pressing one or two of these inquiries. Ministers who sit on that Bench may talk about retaliation until the crack of doom have not yet come to the end of the process which is described, I believe, in nautical circles as "boxing the compass." He would indeed be a bold man-which, I suppose, is another way of who at this hour of the afternoon would describing the next general electionpredict with any confidence in what though there does not appear to be a direction it will point at twelve o'clock to- single man among them capable of definnight. Every one knows the lines which ing it in intelligible language; but it is are to be found in the immortal descrip- not retaliation, but protection; it is not tion by a too candid friend of one of the the Sheffield enigma, it is the Birming greatest orators and thinkers who ever sat ham policy which interests, and will in the Housecontinue to interest, the electors of the country. They care little or nothing what the policy or the avowed policy of His Majesty's Goverment may be. I will tell the Government why. Because they have the best reasons for doubting "Though fraught with all learning, yet straining his throat To persuade Tommy Townshend to lend him a vote." that Bench are strong enough to have a policy of their own, whether they are strong enough to adhere to it, and, above all, whether they are strong enough to compel the allegiance to it of the Party which sits behind them. Men come and go—I do not see a Burke at this moment on the Treasury Bench-whether the Government as they sit on but Parliamentary necessities survive and recur. I cannot help thinking that, if we knew the whole truth of the situation, the real arbiter, more potent even than the Prime Minister, the hidden hand which holds the musical box and turns on the tune every night, is the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury. a There is one figure, as almost every speaker has acknowledged, whom we miss from this discusssion hardly less than that of the Prime Minister himself-I mean, of course, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. In common with everybody, I deplore the cause, and perhaps I may venture to say I have special reason to regret the fact of his absence. Ever since the right hon. Gentleman inaugurated his autumn campaign at Glasgow I have been towards him in the relation of an anxious, pertinacious, and disappointed inquirer. I have respectfully put to him number of questions-simple questions, direct questions, but questions to which, simple and direct as they were, not the semblance of an answer has yet been vouchsafed. I do not think his absence, much as we regret it, makes it incumbent on me and others to suspend the process of interrogation in this place, which is the only place in the country where antagonistic policies and their spokesmen can meet face to face. The right hon. Gentleman has been described justly as the protagonist of the piece, but he has many able "understudies" in and outside the Government, and there is special reason and special relevance for I am not going to rehearse the catalogue of my futile inquiries. I shall confine my interrogations to-night to two points, as to which it appears to me the policy of the right hon. Member for Birmingham and the avowed or official policy of His Majesty's Government rest on common ground. The first question is this. The common assumption which underlies both is that our trade, and especially our trade over sea, exhibits signs, not perhaps of immediate decay, but of imminent and serious danger. Every one knows the now classical phrase of the right hon. Member for Birmingham-the trade of the United Kingdom has been practically stagnant for 30 years. Now, the question I have to ask of those who entertain that view, and make it the basis of the various stages of the policy for fiscal change now before the country, is when and how was this discovery made? I am not going back to ancient history, I am not going back to 1881, to 1885, or even to 1896, I shall come to a date as recent as January, 1902-that is to say,sixteen months before. the new crusade was started, and only two years from the time at which we are met here to-night-and I want to ask the attention of the House to some language which was used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham himself in the city of Birmingham on 6th January, 1902. The House will see in a moment the relevancy of the question I put. The fear for the future, no fear that we shall take an inferior position to that of our ancestors, no right hon. Gentleman saidfear that we shall not meet competition from whatever quarter it comes, that we shall not meet the rivalries of all the world." "I have lately seen a good deal of discussion in the papers about the crisis in British industry. Well, if the crisis means an imminent and pressing danger, I think the accounts are altogether exaggerated. I see no signs of any imminent or pressing danger to the prosperity of this country. During the last five years That is, within the thirty years "we have enjoyed an absolutely unparalleled condition of trade,and although we cannot expect that this will last for ever, although there are some signs that trade is not so brisk as it was, still, to my mind, the prospects are extremely good, and I am not at all disposed to take a pessimistic view of the situation." This, at the time when glass was gone, when silk had disappeared, when iron was going, and when wool was threatened! Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman does see some signs of possible danger, and how does he propose it should be met? "In order to keep the trade we have got, in order that we may develop in proportion as our population increases, employers and employed must do their utmost, they must not go backward, they must keep alive to the spirit of the times. Employers have to bring to bear more scientific intelligence to the management of their business." That is the doctrine of the pedants and lawyers whose testimony is scouted, as we know, by the Secretary of the Board of Trade and other practical men of business. This is the despised Charlottenburg policy “The old rule of thumb methods will not last for ever; and in the presence Of what? tariffs? not at all. "of the development of science abroad, it is perfectly certain that we shall suffer seriously, unless our manufacturers take advantage of the opportunities afforded to them to bring the highest theoretical knowledge into combination with practical experience.” Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on to the workman's side of the question and makes a complaint of what he conceives to be the retrograde methods of trades unions. Here is the conclusion of the whole matter, which I adopt as part of my argument. It is the best statement of the case I have ever read I ask the House, in view of these wise and weighty words, uttered not in a remote past, but two years ago, does not the whole of this movement, as far as it is put forward in the supposed interests of domestic trade, assume the aspect of a farce? What has happened since January, 1902? Two years have passed. The right hon. Gentleman himself said in his speech at Liverpool that 1902 was one of the best years British trade had ever known, and 1903 is now known as a record year in the whole history of the industry of this country. ["No."] I am speaking of the Board of Trade Returns, and yet we are now assured from the same quarter, by the same voice, that only by a fiscal revolution, and by a return to the stalest devices of protection, can we preserve our decaying trade, and what is more, our dissolving Empire. The right hon. Gentleman would say, if he were here, that he is entitled to change his views. But what we are protesting against is the assumption which underlies his speeches and those of many of his supporters, that because he has changed hi. views, therefore the facts of history and the rules of logic and the processes of arithmetic and the very laws of nature herself have undergone a simultaneous and corresponding change. At the Council of Constance the Emperor Sigismund, being pulled up for a false concord in a Latin allocution which he addressed to the made assembled prelates, a reply which is famous in history-Ego sum Rex Romanorum et supra grammaticam, I think that a somewhat similar claim is being made for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, only his superiority is alleged to extend over a far wider field than that claimed by the Holy Roman Emperor. I come to the other point as to which I desire a little further light, and it relates to the proposed import duty of 10 per cent. on manufactures that come from outside. That was originally proposed. as we know, to fill up the hole in the revenue which would be caused by the suggested remissions of taxation on sugar "I have ventured to give advice to the employers to take advantage of the opportuni ties provided for them to develop their brains. I venture to advise the working classes of this country also to take advantage of their special opportunities to develop the product of their labour. If these two conditions are fulfilled, I for one am perfectly confident that there is no and tea. But it was not a revenue duty. for one *MR. ASQUITH: That is exactly what is not the case, and this can be shown by a very simple test. Will Mr. Charles Booth, or my right hon. friend, in so far as he adopts his scheme, agree to the imposition of a corresponding Excise duty on all articles produced in this country on which the 5 per cent. import duty is imposed? That is a fair test. SIR HOWARD VINCENT: It is only on cotton. Why? Because, if it had been, a corres- | right hon. Gentleman and all his colleagues ponding Excise duty would have been were subject to the same imputation. proposed on the same articles manufactured at home; in other words, it was avowedly a protective duty. If there is one thing that is axiomatic in fiscal theory and practice it is this, that you cannot combine in one and the same imposition a revenue and a protective duty. Just to the extent that it is efficient purpose it is inefficient for the other. If it succeeds in bringing in revenue, of course, it fails to protect. On the other hand, if it succeeds in protecting, it follows as a necessary consequence that it does not bring in revenue. Every speaker on the other side has tried to run this duty of 10 per cent. both as one thing and the other. They have really got two horses running in diametrically opposite directions, and they must elect on which saddle they will sit. I was surprised that the Colonial Secretary, in the course of his speech the other night, suggested that the late Liberal Cabinet were prevented from protesting against the protective character of this proposed duty because we had assented to an import duty of 5 per cent. in the Indian tariff. Was that a protective duty? Had my right hon. friend when he made that charge, which is not very relevant to any question in this debate, read the despatch from the Government of India on 22nd October last, included in the Papers lately presented to the House? I will read the words of the Government of India "In respect of imports the Indian tariff, as you are aware, with one or two unimportant exceptions, imposes duties purely for revenue purposes. It is entirely free from any trace of preference and any protective intention." Neither in fact nor in intention is it protective. *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): My statement was made entirely with reference to a remark made by the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs, that in agreeing with Mr. Charles Booth that an all-round 5 per cent. duty was a possible matter for discussion at any rate, I subjected myself to be called a protectionist. I said that inasmuch as that was the Indian fiscal system the *MR. ASQUITH: I recommend the hon. Gentleman to read the despatch; he will find all the information there. Cotton is the most important, but there are many others. I wish to ask one or two questions with reference to this 10 per cent. import duty. Is it intended to apply to colonial as well as to foreign products? Is it intended to be an equal preference for all industries here or a privilege only for some? Agriculture cannot gain any benefit from it at all. What about the cotton trade? We manufacture here every year, partly for export and partly for the home market, £100,000,000 of cotton goods. Our imports are £5,000,000. What about the shipbuilding trade, and the building trade, which employs 1,000,000 of workpeople in this country? No one of these trades can derive any advantage from import duties, while, on the other hand, there are ingredients imported which enter into their manufacturing processes, the cheapness of which is absolutely vital to the successful and profitable carrying on of their work. Iron, steel, leather, oil, and flour will all be increased in price. I say that this duty is unintelligent in conception, unequal in application; it protects one trade, and not only does not protect but penalises another; and, finally, as an instrument of revenue it can only succeed to the extent in which it fails as an instrument of protection. I should like to deal now with a serious and interesting argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Colonial Secretary suggested that our factory legislation - legislation for the protection of labour against insanitary conditions is inconsistent with the doctrine of free trade, that it increases the cost of production here, and therefore justifies a compensatory protection as against other countries. This is a very important point. What I wish to make perfectly clear is our position in this matter. How does my right hon. friend attempt to show any inconsistency between the two things? Only by the assumption that our free-trade system is an affirmation and that our factory laws are a negation of some abstract doctrine of laissez faire. That is not the case. The people of this country became free-traders, and will continue to be free-traders, not through continue to be free-traders, not through the preaching of dogma, but through the teaching of experience. I quite agree with my right hon. friend that some of the early free-traders did not recognise the fact (though it is a great mistake to suppose that Lord Ashley was supported by protectionists only); but the real fact is that our factory legislation and our free-trade system are the proper complements of one another. Why? Because both are necessary to prevent an uneconomic, which means a wasteful, application and distribution of the productive power of the community. Under protection we wasted labour and capital on making things which other people could make better; and under the old factory system of unregulated labour you wasted the lives and strength of the mothers and children of the nation, and by so doing you crippled its productive resources, power and contaminated the very of springs industrial vitality. It was the part of wise statesmanship to get rid both of the one and of the other. But that is a question-of principle. Let us look at the practical application. Does it, as my right hon. friend assumes, increase the cost of production I absolutely deny it. On the contrary, I assert, and I believe it to be borne out by the experience of every civilised country, that the workman is a more efficient productive instrument, that he does a larger quantity of good work in a given time, if he works under sanitary conditions, with an adequate provision of light, air, and ventilation, and with proper safeguards against the risk of injury from machinery and other causes. I say that if the children are sent to school-as, thank Heaven, they are now-in their tender years, instead its of being sent to the factory; if the girls and women who work are compelled to observe the special precautions proper to their sex-I say that the extra expense involved is more than repaid by a sounder, more robust, and more intelligent industrial population. My right hon. friend quotes a passage from a speech of mine in which I pointed out that the German workman works longer hours at lower wages, and with an inferior standard of comfort to our own population. That is perfectly true. [An HON. MEMBER: No factory system.] That interruption shows with how much knowledge the hon. Member speaks. The factory code in Germany is more elaborate than our own; and the real reason for the inferior position of the German workman is not a bad factory code, but protection-the shutting out of the free influx of imports and the partial closing of the door of the open market, which raises the cost of living, and therefore cuts down the real remuneration of labour. While I have listened to this discussion I have thought that there was a great deal of force in the suggestion put forward somewhere that we should put together as an enduring monument of the debate a short manual of protection for beginners, the first principles of which should be taken from the speeches of the Colonial Secretary, and the illustrations from the speeches of the Secretary to the Board of Trade. In odd moments I have endeavoured to construct for myself one or two pages of this imaginary catechism, and with the permission of the House I will give a few extracts 66 And the answer is The first question is, "What is free trade? A Shibboleth." "By whom was it invented?" "By one Adam Smith, a professor, who had probably never set foot in a factory in his life. A later writer, Carlyle, is a much safer guide." "How, then, did it come to be adopted as part of the policy of this country?" conspiracy headed by one Cobden, whose main object was to lower the wages of labour." "How has the superstition managed to survive?” short-sighted enough to imagine that in foreign "Because there are people simple enough and trade it is well to receive more than you give. "Can you give a practical illustration of this?” 'Since the year 1860 the imports into the United Kingdom have exceeded the exports, according to the Board of Trade Returns, by no less than £4,000,000,000 sterling." "What does that mean? Translate it into terms of wages and employment." "Roughly speaking, the loss in wages to British workmen is £2,000,000,000 sterling." "How then have we Through the machinations of a middle-class are As to this topic of retaliation, there some Gentlemen, I gather, who are going to absolve themselves selves from the duty of voting for the Amendment because they fancy that they can discern in the official policy of retaliation some form of fiscal change which would not involve a return to protection. The right hon. Member for Bristol said pointedly that he was going to support retaliation because it was a step in the opposite direction to protection. I fancy that nine out of every ten of those who support retaliation will be those who support it because they think it is the first and a long step on the road towards protection. We are entitled to come to close quarters with the Government on this subject of retaliation. Hitherto they have avoided all intelligible explanation on a two-fold plea-first, the absence of the Prime Minister, upon which I think no more need be said; and, secondly, the supposed example of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone is said to have declined to disclose in advance some of the particulars in his Home Rule Bill, especially the position which the Irish Members were to hold. I speak freely in matter, because I was one of those who strongly urged upon Mr. Gladstone publicly that he should make the disclosure. But to compare that with the situation of to-day is to make enormous draft on the credulity of this House. The real analogy would have been if Mr. Gladstone had asked for a mandate for Home Rule, without saying whether he meant to apply it to Ireland or to Scotland. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman who is to follow me two questions. First, what is the nature and what are the limits of the power which the Government are going to ask the country to confer on them ? And, secondly, what is the kind of use which they contemplate making of the power so conferred? The first is a constitutional, and the second is an economic question; and a plain answer to both essential to a clear understand ing of the subject. First as to the power. VOL. CXXIX. [FOURTH SERIES.] is can this an any Minister It is a truism to that say may at any time come to the House of Commons to ask their assent to any measure, legislative, administrative, or fiscal, for which he has a producible and provable case. But it is said that this power is dormant or is unavailable in fiscal policy owing to inveterate tradition. But is it? This House was elected in 1900. Will anyone pretend that it was part of the mandate given by the electors in 1900 to make any change of any sort or kind in our fiscal system? But what have we done? In the year 1902, without any mandate or demand for further powers, we imposed what many of us believe to be a protective duty on corn, in direct violation of our fiscal traditions for many years past. And in 1903 we took the longest and strongest step that has ever been taken in the direction of this policy of retaliation in the shape of the Sugar Convention. In the face of these facts patent, recent, and notorious, how can, any one say-if a case can be made out to the satisfaction of the majority of the House of Commons; and I think a bad case was made out in both those in stances that the Government have not at this moment every power that any constitutional Minister could require? I must press for a more specific answer than we have yet got to the question put by my right hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition on the first night of the session -If you are not satisfied with that power, that is to say, the power of dealing ad hoc with the question as it arises, subject to the assent of the House of Commons, what is the character of the new powers with which you propose to clothe yourselves? They must take the form of some kind of general legislationit may be subject to restrictions; I do not know what-but that general legislation, if it is to be effectively and practically worked for the objects which the Government profess to have in view, will have, sooner or later, to take the form which it has taken in every foreign protectionist country-of placing in the hands of the Executive a maximum and a minimum tariff and allowing it to apply the one or the other according to the circumstances of the case. We want to know whether that is the proposal which the Government are going to submit to the House. The second question is, 3 C |