is the Foreign Secretary, and he will have to deal with this question of retaliation. If the election is carried on in this manner, how will my noble friend be able to say to Foreign Ministers that the people of this country have declared in favour of retaliation. The natural reply will be, "You have not found out the opinion of the people of your country, and even if there is a majority in favour of the Government it is not a majority in favour of retaliation, because three-fourths of the electors may support Mr. Chamberlain. And my noble friend will have no power of negotiation if the Government will not be more explicit to show that the opinion of the electors my There are only one or two more matters that I feel I ought to detain your Lordships with. This Resolution that is suggested is a very simple one. noble We ask simply has been declared. Does friend know yet if the Government have that the control of Parliament shall be formulated anything in the shape maintained to the fullest. I do not of retaliation? Has it been thought understand what my noble friend's reason over what my noble friend is going is for saying that this Resolution was to say to each particular country? framed so as to control future Parliaments, Has he ascertained what he will say to for there is no power to control future Russia, or what he is going to tax? We Parliaments. This is an expression of have a positive promise that there shall opinion of this Parliament. One Parliabe no taxation of food, and in the face of ment cannot control another, and therethat, what can be said to Russia or fore the Amendment that has been America, which are the two countries proposed on the part of the Government whose imports you wish most to shut does not carry us one step further, and out. I fancy that when my noble friend it is not an Amendment that anybody comes to threaten, it will be a practice can attach any importance to. I do not contrary to his nature, and he will not be see how any one can object to the Motion able to threaten without knowing he is of Lord Crewe. The Government could going to act. If my noble friend takes not object to it; and so, to give the that course, he will ponder long before House an opportunity of voting upon he will advise this country to enter into something else, this Amendment was put a war of retaliation. in. No one wants to bind future Parliaments, and the Government must not be taken to be opposing Lord Crewe's Motion by virtue of this Amendment, because it means nothing. My noble friend Lord Selborne last night informed us Unionists that we stood in great peril, and he warned us that we were taking a part in public affairs which may cause us to be associated with men with whom we differ. Well, my Lords, I will take that warning to heart. I have no wish to leave the Unionist Party, but I have to ask my noble friend and his colleagues to save us from becoming a protectionist Party. If you are going to allow us to drift into the position of being a protectionist Party, we, believing that such policy will be fatal to the cause of Unionism, refuse to listen to an appeal which asks us to strike a blow against the principles to which we are devoted. You say it N There is another question I wish to ask. It is rather unfortunate that this debate was not postponed for a few days, in order that every Member of this House might have read this Blue-book, which contains an account of retaliation and tariff wars. I should like my noble friend's opinion as to the results of those destructive wars which have taken place, and which are discussed in this Blue-book. Probably none of your Lordships have had time to peruse the contents of this Blue-book, but you must have had time to learn the destruction to the trade of Italy and France. Take the relative proportion of our commerce, and apply the same measure of destruction to our commerce that occurred in Italy, France, and Switzerland, and what can compensate VOL. CXXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] is important that kind of fiscal policy other than free trade should exist. We claim that free trade is a necessity of the greatness of this Empire throughout and we cannot yield or forego it in order to bring success to any Party upon issues of secondary importance. I know that we are told that we are loyally to consider the claims of Party and I admit the obligation. There is, however, one duty which to me is higher than Party, and that is duty that I owe to my neighbour. I have for some years lived in an agricultural district where wages are of the lowest and I know something of what takes place in the homes of these who toil, and I have learned from observation that there is no margin between the receipts of these men and the expenditure they have to incur. Therefore I cannot and will not bring myself to add one farthing to the burdens of these men struggling day after day to keep off poverty from their houses and to find sufficient for those who have claims upon them. When we consider the burdens that are to be cast upon these people we are told that we should think Imperially. The best way to think Imperially is to let our minds dwell upon the foundation and the bed-rock of Empire. Our Empire rests above all things upon the contentment of its people. Our Empire throughout the world must look for its strength and foundation to the contentment and loyalty of the people of these islands. Will you be acting wisely in the interests of that Empire which makes an appeal to you, by doing anything to check the contentment and loyalty of the people by an unjust and class law? a particular of the noble and learned Lord on the LORD BURGHCLERE: I do not rise for the purpose of answering the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, for I am in accord with his stalwart profession of free trade, and I listened to his able discourse with an admiration which, I am sure, will be shared by all his fellowcountrymen who read it when it is reported in the papers to-morrow. But my Lords, there have been other speeches in this debate, and I am put somewhat in a difficulty about them, because they have already been answered by previous speakers better than I could have answered them myself. I must say that I was deeply disappointed by the speech he seemed to share as to the meaning of my noble friend's words. It appears to me that the noble Earl seemed to rejoice in his recollection of the halcyon days that preceded the repeal of the Corn Laws, and he told us that the state of the country was of a most prosperous description at that time. I have not the slightest doubt that the state of England was very prosperous at that time. We were then, as we are now, the greatest commercial nation in the world. It was not a very long time before 1846 that we were called "a nation of shopkeepers," and I expect that was applied to us as much out of jealousy of our prosperity as a sort of innuendo against our manners. The noble Lord mentioned the name of Sir Robert Peel, and he told us that one of the reasons why Sir Robert Peel changed his opinions and adopted free trade was that from the height of prosperity that existed in this country before 1846 he saw a glimmering of that depression which was about to fall upon this country, and he gave that as one of the reasons why Sir Robert Peel adopted free trade. I think with my noble friend Lord James that one of the reasons why Sir Robert Peel adopted free trade was on account of the state of poverty existing among the labouring classes in this country at that period, and I felt inclined, while the noble Earl was speaking, to read to him, if it had been within the Rules of the House, across the Table, the words Sir Robert Peel used when he resigned office. He spoke of the goodwill existing in the abodes of those whose lot it was to labour when they recruited their exhausted strength with abundant and untaxed food. Anybody who could remember the days of poverty, distress, and starvation amongst the labouring classes, the burning of ricks, and the bread riots at that time must see that, if the rich at that time were richer, certainly the poor classes then classes then were poorer and more miserable than they are now. that subject with infinitely greater ability than I can claim to possess. I have another reason for not doing so, and that is that during the last six months it has been my lot, as it has been the lot of a great many others, to take an interest in politics, to expand every argument which I have on the subject, on many platforms in many parts of the country, and I was fearful, my Lords, lest I should be betrayed into repeating to your Lordships some of those rhetorical efforts, and when I tell you that the shortest of them takes something like one hour and a half to deliver, I am sure I shall have the agreement of your Lordships on the present occasion when I say that I do not intend to make any such effort here. There is, however, one exception I should like to be permitted to dwell upon. I should like to speak upon agriculture and how it has been affected by the policy of the Government, and if I may be permitted to do so without being corrected by the Lord Chancellor I should like to say how agriculture would be affected by the alternative policy of Mr. Chamberlain, because I observe that very many members of His Majesty's Government seem to endorse and approve the views of Mr. Chamberlain, although they do not approve of the means by which he is going to bring them about. My noble friend Lord Crewe alluded last night in the too short references, if I may say so, to the subject of agriculture as it refers to the Government position. It has often been a wonder to me since I have had the honour of a seat in your Lordships' House that so comparatively few debates on agricultural subjects are initiated in this House. Surely if there ever was an Assembly more interested in agriculture than another, it is the House of Lords. We have amongst us many landowners and many practical farmers, and we have also those who are well acquainted with practical farmers. It is perfectly true that up to the present moment we have no agricultural labourers here, but at any rate we have on both sides of the House noble Earls who have taken a deep interest in allotments and small holdings which deeply affect that large labouring class which I may be permitted to call the third estate of the agricultural community. I may say, moreover, that in endeavouring, as far as possible, to ascertain I have not risen to refer to the pros and cons of this high fiscal debate which has agitated the country since Mr. Chamberlain first declared war on free trade in May last. I do not rise to do so, because already in this House high authorities have delivered themselves on how the policy of the Government affects the question of agriculture, although I am, as your Lordships are well aware, a most convinced free-trader, I have endeavoured to approach the subject simply from the view of one who is anxious to ascertain whether in the policy of the Government or in the policy of Mr. Chamberlain there can be any benefit conferred upon agriculture, or whether, on the contrary, those policies will do injury to the agricultural classes. The position of agriculture, though it may be a little better during the last year or two, is not in the position that agriculturists would like to see, and I am quite sure that your Lordships will admit that fact. Landlords have, during the last fifteen or twenty years, lost large sums of capital which I am sorry to say there is no chance of them ever recovering. Farmers have lost capital and they have left their farms and been replaced by other farmers who, I am afraid, have not so much of that desirable capital as their predecessors. The only class which seems to me to have prospered during the last twenty-five years is the large class of agricultural labourers, the purchasing power of whose wages is higher, and who are in a general sense infinitely better off than they were before the Corn Laws were removed. Now I should like to say on my own behalf that having given the schemes of the Government as far as I can understand them-and I am bound to say that they are somewhat misty as regards the official programme of the Government-fair consideration, and having given the schemes of Mr. Chamberlain, as far as I can give them, full consideration, I have deliberately come to the conclusion that neither one nor the other will in any way benefit agriculture at all. On the contrary, I think there is very considerable danger that they will do agriculture a great deal of harm. With your Lordships' permission I will first of all take what I would call the authorised programme of the Government, and then I will take, I will not call it the unauthorised but the semiauthorised programme of Mr. Chamberlain. The authorised programme of the Government, as we understand it, is negotiation and retaliation, of which two retaliation is the one, I suppose, which is the most effective. Now how will retaliation affect agriculture? That is a question which I think agriculturists may very well put to themselves. We have had an authoritative statement in another place by the Home Secretary, speaking, I suppose, with the consent of the Prime Minister and with the assent of his colleagues in the Cabinet, and what did Mr. Akers Douglas say as to the meaning of what the Government policy was. He said— "We are anxious to see a reduction in those hostile tariffs which have been injurious to the trade and commerce of the country. What hostile tariffs have been injurious to the trade and commerce of the country? I do not gather much from the Government on that point. There is some illuminative, light thrown upon it by the speeches of the late Colonial Secretary, and if I understand him aright then nearly every trade and industry is injured at the present moment by the hostile tariffs, and if Mr. Akers Douglas has truly stated the policy of the Government there is no trade and industry which may not be affected by retaliation and against which hostile tariffs may not be placed. Yes, there is one industry, and that we learn is the industry of agriculture. Nothing is to be done for agriculture, which Mr. Chamberlain has also told us in one of his speeches has practically been destroyed by free trade. I say deliberately that the Government do not intend to do anything for agriculture whilst they protect the rest of the trade of this country, because Mr. Akers Douglas on the same occasion said the Government were opposed to any duty on food, foreign wheat, or other agricultural produce. In that case what would be the position of agriculture. Every other trade, every necessity of their life, all their machinery, every one of their comforts and necessities may be taxed, and heavily taxed, and they will have to pay more for them whilst their own agricultural industry will not be benefited in the slightest degree. If this policy is carried out the last stage of agriculture will be infinitely worse than the first. For my part, if I had to choose between the two as an agriculturist, I think that the scheme of Mr. Chamberlain is infinitely less deleterious to the agricultural interest than the authorised programme of the Government. I should like to turn for a moment to the effect that Mr. Chamberlain's scheme would have on agriculture, and I do so because we are told by the Government that if the next election goes in that direction they, at least, have not excluded it from their programme. Mr. Chamberlain's proposals seem to me, if he really wished to introduce protection as a statesman, to have failed to grapple the very crux of the effect of imposing protection in this country. France, Germany, and the United States exist under different conditions, but in this overpopulated highly commercial country it seems to me that Mr. Chamberlain has not dealt with the crux of the question, which is how you are to reconcile the rival claims of agriculture on the one hand with the claims of commerce on the other. That seems to me to be the real question which has never been dealt with, faced, or settled by any of Mr. Chamberlain's speeches. Your Lordships are aware what great protagonists of agriculture, like Mr. Chaplin, put forward. They say that large tracts of land have gone over to pasture which formerly grew wheat, and their idea is that those tracts should once again be transformed into wheat-growing land. How does Mr. Chamberlain's scheme affect them? He proposes to put a 2s. duty on corn. I ask any farmer or landowner who has a practical knowledge of farming whether a 2s. duty on corn would turn over those pasture lands to growing wheat rivalling the virgin soil of Canada and other countries abroad? We all know that it would require a 10s. duty or a 15s. duty before that millennium could be brought about. But if a 10s. duty or a 15s. duty on corn is the only protection you can give to the farmer what will the artisans say about it in the great centres of industry? Their cost for food will be raised to a point which will set the commercial against the agricultural interest, and you will either leave the agricultural interest worse than it was before or you will make the commercial interest rebel against the imposition of duties upon corn just as it did before 1842 and 1846. If I may for one moment more detain your Lordships on this subject, I would like to take the case of preferential tariffs supposing they are admitted. I do so without any apology because I have a sort of suspicion that my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and the President of the Board of Agriculture have at least a pious opinion about preferential tariffs with regard to the Colonies. How would preferential tariffs affect the industry of agriculture? I say that they would be the very worst enemy agriculture could have. What would be the object of them? To check the import of corn from the United States who send us most of our corn, and to stimulate the growth of wheat in the north-west province of Canada where everybody knows there are large tracts of virgin soil which only require labour in order to grow enough wheat to supply this country, and perhaps a large portion of the world. As regards labour that is going to the north-west province of Canada. I asked the President of the Board of Agriculture a question some time ago about emigration from America into the north-west province of Canada, and he minimised the figures I put forward; but if at the present moment he were speaking he would not so minimise the vast amount of emigration from the United States which is increasing every day. What has happened in the meantime in this country? Farmers have been obliged to adapt themselves to the agricultural circumstances of the day. They have done so at great expense to themselves through times of trial and stress. They have adapted themselves to the circumstances of the day. What happens if you check the influx of wheat from the United States. It cannot be done in a day. During the period when the wheat is not coming from Canada farmers and landowners at home may be tempted by the high price of wheat to break up those pastures and revert to the old practice of wheat growing, and then perhaps the north-west province of Canada will by that time be more fully developed, and they will be able to flood our markets with wheat. Again I say that the last state of the farmer will be worse than the first. Incidentally, a very curious thing might happen with regard to preferential tariffs. We had an animated, |