"What seems dictated by the requirements of the case is a statutory authorisation of the Executive to impose the duty that may be required from time to time as circumstances arise." recess. Professor Ashley says (it is all Governments had shown a little more highly condensed, his book has that activity and a little more sensibility on among other merits)— this subject twenty years ago, this question might very likely never have arisen. Still, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever to your doctrine of negotiation and even of retaliation. But, couple the latter word with this. The effectiveNow, my Lords, it is open to the noble ness of this method as a whole must Marquess to say, and he is well entitled depend upon the ultimate result of the to do so, that this is merely a professor- policy of retaliation. I hope I shall not although he will observe it is a Birming- be saying anything rude or forward if I ham professor-but I may say for the express my doubt whether that aspect of information of noble Lords around me, To this general doctrine I believe on this the question has been fully considered. who I am quite certain to a large extent side of the House there is no objection; think that Mr. Chamberlain's policy is on I believe that even on the other the whole in favour of the country, and side there is very little objection to it; that it is a sound protectionist policy, there may be a lingering doubt as to its that if they will buy that book for half-a-doctrinaire aspect, and consequently as to crown (I am not an agent for its circulation) they will be in a position to pose as seers and prophets and missionaries of Empire to their heart's content. They have it all there in that book, down to jams and pickles. I have dwelt upon this question, the immediate question, upon which we are to vote, for this reason: I think it is highly significant that the veil of obscurity which has been drawn over the region within which retaliation is to be exercised, the mode by which it is to be exercised, and the authority by which the Ministry is to be authorised to proceed to enact it, applies to the legislative proceedings as well as to everything else. But now I want to ask the House to consider this: What is the area or region within which retaliatory duties are to be imposed? It seems to me that that is one of the first questions to be determined. I may say frankly for myself that to the general doctrine of retaliation as stated by the Foreign Secretary last year I have no objection whatever. It seems to me, whether it be consistent with the strictest sect of free trade or not, it is at all events an acceptable doctrine and worthy of practice that the diplomacy of this country should be busy in furthering the trade of the country, that it should concern itself with the removing by diplomatic methods of the barriers which obstruct the trade of this country. And I may say here, and I hope I shall not say anything to offend the susceptibilities of noble Lords on the other side, that I think if some Liberal its practical consequences, and I also reserve my doubts as to its practical consequences. But if the Unionist Government had come forward spontaneously, on their own initiative, and proposed the policy of negotiation and retaliation, I believe they would have had the Conservative and Unionist Party at their back to a man. But they have not done so. The hitch in the whole argument which is persistently ignored by noble Lords on the Treasury Bench is that this is not a first hand proposal. This is not a proposal which arises either from the opinion of the Party on this side or from the exigencies of the country. It arises, on the contrary--I am speaking now not of motive, but entirely of the political sequence of events from a move made by a distinguished politician. in the Unionist Party. That is the real truth, and that accounts-I deeply regret to say it for the vapid and inane explanation of the existence of this policy which we are receiving from day to day from the Government. These are the circumstances which seem to me to make it doubly imperative on His Majesty's Government that we should be treated with an abundant frankness on this subject. I speak for one moment, and merely to dismiss the subject, of the humble individual before you. I am a Tory who has seen the Tory Party grow in power and strength, and have rejoiced in it. I have no interest in this matter except to see that those institutions which to the benefit of the country have swayed its fortunes during the last eighteen years should continue so to operate. I see on was the contrary the policy of the Government away to that capacious reservoir of drifting this Party to ruin and destruction. unfulfilled promises which is associated The noble Earl on the Woolsack has with the name of Birmingham. If you contributed to this debate in the most so circumscribe the area within which remarkable manner. I am, as he knows, your policy of negotiation and retaliation his colleague, his disciple, and his admirer, is to operate, how will it work out? I but my powers of admiration have been suppose I shall be told that that is a exhausted to-night by the declaration he question of detail into which it is imperhas made. Custom cannot stale his tinent to intrude; that is the tone of the infinite variety. He has told us to- discussion. night that this fiscal question, this Salisbury-whom as an old House of When my noble friend Lord question of a tariff, can be settled with Commons friend I would gladly have out prejudice to any difference of opinion between free trade and protection. congratulated, in his presence, on the I remembered at the moment an illus- he showed the charming qualities of success of his speech last night, in which tration used by Fitzjames Stephen in character as well as of speech which enone of his memorable books, viz.-that deared him to us-I say that when Lord you can no more do this (whatever it Salisbury spoke on this subject and was he was speaking of) than you can do infused into our debate an absence sums right without prejudice to a differ- of mystification which at all events was ence of opinion upon the multiplication table. It seems to me that that declaration gratifying, he said flatly that he against Mr. Chamberlain's views, and he removes indefinitely any possibility of said various other things which, as I have arriving at sound ideas upon the Govern- said, brought a tonic into our somewhat ment policy. The Government policy oppressed atmosphere. I want to ask the seems to be something like the horizon noble Lord who is going to reply on behalf which you advance towards and never of the Government, can it be possible that reach. they do not adhere to Mr. Akers Douglas' promise given on the eve of the division upon which as a Ministry they exist? And if they do, how does the policy of retaliation work out? Has that point been thought of? I own with great regret that the more I press into this question the more I am convinced that the whole of this subject has not been thought out. I cannot think that the obvious objections and the obvious difficulties which beset the whole of this question would not have been met and considered and cleared away if it had been possible to do so or if any pains had been taken about it. Now, my Lords, I want to ask the representatives of the Government on the Treasury Bench one or two plain questions. First of all, they are aware, at least I hope they cannot but be aware, of this, that they attained their majority of fifty-one the other night in the House of Commons because Mr. Akers Douglas declared at the most solemn moment when a Parliamentary pledge can be given, just before the division, that the Government were opposed to duties upon food and raw material. Now, I pray the House to observe, because we require to draw distinctions, it is not that taxes upon food and raw material do not form part of the Government policy; we have heard that very often, but it is this time definitely that the Government are opposed to taxes on food and raw material. I hope my noble friends on these Benches will observe that that is the condition upon which we are proceeding in this debate. There are to be no taxes upon food or raw material; therefore any of us who had brilliant ideas about taxes which would make some of our friends rich-I mean the farmers and people of that kind-must send them VOL. CXXX. [FOURTH SERIES.] But then comes a serious question which really and truly has alone caused me to speak to-night. There was said in the House of Commons not long ago something which I really think ought Minister. He had been appealed to never to have been said by a Conservative on this very subject to tell us-observe "us," not you of the Opposition who are hungering for some fault in the Government, but us who want merely to be satisfied in going on and supporting the Conservative Party as we have known it he had been asked to tell whether he could not state, even on this vital question of the constitutional procedure to be O adopted, whether Parliament was to be approached before these measures were sanctioned, and various other things of that sort; and Mr. Gerald Balfour said that that question of procedure-of procedure, observe the degree of confidence between Minister and country-had been settled-by what? By Mr. Gladstone's conduct about the Home Rule Bill! I hope I shall not offend the susceptibilities of noble Lords opposite, many of whom were Mr. Gladstone's friends, if I speak freely of the characteristics of that statesman's methods. I will not go further than this: they were sometimes, particularly in his later days, wily and astute, and, on this side of the House, language was applied to them which was a good deal more pointed. We, on this side of the House, thought, and we think still, that it was not fair to the country that they should be involved in proceedings of vital importance to the safety of the Empire unless they were told exactly how they worked out. I say the same now. I am not going too far when I say that it is not right that a Conservative Minister should appeal to us to keep quiet, and to shut our eyes and our ears about a matter of vital importance to the poor and rich of this country alike, merely because upon a certain occasion our most bitter opponent, under our fierce denunciation, had made somewhat similar economy as to the facts. I could understand all this if it were applied to noble Lords opposite as a tu quoque which would silence their tongues, but I cannot understand the leaders of the Conservative Party turning round upon us, who have never done anything to forfeit their confidence, and saying: "We will treat Mr. Gladstone, your direst you as opponent, treated you." I heard last night, with more than interest, the appeal made by my noble friend Lord Selborne to his supporters on this side of the House. He said that this was a vote of want of confidence, and he appealed to us whether we were going to throw away vital interests, of which the Unionist Party are the custodians, merely because we differed from the Government on this subject. The noble Duke touched on the subject to-night; I also will venture to touch on it because I am a Tory who is going to vote against the Government, and I feel bound to say We one or two words on the subject. are represented as leaving or deserting our Party at a critical moment and im1 stand perilling Unionist interests. What is astonished at that accusation. It is a the history of this matter? history of the last two years. When the present Government-by which I mean the Government of Mr. Balfour-acceded to power, they came into possession of the lead of the Unionist Party—Mr. the lead of the Tory Party-when that Balfour, especially, as a Tory, came into Party had attained a strength and a power and a usefulness which had never been rivalled in this country. I believe, for my part, that if the Party had been kept out of this morass into which it has been led it would have maintained the confidence, and the proud confidence, of the country for a generation to come. What has been done? I do not refer to my distinguished friends who are now scattered over the two Houses of Parliament; I refer rather to those graver and deeper differences which have been created by the act of the Unionist Government. The Conservative Party-I speak of it because I know it best, and without the smallest disparagement to the Liberal Unionists-had been built up by Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury into a momentous organ of national welfare; it had based its power by showing the identity of its principles with those of the loyal working classes; and, what was equally striking, it had done exactly what Matthew Arnold told it to do twenty years ago-it had made friends with the mind of the country. With those two elements on the one side and the other the path of prosperity and progress was clear before it. What has happened? We have seen the word and idea of Empire, which had cheered our people on to great exertions in the past, vulgarised beyond description. We have seen a successful the deepest and clearest principles of attempt to capture a Party based upon national life and conduct, and the Party now being turned into some sort of trading machine. is I am going to ask the Government one more question about their policy of negotiation and retaliation. How do they intend to work it out in this country? As my noble friend Lord James said in his admirable speech-a speech which ought to be read all over the country— - "Who brings you tidings ofyour mandate?" one who has not, as far as he knows, The answer must be "Mr. Chamberlain's addressed the House for nine years. I candidates." Of course; you have not had no desire to intervene in this debate, got enough of your own. Will the noble and I can promise the House that I Marquess at the head of the Government shall not trespass on their indulgence in this House show me a comple- for any lengthened period. I am sorry ment, a sufficiency, of candidates on I entered the House at a late period in the Conservative and Unionist side the speech of my noble friend behind me who are able to bring him back the (Lord Robertson) and that I am not clear tidings, "We have brought the able to follow the arguments of a somefinancial truth through all difficulties; no what singular nature by which he apmore taxation of bread, and, on the peared to be supporting his view. I did other hand, no more foolish Cobdenism, hear, however, an attack upon a very but the very soul and truth of the word, distinguished statesman Mr. Chamberand you are in a majority? My lain-and it appeared to me, from what I noble fri nd has no more prospect of could hear, that my noble friend was not that than he has of excluding Home prepared to consider on its merits the allRulers from the next Parliament, What important question which is now before I want to ask is this. At the end of the the House. He was filled with anticipaday if and it is a large "if "the tions of evil which might arise from the Chamberlainites bring triumph to your triumph of Mr. Chamberlain; he saw bestandard, what is to be done? I would fore him a disestablished church, and not insure at a high rate your puny policy various other matters which I think it of negotiation and retaliation. I greatly will hardly be necessary for us to discuss fear that they would go by the board and to-night. As I said before, I am very you with them, and the question is-What unwilling to intrude in this, as in any other, then? This is one of the points debate, but I am impelled to say a few upon which I am most anxious. Should words, in the first place, because during this election go in favour of fiscal reform, the whole of this discussion I have not what is coming? A ministry of Mr. heard one word in support of the position Chamberlain. And what then becomes of which I feel I ought to occupy in this Church and State? What becomes of the discussion. schools in which noble Lords on this side interested themselves so greatly last year? Would they not be open to the first bidder, who would go one higher on the subject of tariff reform? Have you considered that the miscarriage of your puny barque of negotiation and retaliation means the return into port with full sail of a system of Government the methods of propagating which were embodied in oldage pensions and in the promise of high wages? That is a consummation to which I frankly decline to be a party. I owe Mr. Chamberlain no allegiance, and I decline for my part, and I hope many noble Lords will be found to do the same, to lend a hand to anything which will bring about such a sinister catastrophe. EARL CADOGAN: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to vary the ordinary formula which comes from those who address the House for the first time by asking your Lordships' indulgence for As a result of the debates, both in the other House and in your Lordships' House, we have arrived, as far as I can understand, at a unanimous agreement upon one subject. I have not heard anyone on these Benches, or read of anyone elsewhere, who doubts that we have arrived at a time at which our trade and commerce is carried on under conditions which require, if not amendment, at all events consideration. That lands us, at all events, at the first stage of the discussion. Of course, there are some noble Lords, and I am afraid I must divide them into four categories, who have spoken in this debate, who appear to feel that in some cases there is no necessity for any change, and in other cases that that necessity is of a more modified character. Perhaps if I were to single out one among my noble friends as hardly appreciating the necessity for any action, or even for any consideration of this important question, I should point to my noble friend Lord Balfour of to hang a discussion, and I am bound to say that I listened with the greatest interest to the admirable speech which my noble friend delivered from his point of view. Burleigh. I believe, if I understand his | by my noble friend on this side of the speech aright, that he sees no necessity House. That is a very convenient way, for any inquiry into the system which no doubt, of creating a peg upon which now obtains, and he is quite content that we should remain as we are, and do nothing. Then there are noble Lords opposite. I do not think that any one of them will deny-I do not know that my noble friend who leads the Opposition has ever denied that there is at all events a case for grave consideration, that there are doubts which must be solved, and although, as we know, his opinions are very distinct and very loyal upon the doctrine which he has always advocated the doctrine of free trade yet he and his noble friends also admit that something possibly may be done, though not in the sense of the proposals of the Government. Nobody, as far as I know, has mentioned in the course of the debate the alternative policy which has been placed before the country by the right hon. Gentleman the late Colonial Secretary. We have had attacks upon His Majesty's Government; we have heard that they have not expressed their own opinions clearly, and that they have not placed before the House a policy which is intelligible to us. To a certain extent I am obliged to coincide with that view. But with regard to the policy which has been very clearly laid before us by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, nobody, as far as I know, has discussed that policy. Perhaps they were correct in not doing so, because that policy is not before the House. But if that policy is not before the House, I should like to know what is. Here I should like to associate myself with those who have offered their sincere congratulations to my noble friend opposite who initiated the discussion on the admirable form which he has invented for the Motion now under discussion. It is one which I recommend to the notice of all those who in future will manage our business here. It is one which no doubt offers some difficulties to those who wish to meet it. My noble friend gave notice of a series of questions which he intended to put to His Majesty's Government; he answered those questions according to his own lights, and reserved to himself the right of moving, which gave him a locus standi, a Motion embodying a principle which had already been agreed to I wish in the few words I shall address to the House to point to the difficulties in which the supporters of His Majesty's Government are placed by the apparent want, not only of information but of cohesion, which is to be found in all the utterances of the various members of the Government. We must all admit that the Government have been placed in exceptionally difficult circumstances during the debates on this subject. There is no man in the country who does not regret as much as I do the illness which has overtaken the Prime Minister. We have all watched by his bed-side; we have all grieved at the loss which his absence has entailed upon us and at the sufferings he has undergone; we have all been gratified to hear of the improvement of his health, and I am sure his return will be welcomed, to the great relief of all Members on both sides of both Houses of Parliament. I think there was a great deal to be said for the statement made in the other House of Parliament as to the position in which the members of the Cabinet then found themselves. They said, and with great reason, that the one man who had a right and who alone had a right, to expound the policy of the Government was the Prime Minister. But I noticed that they proceeded, as perhaps they were in duty bound to proceed, to expound that policy for themselves. What I have to find fault with--and I do so with the utmost is the fact that those exposirespect tions have come upon us in a painful alternation, with an ebb and a flow, which has bewildered us all, with the general result that it is very difficult to ascertain where we stand and in what position we are with regard to this question. I have no hesitation in saying where I stand, because, although nobody has said so before in this House, and I am afraid nobody is about to say so, I myself am inclined to support the larger policy, the more frank policy, the more practical |