That I think is the crux of the whole case, and if you want the farmers to back up the Government in their policy which we hope they will introduce at no distant date, I am afraid that 2s on corn and 5 per cent on dairy produce and meat will be of very little value to the farmers. Mr. Chaplin says we must have wheat at 40s. If you want it at that price and the American price is 23s. you will have to put 17s. a quarter on wheat. I leave it to the Government to decide whether the working man will pay that price. If you want the farmers with you you will have to put a more considerable duty on wheat because 2s. a quarter, as my tenant said, does not go half far enough. A small duty would not raise the price of food or yield a profit to the farmer which would enable him to pay higher wages. I think that a good many tenant farmers will be found to agree with the Marquess of Salisbury, who is reported in The Times to have said that "There is no reason to suppose that with protection everybody would be richer." I suppose we may take it for granted that the noble Marquess Lord Salisbury last night was not only speaking for himself-and perhaps I shall be contradicted if I am wrong-but I take it for granted that he was speaking not only for himself but for all his colleagues, including Lord Onslow, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and all the members of His Majesty's Government, when he said that the Government were not concerned to defend the policy of that distinguished statesman, Mr. Chamberlain. I apologise to the House for having intervened in this debate, but I felt, as an agriculturist and as a person entirely dependent on land, that we should have heard from the other side of the House something on the agricultural side of the question, but perhaps later on in the debate we shall be told what the ideas of His Majesty's Government are on this great question. Once more I beg to apologise to the House for having intervened in the debate, and I express the hope that we shall have some decided and intelligible statement from His Majesty's Government as regards *THE MARQUESS OF NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, last night I listened to the speech of the noble Marquess who spoke for the first time in this House, but to whom I have often listened in the other House, and I should have been glad, had he been present, to congratulate him upon the excellence of his remarks, especially as he made one or two distinct statements which, though they have not cleared away some of our doubts, at all events have given us a little light upon the subject before the House. He told us that the Government would consider the Motion of the noble Earl as a vote of want of confidence in the Government. I confess that I consider it is a vote of want of confidence, but I feel that it is justified, considering what the country is at present thinking as regards His Majesty's Government, and especially considering what has taken place on those occasions which afford us our only opportunity of testing the feeling of the country, viz., the by-elections. It seems to me that the country as much as the Opposition has lost confidence in His Majesty's Government. The last expression of opinion came from Mid Herts, a part of the country with which the noble Marquess is intimately acquainted, and as he declared himself as distinctly opposed to what is called the Chamberlain policy, I should have been glad to learn from him whether he was pleased or sorry at the result of that election. As a matter of fact, at the present moment we are all turning our thoughts to the general election which is impending. At that general election there will be decided I do not think it can be postponed to another election-one of the gravest issues ever placed before the country. I am going to endeavour to keep to the Motion and the Amendment before the House, but we must recognise the fact that the general election will not and cannot be fought on the question of retaliation; it will be fought upon what is known as Mr. Chamberlain's policy. We had another speech last night from the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty, in which he certainly declared himself as an "anti-free-importer," and we He heard from the noble Marquess just be- are think the noble Earl on the Woolsack, although at first I thought he was going to keep to the subject of retaliation, did not refrain from wandering from that subject into the more important matter embodied in Mr. Chamberlain's policy. We are all perfectly aware what retaliation means. There is no difficulty in understanding that. We have had many instances of retaliation taking place between Russia and Germany, France and Italy, and I noticed in the speech of the noble Marquess who moved the Amendment that he instanced the case is of Switzerland, in regard to which he said I or a If that is the case I am anxious to mandate is required know why a I should like to ask or asked for. the noble Marquess to explain tonight what would be the difference in his action if he received a mandate from the country as compared with the present condition of affairs under which he has full power to come before Parliament and ask for authority to use retaliation. I think that is a fair point to put to the noble Marquess, especially as there are at the present moment suspicions-I will not say more than that-as regards the action of His Majesty's Government in ment are anxious beating down of import duties against us, when any foreign country proposes to impose duties which may do harm to our manufactures or manufacturers? I confess for my part, free-importer as I am, that if His Majesty's Government came down with a good case of grave injustice against any manufacture, and if it could be proved that by retaliation we should do no harm whatever to any other industries or to those employed in other industries, I think their plea for retaliation would meet with very favourable consideration at the hands of the people. But I do not see that that is the present proposal of His Majesty's Government. There seems to be something behind which has not appeared, and in discussing this question we cannot help reviewing what has happened during the last few months. We are aware now that a proposal of what we call protection-to use a short term-was brought before His Majesty's Government before Mr. Chamberlain went to South Africa. We are aware that the Prime Minister sympathised to a certain extent with that proposal, but that he felt the country would not accept it because they would not agree to the imposition of any duties on the food of the people. We cannot help coming to the conclusion, therefore, that the retaliation policy was adopted subsequently to the proposal of Mr. Chamberlain's policy, and as a sort of a stop-gap for the ultimate adoption by His Majesty's Government of the policy of protection. The whole of the political machinery of the supporters of His Majesty's Government is in the hands of those who favour Mr. Chamberlain's policy. I am aware that to do in the future, we can all vote for both the Motion of the noble Earl and the Amendment of the noble Marquess opposite, for they would in such circumstances mean absolutely the same thing. The whole point lies in what is the extra authority His Majesty's Governto possess. The only thing I can see is that there may be a doubt in the mind of His Majesty's Government as to whether Parliament would accept their proposals for retaliation at the present moment, and that consequently they would like to have a general election on the subject so as to be quite sure of greater support than they at present have. But can it be conceived that His Majesty's Government believe that they will get greater support after the next general election in favour of retaliation than they are likely to get in the present House of Commons and the House of Lords-especially in the other House? It is admitted that the control of Parliament is to be kept supreme. If the noble Marquess came down with proposal it would be the same thing now. His Majesty's Government who at the I noticed that when the noble Marquess present moment say, and I believe who moved the Amendment was speaking sincerely say, that they are opposed last night he emphasised the word "each" altogether to anything further than in the Motion of the noble Earl. Is the retaliation. Well, if they stick to their only difference that in the future it will opinion it seems to me that in the future not be a question of each individual case they may be cast off as other members of of the imposition of a duty coming before the Cabinet have been, and be put outParliament, or is it that a sort of conside when the true views of His Majesty's Government are placed before the glomeration of import duties will be country. The whole country are at the placed before us, or will it be the case present moment thinking and speakingthat in the future, as at present, we should and after all we have enough of speeches have a distinct proposal as regards the-not of the subject of retaliation, but any there are a certain number of members of of the subject of protection. We who take some part on the public platforms of the country are aware that the only thing which interests the public mind is the Birmingham policy; no interest at all is taken in the retaliation policy-whatever it may be of the Government. That is the outside, the public view, and I think that when we come to close quarters with the Government as we are coming tonight, and as they came the other night in the other House, we ought to receive, before going into the lobbies, a distinct and plain statement, not of what retaliation means, for that we understand, but as to the exact difference between the powers which His Majesty's Government at present possess for the purposes of retaliation, and the powers which they will ask us to grant them after a general election. would not only bring ruin upon our coun try but also cause amongst our working population as great distress as was caused in the old times of protection. We are not taking this matter lightly; we are taking it seriously. We are determined when I say "we" I am only speaking for those amongst whom I move, not so much Members of your Lordships' House as those outside-to do all that in us lies to prevent what we consider a suicidal policy being carried into effect. In my opinion it is not a matter of Party; it is a matter in which every patriotic Englishman ought to take the keenest interest, and one which those who know most about it ought to oppose with all their heart and with all the force they can command. We are told that this question of the alteration of our fiscal policy is a We who conquestion of Empire. sider ourselves as strong Imperialists as any who sit on the Benches opposite do not believe the Empire is in danger. We believe the unity of the Empire will be in danger if you venture to carry out any part of the policy which has been proposed by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, and it is because we think the Government are going in that direction with their retaliation policy that we are determined to oppose it. I said that we were suspicious. We are more than suspicious; we are alarmed. We feel that this is one of the gravest questions that have ever come before us. I am told that there is some fear in the minds of others that if this question were decided against the Government it might cause a change politically, so that for some time in the future we should have a Liberal instead of a Conservative Government, and that there would be some danger then of measures being introduced by that Liberal Government which Unionists would feel bound to oppose. We are told that if the Government is defeated there will be a danger of Home! *LORD ROBERTSON: My Lords, I Ruie. As far as I understand the should imagine that when the Unionist present position of the question, the Bills Party desires advice as to the dangers that were introduced by Mr. Gladstone—which beset it from the side of Ireland the Home Rule Bill and the Land Bill- they will not resort to the noble Marquess are absolutely dead. There is no fear opposite for consolation or information. whatever that any sane Liberal statesman Although I am opposed to the policy of would ever introduce such measures His Majesty's Government on this paragain. I do not for a moment believe ticular subject, yet I must say that I that these questions could be raised in think it is rather too open an invitation the next Parliament. I am perfectly well to walk into a trap which has just now aware that there will be an extension of been addressed to us by the noble local government through all parts of the Marquess. I, for my part, think that the United Kingdom, but that is another danger from Home Rule is urgent, and matter. We are face to face now, in my one of my chief accusations against His opinion, with as great a danger as the Majesty's Government is that in a moveUnionist Party had to face in the Home ment of that kind they have introduced Rule Parliament. We believe that any measures which have shattered the Unionattempt to reverse our fiscal policy will, ist Party. The subject which we have bebring upon this country not only danger fore us to-night has been brought to a point but ruin. We believe that any change by the Motion and the Amendment before in our fiscal policy such as is proposed the House. The question immediately by those who really express their minds, to be decided is whether my Lord Crewe's. Motion should be adopted, or whether the year 1610, when these great coninstead of that we should adopt the stitutional questions were raised, one of Amendment which has been moved by the arguments for the King's power-by the noble Marquess. When I first read which, of course, we mean now the the Motion of the noble Earl opposite, I power of the Executive-of levying. searched for an excuse for voting with duties was this: Lex talionis is to be the Government, and I thought I had applied for the defence of British comfound it. It was that the Motion of the merce, goods for goods, tax for tax. noble Earl was a platitude and was Accordingly this question was full in axiomatic, that it declared principles of view of the statesmen of those days. Parliamentary conduct so plain that they And what was said in the Petition of ought not to be resolved upon by this Rights was this— House in the year 1904, because a proceeding of that kind was likely to throw doubt upon them. Just as one would decline to resolve on some proposal embodied in Magna Charta, I thought I had found a satisfactory excuse for my self in voting against a Motion which upset ideas instead of settling them. But the leaders of my Party and the heads of the Government think differently, and what they propose is this that while Lord Crewe's Motion does nothing more than declare "That no duty...should be imposed, modified, or removed, without the formal consent of Parliament to each such proposal," we are now asked to pass a long Resolution that "This House, while affirming the constitutional doctrine that all the fiscal arrangements of this country must be subject to the full and effective control of Parliament over taxation, is not prepared to lay down rules for the guidance of future Parliaments as to the exact method in which such control should be exercised by them in cases which may hereafter arise." I cannot find in Lord Crewe's Motion anything at all about "rules for the guidance of future Parliaments" as to the exact method in which anything should be done; it merely asserts what can be found in any text-book in which is laid down the relation of Parliament to imposts upon imports. This seems to me not merely in itself an important matter, but a highly significant one. The House will remember that when in old days Parliament asserted against the King the sole right of determining what imposts should be laid upon imports into this country, it was with reference, among other things, to this very question of retaliatory duties. I do not know whether noble Lords, unless their attention has been specially directed to it, are aware that in "If the levying of impositions be indeed theonly means left to redress a grievance, why should it not be done by Act of Parliament in these times as by Henry VII. and Queen Elizabeth?" up Elizabeth lived even longer ago than Mr. There is a new notion abroad that Parliament ought by Act of Parliament to devolve upon the Executive the power of imposing duties upon imports. I will refer for a moment to a very able and very temperately written book by Professor Ashley of Birmingham, which I expect has had a good deal to do with some of the speeches that have been delivered in the course of the autumn |