon the exports of our manufac tured articles only, and that he altogether omitted to make the slightest reference in the course of his speech-an omission which was somewhat remarkable on the part of the First Lord of the Admiralty

to the enormous progress which has been made under free trade by our shipping industries, by our shipbuilding and our foreign shipping trade.

As to retaliation, it seems to me everything depends upon the meaning which we are to attach to the word and as to the spirit in which it is to be used. There was a somewhat ominous sentence in the Prime Minister's pamphlet, in which he said that the only alternative that was left was—

"To do to foreign nations what they always do to each other, and, instead of appealing to economic theories which they wholly disbelieve, to use fiscal inducement which they thoroughly understand."

If this means, as it seems to me, that we are to base our future fiscal policy on

the model of foreign nations-upon what foreign nations do to each other-we can very easily form an opinion of what it comes to. If my noble friend Lord Lansdowne is to be free to present his big revolver at the head of every protectionist State which imposes protective duties against our exports, and to threaten, or to carry out a threat, of imposing similar duties upon their exports, we know very well what that would come to. We know that almost every nation of Europe and the United States of America attach far more importance to keeping control over their own markets than to opening our markets to themselves; and we know that all the fiscal inducements which they so thoroughly understand have never enabled them, if they have ever tried, to establish free trade between each other. If we are to model, as that sentence appears to indicate, our future fiscal policy upon what foreign nations do to each other, I cannot see what other result we can anticipate than the establishment of a system of protection all round.

this kind there would be any probability of their obtaining larger and more important concessions in other directions, I should not have the slightest objection to seeing this experiment tried, to seeing it proposed to Parliament, and seeing on what grounds it could be defended. But let me instance another case of retaliation. I do not know that the proposal has ever been made in a more simple and naked form than it was made a short time ago in a newspaper which is a great supporter of His Majesty's Government and also of Mr. Chamberlain-The Times newspaper. The Times was discussing the question of our iron industry, and said—

"By a hostile tariff America first shuts our iron out of her market and then invades our home markets and shuts up our manufactories. retain our home market in spite of their tariff? Would it really be no advantage to be able to We could do that by a retaliatory tax upon the iron of every country that taxes ours. Granting that we could obtain no power of negotiation that would open the American market to our own iron-"

It is not proposed that it should be done
in order to secure greater freedom of
exchange-

"still to secure possession of our home market
would immensely increase our power of com-
peting with America in every foreign market
open to both. All this is so elementary that no
contradicting it.”
free-importer should spoil his case by directly

The Government decline to discuss with us concrete cases. That is no reason why we should not put to them concrete cases of our own for the purpose of helping the country to see where this policy of retaliation may lead them. Lord Crewe referred last night to a suggestion which has been made that it might be possible in the case of Germany, for instance, by threatening to impose an additional tax upon her wines or upon the cheap toys that she exports, to obtain some concession on her part in our favour. It has also been suggested that in the case of France we might threaten to impose some duty upon her silks or fancy articles, and by that means obtain some concession from her. I admit that I am extremely doubtful whether the advantages which we could obtain from using such fiscal inducements as these would be very great. I can conceive that, if threats of this sort were made and carried out, it would certainly tend to dislocate a certain portion of our trade, and that it would infallibly diminish a certain portion of It is admitted that we cannot succeed our exports which pay for those imports in what we all desire to do in opening which would be thereby checked. But the American market to our iron proif, after full examination, His Majesty's

Well, this argument rather appeals to me. I happen to be considerably interested in the iron and steel industry as chairman of an iron and steel company, and I quite admit that it would be rather an attractive prospect to me to be relieved of American competition in our market and to be able thereby to charge higher prices to our customers at home. I have no doubt that if a tariff reformer were to go to Barrow-inFurness and make the same suggestion to the workmen in our works they would see it in the same light as I do. But, in my opinion, Parliament has got to look a little further than the interests either of iron and steel companies, or even of the workmen engaged in this industry.

Government had reason to suppose that ducts; but, as a compensation, we are to

be protected against competition in our by a threat or the imposition of duties of own. Now the competition to which we

are exposed is essentially of a temporary There is one point on which I desire to and fitful character; it is a competition say a word, which seems to me more of that kind which is now described as important even than the discovery of the "dumping"; it is the occasional export proposals of the Government itself. It by America or by Germany of a portion is the relation of the Government to the of their over-production which has been Unionist organisations which largely fostered by their protective tariffs, and by control the policy indicated by the tariff their trusts which have grown up under reformers. What are we all looking to? protective tariffs. A portion of that over- We know we are all looking to the future production is priced below the cost of manu- general election, to the preparations to facture. But that competition must in its be made for that general election, and nature be of a temporary character. In the results of that election. The Governorder to relieve us from that temporary ment are using the whole of their influence inconvenience we are to be compensated to ensure that the results of that election by a permanent protective duty. It is should be a mandate for a change of not easy to see that our power of com- some kind or another in our present fiscal peting in neutral markets would be policy. This is their irreducible minimum, increased by the adoption of that proposal. and unless a candidate is prepared to If America or Germany want to "dump proclaim himself a fiscal reformer of one they will "dump" somewhere. If they kind or another he is no longer permitted cannot "dump "here, they will be driven to be a loyal supporter of the Government. to "dumping" in neutral markets in Sometimes they profess a mild preference which we compete with them. for their own proposals over the more extreme proposals of the Tariff Reform League. Some of them do not conceal, however, their sympathy with the more extended proposals than their own; but in no case, so far as I am aware, is the influence of the Government exerted, or will it be exerted, to impose any limit whatever on the extent to which their supporters may legitimately commit themselves. I submit that this attitude on the part of the Government is unfair to many of their supporters who desire to give them a loyal support.

What this tariff would do would be permanently to raise the price of our products to our home customers. Who are our home customers? Nobody that I am aware of buys iron or steel to look at or to put in his pocket. The purchasers of iron and steel are a thousand different classes of manufacturers who convert iron and steel into hundreds and thousands of articles of general utility and advantage. Well, if the price of their material is raised to them, they also must be protected the price of the article which they produce will also be raised, their consumption I think we have a right to ask that will be necessarily reduced, and the effect there should be a superior limit as well of this proposal would be that production as an irreducible minimum. Some of us would be diminished, and that a large here, and some of those who in the other number of workmen in these subsiduary House voted for the Amendment moved industries a far larger number than are the other day, have endeavoured to employed in the ironmasters' works- induce the Government to fix some such would have their employment by so much superior limit; but hitherto our enreduced. I think it is a fair question to deavours have been without success. put to to His His Majesty's Government believe and I trust that the whole of His whether the proposal which I have just Majesty's Government are not committed described comes under the head of pro- to a policy of undisguised preference, tection, or whether it comes under the protective taxation of food, or to the head of retaliation. If the answer is that imposition of an all-round duty. such a policy as has been recommended by what is the use of the protests which The Times comes under the head of resome of them have made if they take no tiliation, I think the country will be in a better position to judge than it is now of steps to secure that their protests shall And unless they take the consequences which may follow the be effective ? adoption of the policy which was so some steps to prevent the return [to simply described to us in a couple of words. Parliament of candidates who are pledged

I

But

to protection and preference, the responsibility of those members of the Government who are not prepared to go to these full lengths will not be, in my opinion, discharged if by their possible future resignations they decline a verdict on the part of the country which they have themselves been instrumental in obtaining and which by timely action on their part they might have averted.

many

the Treasury has observed that he certainly will
make no difference with regard to the candidates
who are standing now; but the condition
must be that they are supported by the local
associations, and that they necessarily support
the policy of the Government.
hon. members have it?”

How else would

I think that is a very frank expression of the opinions of an important member of the Government on this part of the question. We know now who are to control the decision of the future fiscal policy of the Government. It is to be left to individual opinion and the action of the local associations. If by any process of wirepulling a sufficient number of local associations can be got to support the policy of the Tariff Reform League, then it is the policy of the Tariff Reform League only and not their own policy which will be submitted to the country at the next general election. I confess I am not content to leave the decision of

this question in the hands of the local

a

associations. Local associations are necessary and important part of our tions do not always, and frequently do political organisations; but local associastituencies which they profess to reprenot represent the opinions of the con

There is only one hypothesis on which this attitude on their part can be justified. It is that in their judgment these questions are of minor importance as compared with the maintenance of the Unionist Party for other purposes for purposes, I acknowledge, great and important, perhaps of resisting any revival of the Home Rule policy, of maintaining the principles of the Education Act, and, for all I know, there may be others but in comparison with these they hold that the most sweeping changes in our fiscal policy are matters of minor importance. I acknowledge that I am unable to hold this view, for I believe there is no subject which is the least likely to occupy the immediate or early attention of Parliament which compares in importance with that of the principles on which our I have been reproached with disloyalty fiscal policy is in the future to be based. to the Unionist Party for having advised In saying this I think I am taking a more free-traders to vote against protectionist consistent position than that which was candidates. I have given that advice. I taken by Lord Selborne last night. He have never advised any one to vote reminded us that we were risking the against candidates who were pledged to existence of the great Unionist Party the policy of negotiation and retaliation But what are he and his friends doing?-partly because, as I have already said, Are they doing nothing to risk the existence of the great Unionist Party He has not even the excuse of thinking that these are great matters, for he told us that he considered that a wholly exaggerated importance was attached to the question both by the advocates and opponents of protection.

There are certain compensations for the absence of the Leader of the other

House and for his place being occupied by Mr. Akers Douglas, who, speaking the other day, gave some novel definitions of the principles of Cabinet responsibility.

He said

"The noble Lord wants to know whether hon. Members supporting the Sheffield policy and hon. Members supporting a more advanced policy will receive the same support from the Conservative associations. I say certainly, as long as they receive the support of their local associations, and my hon. friend the Secretary of

sent.

I do not know what that policy means. But I do advise every man who professes free trade opinions, and does desire that freedom of exchange should not be diminished but increased, to exact from every candidate who seeks to represent him in Parliament a pledge that he will oppose protection in whatever shape it may re-appear to exact a pledge from the candidates that they will vote against protection, and that they will oppose protective taxes on food, that they will oppose the imposition of a protective and I will advise that, failing this pledge, duty upon foreign manufactured goods; even if he professes to be a supporter of he will refuse to support a candidate a Unionist Government.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY): My Lords, I believe I am only expressing the views of every one of

my colleagues, that they regard the departure of the noble Duke as a great calamity, and I can hardly adequately express how his absence from our counsels is felt. The subject of the resignation of the noble Duke is one which I think may be fairly left to him. At least, as far as I am concerned, I absolutely refuse to discuss any part of that matter. I am sure that in the eyes of his countrymen the noble Duke has said and done nothing that is inconsistent with the highest tone of honour. Turning to the other part of the noble Duke's speech, I confess I am a little surprised at the complete innocence the noble Duke appears to display as to the mode in which political matters are managed in Cabinets. I should have thought the noble Duke's experience would have led him to speak less lightly of the opinions of local political

associations. Another observation occurs

free trade.

That is a kind of trap into which speaker after speaker has fallen. They are not invited to fight that question, and those responsible for bringing the subject forward at Sheffield and elsewhere have over and over again repudiated the statement that it is necessary to take the part of free-trader or protectionist. I have my own views and will not, when necessary, hesitate to express them; but as a member of the Government, and responsible for what I say as representing my colleages, I have spoken no words in favour of protection, nor do I intend to do so to-night. Iclaim to have my views unchallenged until I say or do something for which the Government will be responsible. It is not Government, and when the noble Duke a discussion upon any proposal of the said he did not understand the measures to me upon the noble Duke's remark, that suggested by the Prime Minister at the he had never heard of a policy that could time of his resignation he could not have be expressed in two words. Has he ever meant to convey that measures were acheard of Home Rule? No one has made tually suggested, for certainly they were a more effective stand than the noble not. Not now is there any specific proDuke himself as to the necessity of disposal from the Government in question, tinguishing between the official acts, the but we are challenged by the noble Earl official programme, of a Government and to say what we are going to do or say in the individual opinions of the members of the country. That is what it comes to; a Government and until there is that and, forsooth, His Majesty's Ministers are official programme, and something which challenged on their views without respect the Government as a Government is to any specific measure capable of being supporting, I should have thought there discussed. It is one thing to speak of a was no right to inquire into the individual policy of retaliation, or what, in other opinions of different members of a words, the noble Duke more accurately Government. The noble Duke quoted a described as freedom to negotiate with celebrated passage from a speech by Lord other countries; but what is it? Who Macaulay, in which he pointed out that has given the right to challenge members great and important issues before the of the Government upon what they are country had been advocated by members going to do, or what they are going to say, of a Cabinet and denounced by other or what they are going to propose? What members of the same Cabinet. I do not has been suggested is an inquiry, an inknow whether the noble Duke has altered quiry among themselves to determine his views since 15th June last. I am afraid what they should propose to Parliament. I shall have to call the noble Duke's That was what was suggested; and I think attention to observations he then made on I may claim the authority of the noble the subject; but on this part of it I am Duke for considering this a reasonable a little surprised to find the noble Duke and proper thing to do, and one would expressing his view that a member is open to have his expressed opinion challenged suppose that the natural result would be by his colleagues and a declaration made that, when a conclusion came to be arrived by the Government. at as to what was the right thing to do, then a full discussion would proceed as to a general policy and its details. But here the House is discussing nothing in particular and speakers attribute anything they please as to possible proposals His

Before proceeding further, I wish to make a protest against the impression, which the noble Duke has acted upon for the last twenty minutes, that the House is discussing discussing protection and