I observe that not only did the noble Earl who initiated this discussion suggest that a policy should be declared, but that the Government should be bound by a Resolution of the House as to the particular form which a proposal should take. It is a very remarkable thing as a matter of constitutional curiosity, and I think it should be handed down to the future as a precedent which ought to be avoided. On 15th June there was a discussion not very unlike others heard in the House when this subject is raised, and the noble Duke on that occasion used words in which, alluding to the line taken by noble Lords opposite that inquiry into the present system was not even permissible, he said they would "Find themselves compelled, whether they liked it or not, to take their share in this grand inquest of the nation which was to be opened." But from what the noble Duke has just said, it does not appear that his mind is so open as to whether there should be this grand inquest or not. THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I thought the inquiry had been concluded, and that the Government had arrived at a conclusion to reverse the fiscal policy of the last two generations. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: From what did the noble Duke infer that the inquiry was concluded? were still piling up statistics, and were still engaged in "the grand inquest.' What the noble Duke said in June was good common sense, and ought to be acted on-that a great evil undoubtedly exists, and that it ought to be remedied in some way or another. The noble Duke said with great force that the circumstances had completely changed, and that, instead of manufacturing as we had formerly done for the whole world, we were being surrounded by hostile tariffs. What was to be done was to inquire in what way that great evil could be remedied. Is it, or is it not, an evil that we are being shut out from every market in the world, and, if it is, are those charged with the Government of the country not under some obligation to endeavour to apply a remedy? And if there is no remedy but retaliation, what is the objection? At present, if we go to France or Germany and say, "Will you let our goods in free if we let your goods in free?" the answer we should receive from these countries would be, "Our goods go in free already. You have nothing to offer us. Why should we give you anything, when you have nothing to give us in return?" Whoever heard of a bargain in which one partner began by saying, "I have nothing to give you; please give me something?" It is not unnatural that the Government should endeavour in some way to get rid of the evil inflicted on this country and its commerce by high tariffs. But it is said retaliation would be ineffectual, that it would lead either to a tariff war, THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The which would be injurious to both parties, decision. THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What decision? I have not heard of any decision to reverse the fiscal policy of the country. On the contrary, one of the most frequent complaints on both sides is that no decision has been announced. All through his observations to-night the noble Duke referred to free trade; but in the course of his former speech he very justly said we never had free trade, but only free imports. How the noble Duke can have come to the conclusion that the inquiry was concluded is one of those mysteries which I am not able to solve. I was under the impression, until the noble Duke spoke, that we or to the duties put on being made perpetual, and thus protection would be introduced. I admit that a commercial war may be injurious; but if it were known that we would go into commercial warfare with a weapon that we could use, our antagonists would be a little chary of challenging us by raising their tariffs. The objection to the present system is that every country may bring its goods to our shores and seriously injure our industries by underselling us, and we have no power to resist them. That injury is being done cannot be denied. But it is said we must take a wider view. I agree that we must not confine our view to one industry, but must look to the prosperity and interest of the whole country. But, on the other hand, we must remember that the whole country is made up of its different parts. How many of its industries may be destroyed with impunity? It is interesting to observe the different forms in which the attack on the Government has been made; and until the Government themselves determine on which line of defence they will place themselves, I suppose they may be justly abused by both sides by those who complain that Ministers are not sufficiently protectionists and by those who assert that their policy would lead to the taxation of food. qualities, and I think the Government may be congratulated on obtaining such recruits. My Lords, I have been accustomed for years to treat everything which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says with great respect, and I do so now; but he has propounded a doctrine which has fallen on my ears with strange sound. The Government claim the right to appeal to the country to-morrow, or any day, for a mandate of the greatest importance; yet, when details are asked for, my noble and learned friend_replies, "What right have you to make any inquiry as to what that mandate is to be for?" I contend that, if the fullest information on the subject is not obtained in Parliament, the country will have actually placed before it the nature of the mandate at twenty-four hours notice, and they will have to determine upon it in ignorance. That is not the way to obtain the genuine opinion of the country on any great question. The Government should be judged by their professions. They have put forward no concrete policy. All that is before the country is the Prime Minister's statement that he is prepared to reverse the policy that no duty could ever be imposed except for the purposes of revenue. If there is an evil to be met, is it right to take the leading principle of the Sheffield speech and of the pamphlet -and there is, I assert, no difference The noble and learned Earl, referring between the the private paper and the to the observation of the noble Duke as to pamphlet in this respect? The principle his inability to understand the meaning of is that the country has a right to say to a policy which was represented by two other countries, "Unless your fiscal words, quoted the case of Home Rule. system is so altered that our goods may Of course, the meaning of those two get into your markets, we shall refuse to words was clearly understood, for Irish let your goods into our markets." All politicians had been for years explaining that is claimed is that that liberty should to the country what Home Rule was; exist. The form in which and the extent and Mr. Gladstone never consulted the to which that should be done are neces-country on Home Rule until he had insarily matters of detail. But that that should be the leading principle is all the Prime Minister has ever said. one. *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: My Lords, I fully share the opinion which has been expressed by the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, that the Question on the Paper is a very narrow I also agree with him that there has been considerable digression during the debate, but that digression is quite natural, and I do not think that any member of His Majesty's Government will complain either that inquiries have been made or that digression has occurred. I am sure there are many in this House who would wish to offer to His Majesty's Government their congratulation upon the two recruits they have obtained on the Front Bench. The He troduced the Bill of 1886 with all its details speech of the noble Marquess Lord Earl the First Lord of the Admiralty Salisbury and of the noble Earl Lord knows that it is impossible for me to say Donoughmore were speeches of good a discourteous word in regard to him. to learn whether the Queen's mail coach had been captured by those rebels. Our gaols were full, and men were being tried for sedition and treason. All this did not proceed from political disaffection and wrong, or from bad laws, but it proceeded from one cause alone, and it was that men were starving and wanted food, and had to fight in defence of their very lives; and they had to break the law in order to make their grievances known. Many of your Lordships may have seen a graphic account of the But the noble Earl seemed to be suffer ing from a suppressed attack of protection. Let us see what my noble friend said. He raised a question which is important from many points of view, because it is a purely protectionist point of view. Having had a great deal to do with the Unionist Party both on its platforms and in regard to its policy, I wish to ask my noble friend to consider the effect of his words upon the fortunes of the Unionist Party. He has stated that in the protectionist period, ten or fifteen years before free trade, this country state of the country during the time existed in a state of prosperity. Well, the people who were interested in the prosperity of this country will be surprised to hear that His Majesty's Government regard the state of things existing before free trade as a prosperous state of things. *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I must be allowed to state my point in my own way. The noble Duke had stated that there was no period of prosperity before the repeal of the Corn Laws, and I pointed out that it was prosperous according to the opinion of the period. I pointed out that prosperity was a comparative term, and the standard of comparison was the experience of the world at the given moment, and I proved from contemporary records that in the opinion of that time, before the repeal of the Corn Laws, the period had been considered a prosperous one. which my noble friend Lord Selborne says was a prosperous time. That account says that the whole of the labourers in the agricultural districts were on the verge of starvation; that the poor rates were 20s. in the pound; that the large towns were like beleaguered cities, so dreadful was the destitution and misery which prevailed in them; that people walked the streets like gaunt shadows, and not like human beings; that bread was so dear that few were able to buy it, and we were on the verge of a revolution when the Corn Laws were repealed. Then is given the anecdote about the pinch of curry powder. That was the description given by an accurate and truthful historian of events, for that is the record of Mr. Chamberlain himself. I am not seeking to introduce anything in the way of a taunt to my right hon. friend, but this description represents history, and I take it that this description is *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: That true, yet my noble friend says those is exactly what I am traversing. No were prosperous times. People at doubt, after the French War this country that time may have looked to the recuperated, and our manufactures capitalists of the country, and thought flourished. Steamships were built, that if the capitalists were prosperous the and from the capitalists' point of view there was no doubt an increased prosperity, but that was not the prosperity of the country. May I say that if my noble friend had lived as long as I have he would not have said that that period was a prosperous one. I can recollect when those who looked out at night saw the fires burning from the agricultural homesteads, when reports came in of the breaking up of machinery, when lawless men scoured the country and raided the inns. The miners of Wales were marching on Newport, and I remember standing by the main road country was prosperous. They are now looking towards the Tariff Commission, and saying that this country is prosperous, but they do not go into the cottages of the people and learn for themselves the suffering that comes from the want of food. My noble friend Lord Selborne said if there had been any amelioration of that state of things it did not result from free trade. *THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I said free imports. *LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD: Yes; imports and free food coming in untaxed. Your Lordships will remember that the I mention, in passing, that I think we are agitation for free trade commenced in to be congratulated upon the fact that one the year 1849, and in the year 1852 the Member of your Lordships' House, Government of Lord Derby was formed, most highly regarded, most highly and at the end of that year free trade venerated, still remains amongst us, who had only been in operation some three was a member of that Cabinet, and if he years. A question arose, on the Motion were here to-night-I allude to the Lord of Mr. Charles Villiers, whether free trade John Manners of 1852-I think he was a doctrine that ought to be supported, would readily confirm that, protecand a discussion took place in December, tionist as he was, he voted in 1853, as to what should be the opinion favour of that declaration, and also, of the House on that subject. At that if he had been present to-night, time Mr. Disraeli, as Chancellor of the he might he might have told us how it was that he voted for such Exchequer, was the Leader of the House, and he then expressed a wish that the Resolution. I hope that this statement Resolution proposed and the question it of my noble friend has now been pretty raised should be definitely cleared up, and well disposed of, and I hope he will believe in the course of that discussion, which Mr. Chamberlain if he does not believe was rather conversational, Mr. Disraeli me. He has now got the statement on saidthis point of the old protectionist Party, and I ask him to listen to such evidence « Under these circumstances we endeavoured -to draw up a distinct Resolution which we considered would conciliate your opinion to such a degree that we hoped it would be accepted. I have not the Resolution at hand, but I sufficiently recollect it to know that it most unquestionably declared the opinion that the welfare of the working classes was attributable to the cheapness of provisions occasioned by recent legislation." a and not rely upon persons less worthy of credence. Perhaps I may anticipate for a moment what we shall have to deal with. There is one delivered statement which I am sure will affect public opinion to a great extent. The Lord Chancellor says that That was the opinion of Lord Derby's we have no right to ask the Government Cabinet, and Mr. Disraeli was willing to what their opinions are individually. I bring forward that Amendment expressly know I have no right to do that, but in the terms which I have mentioned, after his speech I am inclined to suspect stating that it was the opinion of the them, and I think that my suspicions are House that the amelioration of the well founded. We know the opinion of working classes had been affected by many members of the Government. means of free imports, and that it was in Without breaking the canons of privacy, consequence of the cheapness of food, we know pretty well what the views of resulting from that legislation, that the the Chancellor of the Exchequer are. I working classes had had their position think I have a suspicion, from what my altered for the better. It turns out that right hon. friend Mr. Alfred Lyttelton whilst now there are members of the has said, what he means. You may call present Government saying that such is his opinions pious opinions if you like, not the case, the colleagues of Lord Derby, but still they are his opinions, and the Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Walpole, Sir J. Paking- Lord Chancellor cannot object to my ton, and every member of the Government stating that Mr. Lyttelton has told us of 1852, went into the Lobby and that we cannot put preferential tariffs voted that such had been the result of on one side. My noble friend Lord free trade in ameliorating the condition Selborne says that the Government of the working classes, and congratulating are free-traders, and he says they the country that the previous state of will not ban preferential tariffs. things had been changed. Not only suppose that means they will not oppose the Government, but 486 Members them. Is that the policy of the Governof the House of Commons, voted that such ment? When these views are placed was the result in 1852, and now it is left before the country we wish to know to the year 1904 for us to be told that such was not the case, and that there was what the policy of the Government is in no improvement for the working classes regard to them; but when we hear Ministers of this country through free trade. May in the House of Commons telling us that I they are in favour of these protectionist country. I suppose he will accept the view views, then we are told by the Lord of my noble friend on the Woolsack and Chancellor that we have no right to he will say, "I shall tell the electors they inquire what the views of the will vote for retaliation and negotiation." Government are individually. Have the I suppose I must take that answer. Now governed no right to know the opinions of let me ask my noble friend how is he those who govern? Is it possible to hear going to take the opinion of the country these individual opinions and for us to be upon negotiation and retaliation? How satisfied while the Government say "We are you going to obtain your vote upon will some time or other tell you what our that mandate? How are you going to opinions are?" I would ask my noble separate it from the rest of the proposals friend on the Woolsack to say whether in your programme? Suppose you are the Government will tell us this after the placed between a free-trader and a next general election or before it. We supporter of Mr. Chamberlain-how are must have some statement on this you going to get a vote for the Governquestion. The people of this country ment under those circumstances upon are not constitutional lawyers, and if you retaliation and negotiation? There will are going to ask them to vote some time be men who will not attach imporor other you must tell them what they tance to their vote upon that quesare going to vote upon. It is no good tion, but they will desire to vote telling them after they have voted. It upon education and Chinese labour, and may be negotiation and retaliation, and all those subjects that engage the attenif it is, then you would have their banners tion of the public, and how can you inscribed with those words, and you separate that question from all the other would tell the farmer and agricultural questions which will confront the labourer "That is sufficient for you, and elector? There is one way you can do we will not tell you any more." I feel this, and it is for the Government to seriously in regard to the fortunes frankly place their propositions before of the Unionist Party, and I say Parliament and before the country, and that such strategy is placing the then you can place them properly before Unionist Party in very great peril. the electors. When I contested my first, If you tell the farmer that your policy is election in 1868 there was one question retaliation he will ask you what it is you before the public, and this course was are going to retaliate upon. He will ask taken through the statesmanship of a whether it is upon agricultural implements man who knew the necessity for obtainor the chemicals he uses upon the land. ing mandates. In the year 1868 Mr. My noble friend says, "We are not going Gladstone brought forward certain Resoto tell you, but we shall leave it to the lutions in the House of Commons denew Parliament and they will tell you." claring the necessity of disestablishing I assure my noble friend that the Unionist the Irish Church, and he stated precisely Party will stand in great peril in conse- the manner in which it was to take place, quence of this state of things. You are and every Liberal candidate had that practically telling the agricultural question in his mind, and at every labourer, "You are to have this great meeting I read this and used it, and I policy of retaliation and negotiation and obtained my majority by virtue of being what more can you want?" He will ask able to tell the people what it was the you, what are you going to tax for retalia- Prime Minister required. But we have tion? I think in this way you come not got anything like that now, for here down to a very low level and a very the general policy of the Government. you are mixing up this question with commonplace level, but it is a very If you take that course the demand of the practical level and you cannot avoid being placed in such a position. May I ask my noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he speaks to-night to answer one or two questions. two questions. In the first place I want to ask what is the mandate that he expects from the Government will be driven into the background. It will be Mr. Chamberlain's policy that we shall have to fight, and this Government, asking for a mandate so obtained, will have no proof that the people have ever expressed an opinion upon that question. My noble friend |