taxation, we did so without inviting any corresponding concessions in return. Nay, more. When overtures were made to us we allowed them to pass by unheeded, with the result that not only our trade sustained serious detriment, but that we came to be regarded, and, indeed, have been regarded until last year, as a negligible quantity in all transactions with regard to commercial matters between one Power and another. I say that, knowing what I am talking about, because in their candid moments the representatives of foreign commerce do not hesitate to tell us with the utmost frankness that in such matters as the conclusion of commercial treaties, or the classification of commodities, the opinion of this country has been regarded with complete indifference. Then we are asked why it is that we require a mandate in order that we may carry out our policy of negotiation and retaliation. We are told that there is nothing whatever to prevent us negotiating, or for the matter of that, retaliating at the present moment. I daresay that is perfectly true, but I would remind noble Lords opposite of a very recent incident. We entered into a Sugar Convention; we did so, it is quite true, without a mandate; but what was the result? We were hauled over the coals by the noble Earl and the noble Lord who sits by him and by the President of the Cobden Club, because we were told that we were breaking all the rules of the game and taking upon ourselves to adopt a policy which was in direct opposition to the recognised policy and principles of this country. Well, we do not want to be exposed to those kind animadversions in the future; and, when the noble and learned Lord asks us what extra authority we want, I say we want the extra authority which will be derived from a clear and emphatic pronouncement of opinion by the constituencies of this country. But we have no intention and I cannot conceive why noble Lords should be so uneasy upon that point we have no intention whatever of endeavouring to withdraw these matters from the cognisance or control of Parlia ment. We could not do so if we wishedand that is the best answer we can give. Noble Lords talk about our asking for a blank cheque; I do not suppose for a moment that Parliament could give us a blank cheque; but, if it were to give us a blank cheque, and we were to fill it up in an improper manner, do you imagine that Parliament would overlook it? We should have to answer to Parliament and submit to their authority. It is perfectly true that treaties are the prerogatives of the Crown, and that, strictly speaking, their confirmation by Parliament is not absolutely necessary; but the treaty and the law of the land must be in harmony, and if the law of the land does not harmonise with the treaty, then you must legislate, and you at once bring yourself under the control of Parliament, and that no doubt is why in all commercial treaties the formula usually employed is that the Sovereign undertakes, not to make such and such an arrangement, but to recommend the arrangement to Parliament. the variance among Ministerialist state- oppose it, we do not desire to be held ments during that debate. bound that at no future time and under no circumstances will we any of us have anything to do with commercial arrangements between the mother country and the Colonies. We are not prepared to say that we are going, as soon as we are permitted to do so, to enter into mutually advantageous arrangements with foreign countries—but that, in no circumstances, and at no time, can we contemplate the possibility of such mutually advantageous arrangements being made between this country and the Colonies to which we owe so much. I therefore rejoice that this question, although it forms no part of our programme to-day, should be undergoing the greatest amount of free examination and discussion. If that discussion should bring to light hereafter the possibility of doing something which will draw the Colonies more closely towards us, I shall be the first to rejoice. If, on the other hand, the result is to show *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE I am afraid it would be absolutely impossible for me to say anything more distinct than that I accept Mr. Akers Douglas's statement to which the noble and learned Lord drew my attention; and I say categorically, that we, as a Government, and we cannot speak except as a Government, are opposed to a duty on raw materials or foodstuffs. Why is it that we are told that our policy leads inevitably down an inclined plane to the Birmingham abyss? I say, on the contrary, our policy is a selfcontained policy. It is quite within our power to stop short at it. It is a policy which is intelligible without the assumption that it involves anything that it does not already comprise. And I say more; I say not only is it a self-contained policy, but I believe that instead of leading to Birmingham it leads if anything in the opposite direction. I was rather that nothing can be done, then I interested by an argument used by Lord hope the attempt will be abandoned Crewe on the first night, when he set him- with the goodwill and concurrence of both self to work to demolish another argument sides. If this were to happen the project which had been used by the noble Duke would at all events be decently and below the gangway in regard to that respectfully laid aside. But that is point. The noble Earl was at pains to a widely different thing from throwing it show that it would be possible to still-born upon the dust-heap, which graft the Government policy on to the is the policy which noble Lords opposite Birmingham policy. I think the noble Duke was perfectly right. As far as it goes our policy is inconsistent with the policy of colonial preference, and for this reason: If your policy of retaliation and negotiation succeeds, it means that you will have entered into agreements with foreign powers by which, in return for the facilities which you give to their trade, they will give you facilities for yours; and surely it is not unreasonable to argue that the more the ground is covered with treaties between this country and foreign Powers, treaties maintaining a permanent open door for our products in foreign countries, the less, and not the more, easy will it be to make preferential arrangements with the Colonies. What I have to say with regard to this question of colonial preference-it is not before the House, and I shall not examine it at length is that, although it forms no part of our policy, and if you were to propose it to us now, we should certainly recommend. Having those feelings, I object altogether to the proposal of Lord Robertson that we should endeavour to impose upon our supporters what he called a superior limit in regard to this question. Let me state in half-a-dozen simple words how I understand that superior limit would work if we were to apply it. It would mean this, that we should prefer a candidate who differed from us upon nine points out of ten, and who, upon this fiscal question, agreed with us partially and reluctantly, to another candidate who agreed with us on nine points out of ten and who differed from us in regard to fiscal policy only because he wished to travel rather faster and rather further than we did. Holding those views, we shall not support the Motion of the noble Lord opposite. We may be wrong, but we regard its language as ambiguous and disengenuous. We prefer our own formula, in which we have put on record, in the most unequivocal terms, our desire that this question HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, 19th February, 1904. The House met at Twelve of the Clock. UNOPPOSED PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS. PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDER 62 COMPLIED WITH). : Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, Standing Order No. 62 has been complied with, viz. Baker Street and Waterloo Railway Bill Charing Cross, Euston, and Hampstead Railway Bill; Great Northern and City Railway (Extension of Time) Bill; Humber Commercial Railway and Dock Bill; North Staffordshire Railway Bill; Surrey Commercial Dock Bill. Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time. Kilmarnock Corporation Order Confirmation Bill. Considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next. PETITIONS. LICENCES (RENEWAL). Petitions against alteration of Law: from Onslow Square; Moss Side; Rivington; Wallsend; Saffron Walden; Parton; Hatch Beauchamp; Heart Brook; Wolverhampton ; Gosport; Havant; Newburn; West Cramlington; Preston (two); Winchmore Hill; Cartmel; Dewsbury; West Allotment; Deptford; Alexander M'Nabb and others; North Walbottle; Mostyn; Port Talbot; Plasmore; Eastbourne; Clayton le Moors; Mossy Lea; Greenock; Noel Park; Belmont; Llangranog; Hermon; Bedford; Tynant; Women's Christian Temperance Association; Manchester; Anfield; Capel Drindod; Five Oak Green; South Ockenden; Dolton; Llandilo; Llanwchllyn; Liverpool; Carmarthen; Increased Harbour Accommodation at Aliens Working in British Coal Mines. Anstruther, Fife. CAPTAIN ELLICE (St. Andrews Burghs): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the amount of harbour accommodation at Anstruther, Fife, for meeting the present requirements, and to the fact that fishing boats from all parts of Scotland are hampered in their operations, and frequently suffer damage, owing to the congested state of that harbour; and whether he will instruct the Board of Trade Harbour Department to send an engineer to Anstruther, Fife, to examine and report as to the best means of providing increased harbour accommodation there. (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) My attention has not been called to the insufficiency of the harbour accommodation to meet present requirements, and the Board of Trade are not in a position to appoint an engineer to advise upon an increase of accommodation; that is a matter which should be undertaken by those who are interested locally, but if a scheme is prepared which requires legislative or other sanction, the Department will be glad to give it full consideration. Constitution of Consular Service. MR. D. A. THOMAS (Merthyr Tydvil): To ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can say what progress has been made by the Committee appointed to inquire whether reforms could be made in the manner of appointing Consuls, with a view to obtaining the services of men more familiar with com mercial matters than many of our present Consuls are; and, if the Committee has reported, can he state the tenour of their Report; and whether any steps have been taken to give effect to their recommendations. (Answered by Earl Percy.) The Report of the Committee recently appointed to inquire into the Constitution of the Consular Service has been laid before Parliament. The recommendations therein contained have been approved by the Secretary of State subject to slight modifications, and he is in communication with the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury with a view to giving effect to them as soon as possible. MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that 4,000 Polish Jews are working in the coal mines of Great Britain, most of whom cannot speak English, and of the danger involved thereby to the safety of the lives of British miners, he proposes to take any steps to prevent these aliens working in British coal mines. Douglas.) My information differs soine(Answered by Mr. Secretary Akerswhat from that of the hon. Member. This matter has engaged the attention of the Home Office for some years. Careful inquiry has been made from time to time by the Mines Inspectors for Scotland, where the bulk of the foreigners are employed-some 1,200 out of a total for the whole country of less than 2,000-and there is no evidence before me to show that these men are a cause of danger to the other miners employed in the same mines. I have satisfied myself that adequate steps are taken at the mines where they are employed, to instruct them in their duties. The matter will continue to be watched by the inspectors; but on the information before me I am not prepared to take the steps suggested by the hon. Member. MR. MARKHAM: To ask the Secrewhether he will grant the Return_relatary of State for the Home Department tive to Underground Mines (Great Britain) (Foreigners Employed), standing on to-day's Paper.t (Answered by Mr. Secretary AkersDouglas.) According to the information supplied to me by the inspectors of mines, the employment of foreigners is confined to a few of the inspection districts, and the numbers employed are approximately as follows: in the two Scottish districts 1,600 Poles and a few Germans; in English districts, some ninety Italians and seventy Poles, Germans, and men of other nationalities. A special Return, the +Underground Mines (Great Britain) (Foreigners Employed)-Address for Return stating the number of Foreigners and their nationality working in the Underground Mines in Great Britain. |