"/ give theft ffooki :
•_the founaSiig of d CcUegi in, this Colon-/" I

'Y^_LE«¥_MH¥IEI^S2Tr¥"

Gift of
Prof. William Howard Taft
191.^

SPEECHES

BY THE

RT. HON. H. H. ASQUITH

FROM HIS FIRST APPOINTMENT AS A
MINISTER OF THE CROWN IN 1892 TO
HIS ACCESSION TO THE OFFICE
OF PRIME MINISTER
APRIL 1908

Selected and Reprinted from
THE TIMES

%\t ilimea
PRINTING HOUSE SQUARE
LONDON

INTRODUCTION
THE speeches of Mr. Asquith published in this vo'ume
comprise his principal utterances from 1892, when
he first held office under the Crown, to his appointment (-as
Prime Minister in succession to the late Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman in April, 1908.
The speeches have been reprinted as originally pub
lished in The Times, though, with the object of giving the
book a permanent value and at the same time of observing
necessary limitations as to its size, the opening passages of
some speeches and other references — of purely ephemeral
interest — to political affairs of the hour have been omitted
and re-placed by a brief precis. Chronological order has
been followed, and the circumstances in which each speech
was made are stated in prefatory notes.

CONTENTS
MR. ASQUITH : An Appreciation.
By an Oxford Contemporary (From The Times April 7, 1908).
SPEECHES
PAGE
I. — On a Motion of No Confidence in Lord
Salisbury's Government. — Commons, Aug. 8th,
1892  11
II. — The Imprisoned Dynamiters. — Commons, Feb., 1 893 1 9
III.- — The Irish Home Rule Bill. — Commons, April
14th, 1893  29
> IV. — The Featherstone Riots. — Commons, Sept. 20th,
1893  '  53
V. — Irish Home Rule and Home Rule all Round. —
Leven, Oct. 20th, 1893 :  60
VI. — The State in its Relation to Trade - Strikes
and Lock-Outs. — London, March 14th, 1894 ... 79
VII. — The House of Lords. — The Necessity for
Reform. — Leven, Oct. 22nd, 1894  83
VIII. — Factories and Workshops Bill. — Commons,
March ist, 1895  '  92
, IX. — Welsh Disestablishment. — Commons, March 2 ist,.
1895  105
X. — The South African War.— The British - Policy
Defended. — Ashington, Nov. 25th, 1899  125
XI. — The Australian Commonwealth. — An Imperial
Court of Appeal.— Commons, May 21st, 1900 ... 132
XII.— The Liberal Party and the South African
War. — London, June 20th, .1901  139
^ XIII.— Mr. Chamberlain's Fiscal Proposals.— Doncaster,
May 21st, 1903  149
XIV.— The Tax on Corn.— Commons, June nth, 1903 ... 154
XV. — Preferential Tariffs. — London, July 30th, 1903 ... 160
XVI. — The Fiscal Policy.— Cinderford, Oct. 8th, 1903 ... 169
XVII. — Fiscal Reform. — Newcastle-on-Tyne, Oct. 24th, 1903 187
XVIII.— Fiscal Policy.— Paisley, Oct. 30th, 1903  193

XIX.— Fiscal Reform.— Worcester, Nov. 9th, 1903 ... x99
XX.— F«scal Reform and the Tory Party.—
Commons, Feb. 15th, 1904  ¦•¦ 2°4
XXL- Parliamentary Efficiency. — Inverness, Oct.
21st, 1904  "
XXII— Fiscal Retaliation— The Government's Re
fusal to Discuss.— Commons, March 28th, 1905 221
XXIII.— The Aliens Bill.— Commons, May 2nd, 1905 ... 225
XXIV— The Labour Party, Liberalism, and the
Unemployed— Huddersfield, Jan. 8th, 1906 ... 229
XXV.  National Economy and the Liberal Govern
ment. — Perth, Jan. nth, 1906  232
XXVI — The General Election — Home Rule — The
Socialist Bogey.— St Andrews, Jan. 19th, 1906 234
XXVII.— Chinese Labour.— Commons, Feb. 23rd, 1966 ... 239
XXVIII.— The Trades Disputes Bill.— Commons, Aug.
3rd, 1906  249
XXIX. — Liberalism and Socialism.— Ladybank, Oct.
13th, 1906  252
XXX.— Woman's Suffrage.— Ladybank, Oct. 13th, 1906 254
XXXI.— The Budget 1907 — The Distinction Between
Earned and Unearned Incomes. — Commons,
April 18th, 1907  257
XXXII.— The Imperial Conference— The Colonial
Proposals of Preferential Tariffs Re
fused. — London, May 2nd, 1907  271
XXXIII.— The Reform of the House of Lords —
Commons, June 26th, 1907  276
XXXIV.— The Licensing Bill.— Commons, Feb. 27th, 1908 280
XXXV. — Reduction of Armaments. — Commons, March
2nd, 1908  302
XXXVI.— The Two-Power Standard for the Navy.—
Commons, March 10th, 1908  3*5
XXXVII. — Unemployment and the Right-to-Work Bill.
— Commons, March 13th, 1908 ...  318
XXXVIII. — Home Rule for Ireland. — Commons, March
31st, 1908   322
XXXIX. — The Late Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman :
A Tribute. — Commons, April 27th, 1908 ... 328
Index  332

MR. ASQUITH: An Appreciation
BY AN OXFORD CONTEMPORARY
(From The Times, April 7th, 1908)
About the time when Jowett became Master of Balliol, a
notable scholar was added to the foundation of that learned
society. He came from the City of London School, and the
influence of Dr. Edwin Abbott was apparent in the nicety of
his scholarship and the finished style of his English exercises.
By heredity he belonged to a class of shrewd Yorkshiremen,
all of them Radicals and Nonconformists, and all imbued
with the strenuous individualism which was then the staple of
Radical politics. In the little world of Balliol it was soon
made evident that Asquith was a man to be reckoned with,
and a man who would go far. Milner, some years his .junior,
had a wider outlook on Imperial and social questions ; Charles
Gore had a -kind of influence over his friends to which Asquith
did not aspire. But there was, perhaps, none of his contem
poraries who equalled him in trenchancy and force. When he
closed his undergraduate career by gaining a Balliol Fellow
ship, Jowett wrote to a friend — " Of all the young men who
have been under my care, Asquith is the one whose success in
life I would most confidently predict." At the Oxford Union,
where the statesmen of the future are supposed to sit on every
bench, Asquith's position can only be described by the word
ascendency. He took no great pains to be conciliatory, and
he came from a college whose success provokes the light-
hearted criticism of less privileged undergraduates; a Christ
Church orator once referred to " the sons of Balliol, flown with
insolence and tea." In his first attempt on the presidency,
Asquith was defeated by Ashmead Bartlett ; but he had his
turn of office in due time. As treasurer, he allowed no tamper-

6 Mr, Asquith : An Appreciation
ing with the rules ; as president, he asked for no indulgence
from his critics, and he gave them none.
For a young man of twenty-two, with a Fellowship to tide
him over the years of waiting, the law was the best avenue
to success. Asquith addressed himself to the common law
bar; and, just as Bowen had owed his first professional
advancement to Coleridge, so Asquith in his turn was helped
by Bowen. From the first, he obtained work, perhaps as much
work as he wanted ; but his success was not so decisive as his
Balliol friends expected. On an occasion such as the trial
of Mr. Cuninghame Graham, he could speak, and speak well,
but his forensic manner was lacking in ease, and in persuasive
power he was excelled by men who were inferior to him in
ability. He rose into leading1 practice just at the time when
the Judges of our higher tribunals had contracted the habit of
constantly interrupting counsel. When Lord Watson stopped
a set argument with the observation, "The whole point of: this
case is just so-and-so," there were leaders who could say,
" I am obliged to your Lordship for putting it in that way." .
Mr. Asquith was more likely to say, " If your Lordship will
permit me, I will deal with that later on." If Mr. Asquith
had given himself wholly to the law, there can be little doubt
that his clarity of mind and his admirable style would in time
have made him a great Judge. But his true vocation was for
politics, and we shall have to look for our great Judges else
where. At the " penal dissolution" of 1886, Mr. Asquith was returned
for East Fife as a Home Ruler and a follower of Mr. Glad
stone. The Scotch elector likes a member who reflects dis
tinction on the constituency ; the seat for East Fife is as safe
as any seat can be in these troubled and confusing times.
During the six years of his first Parliament, the new member's
political duties were comparatively light. On both the front
benches his debating speeches commanded attention, and even
admiration ; but the Commons are slow to welcome lawyers,
and especially lawyers who are regarded by their friends as
coming leaders of the House. The more austere and the more
extreme politicians on his own side doubted the quality of his
Radicalism, thought he gave too much time to his practice
and his social engagements ; and resented the idea that he
would be in the next Cabinet. But Mr. Gladstone, a nice
critic of his legal colleagues and their work, had formed a

Mr. Asquith : An Appreciation 7
different estimate, and when the Administration of 1892 was
formed, Mr. Asquith became Home Secretary. As a depart
mental Minister he added greatly to his reputation ; he showed
both capacity and tact, and was not afraid of responsibility.
His first serious difficulties were occasioned by his refusal to
release the dynamiters ; his refusal was at - variance with
Radical sentiment, and there was a movement of protest. It
is understood that Mr. Asquith would not allow the administra
tion of the law to be made even a Cabinet question, and that
Mr. Gladstone supported him in this contention. His action
in regard to the Featherstone riots is still (very unjustly)
remembered against him by a section of the Labour party.
The measures which he took to protect persons engaged in
dangerous trades were hailed as an instalment of Collectivism,
whatever that means ; but the political economy of his younger
days has retained a strong hold on Mr. Asquith's mind. "We
are all Socialists now," but there are better Socialists than he.
The Parliament of 1892 was a short one, and the junior
members' of the Ministry were overshadowed by the powerful
personality of their chief. But before Lord Rosebery left
office, Mr. Asquith had proved himself a statesman. His
position in his own party was strengthened by his conduct of
the Bill by which it was proposed to disestablish the Church
in Wales. This was only a reconnaissance in force, and no
serious results followed ; but the Welsh Liberals were pleased,
and the Nonconformists rejoiced to see one of their own people
appearing in the character of a Daniel come to judgment.
On leaving office Mr. Asquith went back to the Bar. He
is not specially qualified for the task of keeping a disheartened
Opposition together ; and on some great issues he did not
carry with him all the sympathies of his party. Time and
experience have strengthened his sense of Imperial greatness
and of our Imperial responsibilities ; ; therefore, he is not a
favourite with the people called Little Englanders. He is a
believer in law and order, and, as an economist, he has not
openly parted company with Mill and Fawcett. These are not
the opinions of " forward " Liberals, and on his own side many
doubted whether Asquith was holding the ground he had
gained. After a rather long period of slackened ahd hampered
activity, fortune and Mr. Chamberlain gave Mr. Asquith just
the opportunity he needed. The cast of his mind is, on the
whole, Conservative, and now free trade, an established insti-

8 Mr. Asquith : An Appreciation
tution of~ the country, was being attacked. Mr. Asquith was
perfectly familiar with the arguments fro and con. ; he had
read them as a student, and expounded them as a lecturer,
in his Balliol days. His speeches, didactic, militant, and
confident, did much to revive the Liberal party, depressed by
the vigour of Mr. Chamberlain's attack. When the spoils of
victory came to be distributed, it was generally acknowledged
that Mr. Asquith had fairly made good his right to be the
colleague and successor of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman.
There are those who, when they read or listen to Mr.
Asquith's dogmatic expositions, are disposed to set him down
as a narrow-minded man, who sees only one side of a case.
But this inference is unsafe ; Mr. Asquith is a practical man
who accepts the party system. He is too well informed to
ignore the fact that British trade is now facing a kind of
competition which Sir Robert Peel did not and could not
foresee. At the same time, he has convinced himself that
tariff reform, as embodied in the proposals of Mr. Chamber
lain, will do more harm than good. In the campaign of 1906,-
his main object was to turn back the invading force, and
his tactics were his own, not his leader's. Sir Henry Campbell-
Bannerman deserves great credit for the skill with which he
kept the various elements of his party together; his patient
stand for the Liberal programme as a whole gave him a per
sonal ascendency to which the younger leader has not yet
attained. But when Mr. Asquith announced that, so far as he
and his friends were concerned, Home Rule was not an issue
in the election, there can be little doubt that he recalled to the
colours a large contingent of British electors, quite content
to acquiesce in the postponement of Home Rule. To some
extent, though to what extent no man can say, the victory
was his.
The victory involves the new Prime Minister in what Mr.
Haldane would call an antinomy, the solution of which is not
yet apparent. For the colleagues who accepted his leadership,
and made free trade the one cry of the last General Election,
are also at one with him in desiring to maintain the Imperial
interests of this country, and to draw closer the ties between
ourselves and our self-governing colonies. If this policy is to
be made a reality, we need something more positive and more
inspiring than the abstract generalities of the last Colonial
Conference. Is Mr. Asquith free to recognise that the state of

Mr. Asquith : An Appreciation 9
opinion in our colonies renders it necessary to revise our
commercial policy? Can he devise any measures which will
satisfy the colonial desire for recognition and co-operation,
without subverting the domestic policy of free imports ? In
approaching these momentous problems, the Prime Minister
has one conspicuous advantage ; he is already familiar with
all the constitutional and legal aspects of our colonial system.
It may be that his tenure of power will not be long enough
to show us all that is in his mind, but we shall look with
interest to see in what direction he moves. On the important
issue of disestablishment the Prime Minister's record is clear
and consistent ; but there is at present a visible abatement of
the energy with which this matter was pressed at one time.
When the Church of Ireland was disestablished, an impulse
was given to the activity of the Liberation Society. Dr. Dale
and Dr. Rainy spoke for a large body of serious politicians
who sincerely believed that the separation of the 'Church and
State would be fraught with spiritual benefit to the people.
This form of opinion is not so strongly represented as it used
to be. Attacks on the wealth and the inefficiency of the
National Churches have lost their point. The object-lesson
of 1904 has taught the Free Churches, in Scotland and else
where, that it is property, not establishment, which brings a
Church, for certain purposes, under the control of the State,
and hampers her in working out her ideals. There is much
more friendly intercourse between the denominations, much
fuller acknowledgment of common beliefs and aspirations.
These circumstances may suggest to a cautious leader that it
would be unwise to begin a conflict, sure to be bitter and long.
But in Wales and in Scotland the Prime Minister's disestab
lishment declarations have been carefully preserved; and we
look forward with some anxiety to the first occasion when East
Fife requires Mr. Asquith to " come ower the fundamentals."
Perhaps the most uncertain factor in the plans of the new
Administration is the composite Labour vote. Mr. Asquith's
tardy acceptance of the Trade Disputes Bill has not been
forgotten ; and in its present mood the Trade Union Congress
may think it possible to dispense with the aid of statesmen
imbued with traditional ideas about law and finance. But
there are still Labour men who remember and appreciate what
was done at the Home Office between 1892 and 1895. The
field of social reform is so wide that Liberalism and Labour

io Mr. Asquith : An Appreciation
may still continue to co-operate, without sacrifice of principle
on either side; and the alliance may be as necessary to the
one section as to the other, for none can tell how strong or
how comparatively weak the Labour vote may be in the next
Parliament. Such measures as the Eight Hours Bill are not
carried without creating a good deal of discontent; and the
current which ran so strongly in 1906 may be checked by the
British workman's dislike of interference.
Those who have watched the Prime Minister's career with
sympathy and approval will look forward with high hope to
his tenure of power. At the age of fifty-six, by sheer force
of talent and character, he takes the highest place which a
subject can occupy. His party is still strong, and it has been
sobered by misfortune. He may, if he will, withdraw his fol
lowers from some doubtful enterprises; he may, if he can,
indicate safer lines of advance. The Opposition is led by a
statesman who has frankly expressed his admiration of Mr.
Asquith's abilities, and with whom his relations have been as
friendly as the conventions of party warfare permit. The fore
going summary of his position shows that his difficulties will
be many and serious ; but, as impartial critics, we may wish
him all the success that is compatible with the unity of the
Empire and the true interest of these united kingdoms.

SPEECHES BY THE

Rt Hon. H. H. Asquith

-*-f-s-

I.
ON A MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE IN LORD
SALISBURY'S GOVERNMENT.
(From The Times, August 9, 1892.)
[The General Election of i8g2 placed Lord Salisbury's Ministry in
a minority of 40 in the House of Commons, and gave Mr.
Gladstone, as Leader of the Opposition, an equivalent majority
by the inclusion in the Liberal forces ofthe Irish Nationalists.
Instead of resigning when the General Election returned this
result, Lord Salisbury met the new Parliament and was
defeated on the Amendment moved to the Address by Mr. H. H.
Asquith on behalf of the Liberal Party in the following speech
in the Commons on August 8, 1892.
In particular Mr. Asquith dealt with the argument that the
Liberal majority was invalidated by its dependence on Irish
Nationalist votes; and, turning to the Unionist legislation of
the previous six years, he declared that the institution of Free .
Education, the County Councils, etc., marked an abandonment
ofthe historic Tory position for the purpose of obtaining and
retaining the support of the Liberal Unionists led by Mr.
Chamberlain.]
Mr. Asquith moved the following , amendment to the
Address : —
" We feel it, however, to be our duty humbly to submit to your
Majesty that it is essential, that your Majesty's Government
should possess the confidence of this House and the country,
and respectfully to represent to your Majesty that such

12 On a Motion of No Confidence in
confidence is not reposed in the present advisers of your
Majesty." They were met there that day to take part in the obsequies
of a dead majority. Both of the speakers who preceded him
had come to bury Csesar, and those on the Opposition side need
not grudge to either of them the licence of eulogy, of which
full advantage had been taken, and which was always per
mitted in an epitaph. They had sought to wring his withers
with respect to certain appeals which he had formerly made as
to the main provisions of the Home Rule scheme. Whether
or not that appeal of his were wise or well-founded, or whether
and to what extent it had been responded to by those to whom
it was addressed, were topics which at the present time
he declined to discuss, for the simple reason that he had
nothing to do with the question whether her Majesty's Govern
ment had forfeited the confidence of the House and of
the country.
It would, in his opinion, be a fatal mistake if, at the
beginning of this new Parliament, they were to approach the
Throne with an address of unmeaning gratitude, and he pro
posed to relieve the House from taking such a course by the
amendment which he had proposed, which would add to the
Address words which would give to it significance and
adequacy. The amendment contained an expression of opinion
and a statement of fact. The opinion that the Government
of her Majesty ought to possess the confidence of the House
and of the -country, no one would, he imagined, be prepared
to controvert. The amendment must, therefore, be opposed
upon the statement of fact. No other topic was relevant to the
issue. Six years ago, the party now in power obtained
ofthe General a.maJority at the Polls, and was thereby fecog-
Election nised as having received a mandate to govern
Ireland and this country upon Unionists' prin
ciples. In course of time the country was appealed to for a
renewal of that mandate. No proceeding was ever more
deliberately planned or more carefully carried out. Even the
day on which the trial was to take place was fixed by the action
of the Government. An adverse verdict was given ; the majority
of 1886 gone, the mandate then received by the Unionists was
now revoked ; and that being so, what reason was there why
the House should not at once, as its first act, in performance

Lord Salisbury's Government 13
of the duty imposed upon it by the constituencies, proceed to
render effective the judgment of the country? In doing this,
the House would be following the precedents set by the Con
servative party in 1841, and by the Liberal party in 1859. Mr-
Disraeli said, upon that occasion, that it was of the highest
importance of the public and the House that the question should
be immediately decided, and he hoped that the House would
be able to divide upon it that night, which was the first night
of the debate. " The decision, Mr. Disraeli went on to say,
ought not to be delayed for twenty-four hours. If that was the
principle laid down by such high authority, and adopted in
1859, wny was such anxiety manifested now, on the Ministerial
side, to drag the matter out over a wide field of irrelevant
matter, irrelevant now, but which may become relevant when
you have performed your preliminary process of intrusting
responsibility, as well as power, to those who were now on the
Opposition side of the House — matters which, at this stage, had
nothing whatever to do with the decision of the House ?
He was curious to learn on what grounds — if hon. members
would wait they would perceive that his curiosity was legiti-
-rj,e mate — he was curious to know on what grounds
Composition it was to be contended that the verdict the
of the country had given ought not to be given effect
Liberal Party t0 wjthout delay by the House. He had searched
in vain for any intelligible proposition into which the argu
ments on the other side could be framed ; but so far as he was
able" to find out anything in the matter, he judged that the
validity of that verdict was to be impeached, first of all by
reference to the composition of the majority, and, secondly, by
reference to the means by which that majority was obtained.
As he understood it, what was said was this : — " True it is
you have an apparent numerical majority, both at the polls
and in the House of Commons, but when the composition of
that majority comes to be analysed, you will find that, if you
substract from it one constituent element — namely, the votes
of the members from Ireland — your majority ceases to be a
majority at all." It seemed that he had not misunderstood
the argument of the hon. and gallant gentleman. The proposi
tion, therefore, was this, that although a majority of the electors
of the United Kingdom had voted against the continuance in
office and against the policy of the Government of the day,
yet if upon analysis it could be proved that that majority

14 On a Motion of No Confidence in
would not exist if the votes of one of the divisions of the United
Kingdom were taken away, that majority was not entitled to
speak for the whole, and the House of Commons was entitled
to disregard it.
That proposition was countenanced by so high an authority
as the First Lord of the Treasury.* Speaking at Glossop orj
T, July 14, when the result of the electors wai
Threatened practically ascertained, the right hon. gentle-
Appeal to man used these remarkable words : — " The
the House House of Lords, with the people of this country
of Lords behind them," meaning, as the context showed,
the people of England, " is certainly in a position to see carried
out Mr. Gladstone's own principles — namely, that eaph
nationality should manage its own affairs, and if he," that wasj
the right hon. gentleman the member t for Mid-Lothian,)
" should attempt to tyrannise, by means of the Irish brigade/
over the declared will of the English constituencies, the Hous£
of Lords will have a duty imposed upon it, and will certainly
have the courage to see that Mr. Gladstone's principles are
adequately carried out, so far as England and Scotland are
concerned." What did the right hon. gentleman mean? It
was not disputed that the Opposition had a majority in the
whole of the United Kingdom, and it could not be disputed
that in three of the four component parts of the United King^
dom — namely, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales— they had a
majority ; but, said the right hon. gentleman, " Notwithstand
ing that majority, I am entitled, speaking in the name of the
people of England, who have cast their votes the other way,
to claim, to ignore, and override the opinion of the mass of the
people of the United Kingdom, and even, if need be, to
summon to my aid that pliant instrument of the Constitution
which is placed at my disposal for the purpose of making the
will of the majority prevail."
An Imperial He Protested against that disintegrating prin-
Parliament clphs. He protested in the name of the union
Connotes an of this still United Kingdom, against these fan-
MaloriW taStl,C devel°Pments of abstract Separatist logic.
J ' So long as there was an Imperial Parliament
and so long as m that Imperial Parliament, as he trusted and
believed would always be the case, every part of the United
* Mr. Arthur Balfour. f Mr. Gladstone.

Lord Salisbury's Government 15
Kingdom was represented, so long the Government and the
policy of the Government must be determined by the vote of
ihe majority of the whole. If it was true to say that the
majority of the Opposition depended on the Irish vote, it would
lse equally true to say that it depended on the Scotch and Welsh
votes. If the proposition was good that the majority could be
analysed into a majority contributed by Ireland, so the proposi
tion was equally good that it could be analysed into a majority
cortributed by Scotland and Wales. But the matter did not
rest there. At the General Election, which had just taken
plate, it was in Ireland, and in Ireland alone, that the Unionist
party had won seats. The Unionist majority at the time of the
dissolution was 66, and by the gain of five seats in Ireland, that
majority had risen to 76. What, then, had become of that
majority ? How had it been got rid of ? The answer was that
tie people of Great Britain had got rid of it. If the matter
had rested with Ireland, English and Scotch and Welsh opinion
remaining as it was, or as it was represented to be, instead of
the Unionist majority having been dispersed, it would positively
hare been increased by ten. In Great Britain there had been
a shifting from one side to the other of no fewer than 58 seats,
aiyl it was for that reason alone that her Majesty's present
Government found themselves in a minority. Before he left
this part of the case he would assert three propositions. In
the first place, it was no more true to say of the present majority
that it was contributed by Irish votes than to say it was con
tributed by Scotch and Welsh votes. In the second place, the
dominating fact which had brought about the change was
the shifting of the English and Scotch opinion; and, in the
third place, when it was sought to determine upon what lines
the government of the country should be carried on, the
majority of the whole of the electors and nothing else must
be looked to.
He wished now to say a few words on the only other argument
by which it was sought to impeach the authority of the verdict
of the country. It was said that that verdict
The f had been obtained by illegitimate means. All
Country s were familiar with the ingenuity of disappointed
Plain Verdict .... ¦ _, _ 5r , ¦ •
politicians in the art ot explaining away a
majority. It reminded him of a figure often met with in
another branch of life — the disappointed litigant who went
whining about among his friends, complaining that the jury

16 On a Motion of No Confidence in
was packed, and that he had a bad advocate. He forgot, how-(
ever, that he had a bad case, and that he was beaten on the]
merits. It was said that in particular constituencies the jude
ment of the electors was biassed and determined by local an
personal considerations. Was not that true of every electioi
that ever took place ? He apprehended that never in our cofl-
stitutional experience had there been a case where a large aid
general issue had been placed before the country more plai/ly
defined by both parties in the State. Never was there a cas/ in
which the meaning of the verdict of the country was morefree
from ambiguity. That proposition did not commend itself to
the Chancellor of the Exchequer.* He would state the groiidds
of that proposition. He alleged that in every election address
of every Unionist candidate, in every speech upon every
Unionist platform, the main issue submitted to the electors
was that the experiment of governing Ireland on Unionist
principles had been proved to be a conspicuous and fruit/ul
success. Was not that the ground upon which every apologist
and advocate of the Government, from the right hon. membir t
for Birmingham on that side, and the First Lord of the Treasury
on the other, down to the humblest member of the party,
appealed to the confidence of the electors? That experiment
was tried for a length of time, and under conditions which
made it impossible for gentlemen opposite to allege that the
country did not understand and appreciate it.
For six years the Government had practically a free hand
from the Imperial Parliament. Those who sat on that (the
... Opposition) side of the House would acknow-
UnionfstURuler l6dge that in the late Chief Secretary J for
1886-1892 ' Ireland> now the First Lord of the Treasury, her
Majesty's Government were fortunate. They
had a man who, by his firmness of purpose and mastery of
Parliamentary arts, did everything it was possible to do for
that policy, and the right hon. gentleman was supported as
no Minister was ever supported before. He could always rely
on the loyalty of gentlemen opposite, and in certain quarters
on that (the Opposition) side upon a perverted fidelity which
was rare in the annals of political apostasy. At a critical
moment of the right hon. gentleman's policy, when he was
on the eve of impending and certain failure, he was rescued
* Mr. Goschen + Mr. J. Chamberlain.
X Mr. Arthur Balfour.

Lord Salisbury's Government 17
by the great catastrophe* which at the moment shattered the
Irish party, and for a few months paralysed the energy of the
national movement. When was an experiment ever tried with
such a concurrence pf deliberate and accidental conditions in
its favour?
That was the issue upon which the country had voted with
their eyes open, and their judgment unbound, and in England,
Scotland, and Wales the Government had lost,
The Unionist as compared with the election of 1886. In
Reiected Ireland they won five seats, three of them by
superhuman efforts, painfully and laboriously,
in the province of Ulster, and of the remaining two, one was
made a present to them by the division in the Nationalist ranks,
and the other was in a constituency in Dublin in which Con
servatism was a natural and growing cause. But outside the
province of Ulster, and outside the city of Dublin, where in
Ireland could the Government show a freely elected representa
tive prepared to support them ? The representation of Ireland
remained substantially what it had been. In the very districts
which had been drenched with a golden shower of British
benevolence — in Galway, Sligo, and Donegal — the Government
candidates cut the sorriest figure. Therefore, whether the
Government looked to Ireland or challenged the opinion of
Great Britain on this crucial issue, the constituencies had
returned a verdict against them. The burden of appeal in
this country made by the Unionist candidates was always the
same. Who gave you free education, who created the county
councils, who passed the law for allotments and small holdings?
But the people of this country were shrewd enough to perceive
that every one of those measures had two characteristics — there
was hardly one of them which was not opposed by the great
Unionist party six years ago, and there was not one of them
which had not been carried into law in an incomplete and
emasculated form.
The Tory party for these last six years had been engaged
in abandoning a great historic position, and in compromising
traditions which, so long as they were kept intact,
TheOld Tory ajwayS gave them a hold, not only upon their
Abandoned own f°H°wers> hut upon a deep-rooted feeling
among the mass of the population. They had
abandoned all that, and had gone in for a mass of peddling
* The deposition of Mr. Parnell as Irish Leader.

1 8 On a Motion of No Confidence
and hysterical legislation. They had done that in order to
obtain the support of a small and dwindling band. In 1886
ninety-four dissentient Liberals voted against the second read
ing of the Home Rule Bill ; the same party had come back from
the polls with a total numerical strength of forty-seven. Six
years had sufficed to reduce the body from ninety-four to forty-
seven, and it was not a very difficult sum in political arithmetic
to calculate with some degree of accuracy the date of the
ultimate extinction of the species. For the Government by
this course to take nothing, but- to be taken themselves, to palter
with principle, to abandon their pledges, and to find that the
way of ignominy was a minority — that was to be guilty of one
of those blunders which, in politics, were worse than crimes.
They might depend upon it if the people of this country wanted
Liberal legislation, they would come to the party which be
lieved in it, and which would give it to them in a complete
The Country's and effective form- During those last six years
Choice— in tne sphere of legislation and of opinion, there
Liberal had been a development and a ripening almost
Reforms by beyond precedent. It was essential, if this Par-
Partv'lberal liament were to perform the great tasks which
this country had imposed upon it, that the Crown
should be served by Ministers whom the people could trust.
They had commissioned their representatives to declare that
from her Majesty's present advisers they had withdrawn their
confidence, and it now rested with this House to execute the
judgment which the nation had pronounced.

II.
THE IMPRISONED DYNAMITERS.
(From The Times, Feb. io, 1893.)
\In the Ministry formed by Mr. Gladstone on the resignation of
Lord Salisbury 's Government in August, 1892, Mr. Asquith
was appointed Secretary of State for Home Affairs.
He was consequently called upon to meet the plea advanced in
the Commons on February 9, 1891, by the Irish Party, for the
release of the persons convicted of complicity in the dynamite
outrages 0/1883 and 1884. Mr. Asquith refused amnesty, and
the distinction he drew between political crime and public
outrage is particularly notable tn his reply toMr.f. Redmonds
amendment to the Address, that " the time is now come when
the cases of all prisoners convicted under the Treasons Felony
Act . . . for offences arising out of insurrectionary movements
connected with Ireland may be advantageously reconsidered."]
After referring to the Parliamentary circumstances in which
the amendment had been moved, Mr. Asquith passed io the
consideration of the plea for amnesty :
My right hon. friend the present First Lord of the Trea
sury,* in carefully chosen language, announced what would
be the policy in relation to this matter of any Administration
he might be called upon to form. What did my right hon.
friend say? We need not go five years back, when in August,
1892, we have the express and authoritative declaration of the
present* Prime Minister. It had been read by the hon. gentle
man opposite to-aiight. It is a declaration which in substance
amounts to this — 'that there will be no distinction whatsoever
made between the treatment of these cases and that of ordi
nary cases which fall within the jurisdiction of the Home
Office ; hut if particular circumstances can ibe alleged tending
to throw doubt upon the justice of the conviction, or tending
to suggest mitigation of punishment in any specific instance,
these circumstances, if brought to the attention of the Home
Secretary, will be duly considered and weighed by him. My
fight hon. friend pointedly refused to consider these cases as
* Mr. Gladstone.

20 The Imprisoned Dynamiters
an exception to the general rule, and every one who listened
to his declaration in the debate and who took part in the sub
sequent division must have been aware that the ordinary rules
of the Home Office, and no other rules, would be applied to
their subsequent consideration. The hon. memher has quoted
same words from a speech made in Ireland by the hon.
member for Mayo.
I have to say in the most express and emphatic terms that,
so far as this question of the amnesty of prisoners is concerned,
-phe there is no understanding, there is no under-
Government's taking, there is no agreement. The only
Freedom of declaration that has been made by any respon-
Judgment sible member of the Government on the subject '
is the declaration to be found in the speech of my right hon.
friend the Prime Minister which has been read to the House
to-night. When I found myself discharging the duties of the
office I now hold I felt that it was my duty to carry out in the
letter and in the spirit this authoritative declaration of the .
policy. The hon. and learned gentleman asks the House to
declare that the cases of a number of persons may be " advan
tageously reconsidered."- There is not one of these cases
which since I have been at the Home Office I have not most
carefully considered. There is not a fact which the hon.
membeT has brought before the House to-night, there is not an
allegation of fact — a very different thing — there is not even a
ground for the suspicion which he has alleged, that has not
been carefully weighed and sifted by me. I applied to these
cases — -and I think the House will believe my statement —
exactly the same consideration, neither more nor less, that I
am in the habit of applying, and my predecessors in office for
many years past have applied, to every criminal case which
has been submitted to them for examination and review ; and
if I entertained a particle of doubt in my own mind as to the .
justice of conviction in any one of these cases, if I could
honestly bring myself to the opinion that any one now left in
prison is being punished too severely for the offence, I should
have thought that the hon. gentleman opposite might have
given me credit for sufficient impartiality and judgment — I will
not say for sufficient humanity of feeling — to apply in such case
exactly the same measure of justice as I am in the habit of
applying in the ordinary administration of the criminal law.
What are the grounds upon which the hon. gentleman says >

The Imprisoned- Dynamiters 21
I have decided wrongly? It is suggested that because these
_. _. . people are political offenders they ought to be
for Amnestv Plut uPon a footing different from that of other
criminals, and also that there are circum
stances of doubt and suspicion attending their conviction, or,
in other words that the guilt of the persons referred tp in this
amendment has not been satisfactorily proved. The hon.
member shakes his head ; but what is the meaning of all the
laboured argument to throw doubt on the case of Daly if it
was not to suggest not only that Daly's guilt is not proved, but
that he is in all probability an innocent man ? Yes ; the hon.
member assents. The amendment covers by its language all
the prisoners convicted under the Treason-Felony Act now in
prison, and how many are there ? Fourteen. But the House
has not heard the name of any one except that of Daly. I
suppose we have heard all the arguments that can be urged,
and yet we are asked to upset the decisions of the courts of law
and of successive Secretaries of State in thirteen cases with
out so much as knowing the names of the prisoners whose
guilt or innocence is in question. Using the word in a logical
sense, a more preposterous demand was neveT made upon the
House of Commons.
Mr. J. REDMOND. — It would have taken me three or four
hours to go into all the cases.
Mr. ASQUITH. — The. House would not have grudged the
hon. member the time if he could have shown that in these
cases there was reasonable ground for suggesting the injustice
of the convictions. He knows the House of Commons too well
to suppose they would not have shown him every consideration.
I have nothing to deal with so far as the other cases are con
cerned, and I dispose of them at once by simply reminding the
House who the persons are.
They may be divided into four groups. The first group
consists of Gallagher, Whitehead, and two of their subordinate
associates. Whitehead was the man who for
The Four months carried on a factory of nitro-glyeerine in
Prisoners Birmingham ; Gallagher, in London, was his
paymaster. Gallagher passed backwards and
forwards between Birmingham and London, and through the
agency of Wilson and some other men was instrumental in
having a large quantity of nitro-glycerine conveyed in trunks
from Birmingham to London. Gallagher, for his part, stowed

22 The Imprisoned Dynamiters
away some of the stuff in fishing stockings, which were dis
covered at the lodgings of one or more of the prisoners when
arrested. He was found when arrested with something like
;£i,ooo upon him, and, which is a fact not unworthy of remark,
an order for admission to this House, in his pocket. There is
not and never has been a shadow of a doubt that these men
were engaged in a conspiracy to promote and procure explo
sions in London, and I am not surprised at the discretion which
the hon. member showed in passing over their cases in silence.
Another group is represented by Featherston and Daltdn.
There again they had set up, partly in Glasgow and partly in
Cork, the machinery for the manufacture of explosives, and
a not inconsiderable number of them were arrested with
explosives and infernal machines on their persons. These
were the men who caused the three explosions in Glasgow in
January, 1883. Finally, there is the case of Burton and Cun
ningham. Burton and Cunningham were shown in the early
months of 1884 to have deposited bags containing infernal
machines in the cloak-rooms of different London railway
stations. The hon. member seemed to think that we ought
to be very much obliged to these men because they had so
arranged their infernal machines that they exploded in the
night-time. I do not know whether their ingenuity was
directed to that object or not, but however that may be, there is
no shadow of doubt as to their guilt. Nor is there any doubt
whatever that they were actively concerned in the explosions
on the Underground Railway, at Westminster Hall, and at the
Tower of London. I have a right to ask hon. gentlemen who
are to follow me in this debate : Do you or do you not ques
tion the justice of those convictions ? Were these men inno
cent or were they guilty ? Can you suggest any ground of
fact whatever to throw the smallest doubt on the justice of the
verdict which was given against them ? That is a challenge
which I throw down ; we shall see whether it will be taken up.
Now I come to that which is, after all, the only case -which
has been seriously dealt with, and I think very iprobably the
T. _ only one the hon. member has seriously in
I he Case T - , r _ , '
of Daly view— I mean the case of Daly. I approach the
case of Daly with a perfectly open mind. I
have never been concerned in any of the proceedings against
him, and I have not even taken part in -any debate or division
in this House on the subject of his case. What are the facts

The Imprisoned Dynamiters 23
with reference to Daly? I will state them in two or three sen
tences in the baldest and most naked way. Daly came over
from America to Birmingham in October, 1883. He went to
lodge with Egan, of wham I shall have to say a word or two
in a moment. He lodged there under an assumed name. He
had no occupation of any sort or kind, so far as. the police
could make out, and he was closely watched. He spent his
time doing nothing. He was apparently not ill-pTovided with
cash, and from time to time made journeys between Birming
ham and Liverpool. Upon a certain day in April, 1884, he
managed to elude the vigilance of the police. He walked on
foot from Birmingham to Wolverhampton and took the train
thence to Liverpool.
Mr. J. REDMOND.— The police followed him in the train
to Liverpool, and there lost sight of him.
Mr. ASQUITH.— Whether that is so or not is wholly im
material to the question, which is whether Daly's conduct was
that of an innocent man. He left the train and walked along
the street, looking behind him to see if he was being followed ;
he succeeded in evading the policemen who were following
him, and was lost sight of for a couple of 'days. When Daly
was next seen two days afterwards on the Birkenhead Railway
Station, what had he with him? He had three infernal
machines and a large quantity of detonators and explosive
materials — I will not say secreted about his person, for his
pockets were positively bulging out with them in every direc
tion. From that day to this Daly has never given any ac
count of whom he got those parcels from. If the story the hon.
gentleman tells the House, not for the first time, and which
he no doubt believes — if the story that these things were
planted on an innocent man by some agent of the police were
true, it is a most extraordinary fact that Daly should never for
a moment have suggested that it was so.
Mr. J. REDMOND. — The right hon. gentleman is aware
that Daly directed a number of questions to that point and that
they were disallowed by the Judge.
Mr. ASQUITH.— I am aware of nothing of the kind. The
questions put by Daly, and which were most properly disallowed,
were -directed with the object of finding out the name of the
person who gave information to the police, which Daly, no
doubt, was very anxious to discover and have published. Here
is a man discovered in the possession of those infernal

24 The Imprisoned Dynamiters
machines and explosives, and incapable or unwilling to give
any account of where he got them from. The police, after his
arrest, go to his house at Birmingham, search, his rooms, and
there they find a number of what the hon. gentleman calls
treasonable documents, showing, what has never been disputed,
that undoubtedly Daly was a member of the Irish Republican
Brotherhood, and had taken an active part in its proceedings.
Then the police examined the garden, and there they found a
tin canister containing documents and nine ball cartridges and
a bottle of nitro-glycerine. How did those things come there?
Daly has told us. He volunteered to tell the Court at the
trial — for I will do him the justice to say that he was chivalrous
enough, fair enough not to wish Egan to be implicated in more
than he need be — he volunteered the statement that the canister
and bottle of nitro-glycerine had been deposited in the garden
by Daly himself, without the knowledge or connivance of Egan.
I want to know what explanation hon. gentlemen give of that
fact. Where did Daly get the nitro-glycerine from ? Why did
he deposit it in the garden — he, the same man who was found
in possession of those infernal machines and explosives ? The
suggestion that these parcels were planted upon Daly by the
police, and that he had no guilty knowledge of their contents,
is one of the idlest suggestions I ever heard made.
Mr. J. REDMOND. — It is not my suggestion ; it is Mr. Farn-
dale's suggestion.
Mr. ASQUITH. — I am obliged to the hon. member; I will
deal with Mr. Farndale. Mr. Farndale is a gentleman over
whom I have no jurisdiction ; he is a servant of the Corporation
of Birmingham. The hon. member has read what he calls Mr.
Farndale's statement, and what is, in fact, a letter from Alder
man Manton, of Birmingham, who professes in that letter to
tell what Mr. Farndale has told him. Mr. Farndale has been
questioned on this matter, and he has stated that Alderman
Manton's account is to a large extent purely imaginary.
Mr. J. REDMOND.— Where did he make that statement?
Mr. ASQUITH.— He stated it, as the late Home Secretary*. '.''.'
informed the House more than a year ago, he stated it to him.
If that be so — and I do not suppose any one will doubt it 
what becomes of this supposed testimony on the part of Mr.
Farndale? Mr. Farndale, I believe, did say — I have not com-
* Rt . Hon. H. Matthews.

The Imprisoned Dynamiters 25
municated with him myself — but I believe he did say that in
his opinion the explosives and other things had been planted
upon Daly by some agent of the Irish police. Mr. Farndale
has never produced a tittle of evidence in support of that
opinion. The truth is that Mr. Farndale was considerably
annoyed that the arrest of Daly, in whose innocence he had
no belief, was procured, not by the Birmingham, but by the
Irish police, and he may have been for that reason more readily
disposed than he otherwise would have been to attach credence
to the stories which other people told him ; he does not profess
to know anything about the transaction of his own personal
knowledge. Sir, the fact is this. I can tell the hon. gentleman that the
information at my disposal convinces me that Daly was sup
ported during the whole of his residence in this
Overwhelming country by funds sent from America, that the
Gu'ill. nCe ° bombs which Daly had in his possession came
from America, and that the nitro-glycerine also
came from America. More than six months before Daly was
arrested he was in communication with his friends in America
asking for bombs.
Mr. J. REDMOND.— Did that come out at the trial ? Why
was it not brought out .at the trial ?
Mr. ASQUITH. — No, it did not come out at the trial, and
I have nothing to do with that. I am stating to the House,
on my authority and responsibility as a Minister of the Crown, ,
having cast upon me a most painful and responsible duty, that
I have satisfied myself of the truth of these facts from informa
tion at my disposal which I shall not impart or communicate
to any one. Well, sir, I say that, even apart from that upon
the simple facts as they- came out at the trial, and which I have
detailed to the House, I fear at excessive length, there is
evidence abundant and overwhelming to justify the finding of
the jury that this man was engaged, in the language of our
law, in " levying war upon the Queen," and doing so by means
of infernal and explosive devices.
Before I pass from that I must say one word about the case
of Egan. ' It has been said that I could not have decided, as I
have decided, to release Egan unless I was pre-
The Case of pared also to release Daly.' I do not think the
hon. gentleman will say that; but I observe that
is a criticism made in some quarters. I can tell the House

26 The Imprisoned Dynamiters
frankly and in a sentence why I released Egan. He was
released because, in my opinion, he had been sufficiently
punished after suffering eight and a half years' penal servitude.
I read the evidence, as other people have done, most carefully.
There is, in my judgment, nothing in it clearly to connect
Egan with any knowledge of or intention to take part in a
conspiracy criminally to use dynamite. I think the evidence,
to put it at the highest upon that point, was equally consistent
with his innocence and with his guilt. Beyond the fact that
he was intimate with Daly, and that upon one occasion he was
heard by a policeman to make use of a very ambiguous expres
sion at some public-house meeting, and the fact of the nitro
glycerine found in his garden, there is nothing, in my
judgment, clearly to connect Egan with any participation, or
any intention to participate, in the use of dynamite. It has
been said, You must, then, have come to the opinion that
Egan was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted.
That does not at all follow, and it is not the conclusion at
which I arrived. Egan was accused and was convicted of
treason felony, and that he was guilty of treason, that he was
an active member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood, there
cannot be the shadow of doubt. The sole question, to my
mind, was, not whether Egan was guilty of treason, but
whether he- was so clearly shown to have been a party to this
dynamite conspiracy as to warrant his continued imprisonment.
I came to the conclusion upon the evidence that he had been
sufficiently punished, and it is upon that ground, and that
ground alone, he has been let out.
The hon. gentleman who seconded the motion said that, at
any rate, no lives were lost in consequence of their acts. If
_, . . lives had been lost in consequence of their acts,
to kju these men would have been indicted, not for
treason, but for murder, and they would have
suffered, and most justly suffered, the extreme penalty of the
law. I will deal in a moment with the question whether these
are, in the strict sense of the word, political offences; but,
leaving that out of view for the moment, I cannot conceive any
more heinous offence than that of which these men were con
victed. Short of murder itself, short of the actual taking away
of human life, men who for months had occupied themselves
devising machines by means of which property should be
destroyed and life would in all probability be taken, without

The Imprisoned Dynamiters 27
any regard whatsoever to the innocence or guilt, the respon
sibility or the absence from responsibility of those who would
be the victims — these men are, in my opinion, guilty of one of
the most criminal offences against Society itself. There can
be no doubt or ambiguity upon this matter. So long as I hold
the position which I do, and so long as I am responsible for
the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, there is not one who
shall receive any different treatment or whose sentence shall
be sooner interfered with than that of any other criminal now
lying in her Majesty's gaols.
Before I sit down I will deal with . the allegation that,
because these are persons convicted of political offences, some
different measure of justice or of consideration
Poli.. al & ought to be meted out to them. I confess I
Offence? should be glad if the hon. gentleman had sup
plied us with a definition of a political offence.
Is one to be regarded as a political prisoner who commits a
crime from a political motive?
Mr. J. REDMOND. — I read a definition accepted and acted
upon by the Court of Queen's Bench.
Mr. ASQUITH.— A definition which, with all respect, did
not help us in the very least in the case with which we are
dealing. Let me give a crucial case — the Phoenix Park mur
derers. If ever there was a crime which was committed from
a political motive it was the Phcenix Park murders. Are the
Phoenix Park murderers to be 'regarded as political prisoners ?
Is their crime to be treated as a political offence ? In the
opinion of hon. gentlemen, are those of them whose lives have
been spared to be dealt with on any different footing and to
be treated with any greater indulgence than the ordinary mur
derer who finds himself in the same position to-day ? That is a
question which I trust we shall have answered in the course
of the debate. In my judgment the matter is a very simple
one. You have to look in these cases not to the motive, but
the method by which the crime is carried out. When persons,
instead of doing, as political offenders in the strict sense have
been in the habit of doing, as the men of '48 and '67 did —
instead of going out into the open field and meeting by force
of arms the men to whom they were politically opposed — when
they resort to assassination and to dynamite, I say they are just
as much outside the pale of political offences as the man
who in time of war goes and poisons the stream disentitles

28 The Imprisoned Dynamiters
himself to be treated as a prisoner of war. The hon. gentle
man has told us that England has always been the asylum for
the refugees of foreign countries. Yes, sir; but England has
never been the asylum, and I trust, never will be the asylum,
for men who are taking part, and an active part, in warfare
against society. Orsini ! He was never in England at all, so
far as I know; but I will give the hon. member a case with
which I dealt not more than three weeks ago — the case of the
anarchist Francois, who came over from Paris, and was an
accomplice of Ravachol in outrages of a precisely similar kind.
That man, Mr. Speaker, came here a refugee from France. I
need not say that the Government had not a moment's hesita
tion in handing him over to the French authorities to be dealt
with for the political crime he had committed. We mete out
to Irishmen no different treatment from that which we mete
.out to subjects of friendly States and our own citizens.
I ask hon. gentlemen to believe that to me it is a painful
and repugnant duty to have to make the speech I have made
No Amnesty nere to-night. It is a far easier thing to be
for the what is called clement, to take a lenient and
Dynamiter or humane view of offences, and to let people out
Assassin of gaoj_ But) sirj we j.ave a dut__ tQ discharge
at whatever cost. For my part, and this is the last word I can
say to the House on the subject, I say it both with reference
to the future — persons who resort to this mode of warfare
against Society, who use dynamite as their instrument, who
proceed in their methods with reckless disregard of life and the
safety of the weak, the innocent, and the helpless, are persons
who deserve, and will receive, no consideration or indulgence
from any British Government.

III.
THE IRISH HOME RULE BILL.
(From The Times, April 15, 1893.)
[On the Second Reading of Mr. Gladstones second Home Rule Bill
in the Commons, April 14, i8gjZ\
This debate, sir, has now gone on for a week, and I sup
pose we are entitled to assume that we aie up to this time in
possession, at any rate in its main and leading features, of the
case which has to be made against the proposals of Her
Majesty's Government. In that case I shall endeavour in the
observations I am about to address to the House to meet it not
by declamation, but by argument ; and if out of the multitude
of topics which have been traversed in the course of the dis
cussion I select only a few, I trust that I may fairly ask that
the omission may not be deemed to be due to a want of willing
ness, or to conscious inability, but to the exigencies of the time
and the imperative demands of the general convenience of the
House.
The Alleged ^ Put on one s^e at t^le outset an argument
Unfitness of which seems to me to underlie a very large pro-
Ireland for portion of the speeches which have been made
~e"" against this Bill, and which is founded on the
supposed incapacity, natural or acquired, of the
Irish people in any condition whatsoever to enjoy and exercise
free institutions. If it be true, as we have been told, that the
majority of the Irish nation are penetrated with an undying
hatred of Great Britain ; if it be true that they desire the
power of self-government, and that they will use it solely or
mainly as an instrument for oppressing their fellow-citizens,
or as a leverage for the dislocation and ultimate severance of
our Imperial unity — while I agree that this Bill would then be
shown to rest on an utterly unsound foundation, yet I must add
that the argument carries those who use it a great deal further.
It would constitute, if it were well-founded, the most damning
accusation that has ever been levied against the working of the

30 The Irish Home Rule Bill
Act of Union and against the British systeim of government in
Ireland. But over and above that, if those assumptions are
correct, what are we to say of the wisdom and of the statesman
ship of those who only a year ago proposed to plant in this
demoralised atmosphere a whole system of local institutions,
flimsy and ill-constructed as we believe them to be, but quite
sufficient to afford a most formidable vantage ground for the
predatory and disloyal instincts of such a people as has been
pictured to us ? Nay, further, we cannot forget that only nine
years ago both parties in this House combined to give to these
very people for the first time in their history the privilege of
exercising a free and democratic suffrage. Is it not the fact
that both in this House and in the House of Lords that pro
posal to extend the suffrage to the people of Ireland was
carried here by an overwhelming majority, and in the House
of Lords without, I believe, any division at all ? Has the hon.
member forgotten the speech of the noble lord the member*
for South Paddington, one of the strongest opponents of this
Bill ? Has he forgotten that speech in which the noble lord
proved conclusively, at least to his own satisfaction and that of
the great .majority of this House, that the denial of suffrage to
the Irish people was no longer either politic or possible ? Those
people who are described in the speeches we have heard as the
inveterate and irreconcilable enemies of Great Britain are here
encamped in the midst of your household, as able now as if
this Bill were passed bj' the power of free representation given
to them to hold the balance between parties and to determine
the fortunes of. the Empire. I agree with what was said by the
hon. membert for Waterford last night. If the assumptions ,
which underlie the great bulk of your arguments are true, they
would not only compel you to reject Home Rule, but also to
disfranchise the majority of the Irish people. The truth is that
hon. members opposite do not believe in those arguments, and
the proof is that they have not the courage or the consistency
to act upon them.
Unionist I w^ Pass over another argument which has
Insincerity assumed considerable proportions in the debate
Towards —the argument that by this measure we propose
Ireland t0 hand over the government of Ireland to a
body of unscrupulous and discredited leaders of the Irish
* Lord Randolph Churchill. f Mr. J ' . Redmond.

The Irish Home Rule Bill 31
National party. The right hon. member for West Birming
ham, who apparently cannot find more profitable employment
for his energies, has, I see, been going about scavenging in
the dust-heap 
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.— Your speeches.
Mr. ASQUITH. — Of speeches of Irish members, and glee
fully piecing together angry phrases dropped upon Irish plat
forms in moments of exasperation and despair. That, sir, is
my right hon. friend's latest contribution to the settlement of
this great international controversy. Does he need to be re
minded,, as he was reminded by the hon. member for Water
ford last night in his absence, that in 1885 — ay, as. late as the
beginning of 1886 — he himself was the author of proposals to
entrust .to those very men — ay, and to their leader, Mr. Par
nell: — the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland? One of the
right hon. gentleman's colleagues, the right hon. member*' for
Bodmin, whom we all admire and appreciate for his clear,
dispassionate judgment, only last night, in his contribution to
the solution of this great question, proposed that the control of
the resources of the Irish Government should be placed in the
hands of the hon. member for North Kerry,t one of those very
persons whom the right hon. member for West Birmingham
thinks so discredited and untrustworthy. The truth is that my '
right hon. friend the member for West Birmingham was ready
to do in 1886 what the right hon. member for Bodmin, to his
credit, is ready to do to-day,' and which all you opposite would
be perfectly prepared to do to-morrow as soon as the exigen
cies of party permitted. I am not going to waste time on these
irrelevant discussions, because the whole of this language is
transparently insincere. It does not lie in the mouths of those
who were parties to the enfranchisement of the Irish people,
those who have been parties to co-operation and negotiations
with the men whom they now denounce, to make this objection
to the measure we have submitted.
In 1884 the franchise was given to the Irish
The 'fish people. Up to that time they had no authentic
Demand for c _•_ _¦ 1 • c • • t
Home Rule organ of constitutional expression of opinion of
their wishes and demands. In the election of
1885, and again in 1886, and for the third time in 1892, the
great majority of the Irish people have declared through their
freely and constitutionally chosen representatives that nothing
* Mr. Leonard Courtney. t Mr. T. Sexton.

32 The Irish Home Rule Bill
short of a measure of national self-government would satisfy
the demands of the Irish people. I have never said that that
demand, striking, unmistakable, formidable as it is, is con
clusive on the question. If it can be shown to be impossible
to reconcile compliance with it and the maintenance of Im
perial unity and with the protection of the just rights of the'
minority in Ireland, I, for one, would never be a party to
accede to it. But the real question we have to consider is —
and I do not, think any right hon. gentleman opposite would
deny it — whether, in face of that demand, it is possible to
devise a scheme, and whether, if it be possible, such a scheme
has been devised in the Bill now before the House which .
should reconcile on the one side the unmistakable wishes of
the Irish people with the great Imperial interests and con
siderations of justice which we in this House are always bound
to consider. That is the question to which I propose to address
myself. Before doing so, however, I make one observation with
reference to the course of this debate. We have been charged
Unionist w^ holding back from the discussion, most un-
Criticism reasonably as it appears to me. But, if we have
Self- held back, I think we could have had an ample
Destructive justification for doing so, because the longer
the controversy developed the more apparent it becomes that
the criticisms of our opponents answer one another. Take two
illustrations. We are told with reference to this Bill by the
same set of critics that, while it takes far too much from Great
Britain to be tolerable in the interests of Imperial unity, it
gives far too little to Ireland to satisfy her desire. We are
told by the same people that it makes Ireland master of Great
Britain, and yet that it leaves the Irish people impotent and
unsatisfied in their own country. In other words, it puts Eng
land at the mercy of Ireland, while it leaves Ireland at the
mercy of England. Now, sir, I will try to substantiate what I
have said.
Lord * am Slad to see the noble lord the member
Randolph for Paddington has returned safe and sound
Churchill's from his provincial tour. The noble lord,
criticisms whatever we may say of him, certainly never
minces his words. His adjectives are always in the superlative
degree, and his verbs are never in the conditional mood. I
do not think I am doing an injustice to the noble lord when I

The Irish Home Rule Bill 33
say that I summarise the criticisms which he has been making
upon this Bill in the country in the course of the last fort
night — when I say that he has asked the country to believe
that it is the proposal of a Government of lunatics, by lunatics,
for lunatics. [Lord R. Churchill : " Is that a quotation ? "]
No, it is a summary. I admire as much as it is possible to do
the noble lord's full-blooded rhetoric, though I confess when I
read his performances at Perth and Liverpool I could not help
thinking of that over-conscientious artist who, finding himself
cast for the part of Othello, thought it necessary to black over
the whole of his body. What did the noble lord say? I am
quoting his exact words. In his speech at Liverpool he said : —
" Ireland under its own Parliament is intended under the
Home Rule Bill to provide everything for itself. Under that
Bill we English are prohibited from providing anything for
ourselves, except in the manner and according to the methods
which may be convenient to the Irish people. That is gospel
truth about the Bill."
Now, sir, I will come to another exposition of the gospel truth
about this Bill, and I take no less a person than the leader of
the Opposition, and read a few words from the speech he made
at Belfast on April 4th. "The Nationalist section," said the
right hon. gentleman, " will never be content, and I go further,
ought never to be content — cannot logically or reasonably be
expected to be content — with the paltry and beggarly contri
bution to nationality which this Home Rule Bill gives them."
In other words, sir, we see the measure which the right hon.
gentleman takes of the Irish demand. The Bill, which, ac
cording to his noble colleague, enables the Irish people to
provide everything for themselves and prohibits the English
people from providing anything for themselves, except in the
manner and according to the methods which may be convenient
to the Irish, is such a paltry and beggarly contribution to Irish
nationality that it was not worth their while to accept it.
Lord R. CHURCHILL.— My contention was that while the
restrictions and exceptions in the Bill, if they could be carried
out, would be such as Ireland could not accept, they were alto
gether neutralised by the powers given to Ireland which would
enable her to make those restrictions and exceptions utterly
nugatory and impotent.
Mr. ASQUITH. — The noble lord's explanation does not
C

34 The Irish Home Rule Bill
carry the matter one step further. What I say is that two
statements I have quoted cannot both be true, that one or other
of them might be true, but that they cannot both be true at the
same time. Now, sir, I take the criticisms that have been
passed upon the finances of the Bill. I am not
The Financial g0ing myself into the details of the question of
roposa s finance, because, as I have already said, I can
not cover the entire ground. But in reference to finance there
are two principles which we believe to be recognised in the
Bill, but, whether they are recognised in the 'Bill or not, we
regard them as essential. These principles are : First, that
Ireland should pay a fair contribution to the Imperial expendi
ture ; and next, that Ireland should be left with adequate
resources far the proper management of her own affairs.
Whether or not the scheme contained in the Bill effectually
carries out these principles is a matter for discussion upon
which a great ideal may be said. But the arguments against
the scheme in the Bill are absolutely destructive of one
another, because we are told on the one side that the scheme
is unjust to Great Britain, and at the same time that it is
ungenerous to Ireland. The contributions proposed by the
Bill may be too. low or too high ; the taxable resources which
are left under the control of the Irish Parliament may be insuf-
ficent, but it will pass the wit of man to prove to the satisfac
tion of this House and to the country that both these proposi
tions are true at the same time. The fact is that the Unionist
case as it has at present been presented to the country is a
chaos of contradictions. It is exactly analogous to the case
we are constantly hearing about in and out of the House with
reference to the general question of Home Rule, and which
tells us in one and the same breath that Home Rule has been
imposed upon the Liberal party by the iron determination and
the imperious will of my right hon. friend dealing with a set
of subservient items, and then in fhe next breath pictures my
right hon. friend as reduced to the most degrading and cor
rupt expedients for the purpose of purchasing the allegiance
of a mercenary body to his policy.
I will endeavour to answer what I conceive fo
The Three j,e j^g three main controversies involved in
Controversies this Bil1, In the first PIace l wish to ask> Is
the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament effec
tually maintained? Next, Do we give by this Bill to Ireland

The Irish Home Rule Bill 35
a real and genuine autonomy? And thirdly, Do we offer
adequate safeguards for the protection of the Irish minority?
If these three questions can be answered in the affirmative,- and
_ if it can be shown that this Bill does answer them in, the affir
mative, then I think we have proved the only propositions
which it is incumbent on us to make out.
Imperial ^ take, first of all, the Imperial supremacy. A
Supremacy sentence of mine used some years ago in an
Must Be address to my constituents has been frequently
c"f 'S rt cruoted in the gourse of this debate, and I am very
a eguar e glad that I said anything so sound and sensible.
The sentence was that no measure of Home Rule would be satis
factory which did not maintain unimpaired, unquestioned, and
unquestionable the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament
over all persons and all matters, whether local or Imperial.
To that proposition I entirely adhere ; and if I did not think
that this Bill gave effect to it I would have been no party to
the introduction of it or record my vote for its second reading.
Since the Act of Union we have had one Sovereign Parliament,
not only for this United Kingdom, but for the whole of the
British Empire. The Bill proceeds, not to split that sove
reignty into parts, not to impair or to divide it, not to surrender
to any other body any of the powers which are necessarily
involved in it, but it proceeds to delegate for specific purposes,
and in a particular locality, certain powers, the exercise of
which by a subordinate Legislature is perfectly consistent with
the retention of the supreme authority of the sovereign power
which conferred it.
In order to make this matter plain, let me remind the House
of some of the arguments used in the discussions on the Bill.
In 1886 my right hon. and learned friend* the member for
What Bury, whom I do not see in his place, made a
Imperial very powerful and able speech against the Bill
Supremacy of that year, in which he attacked it mainly on
Means tjje ground that it was inconsistent with the
maintenance of the supremacy of this Parliament. He then
laid down three tests. He said the first question is this : Does
there remain a power which can make identical laws for the
whole of the United Kingdom? I will quote his exact words.
He said : " The real unity pf a kingdom must depend upon the
* Sir Henry (now Lord) James.

36 The Irish Home Rule Bill
unity of its laws. I do not mean by that that there must be an
identity of laws. . . But what I mean is that there must be a
power which can make identical laws for a kingdom supposed
to be united. It is not the identity of manufacture ; it is the
identity of the manufacturing power that makes the unity of
the kingdom."
The second question was : Is the supremacy of the Parlia
ment expressly declared by the Bill ? And my right hon.
friend answered that question in the negative.
The third question was : Can the Parliament, after a mea
sure is passed which it is alleged will be subordinate to the
Imperial Parliament, alter by its own act its own constitution?
My right hon. friend * the member for West Birmingham, who
took the same objection to the Bill of 1886, and said it did not
adequately preserve the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament,
applied a different test. The right hon. gentleman said : —
" The fact is that there are two conditions necessary for
maintaining, without weakening or throwing doubt upon it, the
supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. The first is that they
shall have their full, complete, and continuous representation
in this House. The second is that the local legislative body
or bodies to be created shall be admittedly from the first
subordinate bodies. If they are co-ordinate and equal, you
cannot have supremacy."
I have reminded the House of these arguments for the pur
pose of showing that whichever of these tests you apply to the
present Bill they are equally and in the same sense satisfac
tory. First of all, the continued supremacy of Parliament is
expressly declared. [Sir E. Clarke: "Where?"] In the
preamble. [Sir E. Clarke: "It is not declared."] I am sur
prised that the late Solicitor-General interrupts my argument
with an observation of that kind.
Sir E. CLARKE. — I said it is not declared.
Mr. ASQUITH. — With all deference to my hon. and learned
friend, I say that it is declared, apd that it would be impos
sible for any Court before which the construction of the Bill
might come to ignore the words which stand in the very fore
front of the preamble, which recites that all the powers con
ferred by the Bill are conferred subject to the unimpaired
maintenance of the Imperial supremacy of this Parliament.
* Mr. Chamberlain.

The Irish Home Rule Bill 37
We have had many extraordinary doctrines promulgated as to
the functions of the preamble. Ever since the days of Lord
Coke it has been well said that the preamble is the keynote
of the statute. While I agree that if there were express enact
ments in the statute which were inconsistent with the main
tenance of the general supremacy the preamble would give
way, yet if there were no such enactments, or if those enact
ments were not such as were admitted to be vital to the Bill,
the express declaration in the preamble would override them.
But if hon. members are in doubt, let them bring up a clause ;
if they wish to make such an unnecessary declaration, let them
bring up a clause, to be inserted in the body of the Bill, say
ing that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament is preserved,
and I think I may say on the part of the Government that the
clause will not meet with opposition.
Applying another of the tests of the right hon.
of thelrish0" member for West Birmingham, I say that we
Members secure under this Bill a full and continued re
presentation of the Irish members. For my
own part I regard this question of the retention of the Irish
members as vital to the Bill. Before the introduction of the
Bill I pledged myself — and I suppose the great bulk of hon.
members sitting behind me did the same — that in any measure
of Home Rule that might be submitted to Parliament it would
be an essential ingredient that the representation of Ireland
in this House should continue. I. say nothing as to the precise
form and mode of that retention, for that, after all, is a mere
matter of adjustment. There are two plans, and only two.
One is that the Irish members should be here for all purposes,
and the other that they should be here for Irish and Imperial
purposes only. There is a good deal to be said for each plan,
but practically the difference between them is very slight, for
we have been told over and over again that even if the Irish
members cannot vote in connection with purely British affairs,
they will in fact be able to control the British policy of the
Imperial Government in consequence of their power to take
part in divisions on motions of confidence. But the essential
point, as I have said, is not the precise mode or form of reten
tion, but that the Irish members should be still here in a pro
portion fully adequate to the population of their country.
I say, thirdly, that under this Bill — applying again the tests
of 1886 — the Imperial Parliament has a continued and unim-

38 The Irish Home Rule Bill
The Imperial paired power of legislating for the whole
Parliament Empire, including Ireland. I refer hon. mem-
Rnd ^v bers to a clause which has not received sufficient
oya e ° attention, the 33rd clause. If the language of
that clause is regarded, it will be seen that the Irish Legis
lature is expressly disabled from repealing or altering any law
hereafter enacted by the Imperial Parliament, and expressly
extended to Ireland. So it is clear that the power of the
Imperial Parliament to legislate for Ireland is preserved, and
that the Irish House of Commons will not have the right to
alter even one letter or comma in an Act of Parliament passed
here. Finally, I say that there is reserved under this Bill, as
a last safeguard for the maintenance of the Imperial supre
macy, the veto of" the Lord-Lieutenant, which is exercised upon
the instructions and in accordance with the wishes of the
Imperial Government. I do not think it will be denied by any
candid critic of the Bill that, having regard to the considera
tions which I have enumerated, there is upon the face of this
measure a complete and adequate recognition of the necessity
of maintaining the Imperial supremacy.
The argument which is addressed to us, as I
No Surrender understand it, is this—that if the Bill contains
of Imperial ., . . , T . ,
Authority principle of Imperial supremacy, it is a
paper supremacy only, which for two reasons
will never in fact be enforced. Now, what are those reasons?
In the first place it is said that this is an academic recognition
of the supremacy of Parliament, and that the principle is only
assented to by hon. members from Ireland upon the condition
that it shall never- be carried into effect. Since declarations
of my own have been referred to, I may perhaps point out that
I have over and over again in the course of this controversy —
and so, I am sure, have a number of my right hon. friends —
I have over and over again, whilst insisting in the strongest
terms on the continued maintenance of the Imperial supre
macy, declared that I meant by supremacy, not that we should
make a practice of meddling and peddling interference with
Irish administration and Irish legislation, but that there should
be always held in reserve, to be used in cases of emergency and
of grave necessity, a power in this House to override unjust
legislation and to correct oppression and wrong. I myself do
not believe that an occasion for the exercise of that power is
iikely to arise. If I thought that the effect of passing this

The Irish Home Rule Bill 39
Bill would be that, whilst we should have in Ireland an Irish
Legislature and an Irish Administration attending to Irish
affairs, we should here, far away from the spot, in ignorance
of local conditions, out of touch with local sentiments — we
should here waste our time in overhauling the trumpery and
trivial everyday acts of the Irish Government — -I, for one,
would not vote for the measure, because we should get none of
the advantages of Home Rule, and the drawbacks of the exist
ing situation would be multiplied. That is not what we mean
by supremacy. What we mean is that we will not surrender
over any part of Her Majesty's dominions the ultimate power
which must reside in the Imperial authority — to be exercised
directly, constitutionally, and only upon fitting and grave
occasion — the ultimate power of interfering to make the will of
that Imperial authority felt.
Let me inquire what truth there is in the suggestion that the
Imperial' supremacy is not accepted in Ireland in the same
The Irish sense in which it is viewed by us. The right
View of hon. member for West Birmingham threw
Imperial down a challenge the other night that could be
Supremacy taken up very easily. He threw down a chal
lenge to hon. members from Ireland, asking them to get up
and say that they understood Imperial supremacy in the same
sense in which the Prime Minister and the Liberal party
understood it. My right hon. friend had not long to wait for
his answer. A night or two afterwards we heard that most
remarkable and memorable speech from the hon. member*
for North-East Cork, in which he declared in the fullest and
frankest terms that he did accept Imperial supremacy in
that sense, and that he, would not question it or quarrel with
it. Then last night we had a speech equally remarkable
from the hon. and learned gentleman the member t for Water
ford, the leader of what is called the advanced or extreme sec
tion of *he Nationalist party, and he declared in almost identical
terms that he accepted Imperial supremacy in ithat sense also.
The only " serious menace which has been
The Unionist offered by anybody to this part of the Bill has
MaJm the Bill come from the $ lea(ier of the Opposition, who
said in his speech on the first reading:' —
" You may think, if you please, that under this Bill the Irish
* Mr. W. Abraham. f Mr. J. Redmond. %Mr. A. Balfour.^

40 The Irish Home Rule Bill
Administration and Legislature are going to carry on their
affairs in their own way, but you are reckoning without your
host"; and then the right hon. gentleman gave us to under
stand that a Tory majority, when such a majority was re
turned, would undertake the task of continuous supervision
over and perpetual interference with the action of the Irish
Legislature. I have two observations to make upon this. In
the first place, I think better of the patriotism and good Sense
of the right hon. gentleman's party than he seems to do. They
may oppose this Bill to the end, as they are entitled to do, and
in their opposition they may exhaust the resources which the
Constitution places at their disposal, but I venture to say that
when once this Bill has been placed upon the Statute-Book the
Tory party will honestly and loyally and constitutionally help
to carry it out. They acted in that way in the case of the
Reform Bill of 1832, in the case of free trade in 1846, and in
the case of the disestablishment of the Irish Church in 1869.
Every one of these measures was quite as hotly opposed by
the Tory party as the Bill now before the House, and on very
much the same grounds, but no attempt has been made, to
their honour be it said, either to repeal those great measures
or by factious or arbitrary proceedings in this House to inter
fere with their action. Therefore, in the interests of historical
accuracy, I feel bound to vindicate the Tory party against the
aspersions and calumny of their leader. I have another obser
vation to make with reference to the right hon. gentleman's
threat. He also will have somebody to reckon with — namely,
the people of Great Britain. Does he seriously suppose that
when a Parliament representing the majority of the people has
passed this or a similar Bill into law, the British people,
thoroughly understanding the circumstances of the case, and
having deliberately assented to the proposal, would tolerate
that the right hon. gentleman's party or any other should
deliberately persist in rendering the measure nugatory?
Another argument used by the opponents of this Bill is that
the Imperial Government, in the exercise of the supremacy
nominally conferred upon it, will have no executive force at its
disposal. That is an argument entirely with-
ofthPT^eh °Ut foundation- How does it: stand under the
Executive3 fifth clause of the Bm ? That clause says that
" the executive power in Ireland shall continue
vested in Her Majesty the Queen, and the Lord-Lieutenant on

The Irish Home Rule Bill 41
behalf of Her Majesty, shall exercise any prerogative or other
executive powers of the Queen, the exercise of which shall be
delegated by Her Majesty." What does that mean? It means
that, except to the extent to which the Queen delegates to the
Lord-Lieutenant executive authority in Ireland, full and com
plete executive authority remains in her. I am not suggesting
for a moment that we are going to set up in Ireland two inde
pendent and separate Executives. I think the granting of
Home Rule in any intelligible sense would be entirely incom
plete if it were not supplemented by the granting of executive
power ; and in my judgment the executive in Ireland is
intended to be, and must be, dependent upon and responsible
to the Irish Legislature in Irish affairs. But that does not in
the least prevent the retention in the Crown of the executive
government of the United Kingdom, as it was provided in this
Bill such executive authority as is necessary for the execution
of the Imperial laws. Let me turn to the 19th section of the
Bill, which provides for the appointment of two Exchequer
judges, and that all legal proceedings in Ireland which touch
any matter not within the powers of the Irish Legislature, or
which touch any matter affecting laws which the Irish Legis
lature has a power to repeal or to alter, shall be heard and
determined by those judges. Therefore, if any question arises
or conflicts taike place between the Imperial Legislature on
the one side and the Irish Legislature on the other, it can, at
the instance of any party, be brought before this Court of
Exchequer judges, and an appeal will lie from them, not to an
Irish tribunal, but to' the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council. How are they to execute that decree ? That is a
very pertinent question which I propose to answer. We have
heard a great deal in the course of this debate in reference to
the Constitution of the United States. In the
The Instance United States you have exactly, mutatis
1 1 •£._! c_ *  mutandis, the same state of things. You have
United States ,_,,., . , . , _-. , .....
the Federal Legislature with a Federal judiciary
entrusted with the execution of Federal laws, with very large
powers of jurisdiction, where any conflict arises between the
laws of particular States and the Federal laws. On the other
side you have got a State Legislature with a State judicature
and a State Executive. The Constitution of the. United States
is absolutely silent as to the question of how the decrees are to
be executed. As a matter of fact, we know that the United

42 The Irish Home Rule Bill
States have provided, as it will be perfectly in the power of the
Imperial Parliament under this Bill to do, should occasion
arise, for Federal marshals and other executive officers to
execute the decrees of the Federal Court. I do not anticipate
any such oocasion, but, should it arise, it will be the duty of
every officer of the law in Ireland, every sheriff, every sub-
sheriff, every bailiff, every policeman — it will be his duty — a
duty for the non-performance of which he will be liable to be
indicted and convicted — to render assistance in the execution
of the decrees of the Exchequer judges and the enforcement
of the law of the Imperial Parliament. It is really taxing
one's credulity to ask one to believe that a powter which has
expressly reserved to it under this Bill the executive authority,
which has complete and absolute control of the whole of the
military and naval forces of the Crown, which can call upon
the officers of the Irish Executive to carry out its decrees, and,
in case of default by them, can appoint officers of its own for
the purpose — it is, I say, taxing our credulity to ask me to
believe that a power so endowed and equipped as that will
not be able to enforce to the last extent every law which this
Imperial Parliament may pass.
Now, sir, I pass on from that to another
? matter. The second question, with which, I
Ensured hope, I can deal more briefly, is the question
whether or not this Bill does give to Ireland a
real and genuine autonomy. In my judgment that is quite as
important as the other question, because I do not think it is of
the least use to enter into a controversy of this kind unless
you can give legitimate satisfaction to the constitutionally
expressed demand of the great bulk of the Irish, nation. It is
a significant fact that the argument that the Bill does not give
such an autonomy does not in the least degree proceed from
the Irish members. We have not heard in the course of the
debate a single complaint from the Irish members that there
is any undue restriction on the Irish Legislature or Executive.
It is the over-tender susceptibility, it is the exuberant and, I
venture to say, the almost unreasoning sympathy of the right
hon. gentleman* sitting on that bench for Irish nationality
which has dictated all these complaints as to the poverty and
beggarliness of the Constitution. What does he tell us?
* Mr. Chamberlain.

The Irish Home Rule Bill 43
"Ireland," my right hon. friend the member for West Bir
mingham says, " claims to be a nation. What are we giving
under this Bill that is worthy of aoceptance by a nation?
There is no separate flag, no army, no navy, no control over
Customs, no power to interfere with external trade, no right to
enter into diplomatic relations with foreign Governments."
My right hon. friend says that a country deprived of all these
things cannot be said to be in any full and legitimate sense of
the word a nation, cannot be said, according to the practice of
the world, to have self-government or autonomy, and in sup
port of that argument — I try to state the case as strongly as 1
can against myself — two considerations are adduced.
In the first place we are pointed to the colonies, and we are
told that there are none of our self-governing colonies that
do not possess some of the powers, at all events,
What Ireland that we are withholding from Ireland in this
Bill. The right hon. gentleman* the late
Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking at Manchester the
other day, said that the colonies have what he described as
fiscal liberty, educational freedom, and power to have armed
forces at their own disposal. Secondly, we are referred to the
aspiration of the Irish National leaders in the past and their
declarations of what they intended to have, and wg are told
that they would never be content to receive what we offer by
this Bill without some, at any rate, of the things that are with
held by it. In answer to that I have to say, first, that right-
hon. gentlemen have evolved from their own consciences a con
ception of a nation, and then they proceed to endow the nation
with a number of powers, some of which are and many are not
possessed by a large number of self-governing countries of the
world. Then, because they do not find the counterpart of
their imaginary nation equipped with these hypothetical
powers in the Bill of the Government, they declare that the
Bill must fail to give what the Irish people really require.
The answer to that is easy. In the first place, Ireland will
under this Bill have a complete and continued and just share,
through her representation in this House, in the control of
every one of those matters — the Army, the Navy, Customs,
trade, foreign relations. [Lord R. Churchill : " Hear, hear."]
The noble lord cheers. I am glad he cheered that, because
* Mr. Goschen.

44 The Irish Home Rule Bill
it reminds me of what he • said at Perth the other day. He
said: "You will find that Ireland would retain over the
charges for Imperial defence and foreign affairs and all Im
perial matters all those matters excluded from the Irish Par
liament, just as much control as she ever had before, and as
much power relatively to the power of England and Scotland
as she would have if this Bill never became law." Therefore,
according to the concessions of the noble lord, Ireland,
through her continued representation here, is to have her full
and adequate share in every one of those matters not delegated
to the Irish Parliament, and yet we are told that Ireland is to
complain that these things are to be taken away from the Irish
Parliament, and that she will be left stranded with a sort of
denuded nationality on the other side of the Channel. But
that does not conclude the matter. My right hon. friend the
member for West Birmingham was good enough in the course
of his speech on the second reading of the Bill to answer in
advance the argument drawn from the colonies. He says :
" Does any one doubt that if Ireland was 1,000 miles from
England she would have been long before a self-governing
colony ? Her political situation is controlled by her. geo
graphical position." That is perfectly true, and the reason
why these^restrictions, which are not imposed on the power of
the Legislatures of self-governing colonies, are imposed' upon
and accepted by Ireland is because her geographical situation
renders it unnecessary and inconvenient both to herself and to
us that she should possess them. She is able to continue her
representation here and to deal with them for herself.
a „._,»;,-.,., Now, sir, with reference to the restrictions
/nrnt.ri(.an . -
Precedent themselves, I am not going to deal with them in
for the detail ; but I say of them as a whole that, with
Restrictions one or two apparently unimportant exceptions,
on Ireland there is not one tllat ig not tQ be found jn the
constitution of the United States. That is a very important
fact. In the United States you have a number of self-govern
ing communities. They are geographically united, just as
Ireland is geographically united to us, and the framers of that
Constitution therefore found it necessary to provide, and they
did provide, that it should not be within the constitutional
competence of the Legislatures of . the respective States to
impose Customs and import duties. Why should Ireland object
to these restrictions? She does not object, and why should

The Irish Home Rule Bill 45
you object for her to restrictions which are imposed by the
Sovereign State, which are part and parcel of the American
Constitution, and which, with one or two exceptions, from the
very remote period of their imposition, have never occasioned
any trouble or friction ?
Are these restrictions, or are they not accepted, and will they
or will they, not work ? In my opinion, the only true and
statesmanlike test that you can apply is to ask whether the
powers withheld from the Irish Legislature .are powers the
absence of which will, under the conditions of the case, be
injurious to effective self-government ; and whether they are
powers the absence of which will be resented by a self-govern
ing nation? Unless you can make out one or other of these
two propositions, you have no cause of objection to the restric
tions and exceptions made in the Bill.
We have been told by the member for North-East Cork, and
by the member for Waterford, that while they did not accept
any doctrine of finality in politics — neither do I,
Ireland's -nor, I trust, does any member of this House —
Acceptance wnile they do not accept any doctrine of finality
of the Bill in politics, while they have no power and would
have no disposition to bind either their consti
tuents or those who come after them never to propose to alter
any clause or any provision of this Bill — they would be mad
men if they entered into any such arrangement — they are
perfectly content, speaking for themselves and for their con
stituents, to accept this measure, and to work it honestly and
constitutionally as the basis of future relations between the two
countries. With that assurance I, for one, am perfectly con
tent. I do not think we could require, I do not think they
would be justified in giving more. Hon. gentlemen who sneer
either at our credulity or at what they consider the insincerity
of the Irish members. I should like to know what impression
was produced on their minds by the speech of the hon. member*
for North-East Cork the other night. I do not think a more
remarkable spectacle has ever been witnessed in this House
than the hon. gentleman, as he honestly and frankly avowed,
an old rebel and corispirator against the British Crown, who
has been won over.
I must say it would be impossible for any one who listened
* Mr. W. Abraham (-vide p. 39J.

46 The Irish Home Rule Bill /
to the speech of the hon. gentleman, with his frank
and manly avowals of his own past, with his declaration that
he had been won over from the policy which aimed at separa
tion and independence to the policy initiated by the Prime
Minister, not to recognise in his tone accents of sincerity
and of conviction. You may say that he spoke as an individual
and only for himself, but the hon. gentleman is a type of a very
large portion of the people of Ireland. There could be no
more significant proof of the change which has been wrought in
the deep underlying sentiment of the Irish people that men who
twenty years ago saw their only possible chance of national
regeneration in fighting in the open field or in the underground
methods of conspiracy, now become members of this House,
prepared to take, and to take in sincerity, the oath of allegiance
to the Crown, and are ready to accept a measure which, while
it gives full satisfaction to whatever is legitimate and urgent
in the demand of Irish nationality, at the same time maintains
unbroken and unimpaired the share of Ireland in her common
heritage in this great Empire. ,
The right hon. gentleman accuses us of a sentimental
optimism ; he cannot understand how we should be credulous
enough to accept any assurances of this kind.
Declared * wil1 make a concession to my right hon. friend.
Good Faith * wil1 agree that, given perversity on the one
side, and pedantry upon the other, it would
be perfectly possible to wreck the constitution which is set up
by this Bill. If you imagine the Irish people so dead to the
sense of their own interests that they use their Legislature as an
instrument for oppression ; if you imagine the English people
so blind to the traditions of their own Constitution that they
insist on a perpetual and meddlesome interference with the
affairs of Ireland, then I agree that no assurances, however
solemn and sincere, can possibly be of any avail. The dif
ference between my right hon. friend and ourselves is that we
believe in the good faith, in the common sense, and in the
self-interests of two great nations. That I agree, . and that
alone, is the ultimate security for the safe and smooth working
of the Bill as it is for the safe and smooth working of any free
constitution in the civilised world. Not very long ago it was
said by a great man that it was a difficult thing to draw up an
indictment against a nation. My right hon. friend is ready
to draw up an indictment against two nations. He is equally

The Irish Home Rule Bill 47
sceptical of the good sense of Ireland, and of the good sense
of Great Britain, and if it be credulity, if it be optimism, to
assume, what we all assume in all our legislative proceedings
every day, that these things lie at the basis of our political life,
then I would rather incur the charge of credulity at the hands
of my right hon. friend than be a sharer in his superior and
invincible scepticism.
I will say a few words on the third and last point with which
I intend to deal — namely, the question of Ulster and the pro-
Ulster : tection of the minority. I have never denied,
Protection and never will deny, that the opposition, not of
of the_ Ulster, but of a portion of the people of Ulster,
Minority t0 tj.j,s Bill is a very serious fact. I do not
sympathise with the scoffing language which has sometimes
been used of a legitimate, though, I believe, utterly mistaken,
sentiment. But let us clearly appreciate what is the extent and
scope of the opposition with which we have to deal. The hon.
member* for Mid Armagh, in his very interesting speech, used
what seemed to me .a somewhat infelicitous comparison. He
reminded us that in point of area and in point of population
Ulster is about the equivalent of Wales. What is the case of
Wales ? Wales and Monmouthshire return thirty-four mem
bers ; Ulster returns thirty-three. Of the thirty-four Welsh
members, thirty-one voted the other day in favour of a pro
posal which dealt with an institution in which they were
peculiarly and locally interested. Can you get out of your
thirty-three Ulster members any such demonstration of opinion
as that? Ulster members are divided in the proportion of
nineteen to fourteen, and in the last Parliament it was sixteen
to seventeen the other way. And I cannot help contrasting the
attitude of hon. gentlemen opposite in reference to the claims
of Wales with their attitude when they come to deal with
Ulster. I introduced a Bill which proposed to suspend eccle
siastical patronage to a limited extent in the Principality, and
when I ventured, in a very mild and almost apologetic way, to
say that such a demonstration of opinion — thirty-one votes out
of thirty-four — in a matter which, after all, was a local matter,
was one which was entitled to the consideration of this House,
I was met by the answer that that was pure and undiluted
separatism ; that it was a majority of the people of Great
* Opl. Saunderson.

48 The Irish Home Rule Bill
Britain and of the people of England in particular, who had
the right to decide the question, and that they wouldinap their
fingers at the thirty-one Welsh members so long as they thought
the other way. The English minority is good enough to defeat
the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales'; the Ulster
minority is to be strong enough to defeat the opinion of the
whole of the rest of Ireland. I think we might have a little
consistency in our Unionism. I think we may at least claim
in argument that the same measure of importance should be
given to thirty-one out of thirty-four Welshmen that is given to
nineteen out of thirty-three Ulstermen.
I would further point out that in 1886 my right hon. friend
the Prime Minister said, and I think he has said .so more
Ulster's tnan once since, that if Ulster, or this little
Refusal of corner of Ulster, demanded separate considera-
Separate tion, he was quite prepared to give it to them.
Treatment jje was perfectly entitled to take into account
separate claims for separate treatment, but what is the case
now ? We hear from one of the Ulster members — * the member
for South Antrim — that Ulster repudiates and refuses separate
treatment. The claim of Ulster is, therefore, not that her
own interests should be consulted, not that her own -minority
should be provided for, but, because she objects to Home Rule,
the rest of Ireland shall not get it. A more preposterous claim
has never been put forward on the part of any minority in any
country in any part of the world. I am not going into the
fears of Ulster — the fears of religious persecution, and the fears
of commercial hostility. There is a simple and sufficient
answer — that the Government of Ireland, like all Governments,
will, in the long run, be guided and controlled by self-interest,
and is not likely to start on its career with an act of colossal
injustice, with an act which would prejudice against it the
opinion of the whole civilised world, and which would lead to
the exportation of capital and to the paralysis of industry and
of the resources which are necessary to its maintenance as a
Government. My opinion of the safeguards in the Bill is that
they are so clear that the fears of Ulster will prove to be
entirely unreasonable.
My right hon. friend the member for West Birmingham, who
pays very much attention to my speeches and to the answers
* Mr. W. G. E. Macartney.

The Irish Home Rufe Bill 49
Mr. Asquith's I give to my constituents, has succeeded in un-
Distrust of earthing, from about 1,000 answers which T think
Chambers * gave in the course of the last General Election,
two statements of mine, which he quoted with
very great triumph on the first reading of the Bill. The first
was a statement that in my opinion second Chambers were
undesirable institutions. I adhere to that opinion, and I do
not think — I am speaking my personal opinion only — that
second Chambers in the conditions of modern democracy are
very successful institutions, and it was with very considerable
reluctance that I assented to the introduction of a second
Chamber in this Bill ; but this is a concession made to a
demand of those who are not willing to leave the Ulster people
to the intolerant domination of a single Chamber. We are told
that some provision, at any rate, ought to be made to prevent
hasty legislation ; and in order to make the fullest possible
concession to demands which I do not admit to be reasonable,
but which have some colour of plausibility, and which agitate
some minds, I am perfectly ready to try the experiment of a
second Chamber. I do not observe that any objection has come
from the members of the Irish party, and we shall see in the
course of years whether a second Chamber is necessary. I
have the strongest suspicion myself that it will prove to be
wholly unnecessary.
No one who has watched these discussions can doubt that the
difficulties in Ulster have been enormously exaggerated by
the importation of extraneous influence. The
Mr. Balfour as ^g^t jj0n- gentleman, the leader of the
An Academic
Anarchist" Opposition, took upon himself the responsibility
of going to Belfast during the Easter vaca
tion, and of adding to the flame of smouldering excitement.
The right hon. gentleman used very peculiar language. He
said he was informed by those who were in a position to know
that the loyalist population would find the task of self-restraint
not easy, and the right hon. gentleman added, " No wonder ! "
He further said he had not come there to preach any doctrine
of passive obedience or non-resistance, and he uttered the pious
prayer that the people of Ulster might never have to fight. I
am quite aware that these were the conditional incitements of
an academic anarchist. I should like, in order that the right
hon. gentleman may realise what his language may mean, to
put, academically, of course, what appears to me to be a

50 The Irish Home Rule Bill
parallel, but stronger case. Suppose that in the Whitsuntide
vacation — if we have any — my right hon. friend /the Chief
Secretary* were to go down to Cork or Limerick. / 1 dare say
they could get up a procession there. Suppose my right hon.
friend were to address the people in some such; language as
this, he would not have to draw upon the resourpes of a com
paratively contracted imagination, and he wx_uld not have to
depend upon his own more or less scrupulous rhetoric. He
would simply have to go to the speech which was made at
Belfast in the Easter vacation, and suppose he were to say to
the people of Cork, " Here is a Bill before Parliament for
giving you self-government, upon which for years past your
hearts and those of great masses of the Irish people have been
set. Three times, by overwhelming majorities, have you
returned a constitutional representation of the classes in favour
of that scheme. Your wishes may be^I do not say they will
be— pray God they may never be — your wishes may be thwarted
by an English majority in the House of Commons, or by a
non-representative authority in another place. No wonder,
gentlemen, that I am informed by those who ought to know the
condition of this great city, that the Nationalist population
find the task of self-restraint not an easy task." " I am told we
are perhaps living in Cork over an explosive mine, which a
spark might at any moment ignite. I venture to tell you that
you do not stand alone, that you have not been abandoned by
Great Britain, that the Home Rule Bill may yet become law ;
but I do not come here to preach any doctrines of passive
obedience. You have had to fight for your liberties before. I
pray God you may never have to fight for them again." I
admit that the tyranny of majorities may be as bad as the
tyranny of Kings, but, ladies and gentlemen, I hope and believe
this is a mere abstract and academic proposition.
I projected this imaginary statement into the Whitsuntide
vacation, but perhaps it would have been better had I put it
back, and imagined it to have been spoken a year ago. I do
not think a long time would have elapsed between my right
hon. friend's academic utterance and his appearance before a
couple of memorable magistrates, and yet I am perfectly cer
tain, however it might have been, that there is not a Unionist
platform in this country which would not have rung with
* Mr. John Morley.

The Irish Home Rule Bill 51
denunciation of the responsible statesman holding office under
the Crown who had gone down into a disturbed and an excited
part of the country, and deliberately incited to resistance to
the law.
I claim that I have fulfilled the promise which I made at
the outset, to deal seriatim and in detail with the arguments
Home Rule which have been heard against the main provi-
Essential sions of the Bill. I have only to add for myself
to the that I have never regarded the grant of Home
Development Rule to Ireland as an exceptional and desperate
ofthe Empire remedy for a desperate and an exceptional
disease. I grieve that the circumstances of her history and the
scandals and dangers of her present situation make her demand
one of paramount and undeniable urgency ; but in my judg
ment this is a necessary step in our normal constitution at
development. We have heard a great deal in the course of the
debates as to the conditions under which great empires have
been consolidated and built up. I affirm that there is no
instance in history of effective consolidation that has not been
preceded or accompanied by a large measure of local
autonomy. And how stands the case with regard to the fall
and to the disintegration of empires ? What is it that has
brought to the ground all these gigantic structures ? It has
been the concentration of the governing power, the failure to
develop local organisation to meet the wishes and the functions
of local life. It has been the choking of the centre and the
wasting of the extremities, with the result that the whole has
become congestion, paralysis, and decay.
It is this catastrophe that we wish, if we can, to avert from
ourselves. I yield to no one in my zeal for the maintenance,
intact and unimpaired, of our great Empire. With all the
blots that stain its history, with all the faults and short
comings in its actual working, I believe, as strongly as you
can, that it is the greatest civilising instrument which the
political genius of man has yet devised. But it lives and acts,
and can only live and act, by the free and spontaneous co
operation of all its parts. That is the test of a standing or
falling empire, and it is in that spirit and for that purpose that
the Bill has been framed. Seven years ago my right hon.
friend the Prime Minister appealed to the people of Great
Britain to make the cause of Irish self-government their own.
That appeal was made by a man who had already given a full

52 The Irish Home Rule Bill /
life of industrious service to the State; it was made to a demo
cracy, young, ardent, newly emancipated, feeling that it had
for the first time within its reach social and political aims of
its own upon which its heart was set. Such an appeal required
on the one side the surrender of honourably earned repose, and
on the other side the postponement of large and long-cherished
hopes. Sir, those sacrifices have been gladly made — sacrifices
worthy of a great cause ; sacrifices which history will record.
which posterity will honour. Of them this measure is the fruit.
For them, if it brings, as we believe it will bring, contentment
to Ireland, honour to Great Britain, added strength to the
Empire, it will be the ample and abounding reward.

IV.
THE FEATHERSTONE RIOTS.
(From The Times, Sept. 21, 1893.)
[The Coal Strike of i8pj was attended by serious rioting in
Yorkshire. At Featherstone the military were called out to
assist the police, and fired upon the mob, two men being killed.
The matter was raised in Parliament on September 20, and
Mr. Asquith, as Home Secretary, defined the constitutional
Position of the Executive Government towards local authorities
in relation to riots and disturbances, and he indignantly
rebutted the charges brought against him for the action he had
takenZ\
The right hon. gentleman has not made any attack upon the
Government, and I do not propose to follow him in the criti
cisms he has thought it right to make on the action or inaction
of the local authorities in the West Riding of Yorkshire in the
early stages of these deplorable disturbances. At the present
time I do not think that there is sufficient information in the
possession of the Government to justify me in expressing
approval or disapproval of what was done by them. There
fore, I think any further dispute on that line of argument may
be fairly deprecated. I will avail, myself, however, of this
opportunity to tell the House at once what has been and what
is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in relation to this
matter. It would seem difficult and almost impossible to get the
people ofthis country to understand what are the functions and
responsibilities of the Executive Government in
Office ancf reference to local disturbances. It cannot be
l_oca1 too clearly laid down that the responsibility 'for
Authorities the suppression of local disorder lies, where it
in Relation has aiways lain from the earliest period of our
to Riots history, with the local authority. So deeply is
that principle ingrained in our law that when, from a failure
on the part of the local authority to do its duty in that respect,

54 The Featherstone Riots
damage is done to anyone, not. the public exchequer, but the
ratepayers of the particular police district, are the body that
has to make good the injury. That being so, what is the posi
tion of the Secretary of State? According to the ideas that
seem to prevail in many quarters, it might be supposed that
the Home Secretary in this country is in the position of a sort
of Minister of the Interior, or in the position of the Chief
Secretary for Ireland. His position is nothing of the kind. I
entirely disclaim on behalf of myself any responsibility of any
sort for the way in which the local police force in this country
is governed. No doubt, by a practice which has gradually
grown up, it has become the duty of the Secretary of State in
the case of emergency to give advice to the local authority,
but the local authority is perfectly at liberty to accept or reject
that advice as it thinks fit. Further, the Secretary of State is
the channel through which the demands of a local authority
for assistance, when their own police resources are insufficient
to cope with an emergency, may be made ; and, further than
that, if the local authority are found to be guilty of excess or
remissness, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to conduct
such an inquiry and to institute such proceedings as the nature
of the case may require. It may be said that the Secretary of
State has the power to withhold the certificate which the Act
of Parliament empowers him to give at the end of the financial
year, and so to deprive a local body of its share of the Imperial
contribution ; but he can only do that if he is able to certify
that the police force concerned has not been kept in a state of
efficiency during the year. He would be travelling beyond his
powers and his duties if he were to inquire, in addition, how it
had been -managed in the course of the year.
I am not going to say anything in the way of criticism of the
existing system. It has its drawbacks, no doubt, when an area
Local Self- of disturbance is widespread ; but, on the other
Government hand, in my opinion, the advantages of the
and Local arrangements infinitely outweigh the disadvan-
Kespons.bility tages j think if. would be gn ev.. day for the
administration of justice if we were to centralise that which is
at present local. In my opinion, the privilege of local self-
government ought to carry with it the responsibility for the
maintenance of local order. I have thought it right to state
these few general principles, because the case now immediately
under consideration is, after all, only a typical case. This is

The Featherstone Riots 55
I think, the fourth or fifth case of great gravity in which I have
had to consider what the powers and duties and responsibilities
of Ministers are, and I do trust that it will help to get rid of a
misconception in the public mind, if they clearly realise what
are the limits of our functions and responsibilities.
A very grave state of things existed in the West Riding of
Yorkshire three weeks ago. I am not prepared, from the infor
mation I have received, to assent to the idea
I. .. „. .. that the riotous and marauding proceedings that
Strike Rioting . ., ,. , ,.? " ¦ , ¦
in Yorkshire went oni tne wrecking of collieries, the burning
down of buildings, the levying of toll on inno
cent passers-by — that these actions met with any sympathy
whatever from the general body of miners on strike. I believe
these outrages were the work of a comparatively small number
of rowdies and unoccupied men, and that, so far as the general
opinion of the mining population was concerned, they would
discountenance any such proceedings. But, whatever might
have been the state of feeling among the miners themselves, it
is undoubtedly the melancholy fact that these things did go on,
and that there was no attempt on the part of the law-abiding
population to stop them. The local resources in police in a
country like the West Riding are of course calculated with
reference to a normal and not an abnormal state of things, and,
whatever may be the justice of the criticism of the right hon.
gentleman as to the withdrawal of police for Doncaster races,
they would have been insufficient to cope with this suddenly
arising emergency.
I am sorry not to see in their places to-day some hon. mem
bers who have been going about and denouncing me and circu
lating what I can only characterise as a pitiful
Jhe and ridiculous fiction — namely, that Her
Defended "^ Majesty's Government deliberately sent out with
out warning or cause the armed forces of the
Crown into districts where industrial disputes were going on, in
order that they might take the side of the coal-owners and crush
the miners. Where are the men who made these statements ?
It was well known that this matter would form the subject of
discussion. Why are they not in their places? It is a very
easy thing to go about the country speaking to excited audi
ences when you are safe from refutation and reply ; but it is a
very different thing, and the only proper thing, to come here,
to the House of Commons, and on the floor of this House, face

56

The Featherstone Riots

to face with the 'Minister you condemn, to fight the matter out.
I feel that conduct such as that of the hon. members to whom I
am referring ought not to be allowed to pass without notice,
and that the least a Minister of the Crown whose action is
impugned by members of this House has a right to expect is
that he should be given the opportunity of answering the state
ments .made with respect to his conduct in the presence of the
hon. members who have made them. If the hon. members
were present I should ask them what they would have done in
my position. Supposing that they had held the office which I
hold, and that the state of things which I have described had
been brought to their knowledge ; supposing that the local
authorities, alarmed for the preservation of the public peace
and for the safety of property, had sent them telegram after
telegram saying that the local police forces were insufficient,
that they had tried to borrow additional police elsewhere, but
unavailingly, and that unless special protection were given to
them they could not be responsible for the public peace, what
course would those hon. members have taken in the circum
stances ?
These irresponsible critics know as well as I do, and would
admit it if they cleared their minds and tongues of cant, that
Tne there is no man in this country who would not
Employment have acted as I have, and who would not have
of Soldiers felt it his bounden duty to supply the local
in Civil authorities with such a force as in their iudg-
Disturbances  - t . , , ,
ment was necessary to supplement the local
forces at their disposal. I do not believe that the House will
disapprove the course which I took. No one can deprecate
more strongly than I do the employment of soldiers unneces
sarily. I know that their employment in the performance of
public duty is distasteful to the soldiers themselves, and for
many obvious reasons it is undoubtedly irritating to the people.
I have therefore impressed upon local authorities over and over
again that whenever it is possible they should obtain in emer
gencies additional police from other localities, and on the
occasion under consideration that direction was followed. But
it must be borne in mind that the total police force of the
country is very limited in number, each borough and country
being bound not to retain a larger number of police than is
reasonably sufficient for just requirements. From Wiltshire
however, from Dorset, and from other parts of the country

The Featherstone Riots 57
police were supplied to render assistance in the West Riding
and Nottinghamshire. I therefore do not think that it is fair
to say that there was any indisposition on the part of local
police authorities in other parts of England to render such aid
as they reasonably could. I myself sanctioned the despatch of
about 400 men of the .Metropolitan Police, and I find that I am
denounced with exactly the same exaggeration and vitupera
tion for having sent these policemen down to Yorkshire as I am
for having sent the soldiers. It is very difficult to understand
the position of those'who think that in such circumstances as I
have described a Minister would not have failed in his most
elementary duty if he had not supplied all the resources at his
disposal which .appeared to be reasonably demanded. What
was the result of the action that I took ? Within forty-eight
hours, almost within twenty-four hours, from the time when the
local forces were thus supplemented the whole disturbance
ceased, and for nearly a fortnight we have not had in the whole
of the three counties which constituted the area of disturbance
a single case of collision, either with the police or the military.
I find it difficult to believ'e that that striking and rapid change
from what had become a .most serious situation is not to be
attributed to the prompt .measures that were_ taken.
In many parts I gladly admit that the leaders of the miners
have helped loyally and well to bring about the improved state
of things. I think it is a most creditable cir-
Tiie./^U'tl-_!e cumstance that in the whole of Lancashire,
Leaders n ^ where there are a very large number of miners
on strike, from the beginning of the disturbance
up to the present moment, there has not been any serious
trouble whatever. I attribute this very largely to the efforts
of the miners' leaders to exercise a restraining influence upon
their followers and to keep them within the bounds of modera
tion. I have no doubt also that their example has had a tran-
quillising effect elsewhere. I am as anxious as any man in
this House can be for the removal of the additional forces from
the localities to which they have been sent at the earliest
moment when it shall be possible to remove them without
jeopardising the preservation of public order. The House may
be sure that then they will be withdrawn, but until that moment
arrives it would not only be wrong, but almost criminal to take
any steps to weaken the powers which the local authorities
have demanded and obtained.

5«

The Featherstone Riots

The Before I sit down I will say a few words re-
Fatalities at specting the most deplorable incident in these
Featherstone disturbances. I refer to the riot and the inter
vention of the military at Featherstone, near Pontefract,
which resulted, as we all know, in the loss of two lives.
As the House is aware, inquests have been held upon the
bodies of the men who were unfortunately killed. In the first
inquest the coroner's jury returned a verdict of justifiable homi
cide, but in the second inquest the jury refused to return that
verdict, and apparently shrank from the only other logical
conclusion open to them — namely, that of returning a verdict
of wilful murder against the magistrates and troops. They
preferred — and I am not quarrelling with them for doing so in
the painful position in Which they found themselves — they pre
ferred to return an open verdict, to which they appended a
rider to the effect that the authorities had not taken proper
steps in the earlier stages of the affair to prevent the disturb
ance from reaching a climax, and they also intimated plainly
that, in their opinion, the order given to the soldiers to fire was
not justified by the circumstances prevailing at the time when
that order was .given. When those two verdicts were brought
to my notice I saw that we were face to face with a very serious
state of things. But before taking any action I thought it
right to call for the evidence which had been taken at the two
inquests, and to .give it my most careful consideration. I have
now completed my study of that evidence, and I have come to
the conclusion that the matter cannot be allowed to rest where
. it is. We are face to face with two verdicts
"to be11"^ upon the same state of facts' which are aDS°-
Appointed lutely irreconcilable one with the other. A
careful investigation of the evidence has con
vinced me that there are a number of facts materially bearing
upon the point at issue which were not investigated at all, in
consequence, no doubt, of the hurry of the proceedings. I
have to consider both the position of the authorities and the
feeling of the public, and I do not think that I should be able
to satisfy the legitimate demand of public feeling, or that I
should be acting fairly to the authorities themselves, whose
conduct is distinctly impugned by one of these verdicts, if I
did not take the best means in my power to provide for a
thorough and more adequate investigation of the facts, so that
we may have materials on which to pronounce an authorita-

The Featherstone Riots 59
tive and final judgment. As I . pointed , out yesterday, in
answer to a question, there, are some difficulties in the way of
constituting a proper tribunal for the purpose. Without a
special Act of Parliament, giving powers to take evidence upon
oath and to compel the attendance of witnesses, a public
department is, in a matter of this kind, largely dependent upon
the .spontaneous co-operation of those concerned. But I feel
confident that in a matter of this kind we shall have that co
operation, for the public interest demands that the whole truth
shall be disclosed. If I succeed in providing a tribunal which
shall command general confidence I am sure I may rely upon
everyone concerned to do all in his power to ensure that all
the facts connected with this deplorable occurrence shall be
known. I must now utter one final word of appeal to those who have
far more power than even the local authorities or myself to
put an end to the existing state of things. This
An Appeal deplorable dispute has now been going on for
the greater part of two months ; it has involved
the districts affected in widespread misery ; it has engendered
feelings of animosity easy to arouse but difficult to allay, and
it has been productive of most disastrous results with respect
to the general industries of the country. I trust, then, that it
is not too much to express the hope that neither on the one side
nor the other will there be a contmuance of that unreasoning
obstinacy which I cannot but think is the main obstacle to the
settlement of this great quarrel. Serious, indeed, will be the
responsibility of those who persist in such conduct. I believe
I am expressing the unanimous opinion of all parties in this
House and of the public outside it when I say that we rely on
the moderation and good sense of those engaged in this dis- -
pute to put an end to it without delay.

V.
IRISH HOME RULE AND HOME RULE ALL ROUND.
(From The Times, Oct. ai, 1893.)
[Addressing his constituents at Leven on Oct. 20, Mr. Asquith
dealt entirely with the Home Rule Bill which had been passed
by the Commons. Reiterating the arguments which he had
used in the Commons {vide Speech If., p. 19) as to the
effectiveness with which the Bill maintained the Imperial
supremacy and fully satisfied the Irish claim J or self-govern
ment, Mr. Asquith devoted particular attention to questions
which he had only lightly touched on before, viz., the institution
of a Second Chamber in Ireland, the provision as to finance,
and the retention of the Irish members at Westminster. In
conclusion, he made a notable declaration as to Irish Home
Rule being a forecast of" Home Rule all round."]
Gentlemen, fifteen months have elapsed since I last had the
honour of addressing you. As you are aware, upon the forma
tion of the new Government I was called by the
H'S.o h.*'*1"*6 favour of tlie Prime Minister to occupy in it an
Constituents arduous and a responsible post. I believe that
I may honestly say that during the time which
has elapsed I have given to the discharge of the duties which
belong to my office practically the whole both of my time and
of .my strength. I regret if, in consequence of the urgent
claims of an overwhelming public duty, I should have been
compelled in any degree to relax the efforts which, for seven
years, I have conscientiously endeavoured to make on behalf
of my own constituents here in East Fife. If in any degree I
have fallen short either of what you may have been accustomed
to or of what you had a right to demand, I am certain I can
appeal confidently to you for your indulgence and your con
sideration, and I recognise with the fullest gratitude and obli
gation under which I stand, not only to the generous confidence
of my own friends, but to the forbearance and the courtesy of
our opponents in this country. I have seen in the newspapers

Irish Home Rule 61
a statement to the effect that it is in contemplation that you
and I should sever the connection which has so long and so
happily existed between us. The outside world always knows
so much better than we know ourselves what are our intentions
and what are our hopes. I am quite certain that there is not a
Liberal elector in East Fife who ever gave a moment's credence
to a statement of that kind, and when I remember the ties
which have united .me for sev'en years, how in the successive
elections you have returned me as your representative to the
House of Commons, under what a debt of .gratitude I stand to
you, not only for the opening which you gave to me in public
life, but for the consistent and loyal sympathy and support
which you have extended to me, in season and out of season,
from that time to this, it would be the height of treachery as
well as of ingratitude if I were ever to desert the place which
I owe to your favour for any other reason or at any other
demand than your expressed wish. So long as the electors of
East Fife are willing to give me their confidence, so long my
humble services are at their disposal, and I am speaking the
words of sincerity and of truth when I say that I have no
higher ambition in public life than to continue — I will not say
to merit — but at any rate to receive the support which has
never failed me from the electors of this country.
After recalling the work of the past Session, Mr. Asquith
proceeded: I am going to speak to you this evening upon the subject
mainly of the Home Rule Bill. It is not, perhaps, the most
exciting subject that one could possibly select.
r"? *iome It is, in my opinion, iby far the most important
u e ' and most far-reaching. I observe that it is
alleged by Unionist speakers in the press that we of Her
Majesty's Government and of the Liberal party are now
endeavouring to shove the .Bill into the background and to lay
it aside upon a shelf and to try and divert the attention of the
constituencies and the country either to the general principle
of Home Rule in a vague or disembodied form, or to other
matters of domestic legislation which are more immediately
interesting to them, and which more directly affect their daily
life. A remark which I made in a speech at Glasgow the other
day, in which I repudiated a purely imaginary intention that
had been imputed upon the strength of a strained construction

62 Irish Home Rule and
of a single phrase in a speech of Mr. Gladstone's at Edinburgh,
in which, I say, I repudiated a purely imaginary intention im
puted to the Government of reintroducing the Home Rule Bill
in the House of Commons during the next Session of Parlia
ment — I see that that remark has been interpreted as an
acknowledgment upon my part that the Bill was one which I
was not prepared to explain and defend in the face of my con
stituents. Those who made that criticism, I venture to say,
know very little either of me or of my constituents. I do not
think there are many Liberal members who, during the long
controversy upon this subject, have expressed themselves more
frequently and more explicitly, not only as to the principle of
Home Rule, but as to the manner in which it should be
embodied, than I have done from time to time in the various
towns and villages in East Fife. My name, I am proud to say,
appears on the back of that .Bill, and, in view of the principles
which I have laid down and the pledges which were given at
meeting after meeting in this constituency during the past six
or seven years, I have come to tell you why in my judgment
that Bill offers not only a large and liberal, but a practical
settlement of this question.
Let me say at the outset that, when you come to criticise the
provisions of a great measure which seeiks to give effect to a
great principle, your criticism cannot be intelli-
The Reasons gent and jt cannot be relevant unless you take
Home Rule ^or 'granted the assumptions which underlie the
principle which the measure professes to
embody. It is no good criticising a Home Rule Bill — that is
to say, a measure for practically giving effect to Home Rule
in Ireland — if at the same time you traverse, contradict, deny,
the very assumptions upon which the principle of Home Rule
itself is based. Now let me just remind you in two or three
sentences what these assumptions are. i think they may be
reduced to three. What is it that we 'Home Rulers have con
vinced ourselves of and take for granted when we approach the
practical settlement of this question? In the first place, we
assert and assume that the old policy of endeavouring to
govern Ireland by British voices against the will of the mass
of the Irish people has been proved by experience to be a
failure. We have tried it for the best part of a century.
We have tried it under the most favourable condi
tions. We have tried it by the influence of the ablest and

Home Rule all Round 63
most experienced statesmen. We have tried it with the com
bined support of both political parties in the State ; andat the
end, or nearly the end, of the century we find ourselves as far
as we were at the beginning from securing what we of this
Liberal party, at any rate, agreed to have as the essential and
fundamental condition of good government — namely, the
enlisting upon the side of the law, in support of the adminis.
tration, in sympathy and in harmony with the institutions
under which they live, of the co-operation and the loyalty of
the great mass of the people of the country.
Now I assert that first and foremost the old system has
proved to be a failure. What is our next assumption ? Our
next assumption is that the only alternative of
The Old that policy, that discredited policy, is to give to
Failure Ireland the largest measure of self-government
in purely local affairs that is consistent with the
maintenance of the Imperial unity and supremacy. And our
third and last assumption is this, that when you have arrived
at the point of devising and carrying into law such a scheme
as that — a scheme to which the Imperial Parliament has de
liberately assented — it will be worked on both sides, by the
Irish upon the other side of the Channel, and by ourselves at
home, with common-sense and good faith. Gentlemen, I will
agree with any critic who can demonstrate to me that those
three assumptions have no foundation in fact, that the policy
of Home Rule is either an unnecessary or an impracticable
policy ; but speaking to Liberals, to men who have grasped the
realities of the case, to .men who are prepared to take for
granted that which I have endeavoured to assert, I say that
when you come to criticise the details of a particular .measure
you must proceed on the assumption that Home Rule — a large
measure of local self-government for Ireland — is the only way
to solve the question, and that when that measure is conceded
to Ireland it will be both to the interests of the Irish people
and ourselves to make it a practical and working success.
Now, that being so, let us come to the actual proposal .which
was made by the Government, and which was carried by the
House of Commons.
[Mr. Asquith then proceeded to recapitulate the arguments which
he had used in the House on the question of maintaining and
enforcing the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. He dwelt
also on the satisfactory reception, which had been accorded to the

64 Irish Home Rule and
Bill by the Irish Nationalists and their pledge to carry out its
provisions honestly and well. His views on these two points were
so fully expressed in Speech III., and so faithfully repeated on this
subsequent occasion, that in the interests of space they are omitted
here.] I pass on to say a word or two — and you must not complain
if I deal in some detail with this matter — upon two or three
, special points connected with the Bill, some of
Chamber which, I think, are peculiarly interesting to
East Fife. First of all I should like to say a
word about the proposal to establish a second Chamber in
Parliament. I think you would do me the justice to say that
I have never concealed my views as to the utility and expe
diency of a second Chamber. I adhere to all those views,
which I have no reason whatever to change. But I am re
proached with being guilty of inconsistency in having assented
to the insertion in the Home Rule .Bill of a proposal' for the
establishment of a second Chamber in Ireland; and Mr.
Chamberlain, in the course of a speech which he made, I
think either upon the first or second reading of the Bill, showed
that he had been — I felt very much flattered by it — a most
painstaking student of the heckling to which I was exposed in
the course of the last General Election here in East Fife, be
cause he had penetrated so far as to discover the questions
which had been asked of me and the answers which I had
given to them in a very remote part of the constituency — a place
called Damvead. Yes, Damvead enjoys a momentary notoriety,
because it was supposed by 'Mr. Chamberlain that from what .1
had said at Damvead I might fairly be cornered. Well, what
did Isay? il was asked by a very intelligent gentleman there,
who exposed me to a long and detailed cross-examination,
which, I remember, very nearly caused me to miss the last
train on the Saturday night, whether I was in favour of mend
ing or ending a certain second Chamber with which we in this
country are peculiarly familiar. I answered, perhaps with
excessive curtness, .but . expressing an opinion which was not
hesitatingly, but deliberately, formed, that I
not Mend WaS in favour of ending it. Well, then, this
the Lords' questioner of mine proceeded to ask me whether
I was aware that when Mr. Gladstone brought
in his Home Rule Bill in 1886 there was a proposal in it for a

Home Rule all Round 65
second Chamber, and whether I was prepared to support that
proposal in future, suppose it were to reappear. Now, as a
matter of fact — I do not know whether the gentleman who
asked me that question was aware of it — as a matter of fact
there was no proposal for a second Chamber in the Home Rule
Bill of 1886. What there was was a different thing — a pro-
iwsal that would have established what' was called a second
order, which was from time to time to vote with the popularly-
elected members of the Irish people upon certain matters. I
said what I still think, and what experience has shown that I
was justified in thinking, that that proposal would not reap
pear. It has not reappeared, and there is no suggestion now
to establish a second order, which formed part of the scheme
of 1886. That was my answer. I am not going to take refuge
under any narrow or pettifogging distinctions. If the matter
were left to my own unaided judgment 1 should not be in
favour of establishing a second Chamber in Ireland. 1 do not
believe it would do much harm, but I do not believe it would
do much practical good, and so far as my own individual judg
ment is concerned, I should be perfectly prepared to allow a
second Chamber, subject to certain safeguards for consulting
the people, the electors, in matters of peculiar urgency and
importance. But what do we find? We had to deal with this
question with an outcry — which 1 do not believe to be legiti
mate, but which was perfectly sincere— that there might be
great risk of oppressing the minority, the people of Ulster,
or a small corner of Ireland, and their friends in this country
are telling us that the minority in Ireland will not find the
country safe to live in. 1 believe their apprehensions are un
founded, but, as a practical man, I say that there must be a
certain amount of give-and-take. I am prepared to mak-e a
concession to those legitimate fears in order that the establish
ment of Home Rule may become easier, and that the working
of Home Rule may become smoother, and that the panic of
Ulster, or that part of Ulster, may to some extent be allayed.
1 am quite ready to agree, although I do not
P ®*c*n<' think a second Chamber desirable or useful, to
DwiM_ble or SJv* that Chamber by way of experiment. But
Useful the curious thing is this — that I have not had a
single remonstrance from one of my Radical
friends here in East Fife on this point. People say. * Oh, you
have broken your pledges. People have voted for you on the
n

66 Irish Home Rule and
strength of declarations to which you are now proving false."
Where is the man, I should like to know-^I have not yet
found him — who voted for me at the last election because I
had answered that question in that way, and who is now pre
pared to turn round on me and say, " You were false to the prin
ciples on which we elected you, and we would rather we had
not elected you our member " ? The people who complain of
me are not the people in favour of one Chamber, but the
Tories, who are in favour of two Chambers. I can understand
some of my Democratic friends saying, " Oh, well, you have
been tarred with the brush of officialism. You have got into
bad company. You are a little losing the purity of the imma
culate integrity of your original Radical faith." But, as far
as I can make out, they are not dissatisfied, because they are
wise enough not to concentrate their attention upon a single
and comparatively unimportant point. Whether they are
judging either of the policy of a Bill or a part of their prin
ciple, they look at it in the whole and not in one particular
part. I think I may therefore well submit to the censure
which is poured upon me by our Tory and Unionist friends
because I have .gone a little further than I expected in meeting
their own unfounded apprehensions and fears.
Now, gentlemen, I come to another point, but one which
also appears to exercise the minds — I do not think of the
. Liberal electors of the county or of the country,
x- finance'0" !^ut °* those who are trying to persuade them
that our Home Rule scheme would inflict
monstrous injustice on Great Britain — I mean the question of
finance. It is a technical matter, but it is most desirable that
the truth should be stated to you in the plainest and most intel
ligible language I can command. What are our proposals in
reference to the financial relations of Great Britain and Ire
land? What we propose is this — that for the next six years the
state of things which is practicable, the identical state of
things that now prevails, subject to one important and very
large modification, should continue to exist ; but that in the
meantime complete and searching inquiry should take place as
to the legitimate relations which ought to subsist between the
Irish and English Exchequers and the comparative contribu
tions which both countries should make to the Imperial expen
diture, which we all alike ought to bear according to our
share*

Home Rule all Round 67
What is the state of things which we propose to establish ? I
think I can explain it so that it shall present no real
_. obscurity. In the first place, I ask you to look
Pro sals la at the state of things and to the revenue as
raised every year by taxation in Ireland. It
amounts in round numbers to about £7,000,000. In the next
'place, a certain expenditure is incurred every year by the Im
perial Government in Ireland to meet the cost of Irish local
government. The sum which Irish administration annually
costs the .Imperial Exchequer may, again using round figures,
be placed at ,£4,700,000. Therefore, if you subtract from the
£7,000,000 the £4,700,000, the balance — namely, £2,300,000 —
will give you the contribution which the Irish taxpayer at the
present makes for the expenditure of the Empire as distin
guished from the expenditure of Ireland. £2,300,000 goes to
Imperial charges, while the remaining two-thirds, £4,700,000,
is what the Irish Government costs. It follows that if you
want to preserve the existing state of things ; if you want Ire
land, that is to say, to go on contributing to the Imperial
expenditure the same, or practically the same, as she does at
present, the simplest, and the easiest, and the most intelli
gible way of doing it is to take one-third of the Irish revenue —
the revenue raised by taxation — and to appropriate that to the
Imperial Exchequer and leave the other two-thirds to the Irish
Legislature and Exchequer for executive and legislative pur
poses. This is exactly what we propose to do. It is said that
this is a smaller sum than Ireland ought in fairness to contri
bute ; and how is that proposition made out ? No one can
seriously contend, having regard to the relative wealth of Great
Britain and Ireland, that the seven millions which Ireland
contributes in taxation is a smaller sum than she ought to con
tribute. It is a very fair proportion if you regard, as, I think,
in these matters you will agree with me you ought to regard,
the taxable property — that is to say, the wealth or the poverty
of the two countries ; but it is perfectly true, and I admit it to
the full, that if you look at the £4,700,000 which is
expended at present on Irish local government, that is an
excessive sum. What is the reason? Are the Irish to blame
for it? No, you and I are to blame, for it is because we
have set up in Ireland a grossly and extravagantly expensive
system. To take only two items. The administration of justice costs

68 Irish Home Rule and
per head of the population three times as much as it does here
in Great Britain, while the police costs more
The Cost of t]lail twice as much per head of the. population
Justice in as Jt ,tioes here in 'Oreat Britain, under which, if
Ireland you were to pursue the matter through all the
stages of the administrative structures, you
would find similar instances of extravagance and costly and
expensive expenditure. It is because, I say, this system which
we have set up, and by means of which alone have we been
enabled to maintain our authority, in Ireland undoubtedly in
flicts upon Ireland a much more grievous burden than the
corresponding system which in this freer country we enjoy for
ourselves. Are you going to penalise the Irish? Are you
going to handicap the new Irish Government by insisting that
they shall at once — we could not do it in justice as a matter
of practical working statesmanship — that they shall at once,
by the singite stroke of the pen, reduce this extravagant scale
of expenditure, which has existed there for the best part of ioo
years, which we have done nothing to curtail ? It would be the
height of injustice and absurdity if we were to do anything of
the kind. I therefore think you will agree with me that,
whether or not we agree that the existing state of things is in
all the features satisfactory, we cannot have a fairer plan from
which to start a new Irish Government than to keep from Great
Britain, or rather from the Empire, precisely that sum which
Ireland at present contributes, and to hand over to the Irish
Government precisely that sum which you at present spend
upon local administration in Ireland.
There is one qualification which ought to be made to that
statement. We propose to make a contribution in excess of
the population which I have just described
_^ 7 u i t0 y°u- We propose to make a contribution to
Constabulary _ _i_ _¦ -, .
Contribution one of the PurPoses of local government —
namely, to the constabulary — of £500,000 a
year so long as the constabulary force exists. We propose
that the Imperial Exchequer should contribute one-third of the
cost. Is that fair and just ? The most extravagant statements
are made on this subject. I remember at the beginning of the
debate on the Home Rule Bill Mr. Balfour or Mr. Goschen
capitalised this sum of ,£500,000 at nearly forty-nine years'
purchase, and said that we were making a present to the Irish
of twenty millions sterling. Is that the truth? 'Remember,

Home Rule all Round 69
in the first place, this is a temporary and a diminishing charge.
It exists only so long as the constabulary force exists, and
that constabulary will not exist longer than six years, because
at the end of that time it will be the duty of the Irish Govern
ment to supersede it by the establishment in Ireland of the kind
of police which we have here — a local police, under the local
authority. In the meantime we retain — the Imperial Govern
ment retains — a complete and absolute control of the Irish
Constabulary. The Irish are to pay two-thirds of the cost of
it, and we are only to pay one-third, although we are to have
complete jurisdiction over it. You must consider further that
this is a force which, as I said a 'moment ago, is organised and
equipped upon an extravagant and costly scale. It costs
6s. iod. per head of every man, woman, and child in Ireland.
What do you suppose is the cost of the police in Scotland ?
Why, gentlemen, is. nd. per head. The difference between
is. 1 id. here in Scotland and 6s. iod in Ireland per head of
the population represents the difference in cost between a
broad and a popularly-controlled police force, such as we hope
to see hereafter established in Ireland, and a centralised and
armed force such as you have at present to maintain. Well,
I say it would be the height of injustice if, so long as that
force, extravagant in its cost, centralised in its management,
and kept under the control of the Imperial Government as it
is now, exists, the Irish were compelled to bear the whole
share of its annual expenditure.
I think in contributing one-third — and not .more than one-
third — from the Imperial Exchequer wc are not acting with
extravagant generosity to the Irish people, but I want to
carry the argument one step further. I agree that you will
pay £500,000 a year, so long as this force exists in Ireland,
more than you are paying at present for her
of HomTRule Purely local affairs, but what will you be get
ting rid of? You will be getting rid — once and
for all — of that system under which the Imperial Exchequer
is constantly being dipped into to provide doles and subsidies
for all manner of Irish purposes. Between 1886, when the
first Home Rule Bill was introduced, and the year 1893, in
which we are now living, the annual contribution of the Im
perial Exchequer to Ireland has risen by no less than — I will
give you the exact figures — by no less than £550,000. In
other words, it is more costly now — and that is a pretty object

70 Irish Home Rule and
lesson of the advantages of delay in a great matter of this
kind— it is move expensive now to .govern Ireland from West
minster than it was in 1886, when Mr. Gladstone first proposed
Home Rule. It is more expensive to govern Ireland from
Westminster by this sum of £550,000 — more than the sum
which we propose to contribute towards the cost of the Irish
Constabulary. The truth is that your system of government,
resting as it does partly upon coercion and partly upon charity
and bribery, is the most expensive system that ever was in
vented for a British taxpayer. So long as you continue it you
will have to maintain this extensive and costly force for the
purpose of executing the law in Ireland, the law having to be
a constantly gilded and sugared pill for the Irish people by
contributions to public works, light railways, drainage, and a
thousand and -one local purposes, which, as soon as Home
Rule is established, as soon as Ireland is left to govern her
self, as soon as she no lomger depends either upon charity or
upon coercion from Westminster, she will have to effect out
of her own pocket and out of her own credit. In the course
of the last forty years — this will give you, perhaps, in a single
sentence as striking a proof of the truth of what I have been
saying — in the course of the last forty years we have had
actually to remit, to write up as a bad and irrecoverable debt,
no less a sum than ten millions sterling, which has been ad
vanced from time to time by the Imperial Exchequer to Ire
land for purely local purposes. I say you are getting off very
cheaply. It is a bargain that may well be commended in the
interest of the British taxpayer when you commute the whole
of this vast indefinite and ever-increasing liability to contin
gent expenditure for a diminishing policy which starts at
£500,000 a year, which before a very few years are over will
have entirely ceased.
Now, one other topic, and one other only, before I bring to
a close my speech. I am so sorry to be obliged to occupy
_ you in so much detail about it. I must say
oMhe^ri".!011 tW° °r three words about the retention of the
Members Irish members, because, next to finance, or per
haps more than finance, this is the point of the
Bill which our opponents constantly fasten upon for reproof
and censure. What is the Unionist position with reference to
that? I confess that for the life of me I cannot discover it,
and I cannot explain it. In 1886 the Home Rule Bill of that

Home Rule all Round 7 _
year was rejected, as we know, by the votes of what we call
the Liberal Unionists. Why did they reject it, the Bill of
1886? Happily their reasons remain upon record in in
numerable speeches and writings of their most distinguished
leader, Mr. Chamberlain. They rejected it because it ex
cluded the Irish members from the Imperial Parliament. Now
we have got another Home Rule Bill. In deference to the
opinions of the country and the scruples and criticism of the
opponents of the Bill, it proposes to retain the Irish members
in the Imperial Parliament. The 1893 Bill is rejected be
cause it retains the Irish members. What is the position of
the Liberal Unionists? Now look at the action of the whole
Unionist party. How do you suppose they voted upon this
question ih the course of the present Session ? I am not going
to give you the details, but I will just give you the four pro
positions for which the combined Unionist party has at one
time or another voted in the course of the present Session on
the subject of the retention of the Irish members. In the
first place, they voted for the inclusion of the Irish members
in undiminished number with limited powers — powers, that is
to say, to vote only on Imperial subjects. .In the second place,
they voted for the inclusion of the Irish memibers in reduced
numbers with unlimited, powers. In the third place, they
voted for the inclusion of the Irish members in reduced num
bers with limited powers. And in the fourth place, they voted
for the total exclusion of the Irish members for all purposes
whatever. Well, it puzzles me to discover what is the Unionist policy
in relation to the retention of the Irish members. For my
TV. 1 "h Part) I think it is one of those things which
p 1: transcend the wit of man. Well, what is our
case ? I have made a great many speeches on
this subject, as you perhaps are painfully aware here in Fife,
during the course of the last six years, and I think I have
always maintained practically the same position. I said with
reference to the Bill of 1886 that although I thought the ex
clusion of the Irish members from the Imperial Parliament
might be defended as a temporary and a provisional expe
dient during the setting up and the first working of Home
Rule, yet it did not appear to me to be a satisfactory solution
of the question. I said, and I think you agreed with me, that
it was desirable to maintain the presence of Irish members at

72 Irish Home Rule and
Westminster as the clearest and the most indisputable symbol
and safeguard for the continued supremacy and unity of the
Imperial Parliament. That was, I am certain, the view of the
great mass of the Liberal electors of the country, and accord
ingly, although I do not think it would be fair to say that Mr.
Gladstone or, perhaps, Mr. John Morley have ever themselves
become convinced that the plan of 1886 was either objection
able or impracticable, yet they in the spirit of statesmanship —
not in a spirit of pedantic and academic tenacity, which some
people mistake for statesmanship — resolved to defer to that
opinion of the nation and accept the inclusion of the Irish
members in the Imperial Parliament as an integral part of
the Bill of the present year. We further agreed that if the
Irish members were to be retained in the Imperial Parlia
ment they must be retained in reduced numbers, because it is
not possible to justify, after the granting of Home Rule foi
Ireland, the continued concession to the Irish people of the
number of members which at present represent them — namely,
103 — and which is considerably in excess of the proportion to
which their population entitles them. We accordingly agreed
to reduce the number of the Irish members who are to remain
at Westminster from 103 to 80, which brings them down in
strict conformity with their actual claims and proportion to
population. Well, now, supposing you retain the Irish members, and
supposing you retain them in reduced numbers, you may re-
-j-wo tain them for a limited purpose or for all pur-
Alternatives poses. In the Bill as originally proposed by
in Retaining the Government they were retained only for
Jhe Irish limited purposes — that is to say, for Imperial
Members purposes. I say nothing about that proposal
except that it was quite evident in a very short time that it
failed to command the support of the great bulk of the Liberal
party, and it was also obvious, the more it came to be con
sidered, that it would lead, or might lead, to the great incon
venience of your having side by side at the same time in the same
House of Commons two different majorities — one for one set of
purposes, and another for another. The Government accord
ingly resolved to retain the Irish members in reduced
numbers, but for all purposes. My record on this matter is,
I think, pretty clear. I remember very well when I came
down to Fife at the beginning of the year 1892 being exposed

Home Rule all Round 73
to— I do not complain of it ; the recollection is rather agree
able — a very long and a very persistent cross-examination in
different parts of the constituency upon almost every political
topic under heaven, and, amongst other things, I was asked,
at a great meeting in Cupar, which was not altogether friendly
— I was asked, having declared myself in favour of the reten
tion of the Irish members, whether I was in favour of retain
ing them for all purposes. I said that that was my opinion
then ; it has been my opinion ever since, and it is my opinion
now. But it is said, " If you retain the Irish members with power
to vote in the House of Commons upon all subjects after they
have got Home Rule, inflicting a gross injustice
1 ' ¦*? upon the people, and the representatives of
Dominance Great Britain, you will have these Irishmen
controlling their own affairs in Dublin and
coming over here to Westminster to interfere with your affairs
and voting you down." That is an argument which is believed
to have considerable weight with the constituencies of the
country. Let me deal with it, because it is always well to
grapple with the worst than can be said against you at close
quarters. In what respect will the condition of things at West
minster, when Home Rule has been granted to Ireland, differ
from the condition of things which prevails there now, and
has prevailed there ever since the Union ? The Irish members
are there now, and they will be there when Home Rule has
been granted. They can vote upon English and Scottish
questions now; they will be able to do so after Home Rule
has been granted. At Westminster, there is one difference,
and only one. They are there now to the number of 103 ;
they will be there when Home Rule is granted to the number
of 80. In other words, instead of having 103 votes to cast upon
English or Scottish questions which may arise, they only have
80 votes to cast " pro tanto." As far as it goes this is a diminu
tion, and not an increase, in the power of which the Irish
representatives will have at Westminster. But, on the other
hand, people say you will have these 80 men going about
hawking their votes first to one political party and then to
another, not by reference to the questions as to England or
Scotland, or even the Empire, but in order that they may
purchase for Ireland some new concession in the interest of
her own citizens. What an amount of cant is talked upon

74 Irish Home Rule and
this subject ! People hold up their hands in holy horror at
this prospect, as though it were the picture they were drawing
of a possible evil in the future, were it not what it is, an exact
description of the state of things which has prevailed in the
past. Let me give you one illustration, and one only. Take
the political history of the year 1885. In 1885 we had a
. Liberal Government in power. A Coercion Act
and the'l°rl.slTtS WaS °n the P°int °f exPirin£> and the great
in 1888 political question of the moment was whether
or not it should be renewed. It was suspected—
I would say it was known — but it was^suspected that the Liberal
Cabinet were in favour of renewing some of the provisions of
* that Act. What happened in the House of Commons ? The
Conservative party — I won't say I do not like to say what under
standing or agreement existed, those are such delicate words
and so easily denied, but I should set up a coincidence, one
of those convenient coincidences which sometimes occur in
life — the Conservative party found itself side by side in the
lobby with the whole Irish party in the House of Commons,
and the result of a happy accident by which, for the moment,
they found themselves working together was, that a Liberal
Government was put in a minority, and that its proposal to
renew the Coercion Act was never brought forward. What
followed? A Conservative Government came into power.
Well, you know what the attitude of Conservative Government
to coercion has generally been. They have not shown, as a
rule, any very great or invincible repugnance to the renewal
. of measures of coercion, but this Government, placed in power
by the Irish vote, did not renew the Coercion Act— again, no
doubt, a mere coincidence. That, however, does not complete
the story. Lord Salisbury the other day in the House of
Lords, speaking on the second reading of the Home Rule Bill,
as I understood him, at any rate, and I think I am accurate,
said that they had all along intended to renew the Coercion
Act, not, indeed, with the expiring Session of an expiring
Parliament, but six months later, when a new Parliament had
been elected, and they were able to develop their completed
programme. If that was their intention, no body of men
ever so skilfully concealed their designs from the people of
the country.
What happened ? Parliament was dissolved ; Lord Carnarvon

Home Rule all Round 75
was sent to Ireland as Viceroy, and he held interviews,
The conversations, with Mr. Parnell, the leader of
Conservative the Irish people. Lord Salisbury, the Prime
Coquetry with Minister, went down on the eve of a General
Home Rule Election, when every word of his might turn
a vote, to Newport, in Monmouthshire, and there he spoke
upon the inefficiency of coercion to put down boycotting and
combination such as prevailed in Ireland. Although it is
perfectly true that he did not declare himself in favour of
Home Rule, yet he dallied and coquetted with the Austro-
Hungarian Constitution as a thing which was well worthy of
the consideration of this country. Less than six months after
wards a General Election took place. How was the Irish vote
in Great Britain cast? We know very well. It was cast by
the orders of the Irish leaders, and by the loyalty of their
followers, in all the great towns and cities of tlie country, on
behalf of the Conservative candidates. They got into power
by the Irish vote without knowing or understanding it. They
remained in power, passing coercion for Ireland, which, some
how or other, they had not disclosed. They went about
denouncing the inefficacy of coercion, and talking about
Austria-Hungary and local authority. These men tell you
that to grant Home Rule you will be introducing a new and
demoralising system for purchasing the Irish vote. I say vou
could not have, the wildest dreams of the most pessimist
prophet of the future could not possibly conceive, a state of
things in which the presence of the Irish vote would p.ove
more actively demoralising than it was to the Conservative
party in the year 1885. But I am not content to say that the
state of things would be the same as it was before. I am not
content to say that this temptation to the Irish upon the one
side to sell their votes, and to British parties on the other to
buy them, would not be greater than it was. I maintain that
the temptation would be less, and the state of things would be
better. So long as you persist in governing Ireland from
Westminster against the wishes of the great mass of the Irish
people, you give to the Irish representation there a unity, a
solidity, a homogeneity which make it, with the exception
of the comparatively insignificant minority from a portion of
Ulster, move and act almost as one man. They have got now
a great aim to be achieved, an aim upon which the whole sense
of practically four-fifths, three-fourths, or whatever propor-

76 Irish Home Rule and
tion you like to take, but at any rate, the great preponderating
sense of the Irish people is set. The fact that they have that
great aim to achieve, the fact that they have that great body
of popular sympathy and sentiment at their back, makes them
united, makes them the powerful, the formidable force which
they have shown themselves during the last ten years in British
politics. But what would be the state of things under Home Rule?
The motive will be gone, the aim will have been accomplished.
Until the Irish people have got what they seek
The Effect of th wijj j_e moved to restlessness and dis-
nome Kuie ' ,.-, .....
content. What motive comparable m intensity
and strength to that which now prevails will unite the Irish
representation of the future in making demands on British
parties for Irish liberties ? On the contrary, common sense,
bur knowledge of human nature, our experience of history, all
tend to show that when the state of things has once been
brought about, you will have in the Irish party just the same
cleavage of opinion, of sentiment, of political action, that you
have got in political parties in this country at the present day.
You have got traces of it obvious and unmistakable ; traces
over which some of our opponents are making merry even
to-day. At the present moment you see how, even in the very
heat and stress of a great national conflict, in which every
interest that Ireland could have, brings her people into line,
and compels them to work together, you see how the natural
tendencies to diversities of opinion and of action are asserting
themselves under the present pressure and motive. If this is
the case now, how much more will it be the case when the
pressure is removed and the motive is gone ? I say, further,
that if you can conceive a state of things, which I confess I
cannot, in which the whole Irish representation was united in
a Parliament of the future in demanding for Ireland, as
against Great Britain, what Great Britain did not wish to
concede — I say that you would have a state of things under
which British parties would be brought under the strongest
possible inducement to combine together to act against the
Irish. After all, when Ireland has got Home Rule and the
power of managing her own affairs, we Englishmen and
Scotchmen shall be much more disposed than we are now to
make generous and intelligent concessions to Irish sentiment
or to Irish demands in purely Irish matters, and if you do con-

Home Rule all Round 77
ceive a contingency under which, Home Rule having been
granted, the Irish representation was to unite in making an
unreasonable demand upon the British Exchequer or upon the
British Legislature, I, for my part, have sufficient confidence
in the patriotism, and in the intelligence of my fellow-country
men, without distinction of party, believing that they would
be strong enough to unite and deal with the occasion as it
required. I have one further and final word to say on this subject. 1
do not regard — I never have regarded — the maintenance of the
Irish representatives at Westminster with power to vote upon
English and Scotch affairs, as a final solution to the problem
of Home Rule. Opinion grows slowly upon this subject.
Here in Scotland it matures more rapidly than it does upon
the other side of the Border, but I am perfectly confident that
I shall be uttering the feeling and the opinion which is pre
valent in the minds of the very large majority of this audience
when I say that we do not in Scotland regard with satisfaction
a state of things under which Scotch business will be tran
sacted, not in accordance with the wishes and with the opinions
of the Scottish representatives — and, therefore, of the Scotch
electorate — these wishes and these opinions being perpetually
overridden by the votes of English and Irish members.
We believe that sooner or later — the thing
AliTtound must come gradually, and in its due time, and
it would be a very great mistake to precipitate
it before it was ripe — we believe that sooner or later the
process of devolution which begins with the granting of Home
Rule for Ireland will find further application in other parts
of the United Kingdom; and that the Imperial Parliament,
step by step, will be relieved of a great mass of the purely
local affairs which it at present transacts with all the dis
advantages of limited time and of imperfect knowledge, these
matters being relegated to be dealt with upon the spot by, and
for, the persons whom they directly and immediately concern.
Now, gentlemen, I have dealt — I fear at somewhat excessive
length — with the whole of the points as they appear to me in
relation to this measure of Home Rule. At any rate, I have
not consciously shirked any of the difficulties of the case, and
as a conclusion to what I have said, I ask you to agree with
me that the scheme which the Government have introduced,
which the House of Commons has passed, and which the

78

Irish Home Rule

country will be called upon ultimately to decide upon, is a
scheme which does safeguard the Imperial authority, which
does grant to Ireland a large and liberal measure of local
self-government, and which does provide, when we look for
ward to the future, for security against a recurrence of those
difficulties and dangers which have impeded the efforts and
frustrated the intentions of the Imperial Parliament in its
endeavours to do justice either to Great Britain or to Ireland.
[Mr. AsquiiKs concluding remarks were concerned only with
the general policy of the Government and the Parliamentary tactics
ofthe Opposition.]

VI.
THE STATE IN ITS RELATION TO TRADE-
STRIKES AND LOCK-OUTS.
(From The Times, March 15, 1894.)
[Speaking at the banquet in London on March 14, 1894, of the
Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom,
Mr. Asquith referred to the change which the Factory Acts
had brought about in the relations between commerce and the
State, and pleaded that the great Coal Strike of 1893 and other
recent trade disputes called for the institution of an Industrial
Arbitration Court.]
After afnv preliminary remarks, Mr. Asquith addressed himself
to his main subject :
He did not wish ... to dwell upon the personal, and
still less upon the political, aspect of the present moment. He
would rather take advantage of the oppor-
The State in tunity which their hospitality had afforded him
i^n.! J! .!____._•_. to say a few brief words as to the 'enormous
to Commerce ' ,.,,,, , ,
change which had taken place during the pre
sent reign between the relations of the Government on the one
hand and commerce on the other, both in their spirit and
their scope. Fifty or sixty years ago the Legislature and the
Executive, as far as they concerned themselves with the trade
of the country at all, endeavoured by tariff and bounty ar
rangements to stimulate it, and to a large extent to control the
production of the country. For good or for evil — he did not
desire on that occasion to venture on debatable grounds — they
had totally abandoned that system. But during the reign of
what he might call commercial protection there was in the
relations between capital and labour, with regard to the con
ditions of industry generally, what might be termed a tam
pered autocracy of "laisser faire." That system was altogether

80 The State in its Relation to Trade —
gone, because in the recent years the Legislature and the.
Executive had more and more interfered by means of Factory
Acts, Mines Acts, and Sanitary Acts, accompanied by a high
and complicated system of inspection, with freedom of con
tract, and with the independence of capital and labour, which
up to that time had reigned supreme.
There were in those former days, many persons who had
predicted with the utmost confidence that if the Government
Factory took upon themselves that work, capital would
Legislation be intimidated and would fly away to other
Beneficial countries where manufactures could be carried
tovJ(|*af'e as on free from restrictive laws. But experience
had refuted that prediction. He thought that
they would agree with him that labour which acted under
sanitary and healthy conditions, labour which was well-fed,
well-housed, well-clothed, and well-paid, had proved itself to
be the cheapest form of labour. He did not think that there
was any jealousy on the part of capitalists and the employers
of labour in this country with regard to the advantages which
legislation had conferred upon the workmen. Neither did he
think that they were adverse to a reasonable and limited ex
tension of those advantages. It was the first duty of the State
to see that the working classes carried on their lives under
decent conditions.
Passing to the relations between the Executive Government
and Parliament and the trade of the country, he said that
. during the past twelve months they had wit-
Coal Strike ¦ nessed one of the most widespread and deplor-
Jts Lesson ' a'^e industrial disputes that had ever arisen
between capital and labour in this country.
Into the merits of the question he would not enter, neither
would he now attempt to apportion the respective shares of
praise or blame which belonged to this party or to that; but
of this he was certain, that there was not a man among them
who looked back to those events without regretting that we had
not ready to hand the machinery by means of which the com
batants could have been brought together, and the deplorable
waste, which resulted from their differences not being more
easily and more quickly arranged, prevented. English trade
was ca'rried on under increasing difficulties. The wall of
tariffs which excluded them from foreign markets was every
day becoming higher and higher ; and side by side with these

Strikes and Lock-Outs 81
hostile and aggressive manifestations they found that the in-
dustrial equipment of their rivals was becoming keener. These
were not days in which the commercial classes of this country,
whether employers or workmen, could afford to waste months
of time and millions of money in internecine conflict which
mutual common-sense and forbearance might avoid.
He ventured to refer to the fact that his right hon. friend
and chief, Lord Rosebery, at a critical moment in that most
lamentable conflict was called in at the joint
T h6 t * I request of both parties, and by his tact and
Arbitration discretion, and the diplomatic skill which he
displayed, was enabled to compose their differ
ences and put an end to the strife. But was it right to leave
it to the accidental and casual initiative of a single individual
to take steps such as those which were vitally necessary to the
community at large? He was expressing the conviction which
had long been his, and which, he believed, was shared by
many, that any Government, of whatever party, and any Par
liament that could establish in this country a system of indus
trial arbitration corresponding with that in the wider sphere of
international relations, would earn the blessing that was pro
mised to the peacemakers, and would deserve well of this
country and of the civilised world.
There was one other topic to which he would like to refer.
Lord Beaconsfield once said, with great sagacity and states-
British Naval manship, that among all British interests the
Supremacy greatest was peace. That blessing would not
a Paramount be attained by entangling ourselves in foreign
Duty alliances ; not by making ourselves parties in
the international rivalries of nations with which we had no
immediate concern ; still less by entering into competition in
that rivalry of militarism which was the greatest plague to the
commerce and peace of the civilised world ; but, as his friend
Lord Spencer had pointed out, we in this country, with our
widespread Empire and our ubiquitous relations, considered
that we must always look to the maintenance of our supremacy
on the sea, not only for our greatest security in time of war,
which was, he trusted, remote, but as the best safeguard
against our being involved in war. He was delighted to hear,
as they were expounded in a hypothetical and contingent
manner by his noble friend, the proposals, or rather the adum
brations of proposals, which might conceivably be made by the

82 The State in its Relation to Trade
Government ; and he was also delighted to hear the ready and
unanimous response which those proposals received from all
quarters of that assemblage. The only difficulty in the way
of those proposals was the pecuniary difficulty ; and nothing
could be more gratifying than that all in that room, repre
senting the commerce and the capital of the country, were not
only ready, but longing and eager to pay. That greatly sim
plified the situation. At any rate, they might depend on this — •
that Her Majesty's Government recognised that there was no
duty more binding and obligatory upon them in the interests,
he would not say of commerce, but of the integrity and wel
fare of the Empire, than that we should maintain beyond ques
tion, cavil, or dispute the naval supremacy of this country.
That was a doctrine which was held more than a generation
ago by so good a Radical as Richard Cobden, and the Govern
ment might be very well content to pursue his maxims and to
follow in his steps in this matter.

VII.
THE HOUSE OF LORDS -THE NECESSITY FOR
REFORM.
(From Tbe Times, Oct. 23, i8p4.)
[Addressing his constituents at Leven on October 22, Mr. Asquith
briefly enumerated the measures which the Government had
carried through the Commons — the Home Rule Bill {rejected
by the Lords), the Parish Councils Bill, the Death Duties, the
Employers1 Liability Bill {withdrawn by the Governme7it in
face of the Lords' amendments). He then proceeded to the
following statement of the Government's achievements in
administrative matters over which the Lords had no power
and to an examination of the Lords' legislative veto, the
continuance of which he declared to be as incompatible with
popular enfranchisement as had been the personal veto of the
Sovereign with the establishment of Parliamentary supremacy.]
Mr. Asquith's opening remarks {summarised above) were
confined to a general review of the Parliamentary and political
situation of the day, and from this review of contemporary events
he passed to his main subject — the House of Lords.
We claim for the present Government that it has done more
than the most, at any rate, of its predecessors, so far as the
limits of its power would allow. The Govern-
I ' , ment is a large employer of labour in its
the Workers arsenals and dockyards, and we have recog
nised that the Government should set an
example to other employers, and act justly with its own ser
vants, both by shortening the hours of labour and by raising
the rate of wages. We hope that, without any undue cost to
the Exchequer, and without in any way impairing the efficiency
of the work done, we have materially improved the condition
of those who were in the taxpayers' service. In a variety of
other ways we have endeavoured to advance the law, not in
the interests of this class or of that, but so as to give full effect

84 The House of Lords —
to the intentions of Parliament. I do not exaggerate when I
say that in hundreds of factories and workshops life and health
are more secure to-day than they were two years ago. In
particular, where women* are employed, and where a system
of sweating prevails, the eye and the hand of the State are felt
as they were never felt before. In the dangerous industries
of the country, one after another has, by a process of sufficient
inquiry as to the conditions of employment and the surround
ings of the workmen, been improved and safeguarded. The
evils of child labour have been, or I trust will be, at any rate,
largely diminished by the steps which we have taken to raise
the standard of exemption from school attendance, both as
regards age and as regards proficiency. In a multitude of
other ways, in all the great administrative departments of the
State, we have endeavoured within the limits of the powers
which the Constitution intrusts to us to discharge in the
interests of the community at large, and especially of those
who have to earn their living by their hands and their labour,
the duties which in these days every civilised Government
ought to regard as its first responsibility to perform. Now, I
can assure you that it is not in a spirit of boastfulness, and
it is certainly in no sense of complacent satisfaction, that I
have made this brief enumeration. Something has been done ;
no doubt a great more might have been done, ought to have
been done, would have been done but for the obstacles to
which I am going to refer.
We have had to labour under very considerable drawbacks.
We have had throughout this Parliament a small majority,
_, j. which a slight error of judgment on the part of
of Lords those who were responsible for leadership, a slight
slackening of zeal and devotion on the part of
the rank and file of the Liberal party, might at any moment
have dissolved. More than that, we have been deprived in the
middle of our course of the leadership of the great mant whose
name has been for a generation past in all our great struggles
the watchword of his party, and whose imperishable achieve
ments will be indelibly recorded in the history of progress
and of liberty. In spite of these adverse conditions, we have
so far accomplished the task which was set to us ; and if we
* Women Factory Inspectors were first appointed in 1893 by Mr.
Asquith. f In March, 1894, Mr. Gladstone had rett7-ed 'from political life.

The Necessity for Reform 85
have not done as much as we intended, and as the country
expected, and as under more favourable circumstances we
might have achieved, we have at least done enough to refute
the prediction of those who prophesied that we should fritter
away a futile and transient existence in paralysed counsels
and legislative impotency.
I pass on to consider that which has been after all the
greatest obstacle, and call your attention for a few moments
The Relations t0 tne subject of the relations between the two
Between the Houses of Parliament. Let me say at the out-
Lords and set that I am not going to-night to make any
Commons announcement to you as to the precise steps
which her Majesty's Government purpose to take with regard
to this matter in the next Session of Parliament. In a very
few days — in the course of the present week — the country will
hear from the lips of* the Prime Minister what the Government
are to do in that respect. But I am speaking here not only
with the responsibility which every member of the Government
must share, but also as a member of Parliament to his con
stituents. And I am entitled to deal with the subject with
the frankness which has characterised our relations in the
East of Fife, and to tell you what my views are in the matter.
In performing that duty I shall endeavour to argue the ques
tions in a dispassionate manner, and with the candour which
its gravity and complexity imperatively demand. As a pre
liminary, I will make the remark that I consider it a matter
in which we should not confuse form with the facts. Let me
give you an illustration. Every Act of Parliament is passed
with these enacting words: — "Be it enacted by the Queen's
most excellent Majesty, by and with the consent of the Lords
and Commons." That is the form which we have inherited
from Plantagenet times and in the name of Plantagenet kings.
That is to say that the House of Lords and the House of Com
mons were in the position of subordinates, whose advice might
or might not be taken. The veto of the Crown, which is still
preserved and crystallised in every Act of Parliament, is as
dead as Queen Anne. Therefore, although the form remains,
it is a perfectly innocuous form, and I wish you to look
beneath the form to the substance of the thing, and not to run
away with the notion that a transformation in the outward form
* Lord Rpsebery.

86 The House of Lords—
of the matter will satisfy the requirements of the Constitution,
or is in any way necessitated by it. Having made this preface,
let us argue this matter by reference, first of all, to the actual
state which our constitutional development has reached, and
then with a view to recent events.
I start with this proposition — which I think will receive your
assent — that it is the object of a representative Government to
secure an authentic interpretation and a prompt
The Object of and effectual execution of the national will. It
Representative . ... , T c
Government 1S not necessary to believe — and 1, tor one,
have never professed to believe — that the people
are always wise, or that the majority is always in the right.
But two strong and convincing arguments which demonstrate
the superiority of the House of Commons are these. First of
all, it secures in the long run preponderance in general as
distinguished from sectional class interests ; and it brings
about the widest diffusion of sensible responsibility. It is not
upon sentimental grounds, but for those very practical reasons
founded upon common sense and experience, that we maintain
the necessity of representative government. If these proposi
tions are true, it follows that the Legislature should be so
constructed as to reflect and carry out the national will.
Starting from that, let us come to examine the position of a
second Chamber of Parliament, and such a second Chamber
as our own House of Lords. A second Chamber which claims
and exercises co-ordinate powers with a representative Cham
ber, not being itself representative, obviously prevents the
attainment of the object which I have just described, by intro
ducing a neutralising and a deflecting factor ; and this is so far
felt to be the case that the intelligent advocates of the House of
Lords do not now claim for it any co-ordinate or independent
authority. They admit — I suppose Lord Salisbury himself
would admit — that in temporary collision with the people, its
veto would be found as obsolete and as unavailing as the veto
of the Crown.
No, the functions which are claimed for the House of Lords
are merely these. First of all, that it should act as a revising
. authority over the details of legislation, and,
ClalmedCfo°"S in the next place' that where there is a reason-
the Lords able doubt whether, upon any question, the
House of Commons is representing the majority
of the electorate the House of Lords should have the power

The Necessity for Reform 87
of interposing such delay as will enable that doubt to be
authoritatively solved. I think I have fairly described in these
sentences the position which is taken up by the more far-sighted
and more intelligent apologists for our present House of
Lords. Well, the House of Lords, reduced to these compara
tively modest functions, might really be confessed by those
who defend it to be nothing more than a rather clumsy instru
ment for procuring what in foreign countries is called the
referendum — that is to say, a reference to the people. But it
does not claim to possess any inherent authority, or any power
permanently, and in the long run to set itself up against the
popular judgment; and it is a clumsy instrument because it
can only work first of all by delaying legislation upon which
the other House has resolved, and then by compelling a disso
lution, which does not enable it to obtain the definite judgment
of the country upon a specific issue, but, on the contrary,
throws all the issues which are for the time being current in
politics, as it were, into a common melting-pot, with a result
which is often confusing and chaotic to the last degree. Taking
this comparatively moderate and unambitious view of the func
tions of the House of Lords, the question which I want to ask
is — and it is the important practical question for us — How does
it, in fact, perform the duty which is imposed upon it? The
House of Lords is represented, and must be represented for
these purposes, as an impartial and dispassionate revising
authority. Its business is to correct slovenly and to check
precipitate legislation, but it must be keen to watch and care
ful to follow the steady set, as distinguished from the transient
drift of national sentiment ; and it must always be ready to
defer to the clear manifestation of the popular will. That is
the ideal House of Lords.
_, , Now let us come to look at the actual House
Tho Actus. I
House of Lords °* Lords as we know it and see it. In the first
place, its composition is hardly what you would
expect for a body intrusted with this peculiarly difficult and
deiicate duty. A body more curiously constructed for such a
purpose can hardly be conceived. Mostly all of its members
are chosen from a single class. They are chosen — except in
the case of new recruits— without any reference to fitness. The
result, as may be foreseen, is that parties are divided in the
House of Lords in the proportion of 500 on the one side, and
rather less than 50 on the other side. I am ready to admit

88 The House of Lords—
what was admitted by a noble colleague of mine, Lord Tweed-
mouth, that the House of Lords, considering the circumstances
of its composition, performs its duties well, and in very much
the same spirit as might be expected of any other body of
Englishmen similarly situated. A higher claim than that
cannot be made for it. Passing from its composition, let us
look for a moment at its actions. This is a body which is
supposed to act impartially, and to check the House of Com
mons where the House of Commons can be reasonably
regarded as not being in accord with the sympathy and opinion
of the people of the country. While a Tory Minister is in
office and a Tory majority is in the House of Commons, this
function of the House of Lords is totally and absolutely sus
pended. The House of Lords is passing into a state of political
hibernation, and the people are very much shocked at the idea
of our country being governed by the autocratic power of a
single Chamber.
From the years 1886 to 1892 we in this country lived under
the unchecked domination of the House of Commons, for what-
The Lords ever measures the House of Commons passed,
Under the House of Lords approved. There was be
ei Tory tween the bodies — if one may borrow an expres-
Government sion current ;n philosophy— a pre-established
harmony without break and without jar. We all remember the
passing of the Coercion Act of 1887. It was passed by Parlia
ment in its second Session. The majority of the members
of that Parliament, or a very large proportion of them, had
pledged themselves the year before at the General Election
to vote against the renewal of oppressive government in
Ireland. We hear a great deal about gag and the guillotine,
but that measure was carried through the House of Commons
by what, perhaps, was the most drastic application of the
closure which has ever been known ; and it embodied a sweep
ing and permanent change in the law of Ireland. Can you
imagine that a measure which falls within the description I
have given should have been passed by the second Chamber?
One would have expected that that Chamber, exercising a
dispassionate revising authority, would have sent it back until
it found whether the electors were in favour of this extra
ordinary new departure. But the action of the House of Lords
was this. It passed in a single night, and after a few hours'
discussion, the whole of this Bill which came from the House

The Necessity for Reform 89
of Commons in the circumstances I have told you. That is
an illustration which shows conclusively that where the party
in a majority in the two Houses is the same the House of Lords
abdicates what it claims for itself.
Look again at what was done recently. The House of Lords
has rejected a Home Rule Bill ; a Bill for the relief of the
The Lords evicted tenants in Ireland ; a Bill for the aboli-
Under tion of primogeniture in the inheritance of land;
a -Liberal and the important proposals of the London
Government County Council for the adoption of the principle
of betterment in relation to local rates. It practically rejected,
as I explained to you a short time ago, the Employers'
Liability Bill. It disfigured, and it would if it could have
mutilated, the English and Scotch Local Government Bills.
And what is the prospect of the measures which are still before
us, and which we have pledged ourselves to ask Parliament
to carry. What is the prospect in the House of Lords of Bills,
however much may be the , majority in the House of Commons
by which they are carried, to carry out the principle of "one
man one vote," or to establish religious equality in Scotland
and in Wales ? We know very well there is not one of these
measures which has a chance of passing through the House of
Lords ; although there is not one of them upon which the
opinion of the majority of the electorate was not clearly
declared at the General Election of 1892. The truth is the
House of Commons, which was uncontrolled during those years
of Tory rule from 1886 to 1892, is now checked and neutralised
in every direction. Our first Chamber alternates between
omnipotence when a Tory Government is in power, and impo
tence when a Liberal Government is in power. On the other
hand, the House of Lords, which effaces itself in the first
period, in the second becomes an active and a powerful engine
of destruction. Our charge, then, to put the matter briefly,
The_ Charge against the House of Lords, is that in its com-
the Lords position it caricatures the features, and in
practice it perverts the functions, of a necessary
Chamber. It may be prudent, it may be necessary, to take
security against the possible danger of the House of Commons
misinterpreting or outliving its mandate by committing the
country to legislation which is in advance of or in opposition
to the national will. But surely the resources of statesmanship

cp The House of Lords —
ought to be equal to devising some better remedy against that
danger than the subordination of the representative House of
Commons to the capricious and one-sided jurisdiction of what
is, after all, a privileged party committee. I have spoken
of this matter, I hope, not with undue exaggeration, because
I regard it as an issue of supreme importance, which the
country is now ready and now compelled to take. We are
reproached with tinkering with the machinery of our Govern
ment when our time might be more profitably spent in pushing
forward great measures of social reform. That is an old
fallacy with a new face. Driving power is of no use in the
world unless your machinery will respond to it, and you cannot
fabricate the reform which our time and our needs demand
so long as the action of one of our Legislative Chambers is
constantly neutralised by the reaction of the other. I agree
that in a matter of such gravity and of such difficulty, we ought
to be slow" to move, and we ought to be prudent and careful
in the proposals which we make. But there is no longer any
use in blinking the fact that we have arrived at a point in our
constitutional development when this great issue must be deter
mined one way or the other. It means, I agree, the opening
of a new chapter in our Constitution ; and in my judgment it
is in no sense a revolutionary step, but it merely marks the
formal and practical recognition of the logical consequences
of those measures of popular enfranchisement which both
parties in the State, during the last thirty years have passed.
I said at the outset that we had accomplished
ZrtJl i ^T?. some Part °f the task which the country had set
ot the Lords . c , , _ , , , ,, ,
Imperative us t0 Peri°rm ; but how much more we shall be
permitted to accomplish before the time comes
for a fresh appeal to the people it will be hazardous to
predict. I said a year ago that we were not to be
hurried into a premature dissolution until we had either lost
the confidence of the House of Commons or had the oppor
tunity of unfolding the full programme which we intended to
present for the acceptance of Parliament and the nation. I
adhere to that opinion to-day. When the time comes, and it
cannot, in the natural course of events, be delayed very long,
you will have to ask yourselves this question— not merely
whether you are in favour of this measure or that of social
and political reform, but whether you are prepared to say,
whenever a progressive majority controls the House of Com-

The Necessity for Reform 91
mons, and Liberal principles are dominant in the councils of
the nation, that practical and effective execution of these prin
ciples and their embodiment in definite legislation shall be
postponed and rendered in many cases impossible or, at any
rate, useless by the action of a non-representative body. To that
question, when it is fairly put to the nation, as it will be put
at the next General Election, I am confident that there can be
but one answer ; and it will be seen that, just as the veto of
the Crown was found to be incompatible with the free and full
exercise of those functions by the Imperial Parliament, that
the veto of the House of Lords is incompatible with the first
principles of representative and democratic government.

VIII.
FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS BILL.
(From The Times, March 2, 1895.)
[On March 1, 1893, Mr. Asquith, as Home Secretary, introduced
in ihe Commons this Bill which, though the Liberal Government
was defeated and resigned office three months later, became law
as the " Factories and Workshops Act" every facility being
given by Lord Salisbury's Government for the passage of
Mr. Asquith's measure in the last days of this Parliament
immediately before its dissolution and the General Election
of July, 1893.]
Mr. Asquith, in introducing the Bill " to amend and
extend the law relating to factories and workshops," said it
was a measure which covered a wide area of ground and in
volved the consideration of a number of not very closely con
nected technical details. The Bill was framed in what the
Government believed to be the spirit which had animated the
whole of our factory legislation. The aim and intention of
that legislation he understood to be to provide for all classes
of workers to whom it applied those reasonable conditions of
safety for life and health which were in fact observed by wise
employers and well-conducted undertakings. But what he
might call the standard of safety rose from time to time, and
it had been recognised by all parties in the State that it was
the duty of Governments and of Parliaments to recognise the
advance of public opinion, to recognise what he might describe
as the quickening of the public conscience in this matter,
which, by general consent, could not safely be left to individual
initiative and enterprise. The Government proposed in this
Bill to extend in certain directions the existing law and to
make provision for some cases with which that law in its
present shape did not attempt to deal. For the purposes of
exposition he would group the provisions under two or three
heads.

Factories and Workshops Bill 93
First, he would call the attention of the House to certain
provisions proposed for further safeguarding the life and
n  j. health of the workers in factories and workshops,
Overcrowding , , , ... % '
in Factories a improving the sanitary conditions under
which they worked. 'He would begin with the
question of overcrowding. To allow a factory to be over
crowded was already an offence, but the term " overcrowding ''
was vague and elastic, and permitted, as experience showed,
of different interpretations in different trades and in the dif
ferent parts of the country. The Government had come to the
conclusion, after consulting practical men, and after taking
the advice of her Majesty's inspectors, that it would be desirable
to lay down a statutory definition of overcrowding which would
be applicable to every factory and workshop in the country. „
The proposal was that in all factories and workshops there *
should be as a minimum 250 cubic feet of space for every
person, and 400 cubic feet of space for every person during
overtime. Further, the Secretary of the State should be em
powered to add to this minimum in hours during which artificial
light was employed. That provision would make the law
uniform, and it would not impose any practical hardship on
the employers of labour, while it would secure sanitary con
ditions in this important respect.
Next, there were some points under the same general head
relating to machinery. The law at present prohibited children
|V|ew from cleaning machines in motion, and the
Precautions Government thought that that prohibition ought
to be to be extended from children to " young per-
Entorced sons." Many accidents of a serious, and some
of a fatal, character had been due to the carelessness or
inexperience of young persons in cleaning machines. Further
— but the Government did not think it fair or advisable to apply
this provision to the factories already in existence — it was pro
posed that in all new factories where there were self-acting
machines, such as the cotton looms, the machines should not
be allowed to run out within 18 inches of any pillar or fixed
structure in the factory. A large number of melancholy acci
dents were due to the narrow space left between the extreme
minimum of the machine and the fixed structure towards which
it moved, and many children and young persons had been
crushed. This was not a provision to which the manufacturers
of the country would object. Then as to dangers from fire,

94- Factories and Workshops Bill
which were, perhaps, more common in workshops than in fac
tories. There were provisions in the Act of 1891 which in
effect left the duty of seeing that adequate means of escape
were provided to the sanitary authorities. Experience of the
working of that Act showed that the duty had been very largely
neglected by those on whose shoulders it was intended to lie.
The Government, recognising the difficulties in the way of
enabling one of her Majesty's inspectors to require structural
changes, proposed that a Court of summary jurisdiction should,
on the application of an inspector, be empowered to make an
order for the provision of movable fire-escapes not involving
structural changes wherever, in the opinion of the Court, the
premises were not sufficiently protected in that respect. Next,
as to certain provisions in relation to dangerous premises and
dangerous machines. The law at present was very defective,
not in the matter of inspection, but in the matter of affording
a speedy and adequate remedy. The Bill first dealt with pre
mises which were in an unfit state, either for manufacturing
processes generally or for the particular process carried on.
Power was given to a Court of summary jurisdiction, on the
complaint of an inspector, and on being satisfied that any .
manufacturing process could not be carried on without danger
to health, to prohibit the premises from being used until the
necessary works had been carried out, to put them in a proper
condition. This provision was strictly analogous to those in
the Public Health Acts with reference ito insanitary dwelling-
houses, the operation of which has been found most useful.
In the same way the Bill dealt with the case of dangerous
machines. He had had cases .brought to his notice — particu
larly in the Sheffield cutlery trade — where grindstones, known
or reasonably suspected to be dangerous, the breaking of which
was often attended with serious consequences to a large number
of persons, went on being worked without there being any
effective power to stop them. When the injury had been
done, action, both civil and criminal, could be taken, but the
law at present provided no means of preventing the injury.
The Bill proposed that powers should be given to a Court
of summary jurisdiction to act on the motion of an inspector,
and to require such machines to be disused until they have
been put into a proper condition, or, if incapable of that, to
be disused altogether. The Government thought this matter to
be so important that they proposed to go further, and to enable

Factories and Workshops Bill 95
the magistrate, when a complaint had been made, to make
an interim order ex parte, until the complaint could be heard
in the regular way.
Next as to the question of accidents, still falling within the
first category. There were somewhat technical provisions to
Thg simplify and extend the law in relation to the
Notification notification of accidents. Every occupier of a
of Accidents workshop or factory was to be required to keep a
register of accidents open to the inspection of her
Majesty's inspectors and the certifying surgeons. That pro
vision would be of great benefit in tracing injuries to their
causes. There was further a provision, to which he attached
very much importance, that power should be given to the
Secretary of State — a power already possessed by him under
the Coal Mines Act in relation to accidents in mines — to direct'
an inquiry to be made into any accident in a factory or
workshop. So far he had been dealing with the internal arrangements
of factories and workshops; he now passed to the question
of out-work. That was a subject to which much
Sweating: attention had been drawn in connection with
what was called "Sweating." There was a
general opinion that our factory legislation would be imperfect.
unless it not only dealt with the arrangements of factories and
workshops themselves, but also put some check on the occupier
evading his legal obligations by getting his work done outside,
where inspection could not penetrate, and the law could not be
enforced. By the Act of 1891 the Secretary of State was em
powered to order that in certain trades the occupier of a work
shop or factory should keep lists of the names and addresses
of his out-workers, which lists were to be open to inspection.
The right hon. gentleman opposite exercised that power in
respect of one trade ; he had done so in respect of one or two
others. The result, on the whole, had been very satisfactory,
because by means of the new inspectors' assistants it had been
possible, in a large number of cases, especially in the East
End, to track these " sweaters " to their dens. But the law
was far from adequate to meet the case. Various proposals
had been made. One was that the occupier of a factory or
workshop who gave out-work should be made absolutely and
personally responsible for the sanitary conditions in which the
work was done. He had given great attention to that proposal :.

96 Factories and Workshops Bill
and although he was entirely in sympathy with its object and
intention, he believed that that broad and general regulation
would be impracticable. In the shawl trade, for instance, work
was given out in London, and the shawls were often made in
very remote parts of the country. It would be altogether
unreasonable to require that a trader in London or a large
manufacturing town should not give out work, except at his
own risk and peril, to be done in one of these remote places,
in relation to the actual conditions of which he could have
no knowledge, and exercise no control. The Bill took a some
what milder course, and one which in practice would be more
effective. Power was given to the Secretary of State to
schedule or order' that the provisions which he was about to
describe should apply to certain classes of work — where the
evil was supposed to exist, and in certain areas to be pre
scribed. In those cases the law would be as follows : — It having
come to the knowledge of one of her Majesty's inspectors that
out-work was being carried on in an insanitary place, his duty
would be to give notice to the employer. Then, after one
month, if the employer continued to give out-work to be done
in the place, and the place was proved to be insanitary, the
employer would be liable to a penalty. The employer would
be in this position — that, having received notice, he would be
responsible either for putting the place in a proper sanitary
condition, or for discontinuing to employ the people who work
there. That was an obligation which might be fairly imposed,
and indirectly it would have the effect of destroying, to a large
extent, the sweaters' trade.
He would now pass to another head altogether — the pro
visions of the law which dealt with the period of employment
and the hours of labour. Here the question of
Hours of overtime came in. There were two kinds of
Labour and _•_¦_•_
Overtime overtime — legalised overtime and overtime
which, in the existing state of the law, was
illegal, but which the machinery at the disposal of the execu
tive did not permit of being found out and punished. There-
were two kinds of legalised overtime, under two sections of the
Act of 1878. The first section (53) dealt with trades where
the goods were liable to be spoilt by the weather, or where the
trade was subject to sudden press of orders, or to a press of
work at recurring seasons of the year.
The law allowed to women and young persons two hours:

Factories and Workshops Bill 97
overtime a day, -provided that overtime was worked not more
than five days a week, or forty-eight days in a year. Under
section 42, which dealt with perishable goods, the law allowed
overtime to women only, and in this case the overtime was
restricted to five days a week, or ninety-six in the year. He
was afraid it was impossible to abolish overtime altogether,
at any rate, as regarded women ; but the Government proposed
to take as long a step in that direction as might be practicable
by prohibiting absolutely for the future overtime in the case
of young persons, and if this Bill were passed the effect would
be that no person under eighteen would be allowed to work
overtime. In the case of women, with whose power of work
it was not proposed to interfere, the Government thought the
hours at present allowed were undoubtedly long, and it was
proposed, under Section 53, to reduce them from five days to
three, and from forty-eight in the year to thirty-eight, and
under section 56 to sixty days a year. Experience showed that
that would not involve any interference. with the actual course
of business ; for there were few businesses at all, and he might
say no well-conducted business, where, in. any emergency, over
time was required to be worked for a longer time. Another
point in relation to overtime was the overtime allowed to male
young persons. Then he came to cases in which the provisions
of the law as to the hours of women, young persons, and young
children were evaded by giving out home-work to be done after
hours. That was a common way of escaping and infringing
the provisions of the existing law. The Government proposed
to deal with these cases by prohibiting altogether home-work
for children employed in factories and workshops, and next
to provide against any woman or young person employed for
full hours in a factory or workshop taking home work or being
afterwards employed in a shop, which was a very common thing.
He could not pass from this head of the subject without
alluding to an omission in the Bill which was certain to excite
some comment. The Bill did not contain any
The Age of provision for raising the minimum age at which
<-„m^?^,m5!1„ children could be employed. The House would
tor Children , ,
remember that under the Act of 1891, the
employment of children under eleven was prohibited. Many
(including himself) thought that the minimum age ought to be
raised from eleven to twelve. The proposal, if not advocated,
was at least assented to by the representatives of the British E

98 Factories and Workshops Bill
Government at the Berlin Conference, and. as far as the
Government were concerned they would be most happy to see it
enacted. It might be asked why they had not introduced a
provision to that effect in this Bill. Their reasons were purely
practical. In the first place, the regulations as to the school
age and the age of employment for children in factories and
workshops were in a state of great confusion, and required
to be simplified and made uniform. The Government had
given a great deal of attention to the subject, and would like to
consolidate all the provisions relating to it, and bring them
into harmony with one another. The Government thought a
separate Bill for the purpose would be more appropriate than
the present Bill, which only touched one side of the problem.
There was another serious practical difficulty. He had had
careful inquiries made into this subject in all parts of the,
country, and he was assured that a proposal to raise the age-
after only two years' experience of the eleven years' limit —
from eleven to twelve would excite strong and determined
opposition from masters and men, and more particularly from
men employed in the textile industries of Lancashire and York
shire. They would say, " You have taken advantage of a time
when trade is depressed and wages are low to deprive us of
earnings which go to the maintenance of our families."
Although he did not agree with them, he would be most happy
to see the provision introduced ; but he was anxious to make
this, if he could, a non-controversial Bill, and did not wish to
sacrifice the chance of passing what he thought was a useful
and beneficent Bill as he feared he should if he attempted
an angry and protracted controversy on a particular point.
But if the Government discovered there was anything like a
general disposition to adopt the age of twelve, and insert- it
in the Bill, they would be in hearty sympathy with it, and
would be only too glad to have their hands forced.
He now came to another important subject — the extension
of the Factories Act to industries not now within it. He had
expressed the opinion more than once that our
The Exten si onj.actory. legislation should cover the whole area
Factories Act °^ industry, and, although that was perhaps in
the nature of an ideal to be gradually attained,
he thought they ought, as far as they could within the limits of
what was practical, to get closer and closer to it. This Bill
proposed to bring under the Factories Act for the first time

Factories and Workshops Bill 99
several industries at present outside its scope ; and first and
foremost were laundries. At present the only enactment
applicable to laundries made it incumbent on an inspector, if
it appeared to him that a laundry was in an insanitary condi
tion, to give notice to the sanitary authority, who must take
action. In practice this provision had been found to be of little
value. He would state in two or three sentences why laundries
ought to come within the scope of the Factories Act. In the
first place, engines and machinery were used to a large extent
in some laundries, and the fencing of the machinery was fre
quently neglected, and numbers of accidents were caused in
consequence. Again, in steam and other laundries there was a
needlessly high temperature, due partly to lack of ventilation
and combination of heat and humidity, which arose from the
stoves for heating irons, which were kept in the ironing rooms,
where they ought not to be. Then there were in laundries
excessive hours of work. Careful investigation had been made
in all parts of the country, and he found that work often went
on in laundries for sixty-six and even eighty-five hours a week.
In many laundries there were no regular meal times. Working
all night was not uncommon, and in many parts of the country
ironers worked from Friday mornings until midnight on Satur
day. By proper organisation of work, double shifts and expe
dients of that kind, he saw no difficulty in accommodating
laundry work to the ordinary statutory conditions. At any
rate, an experiment would be made, and if this Bill were passed
some laundries would be treated as factories, and other
laundries as workshops under the Factories and Workshops Act.
The only conditions by way of exemption were that the Act
should apply only to laundries carried on by way of trade, and
not to laundries where the persons employed were members of
the same family. Beyond these exemptions he did not see his
way to go.
He proposed now to refer to another trade, or set of trades,
at present exempt from the operation of the law — namely,
docks, wharves, and quays, and also building
Docks, operations where machinery was employed.
O a ""_. 6 etc This was a sphere of industry in which accidents
often occurred, serious and sometimes fatal, and
the Government thought docks, wharves, and quays ought to
be brought within the provisions of the Act, certainly as to the
fencing of machinery, the notices of accidents, and inspection,

roo Factories and Workshops Bill
He wished now to refer to the tenement factories, which were
very common in Sheffield and that part of the country. In
these factories one person was landlord of all the rooms, and
provided the power, and he let off the rooms to different
occupiers, occupying none of the premises himself. One bf the
sub-occupiers hired a room, used the power provided, and
sometimes worked for himself or employed a few men under
him. The result was, no one being the occupier, in the techni
cal sense, of the building as a- whole, it was impossible to
enforce the Act. Under the present Bill the owner of the
premises would be made responsible as to the sanitary condi
tions, fencing of machinery, lime-washing, posting up of
abstracts and notices ; and the schedule contained provisions
peculiarly applicable to the grinding industry carried on in
Sheffield, which had been agreed upon, and if carried into law
would prevent a large number of avoidable accidents. Lastly,
in dealing with new trades to be included in the scope of the
Bill, he came to bakehouses.
Mr. STUART-WORTLEY asked whether Section 8 would
be applied to dangerous trades.
Mr. ASQUITH said no doubt the section might be applied,
and it was very desirable that there should be special rules in
such cases. With regard to bakehouses the present state of the
law was unsatisfactory. Some of the provisions of the law as
to sanitary and other matters applied only to towns of over
5,000 inhabitants, and others only to bakehouses which had*
been opened since June, 1883. The Government proposed that
these provisions should be applied to all bakehouses, existing
and future, wherever situated and whenever worked.
He passed now to the special provisions for particular indus
tries, and he came first and . foremost to a question
The interesting to hon. members for Lancashire and
" Particulars "the West Riding of Yorkshire — namely, what
of Wages was commonly known as the "particulars"
Clause clause. Hon. members representing those dis
tricts were aware that the Act of 1891, by Section 24, required
that in the case of certain classes of workers paid by the piece,
the employers should supply the operative when giving out the
work with sufficient particulars to enable him to ascertain the
rate of wages which he was entitled to be, paid for the work.
This was a very useful provision, but it had been found ih-

Factories and Workshops Bill 101
adequate. The right hon. member for Bury introduced a Bill
last year which proposed to amend the law on the subject, and
their Bill, he would see, differed from his in being somewhat
more comprehensive in character. In the first place, it was
confined to a limited class of workers — in the cotton trade, only
to weavers, winders, and reelers; and inthe worsted, linen, and
jute trades to the weavers only. He proposed to extend it to
every worker in every textile factory where payment was by the
piece. In the next place, the existing law was defective as to
the form and extent of the particulars required. . The Act did
not say whether particulars were to be verbal, merely, or in
writing, though, he confessed, it was manifestly the intention of
the Act that it should be furnished in writing. This had given
rise to a certain amount of trouble, and there had been still
more difficulty in regard to how many particulars the Act
required. They proposed to define all these matters. They
required the employer to furnish two sets of particulars to the
men ; in the first place — he was dealing, of course, only with
people paid by the piece — he was to furnish particulars of the
rate of wages applicable to the work, and in the next place
he was to furnish particulars of the work given out to the
individual workman to whom that rate of wages was to be
applied. The particulars under each of these two heads were
to be furnished in writing at the time when the wor]c was given
out. Special provision was made that it should be in writing,
and not in symbols, as the latter were liable to misunderstand
ing. The provisions he had made were subject simply to two
exceptions. As to the rate of wages where the particulars were
equally applicable to all the workers in one room, they- might
be exhibited on a placard, providing that the placard contained
all the particulars as to the rate of wages and nothing else ;
and then as to the particulars of the work to be done, that
might in appropriate cases be ascertained by what was known
as an automatic indicator, which was well known in the
spinning branch of the cotton trade. In order that these indi
cators should not. possibly be misleading, they proposed to
make special provisions of a highly technical kind to secure
their accuracy. He thought that when the law was amended
in that way it would give satisfaction both to the employers
and employed in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and would remove
many harassing difficulties which had arisen as to the con
struction of the existing section.

102 Factories and Workshops Bill
He passed from that to the special provisions inserted dealing
with dangerous trades. By these they proposed that where a
certificate was given, under Section 8 of the Act
Trades°US of i8qi> that a trade was dangerous to life or
health, the Secretary of State, by the special
rules which he was empowered to make, might prohibit the
employment or limit the period of employment of any class of
workers engaged in that trade. He had found in framing these
special rules that in connection with the lead industries and
other dangerous trades he had been very much hampered by
not having the power to prohibit altogether certain classes of
people from engaging in certain processes, and some of the
most valuable recommendations of the departmental commit
tees which had investigated the conditions of these particular
industries he had not been able to carry out because he had
not possessed the powers which they were now asking for. The
powers were not at all likely to be abused or to be used in any
sense that was oppressive or injurious to the liberty of trade,
and he recorded his own most deliberate opinion that it was
absolutely essential to the health and life of the workers. He
would mention in passing some points of detail. They proposed
in the case of textile factories where a great deal of humidity
was engendered by the operations of the trade, as was the case
especially in linen factories, to bring them under the provisions
of the Cotton Cloth Act, 1889. They had heard a good deal
of the conditions of things in Belfast from this cause, and he
had been much shocked to find what a large amount of pre
ventable mortality and illness existed. Mr. Osborne, the
gentleman who had been entrusted with the execution of the
Cotton Cloth Act, and who was one of the ablest men in the
service of the Crown, speaking with a special knowledge of
Belfast, was able to report that a large amount of this mortality
was due to precisely the same conditions against which the legis
lation of 1889 had been directed, and, if a similar scale of
temperature as that described by the Act of 1889 could be
applied to the linen industry of Belfast, a very great change
in the condition of things would soon be brought about. By
arrangements and negotiations made with the employers and
employed of Belfast, he was happy to say very large and bene
ficial changes had been already introduced, but he hoped the
House would pass this provision into law so as to enable them
in future to apply it to all the textile industries.

Factories and Workshops Bill 103
There was another small point relevant to the same subject ;
they proposed that in workshops and factories where wearing
_. , . apparel was made, the law should in future pro-
Factories v^e t^lat t'ie temperature should be kept at not
less than sixty degrees. The House was pro
bably unaware, as he himself had been until the matter was
specially brought to his notice, how large a number of work
shops there were in London, such as those where dressmaking
was carried on, in which there was no heat of any kind pro
vided for the workers. The women and girls very often arrived
at these places in wet clothes, where there were no means of
drying them, and they carried on their work all through the
day without artificial heat of any kind.
Sir C. DILKE. — Why limit it to clothing factories?
Mr. ASQUITH said it was so limited in his proposal because
rit was only in those cases they had evidence that serious evils
existed. He thought it would not be desirable to make any
hard and fast rules, except where a clear case of necessity was
made out ; but, of course, it could be shown that there were
other industries in the same condition, he should be very glad
to include them.
There were also special provisions as to places where arsenic
and other poisonous substances were made or used. In future,
wherever cases from illness occurred from lead, or arsenic, or
phosphorus, or anthrax, it would be the duty of the occupier
of the factory to give immediate notice to the inspector or cer
tifying surgeon, and it would be the duty of the medical officer
who attended to the case to give notice to the chief inspector in
London. Mr. BYLES. — Will anthrax include diseases arising from
handling wool ?
Mr. ASQUITH said that was what he had in his mind. Then
lastly, they proposed that all the workshops in the country, not
only future, but existing workshops, should be
Workshops registered. It was absolutely essential to the
Registered efficient carrying out of the law under this sec
tion that annual returns should be made in all
factories and workshops of the persons employed, and of the
particulars as to age and sex.
Their proposals briefly capitulated were these : — First, as to

104 Factories and Workshops Bill
factories and workshops, where either the premises were unfit
for use or any process, or machine was dan-
Ephomised gerous, the law would make full provision for
" ! the safety of the workers, and it would be simpler
to apply and easier to enforce. For that purpose they pro
posed the compulsory registration of accidents and the giving
of power to the Secretary of State to make inquiry which would
render the invasion of the law more difficult, and the hushing-
up of injuries impossible. As to the out-work, they proposed
to prevent the present abuses and ultimately to penalise the
giver out of work if he continued to send it to insanitary places.
As to overtime, they had prohibited it altogether for young per
sons, and reduced it for women. As to homework, which was
a peculiarly noxious form of overtime, they had prohibited it
for children, and regulated it for women and young persons,
so as to secure that no person protected by the law should work
during the twenty-four hours for a longer time than the law at
present prohibited. As to the new industries, such as laundries,
docks, harbours, the constructions of buildings, and bake
houses, they had brought them for the first time within the
scope of the law. They had made special provision for dan
gerous trades and textile . industries by providing for the
registration of workshops throughout . the country, which was
the best step they could take to secure the efficient administra
tion of the law. Pie trusted that this might be regarded as a
matter of equal concern to all parties, and when this Bill
reached, as he hoped it would, the second reading, they would
be able to thresh out its details in a practical spirit in one of the
Standing Committees upstairs.

IX.
WELSH DISESTABLISHMENT.
(From The Times, March 22, 1895.)
[hi the Commons on March 21, 1893, on moving the second reading
of the Bill which he originally introduced in April, 1894, and
re-introduced in February, 1893, " to terminate the establishment
of the Church of England in Wales and Monmouthshire."
The Bill was read a second time by a majority of 44, but it was
still in Committee when Parliament was dissolved on the defeat
of the Liberal Government in fune, 1893.]
Mr. Speaker, the time has now come when in accordance
with our ordinary practice the great issues of principle which
are raised- by this measure can be appropriately discussed, and
it is my duty, in fulfilment of the promise I have made more
than once, to state on behalf of the Government the grounds
of policy which have led to its introduction.
Sir, the questions involved in a proposal of this kind must,
under all circumstances, be questions of the utmost delicacy
and gravity. But in the present case the difficulty of dealing
with them is greatly enhanced by the extreme and, at the same
time, the perfectly intelligible sensitiveness of feeling which
this controversy with "respect to the Welsh Church has aroused,
both upon the one side and upon the other. On the one hand
we have the overwhelming majority of the representatives of
the people of Wales, who see in this measure the means — long
delayed, ardently, and I think I may say passionately, desired
by the vast bulk of the people — for the removal of what they
conceive to be a grievous and glaring injustice. On the other
hand we are confronted by those who look upon this Bill as
nothing better and nothing worthier than a veiled attack upon
the Church of England, promoted, as they tell us, upon false
pretences and for sordid reasons, and fraught, if it should ever
succeed in passing into law, with injurious and even disastrous
consequences, as well to the spiritual as to the temporal in
terests of the Church. Sir, no wonder that in an atmosphere
charged with these currents of feeling the Right Hon. Baronet,

106 Welsh Disestablishment
the member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach), the other day
lamenting, as he said, that we seem to be divided from one
another by a distance as great as that which separates the
poles, should almost have despaired of even a common meeting
ground between us for argument. For my part, sir, I desire,
and I am certain that all who are responsible for the conduct
of this Bill desire, to avoid as far as we can the importation
into the discussion of unnecessary heat. I shall endeavour, to
the best of my ability, to do so, and I trust that I may appeal to
hon. gentlemen opposite, who feel so strongly and so sincerely
upon the subject, at any rate to give me a forbearing and an
indulgent hearing, while I on my part will ask from them, in
advance, forgiveness, if unwittingly by any phrase or argument
of mine I give offence to a sentiment which, whether I share
it or not, I at any rate understand and respect.
What is the Now> sir> the obJect of this BiU is t0 terminate
Establishment the legal establishment of the Church of Eng-
by Law of land in Wales. That is its central and its
the Church? essential provision. Everything else in it is sub
sidiary to that main and governing purpose. I think, there
fore, before I come to deal with the special circumstances of
the particular case of Wales, it may be useful, even at the risk
of repeating facts which are familiar to the House, if I ask, and
if I attempt to answer the question, in what does establishment
by law of the Church consist? Sir, as we are all aware, the
relations between the Church and the State in this country are
very different at the present time from what they, were in the
earlier stages of our constitutional history. In those days, and
down to a time which is comparatively recent, the Church and
State were co-extensive in area. They were different aspects,
or perhaps, to speak more accurately, different organisations,
of one and the same society. No man could be a citizen in the
full sense of the term unless he was a Churchman. Heresy
was a crime punishable by law, and dissent in those who
avowed it exposed them to every kind of civil and political
disability. That was establishment in the strict and full sense
of the term. As we know by the operation of forces with which
the student of history is familiar, at first in the guise of tolera
tion, then in the more formidable shape of a demand from
religious liberty, that complete and logical system of establish
ment was slowly undermined ; and it is instructive to observe,
and not at all irrelevant to the question now before the House,

Welsh Disestablishment 107
that at every stage and every step of that process champions of
Church establishment resisted the change on the grounds for
which, in my judgment at any rate, there was a much greater
logical foundation in those days than there is for the corre
sponding argument to-day, that if you once admitted to civil
and political rights, to a full share in the making and adminis
tration of the law, men of all religions and no religion, the
national profession of religion embodied in the Established
Church would cease to have any meaning or reality. We listen
to the same arguments to-day, but they are arguments advanced
in- the defence of what, though it is still, as I shall show, a very
formidable framework of legal protection, is after all, but a
meagre and an attenuated remnant of the Establishment of
the past.
For what is the Establishment of the Church by law to-day?
In the first place, it means the incorporation of the law of the
The Present Church into the law of the land. It means that
Condition the courts of the Church, the jurisdiction over
of Church ecclesiastical matters, have a coercive jurisdic-
Estab,ishment tion, which, in the last resort, the Civil power
will enforce. It means that the Bishops of the Church exercise
legislative functions in the House of Lords. It means that
the Legislature of the Church Convocation is summoned by the
Crown, and is constituted according to law, and that without
the licence of the Crown has no power to make any enactment
which has any binding effect. It means that the doctrine and
the ceremonies of the Church, whatever other sanction or
authority they may have, have also the statutory authority of
Acts of Parliament behind them. As to endowments, it means
that a large number — at any rate, a very considerable propor
tion — of the benefices of the Church are at the disposal of per
sons who, for the time being, hold important offices of State ;
and as to that, which is in Wales, at any rate, 'the main source
of the revenue of the Church — the tithes — it means, in contra
distinction to every other form of religious endowment pos
sessed by other religious sects, that in the last resort the
machinery of the law and the arm of the law will be brought
into operation to enforce them. Sir, if that be so — and I do not
think I have stated anything that will be contraverted — the
Established Church has privileges and obligations which no
other religious denominations in this country is entitled to,
or subject to, and which have this common characteristic —

108 Welsh Disestablishment
whether they spring from the Common Law, or whether they
are derived from Statute — that they were conferred and are
maintained by the State.
I have dwelt on these facts, familiar as they undoubtedly
are, because I wish at the very outset of the argument to dispose
of two familiar fallacies. In the first place, I
,-w? . say the statements I have made show conclu-
Failacies . ' , , , . , ...
sively, and bring out m the clearest possible
light, a distinction which is obvious enough, between the Church
as a spiritual body, which is one, which is identical, which is
continuous, and which does not change, and the Church as a
State establishment, which is subject, in all its forms and all
its laws, to the shifting currents of public opinion, which is at
one time protected by Parliament to a certain extent, and which
at another time is protected by Parliament within a much more
narrow limit. There can be, in my judgment, no delusion |nore
injurious to the true interests of the Church, or more fatal to a
true understanding of our Constitution than to confuse these
things, which are separate in their origin, and separate in their
purpose, and have absolutely no connection between each other.
But, sir, there is a. second and an equally fallacious argument,
which is often introduced into these discussions, and which I
think is shown to be equally untrue by the short summary
with which I have troubled the House, and that is that
the State, by altering the conditions of Establishment,
or by getting rid of Establishment altogether, is in
some way or another making a formal repudiation on the
part of the nation of its religious character. Sir, upon that
point I will not use any language of my own, because I am
glad to be able to appeal to a much higher authority, one of
weight and eminence, who will be recognized by hon. gentle
men opposite ; one of our principal opponents in this con
troversy, one of the ablest and most distinguished lawyers this
country has produced — the Earl of Selborne — I quote the words
which he used in this House on March 22, 1869, upon the Second
Reading of the Bill for the Disestablishment and Disendow.
ment of the Irish Church. Sir Rouhdell Palmer, as he was
then, used this remarkable expression : " I cannot agree with
those who say that the severance of the political relations of the
Church with the State is, and necessarily must be, an abnega
tion of national Christianity or an act of national apostacy.
It appears to me that such a view is founded upon an entirely

\

\

\ Welsh Disestablishment 109'
fals^ notion of the vocation of civil government and the nature
of national religion. National religion is not any profession
embodied in laws or forms, and ceremonies made by those who
are at'the head of the Government, but it is the religion of the
people who constitute the nation. Therefore we must approach
the question of any political privilege given to the Church by
considering whether the privilege is for the public good." That,
sir, is the test laid down by that high authority which I propose
to apply to the case of the Disestablishment in Wales.
Before I proceed to the particular facts of -the case I must
clear away another source of difficulty — I mean that class of
questions sometimes raised as to the right of the State to inter
fere with the establishment or endowments of the National
Church. I assert that from the earliest times in this country
Church and tne State has claimed and exercised a controlling
State in voice in the civil government and regulations
English of the endowments and privileges of the National
History Church. I hold very strongly that it is an his
torical fallacy to represent the Church of England as ever
having been a mere offshoot and dependency of the Church of
Rome. I think that the whole of our .Mediaeval Parliaments, as
soon as they acquired a dominant position, kept a tight grip of
the government of the Church, refused to allow the intrusion
of any foreign power or any outside ecclesiastical authority in
the regulation of our National Church. And, as you see in the
constitutions of Clarendon, the Statutes of Provisors, and a hun
dred other Acts of Parliament, the State in this country has
insisted that the position of the Church, its status, privileges,
and endowments should be kept constitutionally within the
control of the supreme authority of the Crown and Parliament.
We are often referred to the question of the legislation of the
Reformation. It follows from what I have already said, that
I am not one of those who think, as used to be currently
assumed, that the legislation of Henry VIII. transferred the
privileges and endowments of a National Establishment from
the Church of Rome to the Church of England. I believe that
view rests upon imperfect historical information. , I am quite
prepared to admit, what I believe the best authorities of history
now assert, that there has been, amidst all these changes and
developments, a substantial identity and community of exist
ence in our national Church from earliest history down to the
present time. But that does not in any degree affect the

no Welsh Disestablishment
importance of legislation to which I am referring. What was
that legislation ? It was the assertion of a claim upon the part
of the Crown and Parliament first of all to establish and define
the real supremacy over the Church, next to confine the Church,
even in purely ecclesiastical matters, as its final Court of
Appeal to a Court of secular Judges appointed by the Crown,
, to change the doctrines, modify the ceremonies taught and
praotised by the Church ; at one moment to prohibit:, and at
another moment to permit, and then prohibit again, such an
institution as the marriage of the clergy. I defy any one- who
has read with an impartial mind the legislation for the forty
years between 1530 and 1570 — who has studied the course of
the Revolution on the reign of Henry VIIL, the counter revolu
tion in the reign of Queen Mary, the restoration of the pre
existing state of things in the reign of Elizabeth — I defy any
fair-minded man acquainted with that history to dispute the
proposition that Parliament did at that time assert and exercise
the right to prescribe the conditions of tenure upon which every
ecclesiastical benefice of this country was to be held. I am not
saying that in many respects the time of the Parliament at that
period was usefully employed. Many of those Statutes we can
only read with amazement, and consternation, that a body of
laymen should have deemed themselves qualified to deal with
that subject matter.
¦But this is 'the price which the National Church pays for the
so-called privileges of Establishment. It is for them to con-
Parliamentary sider whether the privileges and disabilities
Control which result from that status are worth the price
the Price of which, as history shows, they have always hadi
Establishment t0 pay> and which they will always have to pay,
for that state of things. What is that state of things ? The
result is this. The Church of England here and in Wales at
the present moment is a Church which is absolutely without
either judicial or legislative autonomy. It is a Church as to the
interpretation of these formalities not merely in matters affect
ing property, but in matters affecting ecclesiastical doctrine, in
the last resort the appeal is to a secular Court. It is a
Churcb which is impotent ito alter a single form, or cere
mony, or line of its doctrines or service without first of all
obtaining the licence of the Crown, which may be given
,upon the advice of a Minister who is not even a Chris
tian at all, without further obtaining the assent of a

Welsh Disestablishment 1 1 1
Parliament which is open to men of all creeds and of no
cree\i. I am not going to enter into the question, which
is nol^ relevant to my argument, whether or not that is a desir
able state of things in the interest of the Church, though I will
venture to protest respectfully, but at the same time very
strongly, against some language which was used upon this
subject by the right hon. member for Bristol on the first reading
of this Bill. He quoted a passage of a speech of mine some
where in '..the country, in which I had ventured to express the
opinion that the Church might be a betteT Church in Wales,
and would be better and more capable of discharging with
general acceptance and real effect its spiritual mission, if re
lieved from the privileges and disabilities of Establishment.
The right hon. Baronet, temperate and fair-minded a con
troversialist as he usually is, has not found any better terms
in which to describe that language of mine than that of politi
cal cant. Are we to assume that it is impossible for any man,
however highly and strongly he may value the teaching and
traditions of the Church of England, honestly and sincerely to
entertain the opinion that these series of chains and fetters
which I have been describing are not a hindrance to her in the
discharge of her, mission ? It augurs very badly for the con
duct of this controversy if motives of that kind are to be so
rashly and lightly imputed.
It follows from what I have said, that it is impossible to say
that, in regard to such an Establishment, as I have described,
The Precedent Parliament has now the same right which she
of the claimed and exercised a hundred times in the
Irish Church past, to deal with its civil and pecuniary
Disestablishment en(jowments on grounds of public policy, and.
in accordance with its own will and discretion. It is not neces
sary to labour that point. We have it in the Statute book within
the lifetime of the present generation and within the memory
of most of those whom I have the honour of addressing. In
the Irish Church Act is the most complete assertion which fhis
or any other Legislature has ever made of its power to do as it
pleases with the status of the Established Church, and to divert
the endowments of that Church if it likes to purely secular uses.
There may still be difference of opinion as to the policy of that
Act, and I believe there are abundant grounds for asserting that
there are differences of time, and circumstances, and of local
conditions, between the case of Ireland and Wales. But all

112 Welsh Disestablishment
that is not the point. Morality does not change its colour
when it crosses the St. George's Channel. That which Parlia
ment' assented to in that measure — for the second reading of
which, I believe, Lord Salisbury gave his vote in the House
of Lords in 1869 — a measure which now, at any rate, stands
upon the Statute Book, with the assent of the Queen. Lords,
and Commons has never been in any way repealed, and that
measure may surely be pointed to as a sufficient justification
and precedent when we are assailed with these charges of
sacrilege and plunder.
Liaving, I hope, cleared the ground of these preliminary
objections, I now proceed to consider the special case of Wales.
It follows, I think, from what I have said, that
, . Po?1*10" the existing Establishment, both in England and
of the Church w , b , ., ' , ; ? ,
; Wales Wales, represents the remnants of far larger
privileges and powers which she once possessed.
It is equally true that the State has always claimed the right to
deal, on grounds of policy, with this Establishment ; and it is
further true that this Bill, whether it be politic or impolitic,
raises no new question either of Constitutional practice, or of
the limits of what I may call the moral competence and the
moral authority of Parliament. What is the case of Wales?
WThat is the Establishment in Wales ? Is it a national Church
in the sense of the definition that I have read out ? Is it the
Ghurch of the nation ? Is it, by its history and by its present
position and prospects, the national organ and vehicle of the
religious sentiments, either of the whole, or of any considerable
majority, of the Welsh people ? Is its ascendancy and posi
tion of privilege among the other religious sects of the country
admitted acquiesced in by the bulk of the Welsh people ? I
am aware that we are told that we have no right in this case
to separate Wales from the rest of England. From the techni
cal view of the matter and regarding this from the form and
technical point of view, it is perfectly true as has been said,
that these four Welsh dioceses are parts of the provinces of
Canterbury. The argument I understand to be is that, how
ever strong for disestablishment may be the case in these four
dioceses, and disendowment, even though it went to the point
that there was not one single Welshman who was a member
of the Established Church, yet, inasmuch as you cannot
separate dioceses from the provinces of which they form part,
you must -not treat Wales separately, but must take the ques-

Welsh Disestablishment 113
ticfo as affecting England as a whole. To that I entirely demur.
Tfie President* of the Board of Trade, in his speech on the
first\reading of the Bill, explained as it seemed to me with
w . \ admirable force and cogency what we mean
a Nation when we speak of Wales, not as a mere
geographical expression, but as the home of the
people.1 I know this is called Separatism. In the opinion of
some hon. gentlemen opposite, it is separatism to recognise
that there are such things as separate nationalities, the com
bination of which goes to form the United Kingdom of which
we are all a part. We take a different view. We believe that
the best way of recognising and consolidating the true Kingdom
as a whole is to recognise, and within the limits of Imperial
unity to defer to those separate national sentiments which have
their root in the history of the past and which form the soul and
life of out local communities. In that sense I assert, the
Government assert that the Welsh people are a nation. .Whether
you look to race, the language, literature, to their temperament
and genius, to their national memories and traditions, there is
as clear a case for maintaining the distinctly national and cor
porate individuality of the people of Wales as of the people
of England, Scotland, or Ireland. If you look at the eccle
siastical history of Wales the case is still stronger. Why ? The
Welsh Church is sometimes described, and in my opinion
justly described if you have regard to its later history, as an
alien Church, because just as a thing that is imported from
abroad may become -acclimatised ahd in the truest sense
national, so a thing which is indigenous if it is adulterated may
become in the truest sense alien.
What is the origin of the Welsh Church ? Here I am sure I
shall have the entire assent of the hon. gentlemen opposite.
The Welsh Church, as they are fond of telling
The Origin USj existed before the English Church existed.
Welsh Church "^ was f°unded before the mission of Augustine
to the Saxons. There is a tradition in Wales — ¦
I do not know whether it is still alive, but it used to be very
vivid — that there was a time in the golden past when the See
of St. David's was a metropolitan see, and I do not believe that
the Welsh people have ever lost the sense that instead of
borrowing their religion from England, and instead of being
* Mr. James Bryce.

114 Welsh Disestablishment
dependent upon a mission from here for the introduction of
Christianity into their country, it was in the true sense of the
word spontaneous and the native growth. The case of Wales
is the case of a Church which in its origin and inception was
national, which was separated entirely from the Church of
England, but which by incorporation into the Anglican Church,
and by the subordination through long centuries of its interest
and its needs to the interests and needs of England, has become
denationalised. Is that statement true or is it not? It is a
fact, which rests on indisputable authority, that certainly from
the time of Henry the Second onwards down to the Tudor and
Stuart periods the Welsh Church was treated -by our Norman
and English Kings as an instrument for the government of the
Welsh people. They appointed Norman Bishops who did not
understand the language, and who were hostile to the tempera
ment and to the sentiment of the nation. And an eminent
authority declares that for these centuries the leading clergy
in Wales were a kind of ecclesiastical police sent by the Kings
and Parliaments of England to keep watch and ward over an
unruly race. There is a remarkable circumstance in that
«_. • . ^.. . connection which may perhaps not be familiar
Welsh Churcn ., ... . ] v , ' . . .,
Denationalized Wltn a'* hon. gentlemen, and that is an incident
which occurred I think in the reign of Henry
the Second or King John, when Geraldus Cambriensis — an
eminent Welsh writer and historian of that time — was elected by
the Chapter to the see of St. David's. The King of England
disapproved of it, and insisted on the Chapter taking a nominee
of his own. Geraldus, who was a man of considerable enter
prise, went on a pilgrimage to Rome in order that he might
solicit and obtain the intervention of the Pope, and obtain a
favourable recognition of his claim as against that of the royal
nominee. He took with him a petition from the Princes of
Wales, which is very interesting, and so relevant to the question
v. hich the House is now discussing, that I will trouble them with
one or two citations from it. This is the petition of the Welsh
Princes as far back as the reign of Henry the Second to Pope
Innocent the Third, and what they say is this : — " Be it known
to your fatherly goodness the great sufferings and danger of
losing souls that have fallen upon the Church in Wales since
by kingly oppression, and not by the authority of the Bishop
of Rome, she became subjected to the authority of England

Welsh Disestablishment 115
and the Archbishop of Canterbury." Now the right hon.
baronet opposite told us the other day that it was in the
eighteenth century that the State and the King by. this course
of neglect and abuse lost the hold which the Welsh Church
had previously possessed upon the affections of the -Welsh
]5eople. Let me read the description of the Welsh Princes of
the state of things in the twelfth century : — " The Archbishop
of Canterbury sends us English Bishops, ignorant of the man
ners and the language of the land, who cannot preach the word
of God to the people, nor receive their confessions but through
interpreters. And since these Bishops that are sent to us from
England do not love us or our land, they do not seek the good
of our souls ; their ambition is to rule over us and not to seek
our benefit, and on this account they do not but very rarely
fulfil the duties of their office among us. And whatever they
can take from us by just means or unjust " — that sounds like
a description of the Irish Church — " is carried away by them
into England and squandered in the monasteries that are given
to them by- the King of England. And like the Parthians who
shoot backwards from afar as they retreat, so do they from
England excommunicate us as often as they are ordered so
to do."
That is a description given by the Welsh Princes on the
authority of Geraldus of the state of things that prevailed in the
reign of Henry II. , and I assert that, with rare intervals that
represents fairly the history of the Welsh Church and of its
treatment by England during the period of six centuries.
There were times, I agree, in the reign of the Tudor Kings,
and even in the reign of the Stuart Rings, when a better state
of things prevailed, but, upon the whole, I do not believe that
I am exaggerating when I say that from the beginning to the
end the Welsh Church has been treated as a kind of annex
to the Church of England — a convenience for the disposal of
offices and benefices among persons who have no claims on the
Welsh people, who did not understand their language, and were
out of sympathy with them and their temperament. And where
that state of things has prevailed, just as it prevailed in the
case of Ireland, you cannot wonder that that Church has ceased
to have any hold on the real affections of the people. I do not
wish to dwell too long on merely historical matters, although
until you realise the history of the question it is impossible
to understand fully the feelings of the Welsh people. I pass

116 Welsh Disestablishment
now to say one or two words with respect to the growth of
Welsh dissent in the eighteenth century. The
ofH WG|r hWtH Welsh PeoPle> in sPite of a11 the abuses t0 which
Dissent * have referred, were a people who had a natural
affection for their national form of religion.
The Reformation, it is said, took but slight hold on them, and
we know that Puritanism never got any great lodgment in
Wales. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, and after
the Revolution, there are said to have been not more than a
hundred Dissenting congregations in Wales. Very shortly
after the beginning of the nineteenth century there were nearly
1,000 Dissenting congregations in Wales. What was the cause
of this change ? The cause of the change was this — that there
sprang up in the Welsh Church, by way of protest against its
lukewarmness, rigidity, and its narrow Anglican character, a
body of men whose names are cherished in Wales — men like
Griffith Jones, Rowlands, and others — all of whom were mem
bers of the Church of England, all of whom started within
the bosom of the Church their great work of Reformation,
and some of whom, I agree, died in the religion of the Church,
but who were the founders against their will, and in defiance,
I will not say of their convictions, but certainly of their
desires and hopes — the reluctant founders of Welsh Noncon
formity. What became of these men ? They were driven
away, and what was their crime ? These men, who introduced
education as well as religious faith among the great mass of
the population in Wales, had committed the unpardonable
enormity of preaching the Gospel in unconsecrated, places — in
the streets, upon the hillsides, and even in Nonconformist
chapels. The Bishops of the day, supported as they appeared
to have been by the opinion and the sympathy of the great
body of their clergy, declined to ordain men who were guilty
of practices such as these, with the results that these apostles,
as they may truly be called, of the revival of Welsh religion
were driven out of the so-called National Church of their
country, taking with fhem whatever was real, vital, and pro
gressive within that Church.
Causes of That iS the history of the We]sh Nqnconfor-
Welsh Dissent mity- An hon- gentlei«an thought it expedient
to remind me just now that some of these men
died in the Church. So they did, and that is a proof how
eagerly they tried to reconcile the claims which the Church had

Welsh Disestablishment 117
on their allegiance and loyalty with what they conceive the
still higher and still stronger claims of their religious faith.
It was not until 1811 — until this movement had been going on
for nearly seventy years — that finally, the Bishops absolutely
refusing to ordain fresh ministers for their work, these men
were compelled to separate from the Church and found the
sect of Calvinistic Methodists. That sect was founded as. a
separate body in 181 1. In 1816 it numbered already 900 con
gregations, and at the present day contributes a considerable
proportion of the 4,000 and more chapels belonging to the
different dissenting communities. Let me read one more pas
sage on this question. It is from the well-known work of an
ardent Churchman, entitled "A Prize Essay on the Causes
which have Produced Dissent in Wales from the Established
Church," by Arthur James Johnes, published in 183 1. I quote
from page 25 of the first edition : —
" On putting to a gentleman, upon whose accuracy I can rely,
the following question : ' What proportion of the collective
income of the Welsh Church is held by Englishmen ? ' I receive
the following answer : ' Four bishoprics ' — I suppose that is all
there are — ' a great portion of the deaneries, prebends, and
sinecure rectories, and many, if not most, of the canonries.
During the reign of the Houses of Tudor and Stuart several
Welshmen were mitred ; but not one since the accession of the
House of Brunswick. The consequence was that the prelates
brought into their respective dioceses their sons, nephews, and
cousins, to the ninth degree of consanguinity ; the next con
sequence was a change of service (on the borders) from Welsh
to English ; and a third and important consequence was the
desertion of the Church. Conventicles were erected in every
direction.' "
That is the opinion of a friend of the Church as late as
1831. The right hon. baronet, the member for Bristol, took
The Welsh me t0 tas^ with some severity for having said
Church an that the national Church in Wales was asso-
Anglican ciated in the minds of the people with injurious
Dependency ancj humiliating memories. Does. not the. story,
bare outline of what I have given, amply justify that statement ?
Here is a Church which I agree in its origin was of native and
spontaneous growth, but which for centuries was used, with
rare and brief intervals, not merely by the State — though the
blame must not all be thrown on the State — but by the Church

118 Welsh Disestablishment
of England as a dependency of its own. It may be said this
is ancient history, but it is not so very ancient after all ; but.
even if it were that does not affect the question. There is no
truth more legible on the page of history than this, that for
institutions, as well as for individuals, there are opportunities
and chances which, if they are neglected and abused, never
recur. There are times of probation, which, if they have once
expired cannot be renewed or enlarged ; and, if you want to
find the secret of the comparative weakness of the Anglican
Church in Wales, if you want to understand why it is that
thirty-one out of thirty-four of her representatives have come
to this House pledged to have her disestablished and dis
endowed, you have only to look at the history, the mean and
ignominious features of which it has been my painful duty to
bring before the House. You find there a reason and justifica
tion for it.
I now pass for a moment to the existing state of things. I
do not deny — no fair-minded man would deny, nor is it to our
_,., „ ... interest to do so — that since 18^1, when the
The Position T , t . . J ^, ,
in 1895 passage 1 have quoted was written, there has
been a large and a most beneficial change in the
spirit and temper of the Anglican Church in Wales. The
State, on the one hand, has appointed bishops, deans, and
canons who knew the language and understood the people,
and the Church, animated by a new spirit, has developed a
large and beneficent spiritual activity in many parts of Wales.
Still, when every allowance has been made, when everything
that can be done has been done, what is the state of affairs ?
It is not disputed by the right hon. gentleman opposite, as
I understand, that the Church in Wales is still the Church of
the minority. The right hon. gentleman says, " Nobody
knows." I will try and give him some material for judging.
I do not want to dwell again on the question of Parliamentary
representation — I should not now touch on the point but for
the efforts of the most militant of the Welsh Bishops to
endeavour to get rid of facts and figures which he had better
have left alone. The Bishop of St. Asaph has been at the
pains to calculate the votes given for and against disestablish
ment. He brings out — I have no reason to doubt his figures—
that 145,000 persons voted for disestablishment and 86,000
against it. If you take a total electorate of 340,000, that brings
out that only 47 per cent, of the electorate voted in favour of

Welsh Disestablishment 119
disestablishment, and the proportion who voted against dis
establishment was 26 per cent. " Then," says the Bishop, " as
it is clear that only 47 per cent, of the registered electors voted
for disestablishment, you cannot claim to have a majority of
the Welsh people on your side. You have only got to add the
26 per cent, who voted against it to the 27 per cent, who did
not vote at all, and you get 53 per cent, against it." I do not
know whether this is a fair specimen of Episcopal logic ; I do
not think it is necessary, at any rate in this House, to attempt
to demonstrate the fallacy of it. The truth is it is quite enough
to dispose of the Bishop and his logic to state that in eighteen
of these constituencies the majority in favour of disestablish
ment ran into four figures. When people know that they have
a majority of 2,000, 3,000, or 4,000, you feel there is a strong
temptation, though not a justification, for some of them to stay
at home and not trouble about going to the poll.
Passing to the question of actual numbers, the House has
never approached this question without being taunted with
unwillingness to expose the question to the test
A Welsh 0f a reiigious census. But I contest that the
Census more I have considered the matter, the more
unsatisfactory and inadequate has it appeared
to me that a religious census would be. What is it? It con
sists of a man writing in a corner of a census paper what is his
creed, or what is the particular denomination to which ,he
belongs.^ Is that in itself any test whatever of whether he
actually belongs to one Church or another ? The real question
that you want to ascertain is, what is the actual working
strength and living membership of the different congregations
in Wales. I will venture to quote on that point a passage
which seems to be peculiarly relevant, from Lord Macaulay.
In his history, ed. 1858, vol. 4, chapter 13, page 272, he writes"
regarding the comparative strength of religious parties in Scot
land in 1689: — ¦
" The effective strength of sects is not to be ascertained
merely by counting heads. An established Church, a domi
nant Church, a Church which has the exclusive possession of
the civil honours and emoluments, will always rank among
its nominal members multitudes who have no religion at all,
multitudes who, though not destitute of religion, attend little
to theological disputes, and have no scruples about conforming
to the mode of worship which happens to be established; and

120 Welsh Disestablishment
multitudes who have scruples about conforming, but whose
scruples have yielded to worldly motives."
I think these considerations are equally applicable to the
numbers in a religious census in Wales. But, apart from the
question of a religious census, we have means
The Number of testing the comparative strength of the real,
Communicants livinS> active membership of the different
religious communities in fhe Principality. By
looking at the number of communicants which are regularly
published, we find that, taking the four leading Nonconformist
bodies, they number 381,000, against 118,000 in the Church.
In other words, the Nonconformist communicants are in a
majority of 263,000. If that is to be regarded as a fair test-
Why not? I do not like to discuss these questions with too
much acerbity or to go too much into them; but is it to be
supposed that the members of the Church are more lax than
the members of the different dissenting bodies ? If not, where
does the inacuracy of the test come in ? I should "have thought
we might take it as almost exactly the opposite, and might -
have considered that the Church of England, in proportion
to its actual appearance, would have a larger number than
the Dissenting bodies. I find, however, that the Calvinists,
Methodists, and Congregationalists alone have each a larger
number of communicants than the Church of England in
Wales. Exactly the same lesson is taught by another test — namely,
the attendance at the Sunday-schools. The total attendance at
Nonconformist Church Sunday-schools is 145,000, while in the
Sunday Sunday-schools of the Nonconformist bodies the
Schools attendance is 515,000, therefore, whichever of
and Ministers these tests you apply, you find that the pro
portion of Nonconformists to Churchmen in Wales comes out
at something between three and four to one. Another argu
ment that is often used in relation to the difference of the two
systems with regard to the residences of their ministers. We
are constantly being told that, although the Church may be
in a minority, yet that its national mission is vindicated, and its
national character demonstrated by the fact that every parish
has a resident minister, whereas in many parishes the Non
conformists have none. According to the Bishop of St. Asaph,
whose figures I am content again to take, out of 1,000 parishes
there are 520 with a resident Nonconformist minister, and 480

Welsh Disestablishment 121
without. Is the Bishop so ignorant on the actual facts of the
religious organisations of the Nonconformists of Wales ? Is he
so ignorant of the great Calvinistic Methodist movement, and
of the fact that in the Nonconformist Churches the system of
itinerancy early took root, and was found to be most effective
for religious propaganda ? I am informed that of the 4,000
Nonconformist chapels in Wales, there is not one among them
destitute of Sunday service, sometimes conducted by the minis
ter residing in the parish or in charge of two adjoining parishes,
sometimes by laymen who are qualified for the duty. In the
large majority there are two preaching services and a Sunday-
school as well, and in most of the remainder there is one
preaching service, one Sunday-school, and one prayer meeting.
I am told that there is not one of these chapels in which the
Sacrament is not administered once a month.
Now, let me ask how does the Church stand in this respect ?
Is it very important to have a resident minister in a parish .
The when he has no congregation. I am not going
Weakness to weary the House, but I wish to go into one or
of the two details. I will take the case of the county
Church 0f Anglesea. There are seventy-six parishes,
and out of these, twenty-seven, or more than one-third, are
without rector, vicar, or curate resident in them. In three
of these parishes there are no buildings of any kind where the
service of the Church of England can be held. Churches have
been demolished. In several of the parishes service is held
only once a month. In one case the service was attended by
eleven persons, including the minister, the sexton, the game
keeper, and the servants of the squire. The tithes of these
parishes which I have been describing amount to more than
,£7,000 a year. This state of things is not due to the religious
apathy of the people. The Nonconformist bodies are strong
and flourishing in these parishes. The Calvinistic Methodists
have 84 chapels and 34 school-rooms, with 11,000 communi
cants. Therefore,.! hope we shall not hear much more about-
the necessity of a resident minister.
I must not detain the House more than a few minutes more,
but I must answer the question put to me the other day, in
view of the fact I have been describing. The
he We sh question was put by the hon. baronet opposite.
a National What is the reason of the hostility of the Welsh
Church people to the Established Church? What was

122 Welsh Disestablishment
his answer? The hon. baronet said the best answer he could
discover was that it was a social grievance. A social grievance !
He said the Church attracted the most educated classes, and
that that was the reason there is this feeling of animosity.
Was there ever a more impotent view taken of such a
state of feeling — a feeling amply justified by the past
history of the Church, and deeply ingrained in the hearts of
the great masses of the Welsh people. I can easily make good
our proposition. This is not, in the sense of the definition of
Lord Selborne, a National Church. It is not the Church of
the Welsh people. It is not the Church which, whatever may
have been its origin, for six centuries past or at the present
day is looked to by the Welsh people to give natural expression
to their religious sentiments and their religious feelings.
I shall not go again into the general details of this Bill,
which I have twice — once at great length — explained, and
_ before I sit down I will only deal with two or
T^i"____. _r^ _*» 1 1 _•_¦• V\
Under three of the main objections which have been
Disestablishment taken. One of the objections urged by the
hon. baronet, and stated with great force,
was that in her new status the Church will be left in a state
of ecclesiastical anarchy ; that every clergyman will be a law
unto himself, free from jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts,
which would be gone. I confess I listen to that argument with
surprise. The clergymen of the Church will be bound by
contract to fulfil the duties of his office, and if he violates that
there are abundant remedies. But surely our experience of
the Disestablished Church in Ireland and of the Episcopal
Churches in America and the Colonies shows that' these are
difficulties not likely to arise.
Then as to the property of the Church, we are accused of
dealing with the Welsh Church in a less liberal spirit than
was displayed in the case of the Irish Church.
of Church Wel1, we Pr°P°se that the Disestablished Church
Property shall retain the churches and parsonage houses
and modern endowments following the precedent
of the Irish Church. We propose that the glebe shall be trans
ferred to the parish council for the benefit of the parish. As
for the burial grounds, I agree that in Ireland the great
majority were handed over to the representative body, whereas
here we propose to invest them in the county council. Why
do we make that provision ? I heard with great admiration my

Welsh Disestablishment 123
hon. friend's speech on this point, and I entirely appreciate
his position ; but the burial ground cannot be regarded as the
property of any particular religious body, for by the Common
Law everyone who dies in a parish has a right to be buried.
Each one has the right given by a statute to be buried accord
ing to the rights of his own denomination. It is impossible to
leave these burial grounds, in which many painful scenes of
great intolerance have taken place, to the care of the repre
sentative body, and to say that the Common Law right is not
to be maintained. Then, as to the cathedrals, until the time
within the memory of many of us they were scandalously
neglected. The Llandaff Cathedral is a case in point, with
regard- to which, as late as 1854, the Royal Commission reported
that it was scandalously neglected. It is quite true that this
state of things has changed, and that this cathedral has been
restored and embellished by subscribers who were by no means
all churchmen. I do not think that any man acquainted with
the great national work of the restoration of cathedrals would
pretend that it was confined to any particular sect. What
do we do with the cathedrals ? We place them in the hands
of the Commissioners subject to the obligation to maintain them
and keep them in repair, and they are to be held in trust for
the continued performance of the same service as hitherto. I
believe that to be a liberal and even generous arrangement. I
know very well that it has excited a good deal of hostile
criticism, but I do not think that that hostility will be main
tained. I have confined myself to what may be deemed the grounds
of principle on which the Bill may be attacked. Sir, the
_ Leader of the Opposition in the debate on this
and Relicion '"^ a ^ear a^° exPressed the belief that the
democracy of this country would hold with him,
that, for the welfare of the community, the presence of a stand
ing witness of the great spiritual forces in every parish of the
land was a vital necessity. I agree so far with the right hon.
gentleman, but I believe that the succession of the democracy to
supreme authority in this country has not meant, does not
mean, and will not mean the enthronement of a merely material
ideal social life or the banishment or weakening of those great
spiritual forces to which the right hon. gentleman referred, and
which in days gone by shaped and coloured the whole fabric
of English society. There are needs, as we all recognise, which

124 Welsh Disestablishment
are as old and as deep as human nature itself, and which no
change in the distribution of political power and no rise in the
general level of comfort can ever satisfy or suppress. But is
it necessary that this standing witness should be an officer of
the State, as well as a minister of the Church ? What— as is
too often the case in Wales — what if his message is unheeded,
if his church is empty, if his mission is futile? Not, be it
observed, because of apathy and indifference, not because
the parishioners are torpid or perverse, but because they find
satisfaction and stimulus for their religious wants in uncon-
secrated buildings, and in the services of an unauthorised
ministry. The people of Wales have shown in days gone by
that they can and will provide for their own spiritual needs,
and it is in the sincere belief that this measure will minister
as well to the religious as to the social welfare of the princi
pality that I ask the House to affirm it as a measure both
politic and just.

X.
THE WAR IN SOUTH AFRICA— THE BRITISH
POLICY DEFENDED.
(From The Times, Nov. 27, 1899.)
[Speaking at Ashington, hi Northumberland, on November 23,
1899, six weeks after the outbreak of war in South Africa, Mr.
Asquith defended the Government's attitude hi the course of
events which had led to the declaration of war by the Boers,
and declared that the ultimate responsibility for the war did
not lie with Great Britain^]
There was but one topic which at that moment absorbed
their minds and their anxieties. No other interest could
Th rt U 1, 4_stract our attention from the unfolding
of War °^ t^le vicissitudes of war; and while we
felt, every one of us, patriotic pride aj:
the gallantry of crur troops, we were moved at the same
time by sadder emotions when we thought of the blood that
was being spilt — not our own blood only, but the blood of brave
men, foemen worthy of the best British steel, who were opposed
to us. Sad and terrible as these things were, however, it was
no part of our duty as politicians to content ourselves with the
role of silent spectators. There were some people who seemed
to think — he did not lay that charge at the door of her Majesty's
Government, because they had expressly disclaimed such an
idea — that the clash of arms should hush the voice of criticism
and that they should hold no meetings at all, or, if they did,
that they should content themselves with singing " Rule
Britannia" or perhaps reciting the poetry of Rudyard Kipling.
He did'not take that view. He agreed with what was said a
few nights ago by Mr. Bryce, that the example and teaching
of the great patriots justified them in the opinion that they
were not only entitled but bound to criticise both the causes
and the conduct of the war.

126 The War in South Africa —
It would be affectation to pretend that on these points they
were all agreed. He was not one of those who held that the
ultimate responsibility of the war rested upon
The Boers' ^e shoulders of the Government, or, through
Responsibility them> on the PeoPle of Great Britain- 0n the
day when the ultimatum of the Boers was
announced to the world he had the opportunity of publicly
expressing his own opinion as to the cause and origin of the
war, and from the views which he then stated nothing that had
since happened or been disclosed had caused him in any way
to recede. His opinion was, then and now, this — that war was
neither intended nor desired by the Government and people
of Great Britain. That, on the contrary, the vast majority
among them, without distinction of party, regarded the possi
bility of war not only with aversion, but with incredulity. But
while the door of negotiation was still open a challenge to arms
was thrown upon the floor which no statesman, however peace-
loving, and no Power, however insignificant, without inflicting
a mortal wound on its self-respect and security, could decline
to take up. We were at war, and whatever opinion we might
hold as to the course and conduct of the negotiations — there
were some who believed in what was called the*new diplomacy,
which he for one neither admired nor understood — we were all
agreed in this, that the war must be prosecuted if need be with
all the resources of the British Empire.
There were, in his view, many reasons which accounted for
and justified the national resolution. It was generally agreed —
. . he at any rate as a Liberal had always main-
Britis Mights tained— that we had both the right and the duty
South Africa t0 intervene — he did not say for the moment by
what method — on behalf of our fellow-subjects
in the Transvaal. When we gave back in 1881 its independence
to the South African Republic the gift was made not for a
section but for the whole of the inhabitants. He need not
recapitulate the familiar steps by which that which was in
tended by Mr. Gladstone to be the equal enjoyment of all, had
been monopolised to the special and exclusive privilege of a
minority. If ever there was a community which, being de
prived of the means of constitutional redress, according to all
those canons we had been in the habit of applying in other
cases, was entitled to the ultimate right of insurrection, it was
the British majority in the Transvaal. Largely through the

The British Policy Defended 127
criminal folly of the Jameson raid, which paralysed whatever
was progressive in the Government of Pretoria, and gave free
play to all its most reactionary elements, insurrection was ren
dered as impossible as constitutional agitation. The governing
body — the oligarchy they had been called — were enabled, by
the lavish use of resources mainly contributed by the disarmed
majority, to equip themselves with a fighting strength with
which, we now saw, it took 60,000 of the best troops of the
British Army to cope.
What was the condition of our fellow-subjects in the Trans
vaal ? They were taxed without representation, subject to laws
in the working and administering of which they had no effective
voice, deprived at one and the same time of the two alternative
remedies — votes and arms. There were authorities of great
weight for whom he personally felt the greatest respect who
contended that, grave and intolerable as the situation had be
come, the time for intervention was not yet ripe. He himself
was unable to take that view. It was true President Kruger
was an old man, and, whatever might have been the case some
years ago, his personality had ceased to be the main obstacle
to reform. There had grown up a network of vested interests,
including an ambitious and intelligent official caste imported
from abroad, whose power and privileges were bound up with
the maintenance of the existing system. The almost ostenta
tious impotence of the British majority had begun to react in
an unfavourable way on the racial relations throughout the
whole of South Africa. It was all-important in that part of the
world that the two white races upon which the future of South
Africa depended should live on peaceful and friendly terms.
That was a state of things which could only be permanently
brought about by the giving and receiving of equal rights and
by reciprocal self-respect.
Nor was it possible to ignore the disturbing and demoralising
effect of the state of things upon the British population of the
Transvaal itself. Referring to a conversation
Mr. Gladstone which he once had with Mr. Gladstone as to the
Acquiescence iniquities of the Austrian rule in Italy and as
to the conditions under which the right of rebel
lion arose, he remarked that Mr. Gladstone said a number
of interesting things both upon the one topic and the other,
and wound up with this remark: — "Theologians and moralists
forget that when St. Paul counsels subjection to the powers

128 The War in South Africa—
that be, he is speaking to the individual as an individual, and
had not the case of communities in his view," and he went
on to say, " I am persuaded that there is nothing more perma
nently demoralising to a community than passive acquiescence
in unmerited oppression." That was Mr. Gladstone's doctrine,
and, if it were a sound and true one, it did not appear to him
that it ceased to apply when the victims of unequal laws were
not foreigners but our own fellow-subjects, even though they
might be engaged in the questionable occupation of mining
for gold.
He was not afraid to add, unfashionable as the opinion was
in some quarters, that upon the matter as to the time for
intervention he attached considerable weight to
«¦_. j ._-. the authority of Sir Alfred Milner. No man
Alfred Milner _ . o t- •<-.. 1.1
Defended ever went t0 'Cape 1 own with a more unbiased
mind than did Sir Alfred Milner, and if he had
come to the conclusion, as it was clear he had, that the con
tinuance of the existing state of things in the Transvaal was a
great and growing danger to the peace and development of
South Africa as a whole, we might at least be sure that that
opinion, slowly arrived at, was the result of first-hand observa
tion and impartial reflection. He was not setting up Sir Alfred
Milner as an infallible authority. He was, however, entitled
to the benefit of the presumption that a great servant of the
State was a man, if not of intelligence, at least of honour; and
when he saw Sir Alfred Milner depicted, as he was sometimes,
as having allowed himself to become the subservient tool or
willing accomplice of a gang of speculators exploiting the
power, the resources, and the good name of the British Empire
in the pursuit of adventure, he felt bound to say it was a fable —
a fable which might very well be left to be embellished and
circulated by some of our very kind critics in the Continental
Press. If our title to intervene was complete, if the time for inter
vention could not safely have been much longer delayed, he
The Boe thought we would all agree that it was our duty
p0|jCy to make that intervention effective. In common
with every man who heard him, he was one of
those who hoped and believed up to the last minute of the
eleventh hour that such a result was not beyond the reach of
diplomacy. He was bound to believe that that was the opinion
of her Majesty's Government for many reasons, one of which

The British Policy Defended 129
would suffice — namely, that, if during these negotiations they
had contemplated war as a possible contingency, we should
not now, six weeks after the outbreak of war, be compelled to
witness the mortifying spectacle of two British colonies, one
largely and the other partially, overrun by an invading army
while a portion of our defensive forces were still upon the high
seas. He would not say, as some people did, that the Boers
from the first intended no concessions. The evidence did not
appear to warrant such a charge. He thought, however, that,
whatever their original intentions might have been, it was clear
as time went on that they begun to distrust our sincerity. They
credited us with ulterior motives. They suspected us of design
on the internal independence of their republic. The apprehen
sion, he believed, was baseless. He did not think any respon
sible statesman in this country had any such design, and so the
Boers were over and over again assured. But diplomacy was
poisoned and perished in an atmosphere of suspicion. As soon
as the support of the Orange Free State had been secured the
Transvaal Government issued its ultimatum. That ultimatum,
to his mind, bore all the signs of remarkable and elaborate
preparation. It was the act, not of an individual, but of the
Government of Pretoria, and it was intended as a formal state
ment to the world of what lawyers call a casus belli. What,
then, was the case put forth ? It was an absolute and unquali
fied denial of our right to intervene, even by the methods of
diplomatic remonstrance ; and that denial, accompanied as it
was by demands which were known and intended to be impos
sible, was followed by an armed invasion of British territory.
He deplored this war as much as any man in
^hat. the breadth and length of the United Kingdom,
Fighting For ^ut, t*lat ultimatum having been issued, and
that challenge having been thrown down, he
conceived we had no alternative but to take it up. If he were
asked why we were fighting, his answer was, first of all to repel
an invasion of British territory, next to assert our rights, which
were put directly in issue, to intervene on behalf of our fellow-
subjects, to secure them liberty and just treatment in a State
to which we granted self-government, not in the interest of one
man, but of the whole population, and finally to secure equality
of rights — nothing more, nothing less — to the Dutch and the
English throughout South Africa.
As regarded the conduct of the war, it would be thought F

130 The War in South Africa —
affectation to ignore the fact that there were some things which,
, as matters now stood, filled our minds with per-
of the War plenty and anxiety. We all acknowledged the
difficulty of mobilising the force of 60,000 men
and transporting it at short notice across the seas, a distance
of 6,000 miles ; but he thought there were not a few points in
the strategic and administrative aspect of the early stages of
this campaign as to which, while we willingly and gladly sus
pended judgment, we felt that they must sooner or later become
the subject of searching and exhaustive inquiry. He paid a
warm tribute to the splendid qualities which had been shown
by our officers and men, but he asked his hearers not to pass
by the magnificent services which had been rendered by the
local levies of Natal and Cape Colony, and he said we must
remember that it was from the loyal population of those colonies
that the war was exacting its heaviest toll. Nor, he thought,
should we show ourselves at such a time wanting in outspoken
acknowledgment of the great patriotic service rendered, under
difficulties which it was hardly possible for us in this country
to measure or apprehend, by Mr. Schreiner and his colleagues
of Cape Colony. The situation was still an anxious one, but
he believed we had perfect faith in the skill of our generals,
the valour and discipline of our troops, and — should he say ? —
in the faculty of working out results that times out of mind and
times out of number had been shown to be one of the special
endowments of the British race.
As to the future, he entirely agreed with what was said a
few nights ago by Lord Ripon, that it would be at this stage
., not only premature but foolish to forecast in
the War detail the ultimate settlement. We must keep
our hands free until the end of the war, but no
harm, nothing but good, could come from familiarising our
selves with the conditions of the problem. In the first place
men must recognise, whatever form our arrangements took, that
they must be conditioned by the primary and fundamental fact
that South Africa is inhabited by English and Dutch, and the
friendly and harmonious co-operation of the two white races,
in social and business relations and in the discharge of the
duties of citizenship, must be recognised. Any settlement which
sought to ignore that fundamental condition was doomed to
speedy and irremediable failure. We were fighting not for
subjugation, but as we professed and he believed for equality —

The British Policy Defended 131
for the supremacy, if they liked, of the British power, but not
for the ascendency of one race over another. The case of
Canada was often and justly referred to in illustration of the
successful solution of a similar problem ; and we could only
trust that when, after this lamentable war had come to an end,
the ultimate settlement was undertaken, it might be in the
hands of men as wise, as fair-minded, and sympathetic as Lord
Durham, to whom we owed the peace, prosperity, and loyalty
of the great Dominion of Canada. In the next place we must
not forget that in South Africa we were dealing with a white
population which in its various degrees of completeness had for
many years enjoyed and exercised the right of self-government.
If, as we hoped, our arms were plainly and demonstrably vic
torious we could act on large and liberal lines without fear of
misconstruction and without sowing the seeds of danger in the
future. It followed that we might at the earliest stage and in
the clearest possible terms assure our Dutch fellow-subjects
in the Cape Colony and in Natal that they had no reason to
fear the destruction or curtailment of their constitutional rights
and liberties. It was equally clear that securities must be
taken against the recurrence of the dangers in which we now
found ourselves placed; but interest and honour alike required
that we should keep steadily in view, as the goal of our policy,
a permanent pacification, based not on force, but on friendship,
and that unquestioned supremacy of the Crown should become
in South Africa, as it had become in Canada, at once the
symbol and the safeguard of the local patriotism of the people
on a reconciled basis, acting together, side by side, in loyal
co-operation and rivalry, working out the destinies of a great
unity. That was an ideal to which British policy should move,
and, might he venture to say, it was an ideal towards the attain
ment of which Liberals as a party, in consonance with all the
traditions of their own past, should labour unceasingly.

XI.
THE AUSTRALIAN COMMONWEALTH— AN
IMPERIAL COURT OF APPEAL.
(From The Times, May 22, 1900.)
[In the Commons, May 21, 1900, on the second reading of the Bill
constituting the Australian States into the Commonwealth of
Australia.]
I cannot but express the gratification which I am sure will
be shared, not only by the people of this country, but by her
Majesty's subjects throughout the length and breadth of the
Empire, at the welcome but not wholly unexpected announce
ment which the right hon. gentleman* has made. This is not
an ordinary occasion. This is a measure which transcends by
reason not only of its intrinsic importance, but the influence
which its adoption must exercise on the future of the Efnpire —
a measure which transcends in interest and magnitude almost
any legislative proposal of our time. Therefore it would have
been unfortunate if it had not been most cordially welcomed by
all sections of opinion in this country, and the unanimous assent
of all parties in this House.
The several Australian States have grown from infancy to
manhood almost within living memory. Each of them has
The Foundation developed a character and individuality of its
of the own. All alike have contributed to the strength
Australian and vitality of the Empire. But the Australian
Commonwealth Commonwealth, the Commonwealth of the
future, is a whole which we believe is destined to be greater
than the sum of its component parts and which, without
draining them of any of their life, we will give to them, in their
* Mr. Chamberlain had announced that difficulties arising- out of
Clause 74 as to the right of appeal from the Australian Courts to the
Privy Council had be en settled. As amended, Clause 74 enacted that in all
other than Atistralian questions the right of appeal to the Privy Council
should be fully maintained, while purely Australian questions would be
finally decided by the High Court of Australia unless both sides consented
to refer the matter lo the Privy Council.

The Australian Commonwealth 133
corporate unity, a freedom of developments, a scale of interest,
a dignity of stature which, alone and separated, they could
never command. This great constitutional instrument, itself a
most characteristic product of the methods and spirit by which
the English-speaking races work out for themselves their own
political salvation — this great constitutional instrument was
certain to receive, as it has received, a cordial welcome from
all shades of opinion in this country. During the last few
weeks it has appeared as though that welcome might be
marred by one discordant note. But I am sure I am speaking
Che unanimous opinion of this House when I say that we all
rejoice that, by a wise exhibition of tact on the one side and
the other, whatever differences may have emerged are now
forgotten in a settlement which reflects equal honour on the
Colonial Secretary* and the Australian delegates. This great
fabric, which has been so skilfully and laboriously built, may
be launched without friction or delay on a voyage in which it
will carry with it, as we believe, not only the fortunes of the
Commonwealth, but the hopes of the Empire.
After the statement which the right hon. gentleman has
made, it would be only a waste of time to pursue in any detail
Great Britain matters which have been the subject of con-
as Trustee troversy during the last few weeks. At the
for the _ same time, I do not think it would be right to
Whole Empire jet j.^ occasion pass without saying one or two
words which, as far as I am concerned, will not be offered
in a controversial spirit, both on the character of the difficulties
which have arisen and the nature of the settlement by which
they have now been overcome. I accept to the full, and I
believe everyone in the House aocepts, the two canons which
the right hon. gentleman laid down last week and has repeated
to-night as to the principles which should govern the action
of this Parliament in a matter of this kind. What are they?
On the one hand this Bill, being as it is the mature outcome
of nearly a generation of agitation and discussion, having run,
as it has, the gauntlet of debate in the representative Conven
tion Legislatures of the separate colonies ; having been, finally,
solemnly ratified by the voice of the vast majority of the
Australian people, comes before us with the almost over
whelming presumption that it represents ..heir deliberate
* Mr. Chamberlain.

134 The Australian Commonwealth-
judgments on the form of their future government. That is
a presumption which ought not to be lightly displaced. On
the other hand, I agree entirely with the right hon. gentleman
that we, in this Imperial Parliament, are, by the necessities of
the case, the alternate custodians and trustees of the Imperial
interests ; that that is a duty we cannot advocate without being
false to the mandate which sent us here, and, however wide
and authoritative may be the representations made to us from
any part of the Empire, we are bound to interfere — we have not
only a right, but a duty to interfere — if those plans, when
carried into effect, should be inconsistent with the welfare of
other parts of the Empire, or offer menace or danger to our
Imperial interests. As to the cogency of these two principles,
I do not think there is the slightest difference of opinion.
Then, again, there must be a clear and unmistakable proof
that this proposal, which has received the unanimous assent
of a large section of the Empire (such as these proposals have
received), is not inconsistent with Imperial interests, before
the Imperial Parliament would be disposed, or think it its duty,
to interfere. The traces of such danger have been discovered,
in the case of this Bill, in the 74th Clause, in the form in which
it was passed by the people of Australia, and in which
it was originally presented to us. Expressing my own
opinion, which, I think, is widely shared, I say those have,
in my judgment, been greatly exaggerated in some quarters. I
am not complaining of the action of the Government, because
I think they were bound, by the necessities of their position
and by the duty 'they owed to the country, to exercise a most
scrupulous, and, if I may use the word without offence, an
almost jealous, vigilance before, on their authority, they sub
mitted them to the Imperial Parliament. But there has been
in some quarters some unnecessary exaggeration. In my
judgment, if there ever was any danger — I do not myself think
there is — of the people of Australia using the powers given to
them by this Act in a manner hostile or injurious to the
interests of any other part of the Empire, this danger would
arise far more from the clauses that confer legislative powers
upon their Parliament than from the clauses which confer the
power of interpretation upon the Courts. The right hon.
gentleman, in his category of subjects in which possible in
justice might arise, mentioned maritime jurisdiction of the
Pacific Islands, foreign enlistment, and external affairs.

An Imperial Court of Appeal 135
These are all among the cluster of subjects as to which the
power of legislation is given to the .Federal Parliament of the
future, and, in my judgment, we are, on the whole, better pro
tected against any possible abuse of those powers by the right
which is conferred upon the face of the statute itself upon the
Imperial Government either to veto or reserve them for her
Majesty's approval, than by any provision limiting the powers
of the Courts or providing for appeal on questions of inter
pretation. It is quite obvious that you may have a statute as to the
interpretation of which there is no ambiguity whatever, and
the 74th Clause would be no protection to Imperial interests
in the case -of a statute of that kind, whereas the power given
to the Government to reserve it before it received approval, is
an ample and sufficient safeguard against a danger of that sort.
And that being so, may I say that I am one of those who look
forward to the constitution of a real Imperial Court of Appeal,
not to be forced on the Colonies against their
An Imperial v/[\ii but a Court of such a character, having such
Appeal attributes, as would appeal to every part of the
Empire, and under such arrangements that the
prerogative of the Crown and leave to appeal to the Crown in
Council upon all questions and upon proper conditions would
not be regarded as a fetter that would be dangerous but as a
safeguard to liberty. I think that the House will agree that
the constitution of such a Court is desirable, not in order to
have a uniform interpretation of the laws of the Empire. You
cannot have a uniform interpretation of diverse systems of law.
One of the great glories of the Roman Empire was that the
system of jurisprudence which we know as the Roman law
extended in its application practically throughout the Empire.
Napoleon will be remembered by the only beneficent act of
his life which remains, and which still influences the lives and
the actions of the vast Continent of Europe over which his
dominion was once overspread. Napoleon, by sweeping away
all the separate systems of local law which prevailed in
Europe, ai)d substituting the code Napoleon, with its compara
tive simplicity and reasonableness, did undoubtedly introduce a
uniformity of law throughout his Empire. That has not been
the method of the British Empire. Our method has been totally
contrary. We have always proceeded on the principle of
jealously preserving and maintaining local laws and usages.
Go into the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for a

136 The Australian Commonwealth —

sm

ingle week and watch its operations. You will see it deciding
on one day a question of Imperial law as modified by Roman
Dutch law, on another some question of Imperial law as
modified by French law as it prevailed before the Revolution
and modified by subsequent Canadian statutes, and on another
day the common law of England as modified by Australian or
New Zealand legislation, and at the end of the week Imperial
law as modified by the customs of the Hindu or Mahommedan
law. It is one of the great glories of our jurisprudence and one of
the great links that have kept our Empire together that our
-ph Courts have maintained most jealously and
Jurispxudence scrupulously the integrity of these different
of the systems of law which conform to the historical
British Empire traditions and local necessities of the different
parts of the Empire, and have prevented, as far as
they can, any filtration of ideas from a foreign
system of law which might permeate and corrupt
another system. It is not because we want a uniform
interpretation of law that we desire this great Imperial Court,
but because we wish there to be here, at the centre of the
Empire, a Court so authoritative and weighty from its composi
tion and numbers and the attainments of its members, that all
our different colonies and dependencies, when questions arise,
such as are certain to arise in Australia among the different
States that constitute the Commonwealth, will look upon it as
a tribunal of unsuspected impartiality and possessing that
authority which no local Court, of however high a character,
could pretend to. I am sure the constitution of such a tribunal
as that will be one of the best links by which we can maintain
the unity of the Empire as a whole. It is only fair to our
Australian fellow-subjects to say that, at the time when this
Bill was framed and submitted to the judgment of the
Australian people, not only was no such Court in existence,
but there was no such Court contemplated. If they had at
that time a knowledge that it would form a part of the scheme
of the Government or the Imperial Parliament to constitute a
tribunal of that kind, I doubt whether Clause 74 would ever
have appeared in the Bill. I desire to speak with the utmost
respect of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It
would be invidious to mention the names of living members,
but I do think that an opinion upon any question of law to

An Imperial Court of Appeal 137
which the late Lord Herschell and Lord Watson assented is
as likely to be right as any proposition, of this kind can be, in
which there is so much of what used to be termed " contingent "
matter applied to practical jurisprudence. But for some reason
or other the Committee of the Privy Council have been little
resorted to by Australia. We have had the figures given us,
and I think there is something less than an average of twenty
cases in the year, and when we remember what Australia is,
its area and population, the growing complexities of its indus
trial and commercial interests, and, above all, that healthy-
zeal for the pursuit of justice according to law, which is
engraven in the British temperament, and not changed by sky
or climate — putting all these things together, it does show, in
my judgment, a certain want of confidence in the tribunal that
we find appeals from Australia so few year after year. I believe
that tendency will be reversed, and an opposite current of
feeling created, if such a change were made as I have ven
tured to suggest in my last few sentences.
I come to the difficulty alluded to by the right hon. gentle
man, and his method of solving it. I confess if I had been
. drawing up a Constitution for Australia I should
of Acmeal very much have preferred to have left this
question of appeal as it was left in the Constitu
tion of Canada, because it appears to me there is very good
ground for the contention that a distant Court removed from
local prepossessions, and even, perhaps, from local knowledge,
may be said on constitutional questions to be a more impartial
arbiter. But I cannot see in the proposal Australia made and
approved, namely, that they should keep their constitutional
questions for home consumption, and not export them from time
to time for decision in this country ; I cannot see in that any
thing that in the least degree militates against our Imperial
unity, or constitutes any danger to other parts of the Empire.
I quite agree that the provision ought to be confined to matters
purely Australian, and as I read the clause in its original
shape, that intention seemed to be given effect to ; but if that
intention is made more clear, as the right hon. gentleman
thinks it is, and as the Australian delegates appear to believe
it is, by reversing the form of the clause into an affirmative
from a negative shape, I am sure nobody will make any objec
tion to the change.
There is one other point I think more serious — namely, the

138 The Australian Commonwealth
proposal to reserve to the Federal Parliament of Australia
power still further to limit the right of appeal
Australia's t0 tke Privy Council. That is a point on which,
RfeSR'rVht'0n in my judgment, we were already sufficiently
'S protected against any real grievance by the
Governor's power of veto or reservation, as the case may be,
expressed on the face of the statute. If, as the right hon.
gentleman has said, ambiguity has been suggested in the
construction of the statute as a whole, so that it might be
left open to the contention that the power of reservation does
not apply expressly, I agree it is most desirable and prudent
to place it there in connection with the clause itself, to avoid
future complications. What is the conclusion of the whole
matter ? I have come to the conclusion that there was never
any very great gulf of difference between the opinions of the
Government and the delegates. I do not wish to use language
of recrimination, and I have not, I think, indulged in it ; but
I think we must all regret — and perhaps the right hon. gentle
man more than any of us — that at the time when negotiations
were going on, when proposals were submitted to the various
Australian Legislatures, discussed, and put to the referendum —
I am sure we must all regret that some attention was not paid
to this particular point, and that what I am certain would have
been a friendly and fruitful interchange of opinions, thereby
avoiding misunderstandings, did not take place. I can quite
understand, and I give the right hon. gentleman full credit for
it, that he might have been indisposed to obtrude the Imperial
factor into a purely domestic discussion, and that he may
perhaps have been over-scrupulous in abstaining from anything
even in the way of suggestion which might seem to bias the
opinion of the Australian people or the Conventions.
I have only to say in conclusion that I believe men of all
parties in this House, now that these difficulties have been got
rid of, will join in welcoming this measure as, perhaps, the
most signal illustration in our history of the successful develop
ment of that power of reconciling local liberty with Imperial
unity, which is the strength and safeguard of the British
Empire.

XII.
THE LIBERAL PARTY AND THE SOUTH
AFRICAN WAR.
(From The Times, June 21, 1901.)
In June, 1901, the widest differences of opinion were being expressed
by Liberals on the conduct of the war in South Africa. On
June 13 Sir Henry Campbell - Bannerman denounced the
British military tactics as " methods of barbarism.'' On
June 17, in the Commons, a vote of censure on the Government
for its attitude towards the concentration camps was moved by
Mr. Lloyd-George and supported by the Liberal Leader, but in
the division some fifty Liberal M.P.'s abstained from voting.
On June ig, at a meeting in the Queen's Hall, under the chair
manship of Mr. Labouchere, Liberal members spoke in favour
of, and voted for resolutions — which were carried— calling for
the restitution of " complete independence " to the Transvaal
and Orange State, and denouncing the concentration camps as
" an outrage against huinanily."
It was in these circumstances that Mr. Asquith made the following
speech.]
Before I approach, as I will presently, the pleasanter and
more strictly relevant part of my task, I feel bound to make
one or two observations, for we are met to-night in circum
stances, almost unexampled in the history of our party, upon
a new situation.
I have seen appeals made to me by friends for whose judg
ment I have much respect that in addressing you to-night I
should ignore recent events, and should confine
The Division mySelf to prophesying smooth things and
Liberal Party discoursing on the blessings of reunion. I should
be glad to do so were it not that, in my judg
ment, to take such a course at the present moment would

140 The Liberal Party and the
involve a grave dereliction of duty both to the Liberal party
and to the country. You will perhaps allow me to preface what
I have to say by one observation of a personal character,
especially addressed to my brother Liberals here and outside.
If I speak to you to-night, as I am about to speak, both
strongly and plainly, I venture to submit, without, I hope,
undue egotism, that I have some little claim to be listened to.
For the best part of ten years I have sat in what are called
the inner councils of the Liberal party. During that time I
have served under four successive leaders, with each of whom I
have worked loyally and cordially ; and I can honestly say
that from the first to last it has been my main and governing
endeavour, amid all the embarrassments, personal and politi
cal, with which now for years past our party has been afflicted —
it has been my governing aim, so far as I could, to strive for
harmony where friction could by any possible means be
avoided, for reconciliation where differences could without any
sacrifice of principle be bridged over, and, above all and before
all, reconstitution of a united and militant Liberal party, which
I have long believed, and which I still believe, to be the
supreme and the capital need both of the country and of the
Empire. During the last two years, since the outbreak of the war,
there have been among us differences of opinion as to its
_._ origin, as to the causes which led to it — dif-
DiTTerences
on the War ferences deep-seated, far-reaching, acute — but I
confess I have hoped that, in so far as these
related — and they did relate mainly — to the events of the past,
we should now be content to leave them to be determined by
that which is the only sovereign and ultimate tribunal, the
judgment of history. During the last six months, at any rate,
it has been my primary object at every Liberal meeting I have
addressed, in every Liberal company in which I have found
myself, to preach union, to urge concentration, even at the risk
of wearying my friends, and if I may use the description which
Clarendon gives of Lord Falkland, to ingeminate the word
"peace." I had thought that those efforts, in which, so far
as I have taken any part in them, I have had the most loyal
and energetic co-operation from members from alh sections of
our party — I had hoped that those efforts were bearing
fruit. But it appears that there are people who will not have it so ;

South African War 141
arid within the last week, without, so far as I know, any provo
cation of any sort or kind, a challenge has been
¦ ?. 1. ra_fe deliberately, and even defiantly thrown down
and Defiant , • , • ¦ c ... • ' <¦ , ..
Challenge which, in view of the circumstances in which it
was made, it would be impossible for any body
of self-respecting men to pass by in silence. Gentlemen, I do
not know — I beg the forbearance in what I am going to say- of
all who may not think with me either upon the past or the future
— I assure you I am speaking under a deep sense of responsi-
• bility, and with an earnest desire to promote the best interests of
our common party. I do not know what were the objects of the
promoters of that demonstration ; but I do know that the effect
has been to give the impression — an impression, I am certain,
foreign to the intention of some, at any rate, of the guests — it
gave an impression that those members of our party who have
taken the view which I have taken of the war, are henceforth
to regard themselves as definitely and authoritatively branded
as schismatics and heretics. We were told on that occasion —
told from lips whose every utterance commands great and de
served weight in this country, and among Liberals in particular
— we were told that we must now at last see, at any rate, that
we had placed ourselves in antagonism with the predominant
and authorised creed of the Liberal party. Not only so — to
such a degree, can silence and the desire for party unity be
misconstrued — it was even suggested that many of us, at any
rate, had reached that stage of repentance which is the prelude
to a state of grace — that the eyes .ihat have been blinded for two
, years "Tjy the teachings of the moral law were at last being
opened' by the logic of events ; and some of us — so it was said —
had got so far as conveniently to forget the opinions which we
had frequently deliberately and publicly expressed. I read
that language with as much amazement as sorrow.
I do not know what may be the supposed foundation in fact
for these suggestions; but I do know that the fact that they
should have been put forward from such a quar-
RLeeSltlmer!f" ter> and in sucn a comPany> has Deen tlie cause
of keen and, as I think, legitimate resentment
to a body of as honourable men and as staunch and enthusiastic
Liberals as are. to be found in the length and breadth of this
kingdom. I have no desire, heaven knows, to rake up the
controversies of the past. There is nothing in the world so
uncongenial to me as to enter on any kind of public disputation

142 The Liberal Party and the
with an old friend and colleague by whose side I have often
fought in the past, and by whose side I hope to fight again
in the future; but the consequences of such a misconception
are so grave, both to the party and to the country, that I feel
in duty bound to take this very first opportunity that has offered
itself to dispel it entirely and once for all. I am speaking not
for myself alone, but for a large number of my colleagues
in the House of Commons and for a still larger body of Liberal
opinion outside. Those, I say, who have taken that view may
be right, or they may be wrong. That is not what I am con
cerned to argue ; time will decide. We have never sought to
make the holding of that view the test of the political ortho
doxy of our fellow Liberals, and I hope that we never shall.
But that makes it all the more necessary for me to say in the
plainest and most unequivocal terms, that we have not changed
our view, that we do not repent of it, and that we shall not
recant it. It is desirable to come to close quarters on this, and
I am sure you will not resent any plainness of my speech.
What have been the views put forward by the section of the
party to whom I refer?
No one has denounced with more emphasis than they have
that piece of piratical folly, the Jameson raid, and the fatal
neglect — the responsibility for which, to some
Jameson Raid degree at any rate, must be shared by the
Government with a committee of the House of
Commons — the fatal neglect to probe it to its origin, to bring
the main offenders to justice and to punishment, and what is
perhaps more important, to provide prompt reparation for fhe
mischief which has been done. No one, again, has spoken in
stronger terms of the incomprehensible inertness with which,
in the years that followed, the Transvaal was allowed to be
converted into an armed camp, while the most elementary pre
cautions — such, even, as the mapping out of our own colonies —
were not taken. We have not been sparing, further, in our
criticism and in our censure in that strange mixture of precipi
tation and lethargy which characterised some part, at any rate,
of the procedure of our Government in the months which pre
ceded the war. We have believed, and have always expressed
the belief — if I may quote for a moment words of my own,
used upon the very day when the Boer ultimatum was delivered,
and since only too amply proved by the event — we have be
lieved that this was a war which, if it came, would bring to

South African War 143
the people of Great Britain neither moral advantage nor
military glory. Yes, and so far I doubt whether there is a
Liberal in this room who would not agree with what I have
been saying.
Where we have been parting company with our friends —
those who agree with me and those who disagree from me will
believe me on this point — where we were obliged
th V'L 1 t0 Part company with our friends was here — that
Separate we held and still hold that war was neither in
tended nor desired by the Government and the
people of Great Britain, but that it was forced upon us without
adequate reason, entirely against our will. Gentlemen, I am
not asking you for a moment to assent to my view ; I am only
saying that that was the view we held and hold. I say again —
here again differing from many of our friends — that we hold
and held that the blood that has been spilt, and the treasure
that has been spent, have been expended, not in a criminal
adventure, not for the purpose of replacing the ascendancy of
one party by the ascendancy of another, but that after the con
fusion and the chaos of this campaign, which we did not seek,
is over, there may arise out of it, upon the scene at present
of so much desolation and ruin, the fabric of a free, federated,
self-governing South African dominion. I say again that those
views may be right or they may be wrong, but are we to be told
that a man or body of men who hold them, are to be regarded
as apostates to the Liberal faith, and not to be readmitted
to the fold except upon the terms of tacit renunciation, if not
of open penance ? I demur to the jurisdiction. I know of no
authority in the Liberal party, pontifical or other, which has
the power to pronounce these sentences of excommunication
or of absolution. Meanwhile we — those for whom I am speak
ing — remain what we always have been, Liberals by conviction,
Liberals to the core, eager when these distractions are over — and
God grant that they may be soon — to resume here at home the
struggle which our party has always and unceasingly waged in
the past against every form of political inequality and social
injustice. I have said what I have in terms which, though plain, I hope
are free from offence, for two reasons — one a party reason, the
other what I may call a reason of national policy. From a
party point of view I have thought it right to be as clear and
definite as I can, because, believe me, I speak, I know, to many

144 The Liberal Party and the
who do not hold my views upon this particular topic, but who
are good and general Liberals as I claim to be. Believe me,
you cannot have, and you never will have, reunion or genuine
co-operation in the Liberal party except upon the terms of
mutual tolerance and reciprocal respect. It is far better, in
my opinion, that we should differ openly and frankly than
we should pretend to be at one when we are not, or, still worse,
that any section among us should exult in the supposed capture
and humiliation of another. And from a national point of view,
I have said what I have because I wish' to be clearly understood.
So far as words of mine can carry any weight, I wish it to be
clearly understood that such declarations as those which I have
quoted, such resolutions as were last night passed at a meeting
in London, are not to be taken as in any sense an authoritative
exposition of the opinion of the Liberal party.
There aje friends of mine for whom I have the highest
respect, the genuineness of whose Liberalism I would not for a
moment call in question, who think that this war
Liberals and js on j^e part of Great Britain, a huge national
the Conduct . ^i r _... i_ _ • ..*
ofthe War crime. There are some of them here to-night.
And they think that to that initial crime
we have added day by day, month by month, year by year,
countless further crimes against the code of humanity, and that
the only solution, if we are to put ourselves before our own
consciences and before history, is unconditional surrender to
the Boers. All I say about it is this — that in whatever form —
if I have stated it in too extreme a form I am only too glad —
but in whatever form the proposition is stated, it shall not go
forth to the world, so long as I have a voice to be heard,
without protest as the opinion of the Liberal party. I have
always agreed with those who say that whatever differing
opinions we may have about the origin of the war that ought
not in. the least degree to fetter the exercise of our faculty
of criticism and judgment upon the methods by which it is
conducted. I entirely agree that that is so, and to give you
two illustrations, I think, and I have said so in the House
of Commons, that the policy which was resorted to, for some
weeks at any rate, in the autumn of last year, the policy of
what was called farm-burning, was a grave military and politi
cal blunder. I would apply even stronger language, but the
matter was, happily, so soon set right, I would apply even
stronger language to the discrimination which appears in one

South African War 145
or, another of the camps to have been made in respect to the
ratipns which were handed out to the women and children
according as their male grown-up kinsmen were or were not
fighting with the Boers. Upon all these points we ought
to keep a perfectly open mind, and to form our judgment and
act according to the evidence, whatever our own views as to
the righteousness or unrighteousness of the war as a whole.
But I must add that in my judgment, and I have sifted the
evidence as carefully as I can, there is no ground for any
general charge of inhumanity against either side.
We have heard from time to time terrible stories of sup
posed atrocities committed by Boer leaders and Boer officers.
Tt„ ,-, .. In nine cases out of ten when these charges
The Question , ,._¦_:_._.. i ' .
of Humanity "ave come t0 be sifted they have been proved
to be either gross exaggerations or entire fabri
cations ; and although there may have been, I am afraid there
have been, isolated cases — it would be wonderful if there were
not — in which the Boers, or some Boer or another, have shown
callousness or even cruelty to British soldiers or British sub
jects, yet upon the whole the verdict of any fair-minded man,
and I believe the verdict of history, upon this campaign by our
gallant enemies will be — and no higher praise could be given
to them — that their humanity was equalled by their courage.
But I say the same of our own generals, officers, and soldiers.
I am almost ashamed to have to say such a thing, but I am
speaking with the knowledge derived from long and intimate
acquaintance when I say that there is no man throughout the
length and breadth of the Empire more penetrated with the
spirit of humanity than Lord Milner, of whom only on Monday
last I heard a member of the House of Commons say in the
course of debate that it was his callousness and his cruelty to
the women and children in these camps which had earned his
promotion to the peerage. I make no comment upon such a
statement as that ; but as I have said, and I believe that
here, again, the verdict of history will bear us out on the
whole with regard to the difficulties — unforeseen and un
foreseeable difficulties — with which this campaign has been
conducted, I believe it will compare favourably in point of
humanity with any of the great campaigns in the history of
the world.
Let me just refer to a question that at this moment is very
probably agitating the public mind — I mean the difficulty of

146 The Liberal Party and the
what are called concentration camps for women and children.
The A debate was raised upon that subject on
Concentration Monday night in the House of Commons, a de-
Camps bate which I, for my part, considered premature,
because necessarily ill-informed, for we had not then, we have
not now, but still less had we then, any adequate materials
in our possession on which to form an adequate and trustworthy
judgment, and it was for that reason, and, I may add, because
of the temper and spirit in which the debate was initiated, that
I and many of my friends declined to vote for that motion.
And here let me say in parenthesis that the idea, when a motion
of this kind is brought forward by a private member entirely
upon his own responsibility, that every member of the party
is not perfectly free, without any imputation as to loyalty or
discipline, to vote or not to vote, according to his own con
science and judgment, I say that idea is one of the most pre
posterous figments that was ever invented by a journalist in
search of copy. But there are — do not suppose that I am in
any way denying it, because, as I have said already, we must
keep a practically free hand as regards the conduct of the
war — there are grave and serious questions which require to be
discussed with fuller knowledge than we at present possess.
With regard to these camps, first of all there is the policy of
concentration itself, as to which, though I do not profess to
express a concluded or final opinion at this moment, I can
only say that, in view of the state of things that existed in
January and February last, I am not myself satisfied that any
other mode of dealing with the problem might not have in
volved these poor women and children in even greater suffer
ing. But, quite apart from the policy of concentration, there
is the condition of the camps, and there we certainly have some
very startling and melancholy official figures as to the rate of
mortality. We have now what we must regard as well authen
ticated tales, because they were told by a lady whose energy
and philanthropy it is impossible to overpraise, and who is
speaking of what she has seen with her own eyes. We have
tales of suffering which a man must have a very hard heart
indeed if he can read unmoved. Let these things be inquired
into as fully, completely, and exhaustively as they possibly
can. It is no one's interest— certainly not that of any Liberal
members of the House of Commons — that the truth should be
in any way concealed, or that the conclusions to be drawn

South African War 147
from the evidence should be doctored or mutilated. But re
member this, surely we have enough to quarrel about without
making imputations upon each other's comparative lack of
philanthropy and humanity. No one here seriously believes,
either in or out of this room, that there is any difference in
the degree of sympathy or compassion which we feel, every one
of us, whatever our views as to the origin of the war, with
regard to the unmerited sufferings of these unfortunate victims.
And, on the other hand, there is not one of us who would not
strain every nerve and urge upon the Government by every
means to alleviate these sufferings and as soon as possible
to end them. But it would be a melancholy thing if it were-,
I will not say a party question as between the two parties of
the State, but a -sectional question as between the members of
one party.
I see a great deal said in denunciation of what is called the
policy of unconditional surrender. I do not know who advo
cates a policy of unconditional surrender — I am
I ®. t speaking now of unconditional surrender on the
After the War Part °^ t'ie Boers. I have never met a Liberal
who did, and if we are to judge his Majesty's
Government by their solemn repeated statements neither do
they. But I have nothing to do with them. I am speaking
as a Liberal to Liberals, and what have we to say about this ?
Do we differ about it really ? Well, I should like very much
that some of our friends, who seem to imagine that a difference
of this kind exists, should formulate it, put it into words, write
it down on paper. Let me tell you my views. I suppose we
all agree now that it is impossible to restore their previous
political status to these two Republics. I speak upon that
point more or less in a white sheet, because I confess I was
one of those who, at the beginning of the war, strongly enter
tained the hope and belief that it would be possible not to
interfere with the political status of the Republics, and not to
be compelled to incorporate them as a part and parcel of the
British Empire. That was my view. I was a reluctant convert
to the necessity of annexation, but I have not found among
my friends in all sections of the Liberal party — and certainly
no one has spoken more strongly on this point than the dis
tinguished statesman to whom I was referring in an earlier
part of my remarks — and I have not found among all my
friends one who does not agree that annexation is inevitable,

148 The South African War
that independence in the old sense is impossible, and that you
start with that as your final settlement.
But there is another point, and that is that there must be an
intermediate era of resettlement before you can endow these
newly constituted States with full machinery as autonomous
. _ , , States with autonomous Government. That that
South Africa mterval may be as short as possible is the hope
of every Liberal among us ; and when that is
over, do we not hope that our ideal, the ultimate goal of our
policy in South Africa, is to be that which I described a few
minutes ago, the reconstruction of a free federated dominion
upon the model of Canada or of Australia, in which both the
now estranged races can sit down side by side without sacrifice
or self-respect and work together to promote the common
advantage of what will then be their common country? I do
not say I am not under any delusions upon the point, that
that is an ideal easy of attainment. The ravages, the desola
tions, the bitternesses of this unhappy war will long survive
the actual struggle itself ; but when we are asked what is our
policy as regards, the ultimate future I believe the more we
discuss the matter with one another the less our differences
will appear to be, and the stronger our conviction that it is
upon these lines and these lines only that this terrible tangle
may ultimately be unravelled.

XIII.
MR. CHAMBERLAINS FISCAL PROPOSALS.
(From The Times, May 22, 1903.)
[On May 13, 1903, Mr. Chamberlain, then Colonial Secretary,
declared his belief that an imposition of duties on British
imports in order to grant and receive preferential duties to and
from the colonies was essential to the maintenance and fullest
development of the Empire. These proposals received their
baptism of criticism from the Free Traders in the following
speech by Mr. Asquith at Doncaster on May 21, 1903Z]
He would not that night attempt any survey of the legislative;
administrative, and fiscal misadventures of his Majesty's
present advisers. If he were to undertake the task, his diffi
culty would be in an embarrassment of subjects to choose from.
He did not agree with those who said or suggested that during
the last or present Session the Opposition in the House of
Commons had not been conducted with vigilance and energy.
The history of the corn tax and of the Education Bill was
sufficient to refute such a charge. At the same time he was
free to acknowledge that at the present moment the Parlia
mentary Opposition might safely transfer their functions to the
willing and capable hands of the nominal followers of the
Government. He had never seen such a spectacle as con
fronted the country at the present time, when the difficulty
was not to discover the point upon which the ostensible sup
porters of the Government differed, but the point upon which
they aigreed. The position which to a superficial observer
looked so strong was honeycombed by a series of caves. If one
wandered about the lobbies, almost at every corner he came
across some little knot of Ministerial supporters going to or
returning from its own particular lair. The spectacle sug
gested a political pantomime. At any rate, they might be
sure of this — that it would not be very long before the bell
would ring for the transformation scene.
He would ask them now to divert their attention from the

150 Mr. Chamberlain's Fiscal Proposals
Parliamentary arena and consider with him for a moment a
topic which had been suddenly and un-
Mr. Chamberlain's expectedly sprung upon the political
|ire^chSham world- He referred t0 the remarkable and
P f' ' noteworthy speech of the Colonial Secre
tary. In that speech, Mr. Chamberlain had proclaimed that
the time had come for a new fiscal departure, and that in the
interests of the Empire we should, by a combination of preferen
tial treatment for our colonies and of retaliatory duties against
foreign countries, at once give a fillip to Imperial trade and
provide new safeguards for our Imperial unity. When he (Mr.
Asquith) read that speech, his first inclination was to doubt
whether or not it was seriously meant. He was almost inclined
to agree with some of his friends who expressed the opinion that
it ought to be treated as an explosion of rhetorical fireworks
on the part of a Minister who had been overruled by his col
leagues, and was not disposed to take his beating quietly. It
must be admitted that if, as on reflection he was disposed to
think, Mr. Chamberlain's proposals were seriously made, it
was difficult to understand why he still remained- a member
of the Cabinet which was repealing the corn tax without any
qualification or reserve. That corn tax was the one instru
ment in possession of the Government by which these new
fiscal ideas could have real effect given to them. If we repealed
the corn tax as regards the colonies and retained it as regards
foreign countries, we should be making a beginning — a very
poor one — but taking the first halting step upon the road whioh
Mr. Chamberlain declared we ought to be prepared to travel.
Mr. Chamberlain was a very versatile statesman, but he could
not at the same time hunt with Mr. Chaplin and stay at bay
_  with Mr. Ritchie. The only way in which
Mr. Chamber am s , ,A/r . ... ., ., ..
pians he (Mr. Asquith) could reconcile Mr.
Chamberlain's language and his actions
was by assuming that this was a topic upon which he dared
not as yet challenge the opinion of the people of Great
Britain. This was his first start upon a campaign of propa
ganda — a campaign in which he (Mr. Asquith) ventured to
predict that those who undertook it would find arrayed against
them the resolute and undivided hostility of the Liberal party.
To some of their political opponents Mr. Chamberlain's
proposals appeared to have come as a revelation. The writers
in the Press seemed to think that he had brought with him a

Mr. Chamberlain's Fiscal Proposals 151
new economic decalogue from the South African veld ; but the
ideas which underlay the scheme were as old as the veld itself.
Six years ago Lord Rosebery apologised for undertaking the task
of demolishing the scheme, which task he successfully per
formed, on the ground that it was " like dissecting a corpse."
Mr. Asquith here remarked parenthetically that he was sur
prised that from the guarded and interrogative criticisms which
Lord Rosebery uttered the other night before a non-political
gathering any one should have drawn the inference that he
had recanted, or in the least degree receded from the position
he took up in 1897, and reaffirmed last year. He (Mr. Asquith)
had the best reason for knowing that there was not a shadow
of truth in that suggestion. The matter was considered in
1896, and again in 1900, by the Chambers of Commerce of the
Empire in London. The similar plan put forward, he thought,
by Canadian representatives had to be withdrawn in face of the
unmistakable hostility of the large body of delegates assembled.
What was there new in the situation ? Who wanted this plan ?
The Australians did not want it, and he doubted very much
whether the people of Great Britain wanted it. But if Mr.
Chamberlain did choose this as the battle-horse of his party
for political or electioneering purposes, he (Mr. Asquith)
rejoiced at the selection. He believed that in resisting any
attempt to upset the fiscal foundation upon which our prosperity
and Imperial strength depended, a great service would be
done to the colonies and to this country.
The followers of Free Trade believed in it because they
knew by experience it was the only fiscal policy by which the
resources of this country could be best adapted
Free Trade t0 ,-^g increase 0f weaith, the maintenance of
the Empire our industrial supremacy in the markets of the
world, and the diffusion of prosperity among all
classes of our community. Mr. Chamberlain had even gone
so far as to invoke in favour of the new proposal the authority
of Cobden and Bright, because, forsooth, they approved of the
policy which was embodied in what was called the French
Commercial Treaty of r6o and '61. That treaty, however, so
far from being any precedent for any justification for the policy
of what was called reciprocity or retaliation or preference, was
exactly the reverse. In a letter, Cobden himself said : " We
give no concessions to France which we do not apply to all
other nations." That was what made all the difference between

152 Mr. Chamberlain's Fiscal Proposals
a commercial treaty in the Cobdenite sense of the word and
this new-fangled doctrine of preference and retaliation. Mr.
Gladstone used a memorable phrase in defending the treaty,
expressing the same idea in different language, saying : " It
is, though in form a treaty with France, in fact a treaty with
the whole world." The question was whether the Empire in
the largest and widest sense would gain or lose if the United
Kingdom were to abandon its traditional policy of absolute
Free Trade and return to the system of preferential or
retaliatory import duties. The facts about Imperial defence
showed that it cost seventy millions sterling. The contribution
towards that on the part of the eleven self-governing colonies
was at the rate of 2S. 9d. per head, while in Great Britain and
Ireland it was 29s. per head. He was not reproaching the
colonies ; but this being the distribution of the common burden,
it was of paramount importance to all that nothing should be
done to impair the wealth, the productive power, or the taxable
capacity of the people of the United Kingdom.
In 1901 the over-sea trade of the United Kingdom amounted,
roughly, to 800 millions sterling ; and this trade was done with
Britain's British possessions to the extent of 200 millions
Foreign and and with foreign countries to the extent of 600
Colonial millions. Much the largest trade was done with
Trade j^e u__ited States, and that should be borne in
mind when they thought of the consequence of a change of the
fiscal system. We did more trade with Germany than with
Australia, and more with Prussia than with Canada.
We ought to be careful lest in the vague hope of increasing
our .colonial trade we should cut down the larger trade with
foreign countries. We could, no doubt, reduce in favour of
the colonies such duties as those on tea, tobacco, spirits, and
wine ; but that would only benefit the colonies that produced
those specific things. What we imported from foreign countries
was food and raw material.
There were 220 millions in value imported from abroad, of
which four-fifths came from foreign countries and one-fifth
from the Empire. Were we going to tax four-fifths and let in
one-fifth tax free? Of raw material, two-thirds came from
foreign countries and one-third from the Empire ; and he said
that the effect of this proposal, if carried out either in the
taxation of food or raw material, would be to raise the cost of
production of our manufactures still higher than at present, and

Mr. Chamberlain's Fiscal Proposals 153
thus further to handicap us who were already severely tried.
If we began to give preference to one colony, we must give it
to all ; and look at the rivalries and jealousies that would be
created. Would foreign countries look on with quietness and
equanimity? Their tariffs were already sufficiently severe, and
the moment this country adopted commercial preference within
the Empire it would be the signal for the outbreak of a war
of reprisals throughout the world.
This change was not desired by the major portion of the
Empire. Its benefits to the colonies were in the highest degree
problematic and uncertain ; and he said, further,
f ti?6rS tixat it involved, of a logical necessity, the im-
Change position of a tax upon the great bulk of the food
and raw material which we imported from
abroad, which formed the subsistence of our people and the
basis of our prosperity. From the largest and widest point of
view of Imperial policy, it would tend to brew ill-feeling at
home against our fellow-subjects in the colonies, to foment
jealousies and misunderstandings between the colonies them
selves, and lead to a new and more embittered war of tariffs
all round the world. Until some better substitute could be
discovered, let us stick to our well-tried policy of free markets
and an open door.

XIV.
THE TAX ON CORN.
(From The Times, June 11, 1903-)
[Speaking in the Commons on fune 10, Mr. Asquith supported the
Government 's abolition of the tax on corn, and at the same time
dwelt upon the profound differences of opinioti displayed by the
Ministers—by Mr. Ritchie as Chancellor of the Exchequer on
the one hand, and by Mr. Chamberlain as Colonial Secretary
on the other, while he also criticised the studied non-committal
attitude of Mr. Balfour as Prime Minister.]
The hon. baronet who has just sat down finds his reason and
his feelings in conflict one with the other, and, as it not un
frequently happens when a conflict of that kind takes place
in the human bosom, reason goes to the wall, and the hon.
gentleman proposes to follow the guidance of his feelings.
That is a matter which he has to settle with his own conscience,
and perhaps with his constituency. But my object in rising
is to ask the attention of the House for a few moments to the
situation which confronts us — a situation more grotesque, and,
I venture to say, from a Parliamentary point of view, more
indecent, than falls within the experience or the memory of the
oldest member of Parliament.
How do we stand here ? We have been engaged now for the
best part of three sittings nominally and ostensibly in dis
cussing the continuance of the corn tax ; but, as a matter of
fact, during the whole of that time every one has been thinking,
and almost every speaker who has taken part in the debate
has been talking, about something entirely different. I shall
endeavour to keep strictly within the ruling which you, Mr.
Speaker, have laid down. It is true that every one prefaces
his remarks with the expression of that pious opinion ; but, at
all events, I will say this — that I will, so far as I can, avoid
dealing with any topic which has not been the subject of refer
ence or allusion in the course of these debates. More than
that I am unable to promise.

The Tax on Corn 155
As regards the corn tax, which, as I have said, is the inter
mediate and ostensible subject of debate, it is to me at this
-p. moment — as I venture to think it is to 99 out of
Corn Tax every 100 members who sit upon either side of
the House — an unsolved and an undecipherable
mystery, either why the Cabinet, as a Cabinet, imposed it last
year, or why the Cabinet, as a Cabinet, are dropping it this
year. Upon the simple question of fact, I have never known in
this House such a multiplicity of irreconcilable versions from
the persons, and the only persons who are qualified to speak.
Was the tax imposed last year mainly and primarily as a war
tax, or was it imposed mainly and primarily as a first instal
ment in the process of enlarging the area of indirect taxation ?
I cannot say. But, Sir, the problems connected with the
imposition of the tax are simplicity themselves compared with
the problems connected wi^th its abandonment. Why has it
been abandoned? It is because, as the Chancellor of the
Exchequer* told us yesterday, and I entirely agree with him,
because it falls on the consumer — because, in other words,
being a tax on the first necessary of life, it is an unnecessary
burden which ought to be lifted at the earliest possible moment
from the shoulders of the poorest class of the community?
That is the one idea of the abandonment of the tax which
I can understand, follow, and appreciate. But is it being
abandoned because, as the Colonial Secretary says, in a letter
which he has recently addressed to a correspondent, and which
is public property, " it does not fall in any way on the con
sumer," and because " it has been met by a reduction of price
and freights in the United States of America " ? In other
words, is it being abandoned as a magnificent piece of inter
national altruism, as a fresh demonstration of our love for our
kinsman across the Atlantic, to whom, according to this theory
of the abandonment of the tax, we are going to make out of the
British Exchequer a present of ^2,500,000? I should like to
know which theory of the abandonment of the tax is the theory
of his Majesty's Government — and particularly the theory of
the Prime Minister. Those who, like myself, and like my
right hon. and hon. friends who sit on this side of the House,
opposed the imposition of the tax last year naturally have
listened, not without complacency, to the course of this debate.
* Mr. J. G. Ritchie.

156

The Tax on Corn

Every single argument that we used last year by way of
prophecy, either as to the incidence or as to the effect of the
tax, was last night demonstrated from that box by the Chan
cellor of the Exchequer, with the aid of carefully sifted and
digested official figures, to have been absolutely justified by
the event. Never I venture to say, in Parliamentary history,
has an Opposition small in number, impotent in the division
lobby, been so rapidly and so completely justified out of the
mouths of its opponents.
I am not going to trespass on the patience of the House by
travelling again over this too familiar ground ; but 1 wish to
refer to two larger questions which (I hope in
iwo t-ons accordance with the strictest interpretation of the
"" ""' * rules which govern our proceedings upon this
very anomalous occasion) will be found to be strictly and even
necessarily relevant to the amendment of the right hon.
gentleman opposite. The first question is this — and it is a
question which I now address to his Majesty's Government,
and as to which I hope before the debate is over we shall have
an authoritative answer — whatever may have been the motives,
what is the intention of the Government in dropping this tax ?
Is it to be abolished, or is it to be only hung up ? It is dead. We
all know it is dead. We are performing its funeral rites. But
what is the word you are going to carve* oh its tombstone ? Is
it Requiescat or is it Resurgam ? That is the first question
to which I want an answer from the Government to-day. There
is a second and a still larger and more important question.
This is a tax on imported food, and upon that class of imported
food which constitutes the staple of the first necessary of life
for the bulk of our population. It is a sample and a type of
a whole class of taxation, and you cannot, I venture to submit
to the House, discuss the expediency or policy of the abandon
ment of this particular sample without considering the whole
question as to whether or not it is a class of taxation which, in
the opinion of his Majesty's Government, it is politic or per
missible to make a permanent part of our fiscal system. These
are both questions as to which I am anxious to tell the Govern
ment that the House of Commons cannot, and will not, be
content with the confused and warring dicta of individual
Ministers. They are entitled to, and they intend before the
debate is over to get, the collective judgment, if there be one,
of the Cabinet as a whole.

The Tax on Corn 157
Upon both the points to which I have referred, the Chan
cellor of the Exchequer last night gave, if not wholly satis-
Mr. Chamberlain's ^ry, _ at any rate very reassuring,
Position declarations. He means, I gather from
what he told us, to bury this tax beyond the
hope or chance of resurrection ; he is opposed to protective
duties on foods in any shape or form. Very well, so far so
good. But are these the views or are they not of his Majesty's
Government? The right hon. gentleman yesterday, in the
earlier part of his speech, produced at that box and read to the
House a very remarkable document. I have not seen it, of
course, but so far as one could judge at this distance it
appeared to be a record — I will not say of a treaty, but, at any
rate, of a truce. But when the Tight hon. gentleman came to
the end of his recital I confess that for once — I think it is the
first time in my Parliamentary experience — I shared the views
of my hon. and gallant friend, the member* for Central Shef
field, because, like him, I felt in a state of complete bewilder
ment and doubt as to what was the precise point in that docu
ment at which the right hon. gentleman ceased to express
his own personal views and began to express the collective
views of his colleagues in the Cabinet. I listened most care
fully, and I shall be very glad even now if he, or any of his
colleagues, will supply the defects either of our hearing or our
understanding, and tell us exactly how we stand. The bulk
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech was an elaborate,
and I confess I thought a cogent and convincing, refutation of
the fallacies which the Colonial Secretary has recently been
spreading abroad, not only about this corn tax, but about the
whole class of taxation to which it belongs. I do not see the
Colonial Secretary here now. I am glad to see the right hon.
gentleman has come in now. I think he was present last
night during the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
a compliment which I observe Ministers do not always pay
to one another, and I see the right hon. gentleman — and I am
glad to see him — still sits on that bench. What are we to infer ?
The right hon. gentleman heard the speech of his colleague,
who, I must beg leave to remark, as Chancellor of the Ex
chequer, is the person primarily responsible for the finances
of this country, and according to Constitutional and Parlia-
* Sir Howard Vincent.

158

The Tax on Corn

mentary usage the authorised exponent of the fiscal policy of
his Majesty's Government— the right hon. gentleman heard that
speech, and, as I say, he sits on that bench. Is he a convert to
the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer ? Do we witness
the always grateful spectacle of a brand plucked from the
burning, a backslider brought home again by the gentle and
persuasive influence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the
old fold from which, in days gone by, gratefully to those of us
who are Free Traders, the right hon. gentleman put forward
loud and edifying professions of the true economic faith? If
that is the true explanation of the phenomenon which we wit
nessed, I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon
the unexpected success of an unusually arduous effort in the
field of missionary work. But perhaps that is not the true
explanation ; and, if not, I ask again how do we stand ?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us yesterday that
some Ministers — I think that was the phrase he used — had
m r if ' Deen expressing individual opinions of their own
Position 'n rel,atli'on t0 'his matter. Among the " some
Ministers " to whom the right hon. gentleman
vaguely, I will not say contemptuously, alluded, I think, the
Prime Minister was included. This is a matter which goes
far beyond the subject of the corn tax. Here we have two
Ministers of the Crown seated at this moment upon the bench,
separated the one from the other only by the intervention cf
the Prime Minister himself. One of them, the Colonial Secre
tary, is the Minister who is constitutionally responsible for
the management of the relations between this country and the
outlying parts of the Empire. The other is the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, who, as I pointed out a moment ago, is the
Minister responsible for the fiscal arrangements of the United
Kingdom and a great part of the Empire. These two Ministers,
if we are to abandon the genial, but I am afraid the not very
probable, hypothesis (which I ventured to put forward a
moment ago) of secret recantation and reconciliation — if
they still remain of the same frame of mind in which they
were two days ago — are here propounding fundamentally and
irreconcilably divergent views in a matter which affects more
vitally than any other matter in the whole range of politics
the unity of the Empire, and the fiscal arrangements and pros
perity of the country. We are told by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, yesterday — and the Prime Minister adumbrated at .

The Tax on Corn 159
any rate a similar view in a speech he made in this House just
before the recess — we are told that Ministers are entitled to
hold and express independent opinions on questions of public
policy. So they are.
There are a large number of matters as to which, without
any want of loyalty, without any breach of the obligations of
Cabinet Party, without any want of allegiance to the
Unity a public duty which this country requires from its
Constitutional statesmen, Ministers may hold and express
Necessity divergent views. And there are a number of
other questions as to which they may invite discussion and
inquiry by committee, by commission, or by any other instru
ment you please. If it is a question of the speed at which
motor-cars shall be allowed to travel along the highway, or if
it is a question of the number of decimals of an inch to which
the linen collar of an officer may be allowed to go by the
War Office, it is a very fit subject for discussion and inquiry,
and as to which Ministers and members of Parliament also may
very well claim to have an open mind. But we are not dealing
with matters of that kind here. We are dealing here with a
question which goes deep down to the very roots of our
national and our Imperial existence.
It is not only without precedent or example ; it is an entire
departure from the traditions and rules of our public life that <
in a matter of this kind and of this importance responsible
Ministers, the Ministers immediately and directly responsible,
should be allowed not merely to emit on public platforms
discordant opinions, but to pose as propagandists — for that is
what they are doing — of two wholly irreconcilable views of a
public policy which one of them, at any rate, declares he
intends to make a cardinal issue at the next General Election.
That, to my mind, is the real significance of the situation in
, which we are placed ; and I have risen for the purpose, in these
few words, of uttering a protest, not only on behalf of the
Opposition, but, I believe, on behalf of the vast majority of
members on both sides of the House, against a practice which,
if once allowed, would put an end to Ministerial responsibility
and Cabinet government.

XV.
PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS.
(From The Times, July 30, 1903)
[At a demonstration on July 29, 1903, in St. James's Hall, under
the auspices of the London Liberal Federation, to protest
against the taxation of food as proposed in Mr. Chamberlain's
scheme for preferential tariffs.]
He gathered from what the chairman had said that this was
one of a series of meetings which were being held in the metro
politan area in order to enable great numbers of the people
in London to make their voices heard, even at this early stage
of the controversy, upon the great issue which the nation was
to be invited to decide. It was not to be wondered at that they
should avail themselves of that opportunity, for there was no
place which had gained more in wealth and in financial
stability from our system of free trade than the capital of the
Empire. Nor was there any place which stood to lose more
heavily by any return to the fallacies and the follies of protec
tion. 'He also gathered from their presence that night that
they did not feel under any obligation any more than he did to
postpone the expression of their views until the termination,
whenever it came, of that mysterious process which went by the
name of inquiry. The inquiry, so far as it had been conducted
in public, had as yet produced little or nothing but facts which
were already familiar and fancies which were already discredited.
So far as it had been conducted in secret, behind the doors of
the Cabinet, they, of course, could only judge of its progress
and its results upon the attitude and temper of his Majesty's
Ministers. One Minister, who was a host in himself, was so
certain and confident of what was going to be the result of
the inquiry that he was engaged at this" moment in the conduct
of an active propaganda in support of a particular conclusion.
Another set of Ministers had told them that they held

Preferential Tariffs 161
diametrically opposite views. They were driven to the conclu
sion that the one person in the inner circle of politics for whose
benefit the inquiry was being carried on was the Prime Minis
ter himself. In those circumstances there was no reason why
they should keep their mouths shut and their judgment in a
state of suspense until that indefinite date — he thought it was
to be some time in the autumn — when the members of this
jangling and distracted Cabinet had either compromised their
differences or declared open war upon one another.
It was not the free-traders who wanted to shirk or to postpone
discussion upon the question. Among the many foolish sug
gestions which appeared in these days in protectionist quarters
there was none more foolish, because none more
TJl^t j r transparently untrue, than the suggestion that
Free-Traders ^^Y adhered to the doctrine and the practice of
free trade out of blind deference to authority
and without any regard to the altered conditions, economical
and political, of the times in which we lived. Fiscal systems,
like all other institutions, must be tested by their fitness for
the circumstances of the day. It was quite true that conditions
had changed since 1846, but they had changed in a direction
which not only did not weaken, but enormously strengthened
as regarded this country, the argument for free trade. If, in
1846, free trade was to the United Kingdom an inestimable
boon, in the times in which we lived it had become a vital
necessity. The issue was already in some quarters being so
much disguised and distorted that it was as well at the outset
to call attention to what these policies were.
He would content himself with quoting from Mr. Chamber
lain two sentences. The first sentence was this : — " The system
of preferential tariffs is the only system by which
p.. f the Empire can be kept together." And the
Protectionists second sentence was : — " It will be impossible to
secure preferential tariffs with the Colonies with
out some duty on corn, as well as on other articles of food."
That was Mr. Chamberlain's proposal stated in his own lan
guage. What did that come to? If he might paraphrase it
in his own words, it came to this — " You are to keep the Empire
together, you are to give the Colonies a material, as well as a
sentimental, interest in its maintenance, by transferring, as far
as possible, to them from foreign countries our sources of
supply. That is the end which has to be kept in view, and to

1 62 Preferential Tariffs
attain that end the people of this country are to put an. import
duty on foreign food." That was the means by which the end
was to be attained. If a policy of that kind was to succeed,
it must comply with two conditions. In the first place, it must
be effective as against the foreigner ; and, in the second place,
it must be impartial as between the Colonies. And they would
find that from these two manifest and obvious conditions very
grave consequences followed. First of all, it must be effective
as regards the foreigner ; in other words, it must be capable
of bringing about that diversion of the sources of supply from
outside the Empire to within the Empire, which was Mr. Cham
berlain's avowed object. It was plain common sense that that
duty must be sufficiently high and the discrimination between
the Colonies and the foreigner must be sufficiently great to
tempt labour and capital to open up new sources of supply in
the Colonies. Some authorities thought this might be done
with a moderate duty of 5s. a quarter on foreign wheat. He
believed the duty would have to be higher, but let them take
it at that.
That meant an immediate addition to the bread bill of the
people of this country of eight millions a year, of which only
- D . five millions would go into the Exchequer, and
on Corn *' would mean an addition to the price of every
4 lb. loaf. A moderate duty upon food would
fall upon the consumer and not upon the foreign producer.
Let them compare the price of wheat in four countries last year.
In England it was 28s. per quarter as an average ; in Germany
it was 35s. 9d. per quarter ; in France it was 38s. per quarter ;
and in Italy 42s. 2d. per quarter.
Let them see what an import duty meant. In England we
were still enjoying at that time a shilling duty— a duty which
Import he Was glad t0 sa7 had now disappeared — so
Duties tllat witn that shilling duty the price was 28s.
The Germans had a duty of 7s. 7d. What was
the German price?— 35s. The French had a duty of 12s. What
was the French price ?— 39s. The Italians, who were the worst
off of all, had a duty of a little over 13s. What was the Italian
price ?— 44s. Would it be possible to demonstrate by an object-
lesson more clearly that the price of a commodity did rise to
the extent of the import duty, and that every farthing, every
cent, was paid by the consumer? They could then realise
what would be their first step in this new policy. For a purely

Preferential Tariffs 163
problematical and speculative advantage to the Colonies they
were going to raise the cost of the first necessary of life in
this country, and thereby diminish, he would not say the real
wages, but the money of every working family in the United
Kingdom. But there was another condition which had to be
regarded. Not only must they make the duty effective as
against the foreigner, but they must make it impartial as
between the Colonies.
For what was the governing motive of the scheme ? It was
to keep the Empire together, to bind the Colonies to the mother
. country and to one another by these ties of
of th G material interest. Well, they could not carry
Scheme out t*lat result unless they, dealt in an even-
handed way with all the interests and all the
places concerned. If, as Mr. Chamberlain said, they must
put preferential duties on foods, it must not be on one kind
of food only. Canada produced wheat and exported it to this
country. But she also exported in large and growing quanti
ties butter, bacon, eggs, and cheese, in the export and produc
tion of which she was in acute and active competition with
Denmark, Russia, and the United States of America. It would
not do for the Canadian wheat-grower alone to gain the
advantage of this preference. What was to be done for the
man who produced butter, bacon, and cheese ? Was he to be
left out in the cold ? He would want to know why if he was.
So that in the boundaries of a single Colony they would have
to spread this preference, no easy task, so as to produce even-
handed justice in the production and exportation of food. But
the matter became more serious when they dealt with the dif
ferent Colonies. Australia did not send us much wheat, but
Australia and New Zealand sent us enormous quantities of beef
and mutton, in which they, in turn, were in acute competition
with Argentina. Clearly, they must be protected, and must
have the same preference for beef and mutton which was given
to Canada for wheat. Otherwise they were not dealing fairly
with Australasia. What was the result ? It was not merely
corn but meat, it was not merely meat, but butter, eggs, and
cheese, and he might enumerate an enormous number- of other
articles which were concerned. All these things, so far as
they came from foreign countries, would have to be taxed. In
other words, not only the bare necessaries, but the comforts
and the simple luxuries of life which formed part of the daily

1 64 Preferential Tariffs
consumption of the ordinary English family. Every one of
these things was to be enhanced in price with the result of a
much further depreciation in the real remuneration- for labour.
Had Mr. Chamberlain forgotten there was such a place as
South Africa? (A voice—" He would like to.") Well, perhaps
he would ; but they could not let him forget it.
The Position -phe South African Colonies in the conference
SouthAfrica recently ne^d offered this country preferential
terms. But they expected something in return.
One of the difficulties of the South African Colonies' was this —
they sent us no food at all. It was as much as they could do
to provide food for themselves, if his memory served him cor
rectly. At any rate, they did not export an ounce of food to
the United Kingdom. What were they going to do ? Was
Canada to be preferentially treated, was Australia to be
preferentially treated, and was South Africa not to be
preferentially treated ? If not, what were they going to
do with South Africa? South Africa exported a number of
things to this country — gold ; and he did not think they would
find it easy to give preferential treatment to gold — and
diamonds — and there the same difficulty applied. But there
was one very large article of export from South Africa which
was of vital importance to the manufacturers of this country.
South Africa exported enormous quantities of wool, of sheep
skin, and of goatskin, and in the export of those articles she
. again was in very severe competiton with
Raw Materials ^orei&n countries, and particularly with Argen
tina. What were they going to do ? How could
they refuse a preference which was at the base of this scheme,
and how could they refuse to South Africa protection for her
raw materials ? Mr. Chamberlain, and those who said with him
that they were not going to tax raw materials, were placed in
this dilemma — either they were going to put a tax on wool,
which was the raw material of one of the largest, and at the
same time one of our most closely-pressed, industries, or else
they were going to leave South Africa out in the cold. They
were going to start a lop-sided scheme of protection which
would b'e a perpetual source of bickering and jealousies be
tween this country and her. Colonies,' and would tend, not to
cement and unite them together, but which would act as -a
potent solvent of the unity of the Empire. What were the
inducements of a material or substantial kind which were

Preferential Tariffs 165
offered to this country in exchange for these patent and manifest
drawbacks ?
Out of the fund which was to be created by the taxation of
foreign food, which must diminish and disappear just as the
scheme was successful — out of this fund, with its
d_.._"_.;5!?_. short actuarial life, Mr. Chamberlain had re-
Pensions , , . . ' ... , _¦
newed his promise, or rather his proposal, for
old-age pensions. He now noticed that the gentlemen with
open minds were unanimous in holding that that part of the
scheme must be dropped. He was not surprised. He believed
Mr. Chamberlain, although'he toyed and dallied with this old
favourite of his, had come to the same conclusion. And he was
well-advised in doing so. It was ten years since he began
to make proposals on the subject of old-age pensions, and,
though out of those ten years he had been eight years in office,
he had not progressed one inch towards the goal. In fact, in
this matter, he did not think he was going too far when he
said that though Mr. Chamberlain advanced and retreated, his
gyrations and his somersaults had ceased to be interesting even
as acrobatic performances. And in connection with this par
ticular scheme, he thought the project of old age pensions
would only be remembered as one proof among many of the
reckless levity with which a crude and ill-considered plan had
been thrown like a stake upon the gaming table of politics.
Old-age pensions had been dropped, and their place had
been taken by another suggestion ; that, by means of this
„ precious scheme, we were going to get rid "of the
and Tea tax uPon tea> sug ar) cocoa, coffee, and tobacco.
Leaving out tobacco, which was not an article
of food, the tax upon the other articles amounted to 13 J4 mil
lions. He need not say that Liberals were as anxious as
anybody could be to reduce, and, if possible, to get rid of the
taxes upon sugar and tea. His own belief was that there was
only one way by which those taxes could be substantially
reduced, let alone entirely abolished, and that was by strict
and economic administration of the public expenditure. They
were certainly not going to be got rid of in the way which is
now proposed. If the scheme were carried out, we should have
established as against our best customers — for our self-govern
ing Colonies were colonies with which we did only half our sea
borne-trade — a protective tariff which, inasmuch as trade con
sisted in the exchange of commodities and services, would of

1 66 Preferential Tariffs
necessity restrict these imports to us and restrict our exports to
them. We should have raised the cost of both food and raw
material, and should, therefore, have lowered the rate of labour
and fettered ourselves in the competitive markets in which we
rivalled other nations ; and, lastly, the reductions, purely
hypothetical, in tea and sugar, would be far more than counter
balanced by the increased cost of meat and bread and other
articles of manufacture. What were the Colonies going to
give us in return ? Our exports to the Colonies consisted almost
entirely of manufactured goods. Therefore, any reciprocal
treatment we get from the Colonies must consist of admitting
our goods free of duty to their markets. That would be all
very well if the only people in the world who were manufac
turers were the United Kingdom on the one hand and foreign
countries on the other. Unfortunately for any such arrange
ment as this proposal, the Colonies were themselves manufac
turers, and were very anxious to promote their manufacturing
industries. What were you going to do ? Canada gave us a preference,
an ostensible preference, amounting to 33 per cent. But, as
Mr. Chamberlain said at the Colonial Conference a year ago,
the Canadian tariff against our manufactured
Preference goods was so high that it produced very little
r>fiT..._._! result, and foreign imports into Canada in-
Oolonies ' ° r. . .
creased m a faster ratio than British. Was
Canada going to lower that tariff as against British goods?
She was going to do nothing of the kind. Canadians were not
going to lower their- tariffs in favour of our goods, we being
the most effective and formidable manufacturers in the world,
because the result would be to destroy or to impair the growth
of their own manufactures. And what was true of Canada was
equally true of Australia, where we had been told on high
authority that Australia was not disposed to lower the almost
prohibitive tariff against English goods, but rather was disposed
to raise the wall higher. There was not the faintest ground, from
all the evidence that was given them, for believing that, in ex
change for all the sacrifices, heavy and grave, to be expected
from us, the Colonies were going to give us any advantage for
the protection of our manufacturing trade. It was not to be won
dered at that a scheme which was built up on hypotheses such as
these should be sought to be buttressed up upon other grounds,
and the result was that they found the defenders of it relying

Preferential Tariffs 167
more and more upon the general allegation of a growing
decline in our trade, of the excess of our imports over our
exports, and the slow and progressive silting up of the outlets
of British industry. Those who talked or quibbled about
exports and imports entirely ignored our home trade, which
was much greater in bulk than the whole of our foreign trade
put together, and in point of profitableness probably a still
more valuable asset.
If they went to the foreign trade, the over-sea trade, where
there were figures to go upon, the inference was exactly the
_ ._ . same. If they were to make any real or effec-
Our Foreign .. . ' . , J , . ,
Trade e comparison it must extend over long periods
of time. The safest plan really was to compare
periods of five or ten years. He would give three figures, and
three only. They gave the total value of our over-sea trade
in three decennial periods — that was the last thirty years, the
average annual value in each period of ten years. Between
1873 and 1882 it was ,£662,000,000; that was the annual average
exports and imports together. Between 1883 and 1892 it was
£696,000,000 ; in other words it had risen five per cent. Between
1893 and 1902 it was £771,000,000; that was a growth of eleven
per cent. And in the last year of which they had the recorded
figures — that was, 1902 — it was no less than £871,000,000, or
over £100,000,000 over the annual average of the last ten years.
Those were official figures, and unless somebody could chal
lenge them and prove that they were wrong they were a
conclusive refutation of the argument that the foreign trade of
the country was dwindling in volume or in profit.
Was there any one who had read history or studied economics
who believed that the supremacy which we had acquired in the
markets of the world could be permanently
S..«„_.Iit^. maintained? It was a supremacy which was due
upremacy , r J ,
very largely to the long start we had, to the
superior inventiveness and enterprise of our people, and to the
operation of free trade. But we had now got formidable com
petitors in the field — the United States, with an immense popu
lation and a territory which combined every variety of climate
and natural advantage, and enjoying the inestimable privilege
over the whole of that territory of absolute and unrestricted
internal free trade. We had also got a competitor in Germany,
with 56 millions of people against our 40 — a country not so
exceptionally endowed as the United States, but with an

1 68 Preferential Tariffs
industrious, strenuous population, and with one advantage over
us which we ought never to have allowed them to acquire — the
advantage of the best-organised system of primary, secondary,
and technical education in Europe. In the industrial struggles
before us, these things, and not tariffs, were the real enemies
we had to fight. He was not a blind optimist as to the future
of British trade. He saw many difficulties which they would
have to surmount ; but of one thing he was absolutely certain—
they would not encounter these dangers with success, they
would not surmount these difficulties by living upon their own
past traditions, or still less by resorting and returning to
mediaeval methods. There was one way, and one way only, in
which they could hold their own, and that was by equipping
themselves, and, above all, by placing in the hands of their
children the weapons which science had invented, and by the
use of which alone under modern industrial conditions could
old positions be held and new ground be won.

XVI.
THE FISCAL POLICY.
(From The Times, Oct. 9, 1903.)
On September 16, Mr. Chamberlain retired from the Cabinet in
order to exercise the fullest freedom in the campaign on behalf
of his Fiscal Proposals. In the following speech at Cinderford
on October 8 Mr. Asquith replied, from the Free Trade point
of view, to Mr. Chamberlain's speech at Glasgow the day
before.]
I am here this evening in pursuance of a promise of, I
think, some two years' standing, and of which I may say that
at the time when it was made not even the most farsighted
observer by a stretch of the most elastic imagination could have
forecast the conditions under which it would have to be actually
fulfilled. At that time his Majesty's Government, in the pos
session of a compact and formidable majority in both Houses
of Parliament, appeared to be intrenched in a position of
unassailable strength. What is the state of things to-day?
The same party which then presented to the world so imposing
a front is in a condition of unconcealed and almost avowed
demoralisation. I have not time this evening to enumerate,
and still less to analyse, the causes which have brought about
a change so rapid and so startlingly complete. The Education
Act of 1902, which, in my opinion, has aroused a deeper-
seated and a wider-spread resentment than any legislative
measure of our time — the Education Act has led not a few of
those who were ardent and loyal Unionists to reconsider their
position. The report of the War Commission discloses a state
of things of which even the most distant suggestion, if it had
been made at the time of the General Election of 1900, would
have been scouted as a contemptible calumny. We see upon
the finding of a competent and impartial tribunal — we see the
Government of this country conducting and facing a great war
in gross and avoidable ignorance of the dangers involved and

\po The Fiscal Policy
with unprecedented and incredible remissness in providing for
even the elementary requirements of the campaign. These are
topics of which you may be sure much will be said and heard
during the campaign which has been opened this week. But
at the moment another subject equally unexpected, and, as I
believe, equally ominous of ill to the Government and their
supporters, occupies the forefront of the political stage. A
little less than six months ago the then Colonial Secretary
startled the world by the announcement that jhoJl_i_ish_Empire
was in danger ; that its unity could only_be preserved by
preferential tariffs^ andTpreferential tariffs- involving" a tax upon
the necessary food qf the people^ °lJne- Ufiit&d Kingdom. These
things the speaker has during the present week further
developed and defended, and with them it will be my duty in
a few minutes to come to close quarters.
But I must first, if you will allow me, glance back for a
moment at the intervening chapter of history since this new
policy was first announced. What has been
7.he ,i!_sto!_v ?f- , and what is the attitude of his Maiesty's
Mr, Chamberlain s ., , „ , . . /
New Policy responsible Government, and in particular
of the first Minister of the Crown ? Mr.
Balfour declared, in the first instance, that he personally had
an open mind; further, as he told us last week, I think at
Sheffield, that he would have been content to see this matter —
a matter which, in the opinion of his most distinguished col
league, was one of life and death to the kingdom of the Empire
— he would have been content to see it left an open question
amongst the members of his own Government and his own
party. An open mind needs to be informed. Accordingly a
so-called inquiry was set on foot under that pretext during
what remained of the Parliamentary Session. Discussion in the
House of Commons was, with more or less success, kept at bay,
the Government declaring that until the- inquiry was over there
was no policy which, as a Government, they could collectively
be called upon either to define or to defend. The prorogation
took place, and, as we now know, early in August the Prime
Minister composed and circulated amongst his colleagues an
academic treatise on fiscal retaliation. It was, if I may say
so with respect, a most elegant and learned disquisition ; but
for all it had to do with the proposals of Mr. Chamberlain it
might just as well have been written and published in Mars.
It contained, it is true, a few perfunctory and not altogether

The Fiscal Policy 171
accurate statements as to the conditions of British trade, but
for the most part it was concerned with the operation of an
imaginary code of an imaginary Cobden upon an imaginary
island in an imaginary world. Another month passed, and at
the end of that we were given to understand, first by" corre
spondence which took place between Mr. Balfour and Mr.
Chamberlain, and then by the speech of the former at Shef
field, that under some undefined influence the open mind of
the Prime Minister had closed. His fluid opinions had
crystallised into convictions, and in principle he had become
a convert to Mr. Chamberlain's fiscal proposals.
It seems that there is a wide gulf between a convert in prin
ciple and a fellow-worker in the mission field. "I do not
think," said Mr. Balfour at Sheffield, "that
Mr. Balfour public opinion in this country is ripe for the
Mr. Chamberlain taxation of food-" It is not as though he,
the leader, as he reminded us, of a great
party, were giving a lead to that party upon a critical occasion ;
it is not as though he professes to agree with public opinion.
On the contrary, he does not disguise his view that public
opinion upon this topic is the slave and the dupe of ingrained
political prejudice and perverted historical analogies ; but,
bad as he thinks it, and wrong as he thinks it, he is not going
to engage his party to combat and to convert it. No ; foi
himself and his colleagues he has abandoned the open mind,
but the open field he leaves to Mr. Chamberlain. He is
asked to give a lead, and what is the lead that he gives ? In
effect what he says to his followers is this : — For the moment
we will all combine to talk generalities about retaliation oi
freedom of negotiation, which may mean anything or which
may mean nothing, so that the unity of our party will be
secured; but none the less our lamented colleague, Mr.
Chamberlain — who, as all the world can see, has parted from
me and I from him in a glow of mutual appreciation and regret
— our lamented colleague will continue to conduct, ostensi.lv
from outside, his propaganda for the taxation of bread and of
meat. In the meantime, I, the Prime Minister, having shed
my Free Trade colleagues, will contemplate his operations
from afar with undisguised, though for the moment inactive,
sympathy, waiting with my sickle ready for the ripening of the
harvest. Well, I think the circumstances of which I have given
you a brief, though not a complete, narrative — for I abstain

172 The Fiscal Policy
to-night from touching upon the still unexplained incidents
of a personal kind— those circumstances make it necessary that
I should pause for a moment before I come to deal with the real
issue before the country.
Let me, then, say one or two preliminary words upon this
topic of retaliation, of freedom of negotiation, which is pro
visionally and until the harvest ripens the official
~£he programme of the Tory party. What does it
ower o  mean? Well, now, why do we — we Liberals, we
Retaliation __ , '— « ,- - -,—*-- — . — *-.--
Iree Traders— why do we decline to assent to
such a policy? Not because, as Mr. Balfour seems to sup
pose,, not- because it conflicts -with. .same__^stract proposition in
some obsolete" creed, not because, as Mr. Chamberlain sug
gested in a flight of claptrap last night, not because we are craven,
poor-spirited Little Englanders — we seem to be getting back
to the rhetoric of 1900 very quickly — who are afraid'to meet
force with "force."' Nothmg*bTthel5ort. If we oppose retaliation
as a policy it is because"we believe that "experience shows —
and to experience, and experience "alone, we should appeal —
that in practice it, is fatal as* S weapon of offence, and in the
vast "majority of cases .it is" infinitely more mischievous to
those who use it than to those against whom it is directed.
What are the grounds put forward in favour of the' adoption of
this weapon ? In the first place, it is said — I fail to understand
the argument myself — it is said we are not at present free
to negotiate with foreigners. Who has taken away our free
dom ? When did it cease to exist. Is there any one who will
tell you that the House of Commons is not perfectly free at this
moment to deal with any case that might arise on its own
merits ? Why, only this very Session we were occupied, some of
us, with resisting and opposing the majority of the House of
Commons in passing a measure of retaliation proposed by the
Government. I mean the Sugar Bill. It is significant as the
very first attempt made in our time, and I regret to say success
fully made, to induce the consent of Parliament to a course
the result of which will be to increase the price of one of the
necessaries of life to the people of this country. Parliament is
perfectly free to do what it pleases in matters of this kind;
but if by that added freedom which is asked for is meant this—
that Parliament is to entrust the Executive of the day with the
power of imposing at its will and pleasure some exceptional
tariff against the goods of particular countries— then I venture

The Fiscal Policy 173
to say that that is a power which Parliament will never impose
upon the Executive. It would be inconsistent with the constitu
tional principles by which this country is governed. Then
again, it is further said that the world has become more pro
tectionist and tariffs more severe since 1846, when free trade
was established. That is not the fact.
Thet^ri^s of .fhe.. world are not m£re^evere1__aBd--p.roteotion
is not more advanced, than in" 1 8,_.6. The tariffs of the present
day, although it is quite true they have been
England and increased in stringency during the last thirty
Protectionist .,, ° ..¦',, b , ... .,
Tariffs years> aI_!' ,"liMTlqss 'tself compared with those
*hja£„gxi&te4_ when Free .fcada. wasJksI.. estab
lished. Sir Robert Peel, speaking to a world then engirdled
by protectionist tariffs, in 1846, said : — "I do not care whether
foreign countries remove those tariffs or not. It is the duty
and the interest of this country to fight tariffs by free imports."
Then, further, it is said that protectionist tariffs are in an
increasing extent directed expressly against this country, either
intentionally or in effect. That is a statement absolutely
without foundation. In any given protectionist tariff you like,
the import is directed first as much against our protectionist
rivals as against ourselves. In any given protectionist market
— for instance, Germany — we, through the operation of the
most-favoured-nation clause in our treaties, are on as good a
footing as any of our protectionist rivals. Just let me give
you one set of figures which will illustrate my point very well I
will take the imports into two protected markets : the one
France, a highly protectionist country, the other the United
States, with the exception of Russia the most highly protected
market in the whole world. These are the two markets, and
I will compare the imports into these two markets from the
United Kingdom, a free-trade country, as compared with the
imports from Germany, a protectionist country. I will take the
five years from 1896 to 1900. Into the protected market of
France the free-trade United Kingdom sent 24 millions of
•imports as against 15 millions from the protectionist country
Germany. Then into the protected market of the United
States of America the free-trade United Kingdom sent 27
millions as against 16 millions from the protectionist Germany.
We are therefore more than holding our own.
Countries like Germany and the United States are supplying
for themselves a larger proportion than before of their home

174 The Fiscal Policy
consumption. Just consider. Here are two great countries
which, though somewhat late in beginning, have
n^fF if f in the last generation been rapidly developing
Retaliation ° their enormous natural resources, occupied
in the case of the United States by a popula
tion double our own, and in the case of Germany by a popu
lation largely exceeding our own, and, in many respects, I
regret to say, better trained for industrial purposes. You have
these two peoples with growing development of agricultural
and manufacturing industry each contiguous to the market,
and knowing better than anybody else can the wants and tastes
of their own feUow-citizens, and able to appeal, as we in this
country do at times, in order to obtain preference for their
own goods to patriotic and natural sentiment. When you take
all those things into consideration it would have been a miracle
if quite independently of Protection they had not been able to
obtain growing command over their own markets and their
own consumption. But let me put one final question, which
clinches the whole matter. What are you going to retaliate
upon_?_It is all very well to use "this vague rh__toHcal"Tahguage
about negotiation and standing up to the foreigner and not
taking his insults lying down. I. want__to_know from Mr.
Chamberlain .upon what is he going to., retaliate. Here ne
come to the very crux, and, indeed, the very heart, of the
whole matter. You cannot retaliate effectively in this country
upon protected countries without imposing" .a*'tS7upon iood or
raw material. I give you just one or two figures which have
been put in very striking form by Mr. Sydney Buxton. He
takes Russia and the United States, the two most protected
countries in the world. Suppose you want to retaliate upon
Russia. Out of our total imports from Russia, amounting to
25 millions, 23 millions, or eifiuen-twelfths, consist of food
stuffs and raw materials ; so JtkaJL-we cannot retaliate upon
Russia without, at^the. same time-injuring 4i£feer_oiu__working-
cl asses or our manufactuiers or both. What is the case of the
United States ? Out bFT27 millions of imports from the United
States in 1902, 108 millions, or five-sixths,. were also food stuffs
or raw .materials. The moiQgJiLyou begin "to' translate these
vague platform phrases into pracdce_you findTEat they cannot
be carried out as a~pol'icy.' without doing to you here in Great
Britain as great _and' probably mor£~harm than the persons
against viihoj__.-_that- policy is used.'™

The Fiscal Policy 175

Let us pass from Sheffield to Glasgow. I must say that
from one point of view it is rather a relief to do so. It is
.. _. , ... something like passing from the atmosphere
Mr. Chamberlain's c ., , ".,. ,.r r. ° , . . , ,
p ]¦ of the footlights after the curtain has been
rung down upon a rather sorry farce to
the bustle and animation and reality of life in the open air.
Mr. Chamberlain may be right or he may be wrong. For my
part I think he is profoundly wrong. At any rate, he knows
what he thinks, he says what he means, and he does not
" let I daTe not wait upon I would." Mr. Chamberlain, in his
first speech, made an appeal that great issues like this should
be fought without heat or prejudice by the weapons of argu
ment and in the temper of honest controversy. I heartily re
echo that appeal, and I do so with the more urgency to-day
after the sneers and gibes and almost hysterical dumpophobia
of an oration delivered at Greenock last night. M____£^amber-
lain says he has two objects in view. The first is to maintain
and increase the„_^bsperity .c£3^JJnited Kingdom, and the
second is to cement the unity of the Empire. We, all agree as
to these two Objects, to which I'will venture to add, not by
way of qualification, but simply by way of supplement, that
the one end must not be sought, and cannot be attained, at
the expense of the other. In the long run, depend upon it,
you will nqj , promote the unity of tFe""~T-mpire"T>y anything
that arrest£_Qi__J2ipairs thg_"___aterijal sfrengt._r ~bF the United
Kingdom. Mr. Chamberlain says, anct says truly, that the
Colonies ought not to be treated as an appendage to Great
Britain. I ajx£ej_a_id_neither ought_Great Rritain to be treated
as ai_^^appeadageJo the Colonies. _Htet- all ,'~w(r must put inj
a word now and again for poor little England. After all, thisj
United Kingdom still remains the greatest asset of the Britishi
Empire, with its 42 millions of people, with its traditions of free*
government, with its indomitable enterprise, with its well-triedf
commercial and maritime prowess. Any one who .strikes a blow
at the root of the prosperity of the United Kingdom is doing!
the worst service which can be done to the Empire to which we1.
are proud to belong.
Mr. Chamberlain is haunted by two spectres. J_he_fixst_is the
T1 _, . j, approaching- decay ot British trade, and the other
The State of . *, .T, — r~ — ,-  .¦....„. '.,. , „
British Trade 1S the.possible break up of the British Empire.
I will endeavour to illustrate my TJwrr-precepts
and discuss this matter without heat and by argument. Let

176 The Fiscal Policy
us see if the spectres are real. Let us be perfectly sure about
the disease before we resort to remedies which are/heroic and
may be disastrous. First of all, I ask your attention to this.
Mr. Chamberlain said at Glasgow the other night— and no
more astounding declaration has been made by any public
man within my memory — that in the United Kingdom trade
has been practically stagnant fox thirty year's. This is the
basis on which he proceeds!" Let me ask my fellow-countrymen
to see what has been our condition during this area of stagnant
trade. During that period the amount assessed to the income-
L tax has doubled ; the interest upon our foreign investments has
f| more than doubled ; the deposits in our savings banks have
j multiplied two and three fold ; the bankers' cheques cleared,
f taking the annual average, have risen in amount from 530
| millions to over 800 millions sterling ; and last, but not least, the
J wages of the working classes have risen, measured not merely
' in terms of money, though there has been a considerable rise
i in our money wages, but much more measured in their real
Uerms, in the terms of that which money can buy. As the
.Board of Trade has told us, 100s. buys as much as 140s. twenty
years ago. Talk about Germany and the wages of a protec
tionist country ! I hope you will compare, from the material
the Blue-books place at your disposal, the wages, the standard
of living, and the hours of labour of the German workmen and
your own. Well, all that has been going on, this enormous
accumulation of wealth, this steady rise in the savings of all
classes of the country, all that has been going on through this
period of stagnant trade.
The truth j&^_4r. ..Chamberlain -eghKaly .ignores the whole
of our home trade, as do most of the new JJcolectionists ; and
q that is at the bottom of not a few of their
Home Trade faUacies- It is difficult to say exactly what the
bulk of our home trade is ; but the Board of
Trade have computed that as the wages paid on the export
trade for the purposes of export are something like 130
millions, and as the total wage-bill of the country is between
700 and 750 millions, the export trade does not employ more
than one-fifth or one-sixth of the whole labour of the country.
I say,_J&ea,_.m_y„£isl_point.is you _£annot_ judge of the industrial
conditica..,and progress of the country '"by ""looking only at its
forejgfl. trade. You ajaQe|viiig out of'sight by far the most
important "^Jgj_^_making ujT 'the "account: — Indeed, even a

The Fiscal Policy 177
slackening. in.vour export trade, j^g, proof and consequence of
the Bi**"°-ty if .yguxjtodF.Miitr hciTii'* It was so in the year 1900,
and the reason why in those times exports did not increase at
the same ratio as before was nothing to do with hostile tariffs.
It was because our manufacturers and those they employed
were so busy meeting the demand of the home market that they
had not the time, the machinery, or the appliances to satisfy
the demands from abroad. That is not all., Mr. Chamberlain
begJ^a_by_ignoring the home trade.
If you take the forSgrrtrade, or, to use a better expression,
trade carried on oversea, it is a perfectly absurd criterion to
measure the extent or" profitableness of your
Our Oversea foreign trade by looking, as Mr. Chamberlain
Shinning does, to exports alone. It would be just as
• reasonable to determine a man's wealth by the
amount of the man's expenditure without looking to his income
as to compare the profitableness of the foreign trade of a'.
country by looking at the exports. Why, if you look at what'
Mr. Chamberlain says, as between 1872 and 1902 there has only;
been a paltry rise of between 20 and 30 millions in exports ;
but if you look at the whole foreign trade and exports and j
imports together you find a very different state of things. \
Take the three decennial periods. From 1873 to 1882 the over- ;
sea trade averaged 662 millions ; from 1883 to 1892 the average 1
was 696 millions ; from 1893 to 1902 the average was 771 |
millions. In other words, if you take our trade as a whole, thejjj
annual average is considerably over 100 millions in excess of
what Mr. Chamberlain has stated. But that does not com-»
plete the account of the matter. If you want to look at exports
alone, even then you must not confine your attention to goods
that are exported, because in order to pay for all our imports
we do a great deal more than to send to foreign countries our
goods. We perform services for them, and in particular we
do services in performing the carrying trade of the world
Imagine a man conning before the public with the responsibility
of a great statesman and telling them that trade is in a stag
nant and declining condition when he has not even taken the
trouble to bring into account the amount that we are earning
every year by our shipping throughout the length and breadth
of the world. I will just give you one figure with regard to,
that. The Board of Trade estimate of the annual earnings of our

178 The Fiscal Policy
shipping comes to 90 millions a year, a figure Mr. Chamber-
lain has left altogether out of the account,
Shipping; although it is strictly relevant to and strictly
comparable with and belongs to the same class
as the exports of our goods. Now, is that a growing or a
diminishing quantity ? I will compare the figures of the
United Kingdom under Free Trade with the figures of the
United States under Protection. In 1870, just about the time
that Mr. Chamberlain has taken for his comparisons, our
tonnage of over-sea shipping was 5,700,000 ; in 1902 it was
10,000,000 tons. In other words, it has increased very nearly
100 per cent. Now, in 1*670, the shipping tonnage of the United
States was 1,500,000; in 1902 this had fallen to 880,000 tons,
a diminution of between 40 and 50 per cent. If it is true, as
it may be, as Mr. Chamberlain has told us, that we are sending
less manufactured goods into the United States, you must
not forget that at the same time we are performing for the
United States, not gratuitously — great as is our affection for
the United States — not gratuitously, but for value received,
the service of carrying their goods as well as ours all over
the world. While their shipping has declined owing to the
excessive cost which Protection brings about, our shipping
under Free Trade has most continuously and most prosperously
increased. My last criticisim uponjhis part of Mr. Chamberlain's case
is this, that he ha__.cp,mmitted an absolutely unpardonable error
T, „ — unpardonable in a man who has acquainted
18y2 himself with the A B C of the subject — of-taking
the year 1872 as the_.yeaT for his comparisons.
If you had taken 1870, two years before, or if you had taken
1876, four years- after, instead" "Of finding only a growth of
20 to 30 millions, you would have found a growth of 84
millions^in exports ;_ and, what is still more striking, if you
had taken the exports of 1900 at the prices of 1872 you would
have found that they amounted to*~425 millions, or an increase
of 170 millions, instead of Mt. Ci&aimberlaiii's 30 'millions. To sum
up what I have been saying about this. I have pointed out
that this allegation, that .durjng Jhe_,last thirty years British
trade has been in a stagnant condition, involves at least four
. distinct fallacies. Let us enumerate them once more. In -the
first placer-it_in.tir_ejy ignores the home trade, which is a much
tmore important factor than foreign trade ; in the second place,

The Fiscal Policy 179
it'makes exports alone the criterion of the volume of our trade ;
in the third place, it places among exports foreign goods alone,
and takes no notice of the services that you render to other
countries; finally, even taking exported goods as the criterion,
a year is deliberately selected which is no fair test of the matter
at all. Then what becomes of the case which is the foundation
of Mr. Chamberlain's contention that .British trade has been in
a stagnant condition during the last thirty years?
Then I come to the other assumption, which is, that unless
we are prepared to establish a -preferential tariff we must look
_. .. .. . for-a- break up__3f.Jhe_ Empire. ThaLjs^a pure
The Unity of ., . , , . , /
the Emoire assumption that we are asked to accept and act
upon-^jjhaut a sha^QwoP proof or~1_ scintilla
of evidence. For mv_part, I believe it to be — I use very plain
language about it — I believe trtg-bg-ar-ealumny on the Colonies
and a sliij^ijniTSifi Empire. Now, it is part of Mr. Chamber
lain's case under this head that our trade with our own Colonies
is growing faster than our trade with the rest of the world.
That is a very disputable proposition ; but, assuming for the
purpose of the argument that it is true, we are all agreed
in wishing that process to continue. If natural causes are
already at work bringing it into operation, so much the better.
But, anxious as we are to do all that is prudent and practicable
to develop our trade with the Colonies, we Free Traders do not
believe, at least I do not believe, it is in any way desirable that
we should have what is called a self-contained Empire between
which and the rest of the world there are none of those com
mercial relations which are so fruitful of peace and amity and
good will. But, quite apart from .that, let me point out to
you this allegation, that unless something is done, and that
something means taxing the food of the people of this country
— unless something is done the Colonies will break away from
us. No one has a higher and keener desire than I have to
maintain and. develop those friendly relations which of late
years have so happily come into existence between the Colonies
and ourselves ; but let me=poijit--out--tJ_^rthe Colonies have
absolutel^_no._^ii£xian,ceL of - any -kind- -against us. We give
them free -adi_a-i_5si<M_~th-F€H_g.h-.,oiir open door into the largest
and best majjjjgt m the .j£balg.j&a_ld,- -On -the- other hand, they
have at iaaag_ compl£ls__fig£__l-. autonomy. For my part, I
believe if they had not had it the Empire would not have kept
together so long. They have complete fiscal autonomy, and

180 The Fiscal Policy
: in the exercise of that freedom the large majority of them have
' erected protective tariffs, not only against foreign nations, but
also against the Mother-country. I do not complain of that
| for a moment. If you give your Colonies freedom, as you
were right to do, you must allow them to exercise it in ac
cordance with local sentiments and local opinion.
Now it is quite true that Canada has during the last few
years voluntarily granted a preference to this country as com
pared with foreign countries in respeot to certain classes of
commodities. As regards that preference, let
I PrTfererfce me remmd y°u of two things. It was distinctly
stated by the eminent Prime Minister of Canada,
Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when 'the preference was granted that it was
not a quid pro quo, that he did not ask anything in return, but
it was a recognition that they got here in the home market of
\ the Mother-country better treatment than in any of the foreign
markets of the world. In the second place, let me point out
that, in spite of the preference, the tariff of Canada has con
tinued sufficiently high to prevent our manufactures competing
effectively with their own home industries. Now preference of
that kind, I need hardly point out, is of little value. In fact,
during the time it has continued the trade of Canada with
foreign countries, and particularly with the United States, has
increased at a laster ratio than her trade with Great Britain.
To bring this to a point Mr. Chamberlain admits that it is
hopeless to expect the Colonies to give up their system of protec
tion on native industries. What does he propose that they
should do ? What are they going to give us for the preference
we are asked to give to their products ?
He makes two proposals, first, to do what Canada has already
done and charge a higher tariff on foreign than on British
goods; and Mr. Chamberlain calculated that this would secure
to this country 26 millions of trade, which is the
ofthe a',S trade now done, or supposed to be done, by
Scheme foreign countries with the Colonies, commodities
which we here in Great Britain could produce as
well as these foreign countries. Of this 26 millions Mr.
Chamberlain has already made a present of 13 millions in
wages at Glasgow to the working men if they will only adopt
his scheme. This is magnificent, but it is not business. In the
first place, one trifling error which Mr. Chamberlain did not
observe is this, that out of the 26 millions no less than 10

The Fiscal Policy 181
millions is trade carried on between Great Britain and Canada,
which leaves you only 16 millions of possible gain in trade. Is
there any one, particularly with the experience we have had of
Canadian preference, who supposes there is the remotest chance
of diverting any substantial share of that 16 millions to this\
country, particularly as it is as certain as that the sun will
rise to-morrow that as soon as we do that foreign nations will j
begin reprisals on us and do so more injuriously than we can |
possibly do to them ?
Mr. Chamberlain's s__CQad_proposal js still more simple. He
says the Coi«aies:-ar^-J^^be--a_5__e(__Jta.agree-not to start new
industries in competition with ourselves. I think in the same
speech it was" that he""told us, that these great and growing
countries are actually to be asked to stereotype their industrial
condition, to arrest their industrial development in order that
the Mother-country may keep and increase the hold she has on
their markets. And that is the proposition seriously made in
the name and the interests of Imperial unity. I should like to
know what Sir Wilfrid Laurier would say. IjEL-said-tbe, otheT
day that he woulcU-sooner .-face. -.the- disruption of the Empire
than that Ga»ada™shou.ld—pa)3L with her fiscal independence.
To my mind, it is impossible to imagine a proposal seriously
meant which-would. moxcxentainlv l£jxd Mtg _ engender friction, to
foment quajjjjl^and in .the long run tojdndle disloyalty. Now,
while what the Colonies are to give to us remains in this hazy
and uncertain condition, there is, happily, no doubt whatever
as to what we are to give them. " If you want," says Mr.
Chamberlain, " to prevent separation, you must put a tax upon
food." You ±a££. familiar nowjyith the details of the^ scheme,
and I will not go into them with any minuteness. You know
we are to have^7 per cent.. tax upon.foreign corn and a rather
higher tax apparently upon foreigfn flour, a 5 per cent, tax
upon foreign^mealy-a 5 -per cent, tax upon Tor eign butter and
cheese, and,Jp_raund the thing off, a to per cent, tax upon all
foreign-jaaiwifactures. By way _ of. compensation we are to
have remoyedjthree-quarters of the tea duty and one-half of the
sugar duty.
That is the scheme. Let me just make two or three observa-
Protection tions upon that. In the first place, the object
an Inclined being to make the Empire self-supporting, it
Plane appears to me at any rate to be an assumption
of the most extravagant kind that a duty of 7 per cent.

1 82 The Fiscal Policy
on corn and 5 per cent, on meat would make any substantial
diversion in the first source of supply. When you think of
Argentina, the United States of America, and the other
countries competing with our Colonies in supplying us with
food, it is ridiculous to suppose that a duty of 2s. on corn is
going to turn the whole wheat supply of the world into the, at
present, undeveloped fields of Canada. I warn you of this.
This would only be the first step, and it is a step which would
operate so slowly and so partially that the demand would
become irresistible. Your 5 per cent, would become 7 per
cent, and your 10 per cent. 20 per cent, before you had time to
turn round. Do not let any one be misled by this talk of what
duty you are to put upon corn and wheat. Protection is an
inclined plane. Once you put your foot on it there is no
halting-place until you get to the bottom.
One further generality about this. Mr. Chamberlain dis
claims any intpriti"" ,.pf .taxing, raw material. Well, I have
dealt with this point more than once, and I have
Pfi Taxation never g0t a satisfactory answer from him or any-
Materials body else about it ; so I shall repeat here to-night
that if he did not tax raw materials it is enough
to dispose of the whole scheme if its real and governing object
is to weld the Empire together. If_you impose_a tax only upon
foreign foodU_and_n.ojt upon foreign raw materials coming into
this country, ymrr-seheme of Preference is lopsided, partial,
and invidious. It is partial even as between different classes
of product_j_ia_the same colony. No doubt Canada sends us a
large quantity of wheat. She also sends us a large and
increasing quantity of timber, 'and in the sending of this to
the English market she is in close and keen competition with
Norway and other timber countries. Now what satisfaction is it
to the Canadian lumberman who is trying to get into this
market to know that his neighbour who grows wheat gets a
preference here while he gets nothing ? And if that is the case
between different classes in the same colony, how much stronger
is it between different colonies ? I have_refe_:red- before to the
case of South_Africa, and I. refer to it again. A. tax upon
foreign food jvi]l not do South Africa, a .ha'porth of .good, and
for the simple,.r.eason that South Africa does not export from
her shores and import info this country any food whatever.
If, as Mr;. Chamberlain says, we must bind the Colonies to us
by ties of ^material interest,"~and if we do hot the whole thing

The Fiscal Policy 183
will "break-up, what Jigg_jiLii_ater-ialj_itgcest have you got with
South AfHcaJ_3c.Jtfes_fact.that you give a preference to Canadian
wheat^x^Jlgficaiian .mutton ? If South Africa does not send
you wheat or mutton, she will want a preference for the thing
which she does send you, and that is wool, the raw material for
one of the greatest of our industries. I .could-go round the
Empire and sho.w..you JkaLunless. you giyejreferences to raw
materialman, w„elL as_J__^aad_ it is abgaljiteLMmpossible to put
even u.paa..it5je£s^_a scheme of logical and consistent prefer
ences. Remember alio this"is" not like leaving things alone.
It is making things far worse than they were, because it is
introducing, as between the component members of this great
partnership, the British Empire, a new and perpetual source
of heart-burning, rivalry, jealousy, and discord. I do not envy
the body, I do not know what body it will be, if Mr. Chamber
lain's scheme ever comes into effect, which will have the duty
of concluding separate conventions between this country and
every one of its Colonies so framed that one shall not be pre
ferred to another and that equal justice shall be done to all.
The thing is an impossibility.
Finally, my only other criticism upon this part of the scheme
shall be this. Never forget the difference between a revenue
tax upon food and a protectionist tax. The
Prd>tlctlve taxes which Mr. Chamberlain says he is going
Taxes t0 rem't on tea and sugar are revenue taxes.
The taxes which he is going to impose on wheat
and meat are protective taxes. What is the difference ? A
moment's reflection will tell you. Iiu_a_ revenue tax the in
creased cost-to the- consumer is_Jhe. exact amount of the gain
to the Exchequer. Everything that is taken for the tea and
sugar duties goes into the Exchequer and is added to the
national resources But.. in the case of a-protective duty the
cost to the consumer is very much in excess* of- what "g5es into
the Treasur3v-hecaus£-Ii.e_,pa-ys, a. toll to the favoured class of
the community, .in ..whose, interests the protective tariff is im
posed. I see it computed to-day on very good authority that
whereas under Mr. Chamberlain's scheme a taxation of corn
of 7 per cent, and of wheat and dairy produce of 5 per cent.
something like 5 millions sterling would go out of the tax into
the Exchequer, no less than~i6 millions^steilipg will be taken
out of -t__e_4i£>ckets of the consumer, and the great bulk of it
will go 4BtoJiie_.hands Qf the English Jandowners.

184 The Fiscal Policy

Now I want to say one word, and it shall be one' word only,
for I will not go into minute details of a technical kind. I
want to say one word only about the manner
Taxes on in wi1^ci1 ;t js worked out by way of precaution.
Suca" * may say at once that I entirely dispute the
accuracy of Mr. Chamberlain's estimate of
the effect which the imposition of these taxes upon the one
hand and the remission of taxes on the other hand would have
upon the working man's budget. I think he brings it out that
the ordinary working man's family would slightly gain if bread
and meat were taxed, and a portion of the taxes upon sugar
and tea were remitted. I wash to say here that I am satisfied
that it is not so, but that it could be shown on the contrary
that the ordinary working man's family would suffer very heavy
loss. But I want to go to a point of still greater importance. It
is this — that the whole thing rests upon a fallacy, this notion
that you are going to compensate the working classes out of
tea and sugar for the additional burden you put upon them in
the shape of a tax upon wheat. It rests upon a fallacy, because
the whole of the sugar duty, and one-third at any rate of the
tea duty, are no part of the permanent fiscal machinery
of the country, but are temporary taxes imposed at
time of war for the purposes of the war and with
assurances that at the earliest possible moment they would
be removed. Mr. Chamberlain has no right to treat them as
part of the permanent fiscal burden of this country. What do
they amount to ? The sugar duty and one-third of the tea duty
amount to ^6,500,000 a year. I do not hesitate to say that it is the
duty of the ChancelloT of the Exchequer and of any Chancellor
of the Exchequer in any Government to set .to work at once to
effect, as I believe he might easily effect, such reductions in the
expenditure of the country as would enable him to withdraw with
the shortest possible delay what were always intended to be
temporary burdens. The difference between Mt. Chamberlain
and ourselves is this, that we agree these duties ought to be
reduced, but we say it is the duty of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer to reduce them by economising expenditure. Mr.
Chamberlain says, " I am in favour of reducing them too, but
you must pay the price in having entirely new taxes put upon
your corn and meat."
I do not think I need say more about that. And now with

The Fiscal Policy 185
regard to the proposed io per cent, duty on manufactures. I
content myself to-night with this one comment.
The Duty on ^e are toj(j ^at it is to bring in nine millions.
Manufactures ^ snould very much like to know how you are
going to raise nine millions by a tax on foreign
manufactures, unless you treat as manufactures for the purpose
of the tax articles like paper, leather, cement, and many forms
of unwrought iron, which are just as much the raw materials
of industries as iron ore or raw woods. All roads converge to
the same point. You '•cannot have.j££a_ia_i__I__jsfiectively as
against youx principal^ foreign competitors without ultimately
taxing raw-»^n^terials-__Sn3r food. Preference admittedly
you cannot Jiayp .-without — .uJ^imate'ly^taSng" food, and
as I bayfw, _?.r_dp.a.v;o.i;-ed , .to, ...^shnw, you cannot have
that logically  and .c»nsisten^__w_t__m_t~*ultimately taxing
raw materials _anH""1iIsQZmanufactures. The "irfoment you try
to put ad valorem duties on manufactures you lead to the same
conclusion. Among the things imported into this country of
those on which no further British capital or labour is to be
expended the proportion is so insignificant that it would not
yield you any substantial revenue at all. By whatever way
you approach it you come to the same goal. ..This is a. .pro
posal to taa^^B.ratoh-.iDdustjy^.-to^tax-the.food -of the people
and thereby „to.,.dimigjsh theix-JAge s, to -tax the »taw material
out of "rj\i .b~o;irj"j^iHT_J5.m-\fie_ -IL1'" a .sehaaae which is based
upon uaiaunded assumptions and unproved inferences. There
J. '¦*»¦-_»** »Ji*_nb -t-.—,--- J. ™ - ' =7T__T-1.-___ffii9f^ia_'jm.|rjwy^_tf^iB^|^r^ _^ ^
is.no groun^^fei^ver-fat^aying^eith^i^hat^SSisii trade, as a
whole, is stagnant or decaying, ja___A_3_a.t the Empire can only be
maintained by reverting ^0-^fisca]™_dsxJces_ which were tried
and foundwanting in the old days, of Protection. F^rge influx
of food ana raw materials from every possible source of supply
into this couTj-teyJjsjmt' only as essential.-- but ig~more essential
to our natio»aJL-stxength_and prosperity- than^iL;5£a^.in the days
of Cobden and Peel.
Do not, however — and this shall be my final word — do not
let it be supposed that because we are driven to defend the
citadel of Free Trade we, therefore, think that
Tfje . all is for the best and are content with a policy of
Policy folded hands. That there are disquieting
features in our industrial as in our social con
ditions no honest observer, certainly no member of the party
of progress, will be found to deny. We have seen industries

1 86 The Fiscal Policy
in which we ought to have maintained our supremacy falling
behind, and in some cases entirely taken away from us by our
competitors. Defective knowledge, inferior processes, lack of
flexibility or versatility, a stubborn industrial conservatism,
these are the real enemies of British trade, and have done us
infinitely more harm than all the tariffs and all the dumping
syndicates that were ever created. Better education, better
training, better methods, a larger outlook than for our primary
needs — and it says little for our political sagacity that we should
allow our minds to be diverted from them by quarrels as to the
quantum of dogmatic theology that is to be administered to
little children, or by demands to revive the fallacies of Protec
tion. No, that is not the way in which we should improve our
condition. True it is also that in spite of the continuous
growth of our national prosperity we still have with us the
unemployed, the ill-fed, the aged poor ; but here, again, let
us look to natural and not to artificial remedies. Instead of
raising the price of bread let us try to raise the standard of life.
Temperance, better housing, the tenure and taxation of land,
these are matters as to which we have allowed our legislation to
fall deplorably into arrear. To take up the task in a spirit of
faith and of resolute purpose is, I hope and believe, the mission
of the Liberal party in a Liberal Parliament.

XVII.
FISCAL REFORM.
(From The Times, Oct. 26, 1903.)
[At Newcastle-on-Tyne, on October 24, 1903, in reply to Mr.
Chamberlain's speech there a short time before.]
It was to him an intense gratification to see this magnificent
demonstration of the strength of the Liberalism on Tyneside.
They were met to take their share in the defence of principles
which they believed to be vital to our national prosperity and
Imperial union, principles which had been suddenly attacked
by a powerful and formidable statesman, while the Govern
ment of the day surveyed his operations not merely with
benevolent neutrality, but with undisguised sympathy, and did
not conceal their intention, if the assault should turn out to
be successful and the stronghold to fall, to join hands in the
hour of triumph with the attacking force and share with it in
the glory and the spoils of victory. It certainly was a paradox
and novelty that Liberals should be on the defensive and their
opponents be the advocates of a movement; but the movement
urged upon us was a movement backwards. Liberals would
never be better employed than in resisting with every means
at their disposal this attempt to drag our country back into
the dangerous errors of a discredited past.
Mr. Chamberlain had formulated at Glasgow the main
articles of the new creed of protection up to date, and he had
.. ,_, . . . , favoured them at Newcastle with a second
Mr. Chamberlain s . -, ...
pi and revised version, with some unimportant
additions and some very significant omis
sions, but with substantially its main features unchanged.
What were these main features ? In the first place, Mr. Cham
berlain told them that during the last thirty years our general,

1 88 Fiscal Reform
our export trade had remained practically stagnant, while at
the same time there had been an alarming influx of foreign
manufactures; secondly, that in the maintenance and expan
sion of our Colonial markets both as a source of our supply
and as a place for the disposal of our own goods, were to be
found the only remedy, it being assumed that the Colonies were
prepared to give us preferential treatment. Lastly, Mr. Cham
berlain told us that on our side it was practicable and expedient
to bring about the result he desired by taxing foreign food
and foreign manufactures, and at the same time by the remis
sion of the duties on sugar and tea to secure that no British
citizen should be one farthing the worse off. He traversed all
these assumptions. Mr. Chamberlain had asserted that there
was no denial of his facts, but only quibbling over his figures.
This distinction between facts and figures was entirely novel
and inadmissible. With respect to the first assumption, in
using general trade and export trade as if they were convertible
terms, Mr. Chamberlain had entirely ignored the whole of our
home trade, which was from five to six times greater than our
export trade, and which, measured by all the available tests,
showed steady and continuous progress.
No doubt during the last thirty years there had been a con
siderable diminution in our agricultural population; but the
way to bring the people back to the land
The State of was not t0 bring back the state 0f things
ur rade ^^ prevailed before the repeal of the
Corn Laws. Taking, however, as examples, two of our
largest industries — the building trade and the coal trade— there
was a growth during that period of sixty per cent, in the one
trade and more than ioo in the other — facts which could not be
ignored by any fair-minded controversialist. Mr. Chamberlain
had pointed to protectionist countries ; but the experience of the
working men neither of Germany nor Sweden, countries men
tioned by Mr. Chamberlain, was likely to encourage the work
ing classes of this country to change our fiscal system. If we
confined ourselves to our sea trade, we could not judge of its
dimensions and growth or diminution by looking at the exporta
tion of goods alone. We did for other countries in the way
of trade a great deal more than send our manufactures to them.
We performed for them the valuable . and remunerative work
of carrying their goods. The value of this was 90 millions
annually and that ought to be added to our exports. During

Fiscal Reform 189
the last thirty years our tonnage of shipping had increased ioo
per cent., with a corresponding increase in its profitableness to
this country. It was a very strange thing for Mr. Chamberlain
to have come to Tyneside to utter a jeremiad over the state
of trade and to ignore altogether the great industry which on
the banks of the Tyne had been making such gigantic strides.
Complaint had been made that he had been bold enough to
say that it was an unpardonable error for a person in Mr.
Chamberlain's position to take the year 1872 as
187^2 k*s starting-point in comparisons of trade. He
had not been imputing a moral offence, but only
a -departure from the standard of intellectual integrity.
The objection to the year 1872 was that it was a year of
artificially inflated prices, owing to the Franco-German war;
and it was obvious to the merest tyro that it was an absolutely
misleading year. Mr. Chamberlain had dimly recognised this,
and had said jauntily that he would take any other year they
liked. But did he? He took the quinquennial period 1871-75
as his starting-point, and compared it with 1896-1900. It was
easy to work out sums in that way. He himself could do sums
too. Supposing we took the five years ending 1870, a normal
period, and compared it with the five years ending 1900. It
showed in our export trade a gain of 37 millions instead of a
loss of six millions made by Mr. Chamberlain's process. Mr.
Chamberlain had said it was a gigantic mistake to put imports
with exports in judging of our progress, and had indulged in
the dangerous logical process of a reductio ad absurdum. The
absurdity was apt to recoil upon the reducer. He denied that
he had been reduced by Mr. Chamberlain to a condition of
logical collapse.
It was perfectly true that in the impossible case of a country
reduced to absolute industrial paralysis it might go on import-
ing for a short time enough to supply its wants
smcHmDtirts ^y withdrawing and spending ail the capital
owing to it. But after that short period had
elapsed how was it to get any imports ? Could a vast com
munity of 40 millions go on living on a gigantic- system of
outdoor relief ? It was not a fact that our export trade was
declining, or even stagnant. On the contrary, it was making
as a whole very substantial and satisfactory progress. The
only way in which Mr. Chamberlain could plausibly make out
his proposition was by omitting coal from our exports ; but of

190 Fiscal Reform

the price of coal at the pit's mouth something like eighty per
cent, should be attributed to labour. There was no other
manufactured article into which labour entered on a larger
degree. Moreover, half of our coal exports were for the use
of our own steamships to enable them to carry on our lucrative
carrying trade. No one denied that protectionist tariffs were
a hindrance to the natural expansion and distribution of the
world's industry, and that they might involve particular trades
in loss. But such decline as had occurred in certain trades
was to a great extent inevitable, because countries like the
United States and Germany were bound as time went on to
develop their own resources, and provide their own market.
Retaliation had proved itself to be absolutely futile or even
an aggravation of the mischief. The whole gospel of retalia
tion had been summed up in Mr. Gladstone's phrase, " If some
one smites you on the one cheek you are to smite yourself on the
other." Mr. Chamberlain had spoken of our imports of foreign manu
factures having increased in thirty years by 86 millions, im-
ported goods which might just as well have
The Import been ma(je jn thjg ,country, and he had added
Manufactures '^at these meant a loss of 43 millions to our
working classes. Reading a statement of that
kind one did not know whether one stood on one's head or one's
heels. In the first place, many of these things could be made
cheaper and better abroad. In the second place, a very large
proportion of these so-called manufactures were really raw
material in an intermediate stage, brought here for British
industry to exercise further processes upon it ; and in the' third
place, there was no evidence of displacement of British labour.
Our imports were not sent to us out of philanthropy. They
were sent in payment of goods supplied, services rendered, and
interest due. Every halfpenny of their value was payment for
something which British workmen had expended their industry
upon. We were told that we ought to put a ten per cent, duty
on these imports ; but if we did, and the ten per cent, excluded
them, we should get no revenue from the tax. If it did not
exclude them, the consumer would pay more for the goods than
before, and to that extent the effective demand for them would
be diminished. Mr. Chamberlain said that our only refuge
was a system of Colonial preferences ; but, even if we consented
to increase the cost of bread and meat for the sake of the

Fiscal Reform 191
Colonies, the Colonies would not allow our manufactures to
compete on equal terms with their own. Mr. Chamberlain's
proposal that the Colonists should not set up new industries
had been scouted throughout the Empire.
With regard to Mr. Chamberlain's new scheme of taxation,
under which nobody was to be a farthing the worse, he hopeM
T, n Mr. Chamberlain would, in his next speech,
Mr? Chamberlain's »swer tJhese two or three questions. If
Scheme t"e tax does not fall upon the consumer,
why did he exempt maize and bacon ? At
Glasgow Mr. Chamberlain said that maize was the food of the
poorest and bacon the staple food of many of the population.
But if the foreigner paid the tax, why should he not pay on the
food of the poorest? Why, if this tax did not fall upon the
consumer, did Mr. Chamberlain take credit for the gain that
would accrue to the consumer when he remitted the taxes upon
sugar and tea? If the consumer did not pay, what advantage
was it to him? The thing was, by Mr. Chamberlain's own
admission, an absurdity.
The scheme was to be set on its legs, it seemed, by two
gigantic conferences. One of these was to be a conference of
the trades of the United Kingdom, each to put forward its
_ irreducible minimum of preference. Let them
Conferences '^nt °f tne tumult of voices, the juggling of
interests, the intriguing, the lobbying, the irre
sistible temptation to enlist on the side of this and that industry
every form of social and political influence. Out of this
jangling and rivalry, this competitive chaos, was to be evolved
a tariff which would establish even preference for all. The
other conference was to be one of the Empire, in which Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, and the Crown
Colonies would reconcile their divergent and even antagonistic
interests. The results of the two conferences were to be brought
together, and a final harmony established between them. What
a vista of confusion, bickerings, interminable negotiation, and
immeasurable delay, with the prospect of mutual misunder
standing and endless demands for reconstruction and remis
sions ! The corpus vile upon which this gigantic experiment
of political vivisection was to take place was the complex
organism of British trade and the British Empire. In the name
of Liberalism, country, and Empire, he exclaimed " Hands
off!"

192 Fiscal Reform
Liberals did not wrap themselves in the inertia of a compla
cent optimism. Both in the industrial and social spheres there
T . .. were evils crying aloud for redress. They
Alternative wanted a reconstruction of our' educational sys
tem from bottom to top, a grappling with the
problems of the tenure and taxation of land both in town and
country, the substitution of insight, foresight, prudence, and
economy for waste, rashness, and blundering in the framing and
conduct of our national policy — a change both in spirit and
method, a change both of measures and of men. In other
words, what was wanted was a new Parliament, a new Govern
ment, and a new departure in the fortunes of our Empire.

XVIII.
FISCAL POLICY.
(From The Times, Nov. 2, 1903.)
[At Paisley, on October 30, T903, in reply to Mr. Chamberlain's
speech a few days before at Liverpool.]
While he was gratified at their numbers and the evident
spirit of that great gathering, he must confess that he was
surprised they had been challenged to a controversy in which
it was no exaggeration to say that not only the material pros
perity of these islands, but the harmonious working "of the
British Empire, was at stake. That controversy was being
carried on under conditions which were absolutely unprece
dented in political history. A distinguished statesman had
been let loose for the purpose from the restraints and responsi
bilities of office. A purged and reconstructed Cabinet, which
did not contain in its new form any recognisable free-trader,
looked on in favouring silence, or, as had been the case with
not less than three of its members during the present week,
with the language of open encouragement. The policy of the
half-way house, which was ostensibly the official programme
of the Government, was universally acknowledged to be merely
a formula of the temporary arrangement of divergent and
irreconcilable groups ; and never was there a situation which
called more urgently upon all free-traders for united and vigi
lant action, or which made the duty more and more necessary
of setting forth again and again the arguments which, as they
thought, ought to determine and, as he himself believed, were
bound to convince the judgment of the people, than now.
He had looked in vain through the long columns of oratory
which had been poured forth during the present week at Liver-
_ pool for any answer of any kind to the arguments
Trade which had been put forward again and again,
which went to the very root of the case of the
author of the scheme. At this moment they remained without
reply. For instance, Mr. Chamberlain's scheme started with
H

194 Fiscal Policy
the assumption that British trade was in a parlous state. Erom
t'"_- point of view of the British trader they had asked for
any evidence that trade as a whole — because he refused to con
fine the discusion to our foreign trade, or our over-sea trade,
or our home trade — was otherwise than healthy and steadily
increasing both in volume and in value. In every statistical
comparison that was put forward by Mr. Chamberlain and his
friends up to that moment the home trade was entirely ignored.
Mr. Chamberlain, unlike some of his supporters in the Press
and on the platform, was an experienced controversialist ; and
therefore they must infer the reason why, if instead of grappling
with some of the main arguments of his opponents, he ran
away from them and tried to cover his retreat in a cloud of
rhetorical dust. Looking at the matter from the point of view
of British trade, Mr. Chamberlain did not attempt to show
that there had been any falling off in our home trade. His
case — part of his case — depended upon two assumptions — the
first was that British exports were stagnant, or, instead, actually
declining ; but it was to be observed that those who made this
statement confessedly used exports as if they were synonymous
with exported merchandise. If they included — as they ought
to include — among the exports the invisibleexports in the shape
of value of services which were rendered to foreign nations,
particularly through our mercantile marine, in carrying goods
not only to our own ports but between the various countries
in the world — if they included that invisible trade in our export
trade and still said that our export trade was stagnant, they
said what was manifestly untrue. They had had during the
present week a most important contribution to the question
by a man who was entirely free, as far as they knew, from any
kind of political prepossession, who was recognised as one of
the most distinguished statisticians — he meant Sir Robert
Giffen. He pointed out that, in order to show correctly the
net export of the produce of British labour and capital in
goods, they must deduct from the gross total of their exported
merchandise the value of the imported raw material that was
contained in it. He applied the method to two years. He
took 1877 and 1902. How did the figures work out regarding
the exported merchandise, after that deduction had been made ?
In 1877 the net produce of British labour and capital exported
was valued at 140 millions. In 1902, twenty-five years later,
that net produce was valued at 224 millions.

Fiscal Policy 195
The second assumption was that the imports of foreign manu
factures into the United Kingdom showed a steady ond
dangerous increase. They were told that they increased f_ .. m
63 millions in 1872 to 149 millions in 1902. That increase,
which he viewed without the faintest alarm, was
Manufactures regarded by protectionists like Mr. Bonar Law
Materials anc* ^s sch°ol as a displacement of British in
dustry. Mr. Chamberlain, at Liverpool, said
that he wanted to see less of their finished manufactures
coming into the country and more of raw material in return
for our exports of finished manufactures. Observe the distinc
tion between the raw material on the one side and the finished
manufactures on the other. Mr. Chamberlain admitted that
so long as the foreigner sent us raw material it was all right,
it increased the field of employment for British capital and
labour ; but, apparently, the moment the imported commodity
ceased to have the character of raw material it became a mis
chievous and dangerous immigration, and put out of employ
ment so much British labour and capital. Would Mr.
Chamberlain and his friends tell them what they meant by
raw material ? Personally he knew of one definition, and one
only, and it was this. It was. a commodity which came here
in order that British labour and British capital might be exer
cised upon it. Mr. Asquith held that large proportions of the
149 millions of so-called foreign manufactures imported here
were raw materials and were the very things which Mr. Cham
berlain desired to encourage.
Take the case of America as to imports. The half of them
from the United States consisted of things like copper, zinc,
leather, oil, paraffin, and wax. There was not a single one of
these things which came here without having British labour
exercised upon it, and when put through processes of manu
facture these articles went into consumption or were prepared
iri turn for export abroad. They must bear this in mind, too,
that a large number of those so-called manufactures were
things which we could not make here at all. Were they going
to exclude them ? A large and increasing class consisted of
things for the making of which other countries had — either
through nattiral advantages, or very often, and he regretted
to say it, through superior education and superior methods of
production — greater facilities than ourselves. It might often
be that our capital and labour were more remuneratively

196 Fiscal Policy
employed when centred on the labour of a more elaborate
stage of production. There was no greater fallacy— and fal
lacies were stalking the streets— and it lay at the root of half
of Mr. Chamberlain's argument and the whole of Mr. Bonar
Law's, than to suppose that we have in this country an in
exhaustible supply of skilled labour for any purposes to which
we might put it. Every one of these things came here from
abroad by way of payment either for British goods or for
British services, or as interest upon British capital. He re
membered some years ago that Lord Kitchener, when he was
making that celebrated railway through the Sudan to Khartum,
had to erect a bridge, the girders for which were got from
America. Mr. Chamberlain had complained that Belgian
rails had been used for tramways in London ; but what had
happened in that Mecca of fiscal orthodoxy, the City of Bir
mingham ? This week they had ordered rails for their tram
ways from these same accursed Belgians. It would really
seem that, before he proceeded to lecture Lord Kitchener and
the London tramway people, Mr. Chamberlain should remem
ber that fiscal rectitude, like charity, should make a beginning
at home.
What was the case with British shipping? The tonnage of
shipping in the United Kingdom in 1870 was 5,690,000. In
1902 it was 10,054,000; so that in that way he
Shipping: (Mn Asquith) could not charge himself with
gross exaggeration when he said that it had in
creased by 100 per cent. But Mr. Wyndham said, " Look at
Germany, her percentage of increase has been still greater."
Mr. Asquith maintained that it was very dangerous to talk
about percentages. They must first of all know what was the
quantity. He remembered some years ago some friends of
his, interested in the temperance cause — and he hoped many
of them were interested in that cause — made an inquiry into the
relative healthiness and powers of endurance of soldiers who
were total abstainers and those who were not. When the re
turns were examined, they turned out badly for the teetotalers ;
fifty per cent, had been killed, and fifty per cent, had died
from disease. That sounded alarming and disheartening to
their temperance friends ; but what were the facts ?• There had
been only two abstainers amongst them. One was killed in
action, and the other was attacked by sunstroke. So, he re
peated, when they began to talk of percentages they should

Fiscal Policy 197
know the quantity. No trade had flourished so much in this
country under free trade as shipping, and he would add that
no trade stood to lose more and gain less by any change in our
fiscal system.
Mr. Chamberlain, with the help of his fiscal department at
Birmingham, had been engaged for months in tracking out.
among the decayed or ruined British industries
Glass, ^e victims of free trade ; but the results were
^VfltPn ______ Qnrj
"Dumnine" mea_Tre- At Liverpool he produced the best he
could. He said, amongst other things, that the
plate-glass industry once employed 20,000 men in this country,
and he seemed to suggest that they had been turned out of
employment. We exported ^100,000 worth of plate-glass every
year, and we imported ,£500,000 worth. If every square inch
of that ^500,000 worth of plate-glass, instead of being manu
factured abroad were manufactured in this country, it could
not give employment to more than three or four thousand men.
Then watches had been mentioned. The importation of foreign
watches to this country was steadily decreasing. He would
now come to the nerve-shaking topic of " dumping." He had to
be on his " p's and q's." Mr. Chamberlain was so incensed
with the levity, he had shown in this matter of '' dumping "
that he used language to him which indicated a loss of temper,
and, what sometimes accompanied it, a loss of manners also.
What was "dumping"? .He agreed with Mr. Chamberlain
when he said that " dumping " only took place seriously when
w, . the country which resorted to it was in a state of
" Dumping" ? depression. When manufacturers, or a syndi
cate, put things to an artificially high level
in their own ' home market, and exported the surplus
supply of the same commodities, at a much lower price,
to foreign markets, and undersold the native producer, that
was " dumping." It was a process which, as all experience
showed, could not possibly last long. It was a suicidal policy ;
for it provoked a strong reaction at home among the domestic
consumers, for they found that they were made to pay through
the protective tariff and the operations of the syndicate more
than other people had to pay for the commodities abroad.
That led to indignation, resentment, agitation, and certainly
to the overthrow of protection. " Dumping " he regarded as
the nightmare of the new Protectionists. That there had been
any substantial displacement of British capital from that

198 Fiscal Policy

cause the Board of Trade statistics denied. If foreigners,
under a protection tariff, were driven to try to get hold of our
markets by " dumping " down in days of depression at less than
cost price the products of sweated labour, if that were a true
picture, did it not suggest to them, perhaps, on the whole that
protection might not be the panacea for disease of the industrial
world ? German workmen worked longer hours and got less
wages ; for every 20s. our skilled workmen received the Ger
mans got 12s. 6d. Sweated industry, it was true, might obtain
a footing for a time, but work carried on under good sanitary
conditions, at reasonable hours, was work better done in the
long run and better results were got, both in volume and in
quality. We had given the Colonies fiscal autonomy. Interfere with
that, or in the exercise of it, and it would be precarious — it
_ would break up the Empire. The Colonies
J J? Colonies showecj not the faintest inclination to respond to
New Policy ^r- Chamberlain's appeal, and they showed that
they would start no new departure but that they
would remain as they were. The utmost they could offer was
a preferential share in the comparatively small trade in manu
factured goods which they now did with foreign countries.
This system which was proposed as to the Colonies was not
free trade; it was not even a caricature of free trade; it was.
a lopsided preference— a system which must immediately lead
to heart-burning in the Colonies, bitter resentment among our
work people at home, and a gradual wearing away of the
Imperial tie. Let them offer it, in the interests of the Empire
no less than in that of the people of these islands— let them
offer it from first to last, and at every stage and in every phase,
a whole-hearted and untiring resistance.

XIX.
FISCAL REFORM.
(From The Times, Nov. io, 1903 )
At Worcester, on November 9, 1903, hi reply to recent speeches by
Mr. Chamberlain.]
He had been told, he did not know whether it was true, that
that city, and, indeed, the county, were treated by political
map-makers as within the range of a certain sphere of influence
whose headquarters were supposed to lie in the city of Bir
mingham, That sphere, whatever might be its precise terri
torial limits, was at present the seat of a good deal of magnetic
disturbance, and he could not but think that those present could
hardly, if any such influence ever did exist, choose a fitter time
to terminate it. This was a time at which Birmingham, whose
greatest political glory in the past was to have been associated
with the name of John Bright, was being invited to turn its
back upon his creed and to become, and he was not sure it
had not already become, the rallying centre, might he not say
the " dumping ground," of the crudest, the rawest fallacies
of protection. He should not apologise for asking their atten
tion to the present phase of the great controversy which
occupied the foreground of public attention and interest.
It would be impossible to better in any way the presentment
of their case from the Imperial point of view given with un-
_. _. rivalled cogency and authority by Lord Rose-
The Times , tt ? _'•.___.
of Protection bery. Up to now not a single one of the score
of Parliaments in our self-governing Colonies
had passed a resolution in favour of Mr. Chamberlain's policy.
Just as protection tended to be an inclined plane in practice,
so the development of the protectionist argument in the present
controversy proved to be an inclined plane in logic. Six
months ago Mr. Chamberlain had nothing but kind words of
Cobden and the free-traders of 1846, but he said that the
conditions had now altered. Free-traders thereupon pointed
out that the alteration was entirely in the direction of making

200 Fiscal Reform
free imports more, and not less, indispensable to the trade of
this country. Under the stress of the controversy Mr. Cham
berlain had been constrained not only to renounce his old
convictions but to rewrite the history of the past. He told them
now that it was a mistake to suppose that the country was not
prosperous under protection ; that the Anti-Corn Law League,
of which Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright were the most prominent
members, was an organisation of middle-class capitalists whose
object was to exploit the wealth of the nation in their interest
and to lower the remuneration of labour. Mr. Chamberlain
further said that the repeal of the Corn Laws did not cheapen
bread. He doubted very much whether it was possible for
human ingenuity to condense a larger array of historical in
accuracies into the same number of sentences.
There must be good and bad times under any system, but
one among the many boons which free trade had conferred
"was that it tended, by keeping open the sources of supply, to
enlarge the area of employment and to steady the whole course
of industry. It was the only effective counteragent which had
ever yet been discovered to those violent oscillations and fluc
tuations which countries that surrounded themselves by a pro
tective fence were constantly suffering from. There was no
fact which, in his opinion, was better attested than that in
the years which preceded the year of the repeal of the Corn
Laws, despite transient spurts occasionally given to industry
by exceptionally abundant harvests, ihc material condition
of the great bulk of the British people was deplorably and
unutterably bad. Since free trade had become part of our
establ ished fiscal system there had been nothing comparable to
it either in kind or in degree.
In 1885 Mr. Chamberlain said, speaking of fair trade, which
was nothing but his own scheme anticipated by more prescient
Mr. Chamberlain's &™1"™ : "/ "arn Pu> at ,hc bo,,om of
Views in 1885 chls ,!llr trac|c there is the question, and if
you discuss it you will find il impossible
to avoid it, of the nit urn to those, bad limes of protertion and
the Corn Laws, which were, responsible for the destitution and
the starvation wages from which your forefathers suffered so
greatly." He knew that Mr. Chamberlain would tell them that
he had changed his opinions since then. So he. had ; but
because Mr. Chamberlain had changed his opinions the founda
tions of the universe had not shifted, nor had the facts of

Fiscal Reform 201
history altered. He quite expected to be told before they were
many months older, if the controversy proceeded at its present
pace, that multiplication table was an obsolete shibboleth,
and that to hold that in this world it was universally or approxi
mately true that two and two made four was to entertain the
superstitions of a troglodyte. He Complained that Mr. Cham
berlain had quoted passages of Mr. Montgredien's book which
were isolated from the context. If Mr. Chamberlain had taken
the trouble to read to the end of the page of the book which he
quoted at Bingley-hall, he would have found that the brighter
prospects of the early part of 1845 were overclouded almost
before they had appeared in the sky. The bad harvest here
and the failure of the potato crop in Ireland within six months
had plunged us back into the misery and destitution of the
years before. So long as we shut our ports to the free admis
sion of goods and of raw material from abroad, we were never
safe for six months from the hazards of an insufficient harvest
at home.
Mr. Chamberlain talked about Chartism. The Chartists
had political remedies of their own, but that which made
Chartism an aggressive and dangerous and in
The Effect of some respects an anti-social force was the
_r IP_____t Tranp
upon Prices material suffering of the people. The thing
which killed Chartism was free trade. Mr.
Chamberlain said that Mr. Cobden based his whole argument
on the assumption that if we adopted free trade five years
or ten years would not pass without other nations adopting
a similar system. Was that true ? It was true that in a
sanguine moment on a platform Mr. Cobden did utter pre
dictions that other nations would have the good sense to follow
our example, but Mr. Chamberlain characteristically enough
treated that as a promise. It was like the promises which
Mr. Chamberlain had made to them when he said that if they
consented to a 2s. duty on corn it would never get any higher.
Free trade, whatever Mr. Cobden might have thought or have
said, could never have become a part of the policy of this
country if it- had not been adopted by Sir Robert Peel and
those who were his colleagues in the Cabinet at that time.
Controverting Mr. Chamberlain's statement as to the effect of
the repeal of the Corn Laws on the price of wheat, he said
he thought every schoolboy knew that, although the Corn
Laws were repealed in 1846, the repeal was not to take effect,

202 Fiscal Reform
and did not take effect, until 1849- Mr- Chamberlain actually
included in the ten years after the repeal the years 1847 and
1848, when the duty was still enforced, and in one of which
years the price was 70s. Moreover, the last three of the ten
years were those of the Crimean war, when in consequence
of the temporary stoppage of our principal European sources
of supply the price of wheat rose to 70s., a price to which it
had not nearly reached at any time since. After the tax was
taken off the price of wheat at once fell from 50s. 6d. to 44s. 3d.,
or almost exactly the amount of the duty. In the five years
from 1849 to 1853, when the conditions were absolutely normal,
the average price was 43s. 6d., a fall of us. as compared
with 1846.
Mr. Chamberlain's scheme consisted of a bundle of self-
contradictory or mutually destructive propositions. The latest
returns did not support Mr. Chamberlain's
Mr. Chamberlain's assumption that our trade was stagnant.
Propositions __,.', ...
r He did not think any year was more un
fortunately selected than the present for one in which to begin
to sing a dirge over the extinction of British trade. No sane
person supposed that in the competition of the world and the
vicissitudes of taste every industry must always remain exactly
as it was. So long as what was taking place was a change
in the distribution and not a diminution in the activity and the
volume of the producing power of the country, there was no
cause for alarm. Mr. Chamberlain said a moderate tax on
food did not fall on the consumer. That had been refuted,
but, if it was true, why exempt bacon and maize from taxation ?
Again, why was raw material not to be taxed ? If the foreigner
paid a moderate duty on the food, why should he not also
pay a moderate duty on the raw materials ? Mr. Chamberlain
could not give equal preference to our different colonial fellow-
subjects unless he taxed not only the foreigner's food, but
the foreigner's raw material. It was noteworthy that the ten
per cent, duty on imported manufactures applied apparently
just as much to colonial as to foreign goods. It would destroy
some illusions which appeared to prevail in some parts of the
Empire when that was clearly realised. The ten per cent.
would not be forthcoming to cover the remission of the duties
on tea and sugar, if, as Mr. Chamberlain also argued, it was
to have the effect of excluding foreign goods in the interests
of the British workman.

Fiscal Reform 203
Mr. Chamberlain said that protection enabled foreign
countries to undersell us here with the produce of cheap and
sweated labour, and in the same breath he
Protection pointed to the improved conditions of the foreign
and Sweated r , ' ,. . , , °
Labour workman as an argument in favour of protec
tion. The duties it was proposed to impose
must add to the prices of the necessities of life, and cost the
consumer twice or three times as much as they brought into
the Exchequer. The duties would tend to grow by the resist
less logic with which imperfectly protected interests appealed
for more adequate protection. They were asked to take this
first step upon a slippery journey on the strength of a series
of unproved and unprovable assumptions, in reliance upon a
pledge to which no human being could be held, that they
would not be invited to go beyond the first stage upon the
road, and, worst of all, in the illusory hope that, by imperilling
the very foundations of British prosperity, they would be
strengthening the fabric of the Empire. This was more than
a leap in the dark. It was a piece of political plunging. Let
them demand that without delay it should be submitted to the
judgment of the people, and, when their good sense and sound
political instinct had got it out of the way, then, and not until
then, they would be able to take up again the interrupted task
of reform to provide against the real dangers which menaced
the prosperity of our trade and the consolidation of the Empire.

XX.
FISCAL REFORM AND THE TORY PARTY.
(From The Times, Feb. 16, 1904)
[In support of the Liberal Parly's amendment, moved by Mr. fphn
Morley, in the debate 071 the Address, affirming the adherence
of the House and the country to the prhuiples of Free Trade.]
We are now drawing to the close of a debate which, in many
of its features is, I believe, unexampled in the annals of the
House of Commons. We are concerned — ostensibly concerned
— with an amendment to the Address on the King's Speech, and
I believe it to be the opinion of all impartial onlookers that
rarely, if ever, has there been a more one-sided discussion
heard within these walls. Some of the ablest and most con
vincing speeches in support of the amendment have come from
the Government benches. And what, sir, has become of the
propaganda which has been tearing like a tornado through the
country during the whole of the autumn months ? It has made
a great deal of noise outside, but the air of Westminster,
somehow or other, seems to have a sedative effect upon it, and
we have heard nothing in the course of this debate but faint and
halting and almost apologetic efforts.
Still more noteworthy have been the performances of the
Ministers of the Crown. Some of them do not seem quite to
know their own minds. None of them, so far as
Varieties of x can discover, know the minds of their col-
Ministerial , . , ,, . , , , ,
Opinion leagues. And all of them, when they are hard
pressed, to a man, take refuge in the undisclosed
mind of the Prime Minister. On the first night of the debate
the President* of the Board of Trade delivered himself of some
sound and robust Free Trade sentiments, accompanying them
* Mr. Gerald Balfour.

Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party 205
no doubt with a plea for the liberty of pious opinion, and I
think the frank confession of his own personal hankerings for
some system of preference. Next night he was followed by his
subordinate — the secretary* of his own department — who made
an interesting speech. If I might venture, with great respect
to the hon. gentleman, to make one criticism upon it, it would
be this — that I think he was unduly liberal in the exercise of a
dangerous faculty with which he is endowed, the faculty of
stating a fallacy as though it were a truth. However that may
be, on one thing there can be no doubt, thait the Secretary to
the Board of Trade took up one after another almost all the
most venerable and most vulnerable positions of the most anti
quated protectionist. His arguments have been completely dis
posed of by subsequent speakers on both sides of the House,
and I will venture to say with no more lucidity, more cogency,
or more demonstrative force than by my hon. friend the mem
ber for Colne Valley (Sir J. Kitson), and who, by the way, is, I
believe, neither a lawyer nor doctrinaire. Well, the next figure
in this strange procession was the President t of the Local
Government Board, of whom I will say with the utmost personal
respect that at the close of his speech, when I tried to speculate
upon the precise stage which his convictions had reached, I
found myself, and still remain, in impenetrable darkness.
Then came the turn of my right hon. friend the Secretary J
of State for the Colonies, the effect of whose speech I am sure
M l itolt ' 's 'n l^e memor>" °f the House. When my
Views right hon. friend, in his picturesque way.
compared the hapless British producer face
to face with his tariff-clad competitors, to the disciplined
hordes confronting Cresar and his legions, I think no one of us
was in doubt as to the sphere of influence in whicii he moved.
I shall have something to say in a few minutes in reference
to one or two of my right hon. friend's contentions ; but before
I part company with him now in the most friendly spirit I
should like to make one incidental criticism. In the graceful
tribute which he paid to the right hon. gentleman the member
for West Birmingham he told us that the more he f.imiliarised
himself with the records of his own office the more he was im
pressed, not only with the business capacity, but the splendid
* Mr. _5V««jr Lau<. + Mr. Walter Long.
* Mr. Alfred Lyttelton.

206 Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party
idealism of his predecessor This was a very natural and
appropriate expression of his feeling; but I could not help
thinking that it would have been equally interesting to the
House, and perhaps still more relevant to the issue of this de
bate, if the right hon. gentleman could have told us thai, while
ransacking the archives of his department, he had come across
some trace of the missing colonial offer. Friday, so far as
the Treasury bench was concerned, was a day off ; but, not
withstanding the absence of the Prime Minister, which we all
regret, and whose return to our proceedings will be welcomed
with equal warmth in every quarter of the House, there are
still Ministers left on that bench, Cabinet Ministers, whom we
have not heard yet. We have not in this debate heard the voice
of the Minister personally responsible for the management of
the finances of the country, and it is quite possible that we 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 who at this hour of the afternoon would
predict with any confidence in what direction it will point at
12 o'clock to-night. Every one knows the lines which are to be
found in the metrical description by a too candid friend of one
of the greatest orators, I think, who ever sat in the House —
" Though fraught with all learning, yet straining his throat
To persuade Tommy Townshend to lend him a vote."
Men come and go and Parliamentary necessities survive — I do
not see him at this moment on the Treasury bench — but I
cannot help thinking that, if we knew the whole truth of the
situation, the real arbiter, more potent even than the Prime
Minister, one who holds in his hand the musical box and turns
on the tune every night, is the hon. and gallant gentleman*
the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury.
There is one figure almost every speaker has acknowledged
we miss from this discussion hardly less than that of the Prime
Questions for Minister himself— I mean, of course, the
Mr. Chamberlain riSht hon- gentlemant the member for West
Birmingham ; and, in common with every
body, I deplore the cause, and perhaps I may venture to say
I have special reason to regret the fact of his absence, for ever
since the right hon. gentleman inaugurated his autumn cam-
* Sir A. Acland Hood. f Mr. Chamberlain.

Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party 207
I paign at Glasgow I have been towards him in the relation of an
anxious, pertinacious, and disappointed inquirer. I have
Respectfully put to him a goodly 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 " understudies " in and
outside the Government, and there is special reason and
special relevance for pressing one or two of these inquiries.
Ministers who sit on that bench may talk about retaliation
until the crack of doom — which, I suppose, is another way
of describing the next General Election, though there does
not appear to be a single man among them capable of defining
it in intelligible language ; but it is not retaliation, but pro
tection ; it is not the Sheffield enigma ; it is the Birmingham
policy which interests, and will continue to interest, the electors
of the country. They care little or nothing what the policy
or the avowed policy of his Majesty's Government may be. I
will tell the Government why. Because they have the best
reasons for doubting whether the Government as they sit on
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.
I am not going to rehearse the catalogue of my futile in
quiries. I shall confine my interrogations to-night to two
points, as to which it appears to me equally
Mr. ChambeHa.n's ^ ,- f (he righthon. member for
Opinion in 1902 K J b , „ . .
Birmingham with the avowed or official
policy of his Majesty's Government rests 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 stag
nant for thirty years. Now, the question I haye to ask of those

208 Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party
who entertain that view, .and make it the basis of the variou.
stages of policy for fiscal changes 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 January 6, 1902. The House will see in a moment the rele
vancy of the question I put. The right hon. gentleman said : —
" 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 been
engaged in building up an 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 and increase it, employers and
employed must do their utmost, they must not go backward,
they must keep alive with the spirit of the times ; employers
will have to bring to bear more scientific intelligence into the
management of their business." That is the doctrine of the
pedants and the lawyers, whose testimony is scouted, as we
know, by the right hon. g^ehl'leman and other practical men
of business. " The old rule of rhumb " — that is the Charlotten-
burg policy — " methods will not last for ever ; and in the
presence " — of what ? tariffs ? not at all — '' of the development of
science abroad it is perfeotly certain that we shall suffer
seriously, unless our manufacturers take the opportunities
afforded to 'them to bring the highest theoretical knowledge into
combination with practical experience."

Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party 209
Then the right hon. jjentleman goes on to -the workman's
side of the question and makes a complaint of what he conceives
1 to be the retrograde methods of trade unions.
\The. Change Here is the conclusion of the whole matter, be-
\n Two T 1 • . \ .
Years cause I adopt it as part of my argument. It is
the best statement of the case I have ever read : —
1 " I have ventured to give advice to the employers to take
advantage of the opportunities 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 fear
for the future, no fear that we shall take an inferior position
to that of our ancestors, no fear that we shall not meet com
petition irom whatever quarter it comes, that we shall not meet
the rivalries of all the world."
I ask fhe 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 sup
posed 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 was now known as a record year in
the whole of the industry of this country — 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 revolu
tion 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 his 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 similar and corre
sponding change. At the Council of Constance the Emperor
Sigismund was pulled up for a false concord in a Latin allo
cution which he addressed to the assembled prelates, and he
made a reply which is famous in history — Ego sum Rex
Roinanorum et supra grammaticam. I think that a somewhat
similar claim extends over the larger and wider field which

210 Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party
the right hon. gentleman in his most arrogant moments
throughout his campaign in the country claimed for himself.
I come to the other point as to which 1 desire a little further
light, and it relates to the proposed import duty of io per cent.
Ten per cent. on manufactures that come from the outside.
on That was originally proposed, as we know, to
Manufactured fill up the hole in the revenue which would be
imports caused by the suggested remissions of taxation
on sugar and tea. But it was not a revenue duty. Why ?
Because, if it had been, a corresponding Excise duty would have
been proposed on the same articles manufactured at home ; in
other words, it was avowedly a jsrotective 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 for one 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 io 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 pre
vented 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 a despatch
from the Government of India on October 22 last, and 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 partly 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.
Mr. LYTTELTON. — '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 as
to an all-round 5 per cent, duty, which was possibly a matter for
discussion at any rate, I subjected myself to be called a Pro

1 Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party 211
fectionist. I said that inasmuch as that was fhe Indian fiscal
system the right hon. gentleman and all his colleagues were
subject to the same imputation.
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, as he adopts his scheme, agree
to the imposition of a corresponding Excise duty on all articles
produced in this country on which a 5 per cent, import duty is
imposed,? That is a fair test. I recommend the hon. gentle
man to read the despatch ; he will find all the information there.
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 ? Agricul
ture 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 millions of cotton
goods. Our imports are five millions. What about the ship
building trade, and the building trade, which employs
a million 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.
Cheapness of material to them is vital, and iron, steel, leather,
oil, and flour will be increased in price. I say .that this duty is
unintelligent in conception, unequal in application. It pro
tects one trade, and not only does not protect but penalises
another ; and, finally, as an instrument of revenue it can only
succeed to tihe extent in which it fails as an instrument of
protection. The Colonial Secretary suggested that our factory legislation
— legislation for the protection of labour against insanitary
conditions — is inconsistent with the doctrine of
Factory Laws Free Trade, that it increases the cost of produc-
Free Trade t*on nere> 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
atnrmation and that our factory laws are a negation bf some
abstract doctrine of laisser faire. That is not the case. The

212 Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party
people of this country became Free Traders, and will 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 recog
nise 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 aTe
really 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, our labour and capital
are making things whidh 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 power and you
contaminated the very springs of your 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 abso
lutely 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, tbat 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 sources. I say
that if the children are sent to school — as, thank Heaven, they
are now — in their tender years, instead 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 the sounder,
more robust, and more intelligent 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. That interruption shows
with how much knowledge the hon. member speaks. The
factory system in Germany is more elaborate than our own ;
and the real reason for the inferior position of the Germ.":".
workman is not a bad faotory code, but protection — .the shutting
out of the free influx of imports and the partial closing of the

Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party 213
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 debate I have thought that theTe
was a great deal of force in the suggestion put forward some
where that we should put together as an enduring
" Protection monument of this debate a short manual of pro-
Beerinners ' tection for beginners, the first principles of
which Should be taken from the speeches of the
late 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 manual, and with the permission of the House
I will give a few extracts. The first question is, " What is Free
Trade?" And the answer is, "A shibboleth." "By whom was
it invented?" "By one Adam Smith, a professor wiho had
probably never set foot jn a factory in his life. A later writer,
Carlyle, is a much safer guide." " How, then, did it get to be
adopted as part of the policy of this country ? " " Through
the machinations of a .middle-class conspiracy headed by one
Cobden, whose main object was to lower the wages of labour."
" How has the superstition managed to survive ? " " Because
there are people simple enough and short-sighted enough to
imagine that in foreign trade it is well to receive more than
you give." " Can you give a practical illustration of this ? "
"Since the year i860 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 means? Translate it into terms of wages and employ
ment." " Roughly speaking, the loss in wages to British work
men is ^2,000,000,000 sterling." " How then have we escaped
ruin ? " " By the mercy of Providence." " And how are we to
set ourselves right?" "By waiting for the report of the Tariff
Commission." I ask, is that a caricature ofthe arguments that
have been used ?
As to this topic of retaliation, there are some gentlemen, I
gather, who are going to absolve themselves from the duty
_ .. . of voting for this 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. I fancy the majority of

214 Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party
those who support retaliation will be those who support
it because they think it is the first and a long step
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
twofold plea — first, the absence of the Prime Minister ; and,
secondly, the supposed example of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Glad
stone 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 can speak very freely in
this matter, because I was one of those who strongly urged upon
Mr. Gladstone publicly that he should make this disclosure.
But to compare that with the situation of to-day is to make an
enormous draft on the credulity of this House. The real
analogy would have been if Mr. Gladstone had asked for a man
date for Home Rule without saying whether he meant to apply
it to Ireland ot 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
for°theUeSti°nS t0 ask the country t0 confer on them? And,
Government 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 clear answer to both is essential to a clear
understanding of the subject. First as to the power. It is a
truism to say that any /Minister may at any time come to the
House of Commons to ask their assent to any measure, legis
lative, 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 any one
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 believed 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

Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party 215
can be made out to the satisfaction pf the House of Commons ;
and I think a bad case was made out in both those instances —
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 rigit hon. friend the leader of the Opposition on the first
night of this debate — 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 legislation — it 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, What use are you going to make of
this power? I want to have presented, what we have not yet
had, an actual concrete case. We hear a great deal of talk
about conceivable cases, about outrageous injustice, and so
forth ; I want an actual concrete case. Will the right hon. '
gentleman give me such a case ? Let him give me an outrageous
duty in existence now. Tell me by whom it is imposed ;
whether it is directed primarily or specially against us or only
against us in common with all the other countries of Europe
with whom the country imposing the duty is in actual or possible
competition. Tell me what is the line your reprisals are going
to take. Are they to be only against the commodity which the
duty in question favours, or are they to be against the whole
import trade of the country imposing it?
There is this question of dumping. How are you going to
deal with dumping ? Take the cai;e of iron, which was taken
„ by the Secretary to the Board of Trade. Is it
" ° only against dumped iron — that is, iron sold here
at a lower price than in the country of origin — that you are
going to retaliate ? If so, you may go great lengths ; for let us
never forget that it is of the essence of protection to sell dear

216 Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party
at home and cheap abroad. How are you going to find out
whether it is dumped or not? Are you going to put your
retaliatory duty on all goods which are sold here cheaper than
they are sold in the country in which they were produced ? Are
you going to put it on even although the dumping may be the
result of the temporary action of a syndicate or combination
of producers, or are you only going to put it on where there
is a direct bounty given in the country of origin ? And in that
case, let me ask, are you going to discriminate between our
Colonies and foreign countries? I apologise to the House
for enumerating such a series of dry and technical questions,
but they are the practical questions upon which political wis
dom and fiscal efficacy really depend.
I venture to point out once more — as has been pointed out
by many hon. members who have preceded me — first, that in
point of fact the countries which have the power
Consequences 0f retaliation, and use it, have not fared any
Retaliation better than ourselves in dealing with protective
countries ; secondly, that you cannot effectively
carry out your policy of retaliation, as was admitted by the
President of the Board of Trade, against our most serious
competitors, or some of them — certainly not against the United
States of America — unless you tax both food and raw materials ;
and, thirdly, that, as all experience shows, the duty which
begins by being retaliatory and provisional almost invariably
ends by being protective and permanent. I should like before
I conclude to give one illustration to the House of the spirit
in which it appears to me this power of retaliation is likely to
be used if entrusted to the present Government. I could take
many, but I will take by way of illustration some remarks
which fell from the Chief Secretary* at Edinburgh in the
month of November last, the most remarkable speech that I
have read in the whole of this discussion. First of all — it is
not exactly the point, but it is interesting to note — the right
hon. gentleman deprecated the magnitude of our foreign in
vestments. He said that they were a sign of industrial decay.
Why? "In this country," he said, "any man with ,£10,006 or
£20,000 would hardly ever dream of putting it into any indus
trial enterprise at all." I wonder how we manage to live.
"What does he do? He invests it abroad, believing that it is
not safe to invest it at home." That is pretty serious, but,
* Mr. George Wyndham.

Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party 217
serious as it is> it is nothing to the tragic consequences which
the right hon. gentleman has discovered to flow from the flood
of imports. Let me read this passage. " Great Britain, after
sixty years of unmitigated free imports, was a good place for
drones, but let them not mistake " — I ask particular attention
to these words — " let them not mistake the contented lullaby
of the surfeited consumer for the busy murmur of the working
hive." Well, in all the rhetoric of the recess, copious and
variegated as it has been, this sentence seems to me to be
a gem that scintillates with unique and incomparable radiance.
The contented lullaby of the surfeited consumer ! Apart from
the context the House might perhaps imagine that this was the
picturesque description by a special reporter of the state of
things which prevail when the loyal and patriotic toasts are
proposed at the conclusion of a civic banquet. No, it is a
description by a Minister of the Crown of the condition of
British trade in the year 1903. The busy murmur of the work
ing hive ! It is to be found apparently only in countries with
a scientific tariff, while we here, we poor Englishmen and
Scotchmen and Irishmen, with our lamentable and pertinacious
excess of imports over exports, we are a nation of drones,.
feeding idly upon the honey which is benevolently and, I pre.
sume, gratuitously provided for us by the eccentric foreigner.
What does it all mean ? Is this House, is this country, going
to put the weapon of retaliation into the hands of gentlemen
like the Chief Secretary, who think our foreign investments
a proof of domestic insecurity and who regard the magnitude
of our imports as the measure of our industrial lethargy? But
every argument which the right hon. gentleman and many of
his colleagues have used, when it comes to be analysed and
examined, is seen to be an argument not for retaliation, not
for any halfway house, not for any intermediate step, but for
full-blown and uncompromising protection.
This amendment of my right hon. friend raises a clear issue.
It condemns any return to protective duties, and, in face of the
language of Ministers which I have read and criticised, can
The Real Issue  any one say ^^ such a declaration by the
Free Trade House of Commons is not opportune and in-
v. deed urgent ? For aught I know we are going
Protection to-night — I do not know whether the Chief
Secretary or the Home Secretary* is to be the transforming
* Mr. A kers Douglas.

218 Fiscal Reform and the Tory Party
hand— we are going to have another tilt of the see-saw, possibly
renewed assurances of the unshaken devotion of the Government
to the principles of free trade. Sir, I venture to say to the
House that the question whether the present Ministers are safe
custodians of the citadel of free trade is a question which can
not be settled by the utterances of perturbed and bewildered
Ministers in the throes of a Parliamentary crisis. You must
look to their whole conduct and attitude since the controversy
was raised nine months ago, the period of unsettled convictions,
the so-called inquiry, the Prime Minister's benediction to the
departing missionary, the open patronage which has been ex
tended to the propaganda of the autumn, the promises which
have been given even in this debate of electoral support to its
adherents. I submit to the House that it is not to such hands as
these that the fortunes of free trade can safely be committed.
For my part I think that the Government have been guilty
of the vulgar error of being too clever by half. They have
played, or tried to play, a game which in the long run never
succeeds with the people of this country, a game of manceuvre
and mystification. Ever since last May they have been trifling
with the nation, just as to-night they are trying to trifle with the
House of Commons. What up to now has been the result of a
policy so alien to the best traditions of our public life ? One
has only got to look opposite to see a discredited Ministry and
a divided party. The country is showing by evidence which
cannot be misinterpreted — the last instalment came no later
than two days ago from a hitherto impregnable stronghold of
Toryism — the country is showing that it realises that in this
matter there is one issue and only one, the issue between free
trade upon the one side and protection upon the other. That
issue is presented to this House to-night ; let it by its vote
anticipate the verdict of the nation.

XXI.
PARLIAMENTARY EFFICIENCY.
(From The Times, Oct. 22, 1904.)
[Speaking at Inverness on October 21, 1904, Mr. Asquith, aftet
referring to the Government's ambiguous attitude to Mr
Chamberlain's Fiscal Proposals, named the Land Question and
the Taff Vale judgment in its relation to the position of Trades
Unions as matters which required the speedy return of the
Liberal Party to office. He then passed to the following
notable criticism of Parliament as a legislative machine under
modern conditions, and declared the necessity of a delegation of
its powers in local affairs Z]
There was another matter which lay behind and over
shadowed all possibility of legislation, and that was the effi
ciency of the legislative machine. Two of the most important
measures of the last Session — the Licensing Bill and the Welsh
Coercion Bill — were literally hustled through
' "e. . the House of Commons — there was no other word
Machine t0 describe it — under conditions which left con
siderable and important parts of both not only
unamended, but absolutely undiscussed. He believed that in
both cases these violent and high-handed proceedings might
have been avoided by a better distribution and a more economi
cal management of Government time ; but with the best
management in the world the House of Commons, as it existed
at present, was congested, overweighted, constantly liable to get
out of gear. Even if Parliament could be in Session the whole
year round it could not adequately supervise the vast and
multifarious interests of all degrees of urgency and of im
portance which were now committed to its charge. Many

220 Parliamentary Efficiency
improvements, no doubt, were possible in what he might call
its mechanism and procedure ; but the longer he sat at West
minster — and he had sat there now nearly twenty years — the
more he was confirmed in the belief that the House of Com
mons, without sacrificing in any degree the unity, the integrity,
and the absolute supremacy of Parliament, must be prepared as
regards local concerns to delegate some of its work. The
trend of opinion in all parts of the United Kingdom, the over
whelming forces of practical necessity and, he would add, the
very genius of the Constitution, pointed in that direction.

XXII.
FISCAL RETALIATION— THE GOVERNMENTS
REFUSAL TO DISCUSS.
(From TheJTimes, March 29, 1905.)
[In the Commons on March 28, in support of a resolution moved
from the Liberal Benches, " That in view of the declaration
made by the Prime Minister, this House thinks it necessary to
record its condemnation of his policy of fiscal retaliation."
This being moved by a private Member who had secured this
eve7iing in the ballot for private Member's nights, Mr. Balfour •
announced his intention of ignoring all such debates and
divisions, so that the House was left in the sole possession of
the Liberal Party, the Unionists having withdrawn.]
I shall not attempt to follow the hon. member in the speech
which he has just delivered.- I could not if I would, and I
would not if I could. But I think it may remain on record
as the low-water mark of argumentative humiliation to which
tariff reform has been reduced. This is the third occasion in
the course of as many weeks in which this House, after a
prolonged spell of enforced silence, has been given the oppor
tunity of challenging the policy which goes by the name of
tariff reform. We began appropriately with the proposal for
colonial preferences based on the taxation of food, because that
proposal is first in importance, inasmuch as its adoption would
be most fatal in its results. We were not allowed to come to
a definite decision on that occasion. But the evening was
not thrown away, because it afforded to the world the unique,
and, I think, unforgettable, spectacle of the evangelists and
apostles of a new faith voting with one accord in favour of the
previous question. Then last week, on the invitation of one
-j-ne of my hon. friends, we took up the case of the
Government's ten per cent, tariff on manufactured goods, an
Three integral part, let the House observe, of the same
Retreats scheme, because the fiscal gap created by
colonial preference could only be made good out of the toll

222 Fiscal Retaliation —
to be paid by the foreigner on commodities which were to come
into the market for purposes of revenue, and to be kept out
at the same time for the purposes of competition. On that
occasion, a week ago, one single solitary voice of protest — a
voice from Sheffield— was rajsed. It was the voice of one crying
from a deserted camp in favour of the policy so boldly pro
claimed elsewhere. On that occasion there was not even an
attempt to rally the supporters of the Government and the tariff
reformers on this question. The Prime Minister blew his bugle
and the tariff reformers of every shade of view — from the most
full-blooded to the most anaemic — took to their heels and fled.
To-night my hon. friend has raised a third issue, distinct from
those that have gone before, but not less momentous, because
it is the one point in the policy of what is called fiscal reform
on which the Prime Minister has definitely and unequivocally
committed himself. The House remembers that it was de
scribed by him not less than two years ago as involving a funda
mental reversal of our existing system. It is an extraordinary
and unprecedented thing in the history of the House of Com
mons that when a challenge of that kind is made the Prime
Minister should not condescend to be present. We have had
in this matter a crescendo of evasion. We have had the leader
of the House and the author of the policy which is impugned
by this motion putting a climax to his two previous per
formances, and absolutely, with the whole of his colleagues,
boycotting the House of Commons. Everywhere else in the
world but here the policy of the Prime Minister may be can
vassed and criticised — in our Colonial Legislatures, upon plat
forms in this country, in articles in the newspapers and maga
zines, in letters to the Press, in pamphlets to be found on every
railway bookstall. The only place in which, so far as the
Government is concerned, free discussion of their policy is
excluded is the only place in the whole country where, with
the full sense of responsibility, the main combatants can meet
face to face in the clash of arms. I venture to say, and I am
sorry there is no one upon the Treasury bench to hear me,
but I say it not merely to the party which sits behind that
bench, but to the House of Commons in its corporate capacity
and to the country at large, that even the Prime Minister has
never gone so far in flouting the authority and impairing the
dignity of this House.
As for the question of retaliation, the case against it has

The Government's Refusal to Discuss 223
been admirably and exhaustively stated by my hon. friend who
. moved this resolution. If I devote a few sen-
on tences to it, it is only out of respect to the hon.
gentleman opposite who proposed the amendment, and whose
services on behalf of free trade we on this side gladly recognise.
No one alleges or has ever alleged that there may not be
peculiar circumstances in which, possibly, by the deliberate
action of the Legislature, some form of retaliation may not be
imposed. But I have never met any concrete instance stated
where these circumstances would be fulfilled. The case against
retaliation is overwhelming. It may be summarised in two or
three propositions. In the first place, 'the need for it is abso
lutely unproved. We get as good terms without retaliation as
the most retaliatory country gets with it. In the second place,
retaliation, if it is ever to become an effective weapon capable
of being applied to practical uses, necessarily and inevitably
involves the creation of a general tariff to be applied or to be
removed at the will of the executive of the day. That is a
constitutional innovation of the gravest and most dangerous
character. In the third place, experience shows, and no expe
rience more clearly than the recent history of Germany, that
a tariff put on for retaliatory purposes is always retained in the
long run for the purposes of protection. The interests which
grow up under the shelter of retaliatory tariffs become too
strong to permit the walls to which they cling ever to be pulled
down. Lastly, of all countries in the world, this United King
dom, of whose exports not less than four-fifths are manufac
tured goods, and of whose imports no less than nine-tenths
consist of food, of raw material, and half made-up materials,
stands to gain less and lose more by the adoption of the system
of international reprisals. That is the unanswerable case
against retaliation. At any rate, it has not been answered to
night. It is a significant fact that when an issue of this kind — which
was declared by the Prime Minister himself in the September
of 1903 to be an issue which involves a funda-
p . . mental reversal of the whole fiscal policy of this
Ouestion country — should for the first time be raised in
the House of Commons, there is not a single
man upon the benches opposite, with the negligible exception
of the hon. member * for Ludlow, who is prepared to advance
* Mir. Rowland Hunt.

224 Fiscal Retaliation
a word in its favour. It is very difficult to carry on debate.
under such conditions. We have no arguments to meet. The
oracles so eloquent in the country are dumb here. I do not
think there are even any unregenerate souls to convert. No ;
the right hon. gentleman, the member * for Sheffield, has left
the House. Under these circumstances, I feel as one sometimes
has felt at the end of a choral service, when the minister mounts
the pulpit for the sole purpose apparently of edifying the
people. You might as well do without a discourse and conclude at
once with the Benediction. I venture to appeal to my hon.
friend opposite who has moved this amendment, important as
he must admit it to be, "as a strong and convinced free-trader,
that this House should, if possible, have a unanimous declara
tion of its opinions to-night, that he might withdraw the amend
ment he has proposed, and allow us to take a direct and simple
issue upon this policy of fiscal retaliation, which, for the reasons
which my hon. friends have put forward, and which I have
endeavoured to summarise, would, if it could be carried into
effect — I do not believe that to be possible — be fatally injurious
in its consequences to the trade of this country, would involve
us in a long series of unprofitable and wasteful commercial
wars, and would undo the great results which have been
achieved during the period since Mr. Cobden and Sir Robert
Peel began to preach the doctrines of free trade.
* Sir Howard Vincent.

XXIII.
THE ALIENS BILL.
(From The Times, May 3, 1905.)
[On the Second Reading of the Aliens Bill in the Commons,
May 2, 1903.]
As I said last year, I am not one of those who think that
there is no occasion for a change in the law in this matter. I
pointed out then, what is indeed proved by the report of the
Royal Commission, that there is undoubtedly an excessive
percentage of crime amongst the immigrant alien population
of this Country as compared with the indigenous population. I
think one cannot ignore the presentments of juries and the
declarations of Judges, repeated time after time, to the
effect that persons coming into this country relying on the
privileges of hospitality cannot complain if, when they have
abused that hospitality by violation of the criminal law, we
cease to extend it to them any longer and send them back to
their own country. And in so far as this Bill either gives
power after judicial inquiry to the Home Secretary to expel
persons convicted of crime against our 'laws or in so far as it
enables him — again subject to proper appeal — to prohibit the
introduction into this country of persons who have been con
victed in their native land of crimes which according to our
system of law are extraditable offences — in so far as the Bill
proposes to carry out these two objects it will receive from me
not only no opposition, but hearty support, offered, I need not
add, in that critical temper in which we ought to approach the
precise form in which legislation of this character ought to be
placed on the Statute-book.
Then we come to the other provisions; and here I must say
that, comparing the Bill with the measure of last year, I can
hardly remember a case in which opposition, much criticised
. . at the time, has been more completely justified.
Tf thPr_n|SI°nS Tnere were two mam grounds of opposition
which some of us took to this other part of the
Bill. So far as I was concerned, my main grounds of opposi
tion were two. In the first place, I strongly objected to the
I

226 The Aliens Bill
provision which enabled the Local Government Board to set
up a number of prohibited areas from which alien immigrants,
whatever their character, were to be excluded. That provision
has been dropped. And the other main ground of criticism
which I mentioned last year was this— that by an almost revo
lutionary provision it vested in the Home Secretary an executive
power by his own hand, without the protection of any pre
liminary judicial inquiry, without any regard to those laws of
evidence which are the safeguard of our liberty, to refuse
admission to and to expel immigrant aliens from this country.
That provision also has been substantially dropped. What
remains? There remains a feature which I regard as very
objectionable, and which we will do our best to remove in
Committee. That is the provision in the third subsection of
section i, which enables an immigration officer to refuse admis
sion to an immigrant who "cannot show that he has in his
possession or is in a position to obtain the means of decently
supporting himself and his dependants."
As my right hon. friend the member * for the Forest of Dean
has shown, when you come to analyse the figures, the plea
of urgency, if ever there was one, for a measure of this kind
is less intense now than it was some years ago. The notion
that there is anything in the nature of steady
fnfl^x^f Aliens and increasin& influx of more or less destitute
immigrants who are competing in the labour
market with the British working man and ousting him from
employment is one which does not stand the test of investiga
tion. That there are special areas which suffer inconvenience
I am not prepared to deny ; but I am dealing with the broad
general proposition, and I do not think if you take the country
as a whole, and the statistics as a whole, that any such case as
that can be made out. That being so, it appears to me that
this provision which enables an immigration officer to exclude
an alien on the ground of poverty, and poverty alone, is both
objectionable in principle and will be found unworkable in
practice. It is objectionable in principle because some of the
best strains in our population were founded in days gone by
by persons who could not have stood such a test. Mere poverty
— it may be the result of persecution — in a person who comes to
this country, of good character and prepared to contribute his
* Sir Charles Dilke.

The Aliens Bill 227
stock of ability or intelligence to productive employment here,
ought not to be a barrier to his coming. How are you to ascer
tain whether a man has in his possession, or is in a position
to obtain, the means of supporting himself? The test can be
evaded in a hundred ways, and will be evaded ; and I do not
believe, however skilful and energetic your immigration officer
may .be, that you will find that a test of this sort can be effec
tually applied.
My right hon. friend has called attention in this amendment
to the importance of preserving what is called the right of
asylum ih this country for the victims of. political
Asvlum and religious persecution. I gather from the
words inserted in the clause that the Govern
ment themselves recognise the importance of adhering to that
right. But' I must say with all respect to the draftsman that
the words which have been chosen are totally inadequate. The
provision relating to admission " solely to avoid prosecution
for an offence " will really exclude a very large percentage
of the political refugees. Take those men who have been
arriving during the past twelve months from Russia. I do not sup
pose that one in ten of them could show that they wish to avoid
prosecution ; and words far wider and more elastic in character
will be necessary if you are to carry out the common object
that those unfortunate persons who are the victims of the social
and political prejudices of the countries and the Governments
whence they come should in future, as in the past, receive free
admission to our shores
I come next to the provision which I gladly recognise is a
very substantial improvement on that of last year. It is the
provision in Clause 2 which enables an appeal
1 "e . . from the immigration officers to the Immigra-
Boardrat'°n tion Board- That is a Point which I made last
year, and I am glad to see that the Government
now recognise it. But I am not at all satisfied as to the com
position and qualifications of this board. It is to be composed
of persons " having magisterial, business, or administrative
experience." It is very important that there should be on the
board a magistrate acquainted with the rules and the practice
of evidence. I hope that a little more attention will be given
to the composition of the board and that it will be made more
clear than it now is that this safeguard at any rate shall be
provided. Another important point is that contained in Clause

228 The Aliens Bill
8, which defines the expression " immigrant," and which ex
cludes any " passenger who shows to the satisfaction of the
immigration officer or board concerned with the case that he
desires to land in the United Kingdom only for the purpose of
immediately proceeding to some destination out of the United
Kingdom." That word "immediately" ought to be struck out
of the clause.
I should like to tell the House a little personal experience
of my own. A few months ago, by the kindness of a friend, I
was taken to the Jewish shelter in Whitechapel,
Supports where for many months past a body of gentle-
The Second , , _, _• _,; ¦ . . f ,.
Reading men nave been devoting their energies in dealing
with the Jewish refugees who have been pouring
in from Russia during the past year. I saw, I think, 300 or 400
of these refugees, and if one might judge from their appearance
they were not " undesirables." But nine out of ten of these
men had come here, not as permanent settlers, but on their
way to other countries. The great bulk of them were being
drafted to Argentina, to Canada, and to other places where
they could find remunerative employment in industry or agri
culture. On the other hand, that is a process which takes
time. These men had been two, three, or four months here ;
they had been well looked after during the time, and provision
was being made for their speedy moving on to their ultimate
destinations. But they would have been unable to bring them
selves within this definition clause, and thus it is essential to
provide for the persons who make this country a temporary
resting-place before they proceed to their destination. These
seem to me to be all points of a practical kind in legislation
of this character. For my part I am strongly of opinion that
the expectations apparently entertained by the Government and
their supporters that this Bill, when carried into law, will effect
an important change in the present state of things are not
founded in probability or in reason. The Bill, when put into
operation, will turn out to be, if not a dead letter, of very little
practical effect. That is my belief, and I think it will be
justified by the experience of other countries. Yet, as far as I
am concerned, I am not prepared to refuse a second reading
to the measure, although when it gets into Committee the
points to which I have referred seem to me to be of such
supreme and vital importance that we shall press them with all
the energy at our disposal.

XXIV.
THE LABOUR PARTY, LIBERALISM, AND THE
UNEMPLOYED.
(From The Times, Jan. 9, 1906.)
[At Huddersfield, on fanuary 8, in support of the Liberal candidate
at the General Election!]
Mr. ASQUITH said that Sir James Woodhouse, who had so
faithfully represented Huddersfield for several years, was in
the present contest being attacked from two quarters, on the
one hand, from the camp of protection, and, on the other, from
the camp of labour.
Liberals, he heed not say, were no enemies to the direct
representation of Labour. There were many constituencies at
this moment in which hard contests were being
Liberalism waged, and in which the Liberal vote was being
given heartily and loyally to Labour candidates ;
and, for his part, he was not aware of any case in which a
Labour member, in possession of a seat in any part of the
country, was being assailed by a Liberal competitor. What
was being done in Huddersfield was an act of aggression. It
must tend to divide the party of progress. It could not benefit
the cause of labour ; it must imperil the cause of free trade.
There was the law relating to trade disputes, what was called
conspiracy or agency in relation-- to industrial combination.
The whole Liberal party was united in desiring that the law
upon that subject should be brought back to the state which
Parliament intended at the time, but which,
Wrongs owing to the interpretation of the Courts, was
f?_ri-itpH not being practically carried into effect. He
0 could assure them, on behalf of his Majesty's
Government, that they were at this moment devising the best
means of securing the necessary modifications and amendments
of the law. The other question affecting particularly the in
terests of labour was the amendment and extension of the law

230 The Labour Party, Liberalism,
of compensation to workmen. They wanted to get rid of the
illogical technicalities and limitations by which, through the
timidity of its authors, the present law had been restricted in
its operation and scope. He wished to see it extended, without
qualification, to all industrial employment; and he was sure
that, if the country would give them time, and would be
patient, they would find, before they were many years older,
a really satisfactory law upon that subject placed upon the
Statute-book of the realm. Did the electors wish to call back
to power the Government that ran away a month ago ? He
knew that the members of the late Government were trying to
frighten the electors by lurid pictures of the latent possibilities
of their successors. If the people were to listen to Mr. Balfour
and to his henchmen in the Press, they would suppose that
the new Government were going to occupy the next two or three
years in robbing the landlords, in pillaging the capitalists, in
starving the Army, in scuttling the Navy, and in paving the
way for the disintegration of this kingdom and the dismember
ment of the Empire. These were the Christmas tales with
which the old wives of the other party were trying to curdle
the blood of their fledglings in the twilight of the Tory nursery.
But as far as he could make out there was no sign that they
had succeeded in shocking the nerves of the electorate of the
country. Referring to fiscal reform, he said they might leave Mr. Bal
four on that subject to take care of himself. The only person
with whom they were seriously concerned was
The Increase jy[r Chamberlain. He would come to unemploy-
British Trade ment m a moment ; it was very closely connected
with the question. Mr. Chamberlain's case was
entirely based on the supposed stagnation and the impending
decay of British trade, and he saw even that day that they had
a wail from Birmingham. But the figures of 1905 were the
most striking in the whole history of British trade. The im
ports of 1905 were 565 millions, compared with 551 millions
in the previous year — an increase of 14 millions sterling. The
British exports for the year were 330 millions, against 300
millions in the previous year — an increase of 30 millions ster
ling. The re-exports of the year — those were the exports from
this country of foreign produce which had been imported and
which was a most important part of our trade — were 77 millions,
an increase on the previous year of seven millions sterling.

and the Unemployed 231

That was a pretty good account for a stagnant and decaying
trade. Mr.' Asquith proceeded to quote from The Times and
other sources to prove that there was prosperity in the shipping
trade, in the cotton trade, in the wool trade, in the metal trade,
and in the tin-plate trade. Was it not clear that the proposi
tion that our export trade was stagnant and was declining
had no foundation in fact ? He admitted that there was an
enormous increase in the volume of imports; but in regard
to that he would say that the ridiculous notion that because our
imports of merchandise exceeded our exports therefore there
was an adverse balance of trade against us was one of the
most foolish ideas that ever entered into the mind of man. It
was a sign of prosperity-^first, because those imports repre
sented the interest on the capital we had invested abroad ; and,
secondly, because they came here in payment not merely for
the merchandise we exported, but for the services we rendered.
As to the unemployed, he would ask, Was there any" one
there who supposed that protection was a panacea or even a
palliative for the evils of unemployment? Liberals were free
traders because they knew by the experience of fifty years that
Unemployment there were no other means by which the
and country could secure continuity of employ-
Education ment, cheapness of food, comfort, and pros
perity for the great masses of their fellow-citizensr But they
" were not blind-eyed, lotus-eating optimists who saw no evils to
remedy. There should be more employment — what was the
remedy? We should mix more brains with our work; and it
was the question of education which really lay at the root of
the whole matter. The first task to which the Government
intended to set itself was in the direction of legislation to set
right so far as they could the grievous injustice of the Act of
1902. Two aspects of it would be dealt with — the first was
that there was now money spent without public control, and
the other was that they had a great civil profession, in which of
all others it was most important that there should be an open
avenue to ability and capacity, artificially clogged by sectarian
and denominational tests. Both of those would have to be got
rid of and would be got rid of.

xxv.
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND THE LIBERAL
GOVERNMENT.
(From The Times, Jan. 13, 1906.)
[Mr. Balfour's Government resigned iti Dece7nber, 1903, and in the
Liberal Administration then formed by Sir H. Campbell-
Bannerman, Mr. Asquith took office as Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Parliament was. dissolved, and during ihe first
week of the Ge?ieral Election Mr. Asquith addressed a Liberal
meeting at Perth, on January ir, 1906.]
In his opening remarks Mr. Asquith dwelt upon the political
situation of the moment and the discredit Mr. Balfour's
Government had brought upon itself. Turning to the work
which lay before hiin as Chancellor of the Exchequer in the
new Liberal Cabinet, Mr. Asquith made the following
important declaration on the condition of the national finances
and the difficulty of retrenchment :
I see with a certain amount of apprehension and alarm in
speeches and articles glowing forecasts of what the new Chan
cellor of the Exchequer is going to do with the finances of the
country. Have you realised that during the ten years the late
Government were in power the annual normal expenditure has
increased between 40 and 50 millions sterling? Do you know
the extent of the addition they have made to the funded and
unfunded debt and the other liabilities of the State? Do you
know that you are paying 245 millions of taxation every year
into the coffers of the Exchequer more than you were seven
years ago ? That is the state of things we find confronting us,
and where is a remedy to be found ? It is all very well to talk
about the iniquities of this tax and of that ; I quite agree that
there are some very bad taxes, some that ought to be got rid
of altogether, and some that ought to be very largely reduced
in the interests of all classes. How are you going to do it when

National Economy 233
with all these additions you are only making both ends meet,
and are not paying off debt as fast as you ought ? I tell you
perfectly frankly that it is absolutely impossible to hope for
any remission of taxation of any sort or kind until you have
reduced the level of expenditure at present prevailing in this
country, and until you have made, as it is my intention and
hope that I shall make, a better and more adequate provision
for the redemption of the National Debt. It is very easy to pile
up expenditure, but when once you have raised the standard
of expenditure in your Army, Navy, Civil .Service, and other
departments of the State, it is extremely difficult to cut it down
again to the level from which you started. New interests have
been created, new expectations held out, new and expensive ser
vices have been commenced and been developed, large works
of construction are in course of erection in this place and in
that, and you cannot in a moment by a magic wand bring things
back to the condition in which they formerly were. I tell you
also that, while I believe we have in the Ministers at the head
of the *Army and tNavy two, not only of the ablest, but most
economically-minded of statesmen, who would never be pre
pared to sacrifice the real efficiency of the service of the State
for mere economy, but who, within these limits, are bent on
economy as far and as long as they can — they too must have
the time allowed them before, consistently with the maintenance
of our national strength, they can bring down the normal
expenditure upon these services to the level at which it ought
to stand.
Reverting to the Fiscal Question, Mr. Asquith spoke of the
difference of opinion between Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain,
and declared that the Liberal Government was determined to
do nothing that would raise the cost of food, diminish the re
muneration of labour, and lower the standard of living amongst
the people of this country.

* Mr. Haldane. + Lord Tweedmouth.

XXVI.
THE GENERAL ELECTION, HOME RULE, AND THE
SOCIALIST BOGEY.
(From The Times, Jan. 20, 1906.)
[At St. Andrews, on fan. 19, on behalf of the Liberal candidate in
the General ElectionZ]
Mr. ASQUITH said he was there, not in the character of the
candidate for East Fife, but to make a final appeal to the elec
tors of the St. Andrews Burghs on the eve of the polling day.
In this constituency they had the proud distinction of having
anticipated, two years ago, the verdict of the nation by recap
turing a seat held by the party of reaction.- Why should they
go back on that decision ? They had led the way, and the
country had come round to their way of thinking. Being some
what of an optimist by nature, he had always been sanguine
as to the result of this General Election ; but he confessed
that, even a week ago, when he left St. Andrews with a promise
to return that night, he could not have forecast the startling
and unexampled results they had witnessed during the last
few days.
What did it all mean, this tremendous, unprecedented, and,
to a large extent, unforeseen demonstration of national opinion
and sentiment ? He observed that Mr. Chamber-
f th ^ lain complained that there had been an
Election unnecessary and confusing multiplicity of issues.
He could not agree with this complaint. He had
been a great deal about the country in the course of this elec
tion, and wherever he had been — north, south, east, or west,
in great industrial centres, or in rural and agricultural dis
tricts — he had found everywhere the same thing. There was
one predominating and overshadowing issue at this election,
and that was the issue between protection and free trade.
There was a feeling, and a strong feeling, about Chinese
labour. There was a feeling, a bitter and 'resentful feeling
founded on a sense of injustice, about the English Education
Act. But the main issue was always and everywhere the same.

The General Election 235
A general election was not like an experiment in a laboratory.
They could not isolate an issue, place it in a vacuum, and keep
it untouched and unaffected by everything else. That was
impossible, human nature being what it was, so complex an
organism as it was. But, so far as it was possible for one
question to overshadow and cast into the background all others,
more than in any election of which he had had experience
that had been the case this time with the issue of free trade.
No, the attempts to confuse the issue had proceeded, not from
the Liberals, but from a totally different quarter.
You- remember the cry raised,. the placards printed, and the
cartoons exhibited about Home Rule ? We were assured by
u R Mr. Balfour and many others — in fact, by all the
official spokesmen and henchmen of the Tory
party — that that was going to be really the issue before the
country. You know those air balloons we sometimes see in
the hands of children. They are very graceful and pretty, and
very buoyant so long as they are not pricked, but the smallest
pin-prick destroys their utility and vitality; and this is the
case with the Home Rule balloon. The late Prime Minister
was, I see, at Inverness last night engaged, and engaged in
vain, in trying to pump a little new gas into it. It is no use.
The prick has been fatal, and all that once constituted that
airy, fairy, beautiful aerial machine now lies limp and
shrivelled upon the floor. As the Prime Minister said last
night, the notion so industriously circulated by Mr. Balfour
that there has been anything in the nature of a compact between
himself and the leader of the Irish party is pure and unadul
terated fiction. The Irish leaders understand their own business
very well, nobody better in this country; and whatever they
have done in the election they have done entirely independently
of us, and in the exercise of their own discretion and judgment ;
and, though it may seem incredible to Mr. Balfour that politi
cians should be so simple-minded, I say there has not been a
vestige of an agreement or understanding between us.
Mr. Asquith went on to say that the bogey of Home Rule
was, he saw, to be superseded by the bogey of Socialism. One
of the most remarkable features of this election
of Socialism ^ad" Deen tne return to the House of Commons
of a much larger number than ever before of
the direct representatives of Labour. He hailed their advent,
not only without apprehension, but with genuine pleasure and

236 The General Election, Home Rule,
gratification. He observed certainly that in nine cases out of
ten those who were coming to the House of Commons as Labour
members had been returned by Liberal as well as by Labour
votes, and went there as the accredited spokesmen of the com
bined Progressive party. The number of cases in which Labour
representatives succeeded in being returned in opposition to
Liberals, or without the loyal assistance of Liberals, were few
and far between. Nor was he in the least degree alarmed by
the programme they were putting forth. It was infinitely to the
advantage of the House of Commons, if it was to be a real
reflection and mirror of the national mind, that there should
be no strain of opinion honestly entertained by any substantial
body of the King's subjects which should not find there repre
sentation and speech. No student of political development
could have supposed that we should always go along in the
same old groove, one party on one side and another party on
the other side, without the intermediate ground being occupied,
as it was in every other civilised democratic country, by groups
and factions having special ideas and interests of their own.
If real and genuine and intelligent opinion was more split up
than it used to be, and if we could not now classify everybody
by the same simple process, we must accept the new conditions
and adapt our machinery to them, our party organisations, our
representative system, and the whole scheme and form of our
Government. Nothing could be more idle, futile, or incon
sistent with Liberal tradition than to shut their eyes to facts,
instead of trying to understand and make the best of them.
While he thought it was an enormous gain to the House
of Commons to have on its floor the direct spokesmen and
representatives of labour, he believed it was an
ftsEffTT*- e1ual &ain t0 the Labour party themselves to go
Labour M.Ps l^ere int0 *e veiT centre of representation and
government, to realise how complex was the
organism with which they had to deal, how deeply rooted were
its historical foundations, how interdependent all its parts — to
learn to realise all these things at first hand. He spoke as one
who had undergone the experience. While it caused them to
unlearn some of the things they originally believed, and to
drop as visionary some of the ideals with which they started in
life, it tended to enlarge the vision, and not only to inform
the mind, but to steady it by a sense of responsibility. When
the nation was told that the advent of a Labour party in the

and the Socialist Bogey 237
H^use of Commons, with a programme such as its leading
members had put forward, brought this country within measur
able or perilous distance of revolutionary change, he thought
the question might be asked — Who were the people from whose
lips proceeded this charge ? They were the lips of men who,
if the country had given them their way, would have made
by far the most revolutionary change in our system that had
ever been propounded in our time. There was not an item
put forward by these Labour colleagues in their programme
which involved so fundamental, and certainly not so disastrous,
a change in the conditions of life in this country as the return
from free trade to protection. Mr. Chamberlain consoled him
self for the disasters which had befallen his crusade by think
ing of London and Birmingham. He did not grudge him any
consolation he could find from the contemplation of these two
rematkable and peculiar exceptions to the general current and
tendency of national thought and feeling. But was it not
rather a singular thing that, with these two exceptions, every
one of the great centres of industry, on whose behalf ostensibly
this propaganda was conducted, had, with no faltering or un
certain voice, rejected it and its professors? The cotton, wool,
iron, coal, shipping, and shipbuilding — all the great industries,
including the agricultural, had rejected them. But, said Mr.
Chamberlain, London was the head and Birmingham the hands
of our industrial organism. Well, the rest of the country,
if it was neither the head nor the hands, might be said to do
the standing, breathing, walking, feeding, and digesting of this
great industrial body of ours ; and the rest of the country had
declared, with a voice the preciseness and decisiveness of which
had never been rivalled in our time, in favour of free trade.
He protested in the strongest possible way against Mr. Cham
berlain's statement that this result had been produced by what
he called a campaign of mendacity and passion.
"A Campaign what great injustice Mr. Chamberlain by this
and Passion" statement did to himself. Never since the days
of Cobden and Bright had a great public ques
tion been so laboriously and exhaustively debated before the
country as this issue of free trade. Mr. Chamberlain talked
about mendacity. That was a kind of language which he did
not much admire, and certainly would not imitate ; but he did
think that people had been very much influenced by the false
figures, and the imaginary history, and the self-contradictory

238

The General Election

arguments of Mr. Chamberlain himself. If Mr. Chamberlain
wanted to find the real explanation of the failure of his propa
ganda he had better look at home. He had never known a
more signal and more encouraging proof of the real sagacity
and the capacity for argument and decision on the part of the
great democracy than the British people had afforded in the
course of this controversy. Every argument that could be
derived from prejudice was on the other side. The campaign
was started with an amount of clever engineering and skilful
advertisement unknown outside America. Mr. Chamberlain
had, with the great mass, enjoyed a very considerable prestige
on his side. The great organs of the London Press were with
him, and when sufficient of them could not be found spon
taneously to follow him, friends were always ready to buy
them up, and start them afresh. Never was there a movement
which in its initiation promised to appeal so successfully to
the natural prepossessions and prejudices of the ordinary man.
It had been conquered, because the people had preferred to
turn from the gaudy fictions of the tariff propaganda to look
at the plain, commonplace, uncoloured facts of history and
experience. After arguing that under " most-favoured nation " agree
ments we secured more than we could possibly obtain by
retaliation, Mr. Asquith spoke of Mr. Chamber-
The Liberal Iain's ideal of a self-supporting and self-con-
Empire tained Empire. He did not want to see
a self-contained Empire. He would be glad
to see the development of all its possible resources ; but
it was not his ideal, or that of any Liberal, that the British
Empire should be surrounded by a tariff wall of exclusion,
which shut out from access to its markets all the foreign nations
of the world, and confined the benefits of trade and commercial
intercourse simply to those who acknowledged allegiance to
its own Sovereign. One of the best means of bringing nations
together in friendly and harmonious intercourse was to have
trade relations with each other. The free trade ideal was that
every country should apply itself to the growing and making
of those things in which it had most natural advantages, and
that there should be the freest possible commercial intercourse
between them. The interest of the Empire, the peace of the
world, and the advance of mankind — that was the ideal he
asked the electors always to keep before their eyes.

XXVII.
CHINESE LABOUR.
(From The Times, Feb, 24, 1906.)
[In the Commons, on an amendment to the Address moved from the
Fjront Opposition Bench censuring the Government for its
alleged failure immediately lo fulfil z'? election promises in
relation to Chinese Labour in the Transvaal, Mr. Asquith
summed up the case for the Government, February 23, 1906.]
I should feel myself very well content to leave the case pre
sented to tihe House on behalf of his 'Majesty's Government as
it was left in the most alble and admirable speech of the Under-
Secretary* of the Colonies yesterday. But as I find that some
amount of misapprehension still appears to prevail in some
quarters as to the real intentions and policy of the Govern
ment, I think it right at this stage of the debate to trespass for
a few .moments on the attention of 'the House, in order to re
state our position in language which I hope will he free from
any possibility either af ambiguity or misconstruction. I 'Shall
not re-em'bark upon, because I confess I am not much moved
by, a controversy, which seems to ime largely a verbal one, as
to whetiher the term " slavery " — a term w'hich this amendment
quite untruly declares has heen applied 'by his Majesty's Minis
ters— 4s or is not the imost accurate and appropriate descrip
tion of what has been going on in the Transvaal. As far as 1
am personally concerned, I told my constituents, both hefore
and at the time of the General Election, that I have never
applied the term in that connection, profoundly and uncon
querably opposed though I have ibeen and am to the whole of
this irmost unhappy experiment.
It is not a question of language. The noble lord opposite
* Mr. Winston Churchill.

240 Chinese Labour
made merry over the distinction between slavery and servile
conditions. Unfortunately in 'this world you cannot classify
everything into two categories — it would he .much more con
venient if you could — the one black and the other white. Has
the noble lord ever heard, in the course of his researches into
South African history, of the Convention of 1881, under which
we established our relations with the South African Republic,
to whidh we had then Tegranted its independence ? If he has
forgotten them, let me remind him of the words of one of the
articles: — "No slavery, or apprenticeship partaking of the
nature of slavery, will 'be tolerated in the Transvaal State."
That language was repeated again in the Convention of 1884; ,
and I ask here once more a question which I remember I put
from the opposite bench in the earliest debate which we had on
this subject. Supposing under the regime of Mr. Kruger this
system of Chinese labour, carried on under the conditions pre
scribed and sanctioned by this Ordinance, had been sanctioned,
do you suppose that Lord Milner or the right hon. gentleman
who was then Secretary for the Colonies would not have been
forced to remonstrate with him on the ground that, whether
slavery or not, " a system of apprenticeship partaking of the
nature of slavery " had in violation of his obligations been intro
duced into South Africa? The noble lord is very particular
about the use of language ; let me put him a question in turn.
Would he describe this as free labour ?
EarrPERCY.— Yes.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.— He would.
Then I venture to think that his courage is better than his
English, or else — for this is another possible explanation — that
he undeirstands the term " freedom " in a sense totally different
from that in which it is understood by the bulk of his fellow-
countrymen. But, sir, as I have said, this is not a question of
language, hut a question of substance ; and what we are con
cerned with is not by what particular epithet the state of things
established under the Ordinance can be most
f th accurately described, but whether it can be
Matter defended as it stands, and upon its imerits, and
if not, what is the best means of setting it right.
Now, it is surprising to find that the great movement of public
opinion and public feeling, the reality and volume of which
no one who has been through the recent election oan dispute, is
still attributed, toy .some hon. gentlemen opposite at any rate,

Chinese Labour 241
ither to a manipulated agitation in which credulity and men
dacity are supposed to have played equal parts, or to ignorance
and to false sentiment. Now I am not going into the question
at\length, but I should like to put .he case in the coldest and
balilest possible way in which it strikes the average Englishman.
What was it that you did when you established this Ordinance ?
Into \ a oountry which has, Heaven knows, already had more
than its share of racial problems and difficulties, you intro
duced, in haste and without any adequate ascertainment of
the authentic opinion of the people, the memibers of yet another
race. And how were they ito come there ? They weTe to come
there not as inhabitants, not, I might almost say, even as in
mates of -the country. They were to come there as the tempo
rary instruments af this industrial development, segregated
from the rest of the community, not allowed to possess any
domestic life of 'their own, cut off from the social and the other
interests of their neighbours, without hope — 'Whatever ingenuity,
diligence, enterprise, and 'character any man among them
might contribute to .the work dn which he was engaged — with
out hope of eveT becoming the owner of property, or, in the
country which he was enriching, finding a permanent home,
and wiith fhe prospect, when their indentures came to an end
and ithey had served their purpose, of toeing compulsorily sent
back to the place from which they came. Now, is there any
feature in that picture which is either false or exaggerated ? I
believe there is none, and so were we not justified — we who in
the beginning opposed fhe whole of this experiment and op
posed it strenuously throughout, and who mean to bring it to
an end — were we not justified in pointing out from the first
that, however honestly and however humanely it might be con
ducted, it was inevitably accompanied by the gravest risks of
abuse ?
There were risks in two distinct directions. First of all dn
the process of 'recruitment — for however carefully that process
was conducted, how could you discriminate dn
The Recruiting a rough-and-ready manner between good and
of the Chinese '^a<^ 'characters, and still more, how could you
ensure that the bulk of these men would really
understand the nature of the work in w'hich they were to be
engaged and the conditions under which it was to be carried
on ? And next as regards their (methods of treatment and the
like after they were landed and housed together in these com-

242 Chinese Labour
pounds. I bring no charge — I believe none of my hon. friends
does — of callousness or of cruelty against the general body of
our fellow-subjects in the Transvaal, whether they be our own
kith and kin or from whatever race or tribe or country they
derive their origin. I have always thought myself that a man
might engage in the industry of gold mining perfectly legiti
mately — from the point of view of the Chancellor of the Ex
chequer most usefully and indispensably — and might engage
in that industry without leaving behind him either his heart
or his conscience. But what we have said is this. A system
of this kind, whatever be the good faith and the feelings of
humanity with which it was intended to be worked, was
inevitably subject to the gravest possible dangers and abuses.
I am not going again into the questions which have been
much touched upon in these debates of illegal punishments,
_ . which it is now admitted — unknown, I hope, to
the authorities in the Transvaal, unknown cer
tainly to the Secretary of State in this country — were prac
tised in several of these mines. But I was very much struck by a
passage I saw in one of the despatches, in a letter from a mine
manager in whose mine some of these practices had prevailed.
He said : — "I have got here unconvicted criminals, not a few
of them professional assassins, in a shipload from China to
take part in the exploitation of gold in the Transvaal." He
certainly was in a very difficult position, and I am not sure
myself, if imaginatively one can try to put oneself into the posi
tion of a man sutojeoted to these punishments — I do not sup
pose the Chinaman, to do him justice, felt any grievous sense
of outrage. But there you see the radical vice of the whole
thing. If you import in this way, wholesale for these purposes .
and under these conditions, alien labour, you import with it the
danger, the probability, I will say the certainty, of 'barbaric
punishments which are aibhorrent to the traditions and the
convictions of 'the British people.
That was the state of 'things — I do not think I am 'exaggerat
ing— with which the present Government found themselves
The confronted when they came into office. What
Government's were they to do ? It is quite clear, I think, to
Course of anybody of reasonable intelligence and experi
ence that they could not simply take a wet
sponge and wipe the whole thing in a moment off the slate. I
remember that when the veTy first debate we had on this sub-

Chinese Labour 243
jeot took place, now three years ago, an amendment to the
Address was moved by my hon. friend the Under-Secretary
for Home Affairs, a very wise amendment, in which he asked
-he\ then House of Commons to say that this experiment
should not be tried until the people of the Transvaal had had
an opportunity of pronouncing their opinions upon it. I re
member pointing out on that occasion that the worst of taking a
step of this 'kind was that once you had taken it in a large
measure and for a long time to come it must be irretraceable.
And so I 'believe 'there is no one Who thinks, or has ever en
couraged the country to think at the time of the election, that
these coolies could be compulsorily deported en masse. Well,
who has?
Earl PERCY. — The hon. member for Salford, who spoke
last night, said that he gave a pledge to his constituents to that
effect. The . CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.^Well, of
course, I cannot charge myself on the point, not having been
present when my hon. friend spoke ; but I can say for myself,
havimg toeen almost as much as any member through the
length and breadth of the country at the time of the election,
and having spoken on platform after platform with many of
my hon. friends, that I never heard- a suggestion or the
faintest shadow of a suggestion that it would be possible at
once en masse to deport these coolies. He who says that we,
the Liberal party, deceived the electors into that belief re
quires to substantiate his words. I wonder whether hon.
gentlemen who gave that faint cheer a few moments ago have
ever read the history of the dealings of this country and this
Parliament with West Indian slavery. That
fh C'ent'was admitted slavery. There was no question
West Indies or dispute about it in any quarter. And what
happened ? When the great Reformed Parlia
ment met after the Act of 1832 one of the first tasks to which at
addressed itself was the emancipation of the slaves in the West
Indies. I suppose you would agree that Mr. Stanley, after
wards Lord Derby, Mr. Wilberforce, and Mr. Buxton were per
haps as keen and as concerned in their abhorrence of slavery
and in their desire to put an end to it as even the framers of
this amendment. Well, what was the legislation of that Par
liament, fhe carefully considered legislation of men who were
as keenly desirous as any man on these benches that any re-

244 Chinese Labour
proaich of 'this sort should toe removed ? They enacted that for
a period of seven years these slaves, released in name at any
rate from the status of slavery, were to continue as compulsoTy
apprentices to their masters, giving three-fourths of their time
and labour to their service ; so anxious, and rightly anxious,
were they that when an institution of this kind, good or bad,
has become mixed up with the whole social and industrial life
of the community, you should not in your anxiety and legiti
mate eagerness to put an end to it at the earliest possible
moment inflict unmerited and unnecessary suffering on those
who were affected by it. The great precedent in our history
in dealing with such a .matter is impossible here, and I dis
miss it at once.
Does any one suppose for a moment that in pursuance of
our pledges we are bound to at once open the doors of all these
compounds in South Africa and let every Chinaman loose over
the Rand ? No, nobody seems to think that. If we had done
•that we 'should have been rightly accused of establishing a
reign of terror. But such aotion has never been promised or
even hinted at by any responsible spokesman of the Liberal
party. As practical men, anxious to remove the dangers, and
at the same time anxious not to plunge a great community into
industrial and social chaos, what are we to do ?
For convenience I will divide the policy that we have ari-
nounced into 'two heads. First of all, I will state what we
propose to do before responsible government is
Licences fully granted and while we ourselves remain
directly responsible for the administration of the
Transvaal. Next, I will state what we propose to do if, and
when, 'responsible government is granted. As regards the first
period, I do not think there is any misunderstanding in any
quarter of the House as to what the policy of the Government
is. In the first place, no new licences are to be issued. At
this point I will not go into the question of those 16,000 licences
so mysteriously applied for just at the very moment when the
then Seoretary for the Colonies was suggesting to the repre
sentative of the King in South Africa that it was desirable the
importations should voluntarily cease. We have decided that
no new licence shall be issued for the importation of a single
coolie. In the next place, we are going to carry out those
amendments in regard to the regulations in the Ordinance so
clearly indicated by the Under-Secretary for the Colonies last

Chinese Labour 245

night — amendments which will remove some of the more
flagrantly noxious elements in the system. In the third place,
so anxious are we that while our responsibility lasts it shall
not be possible fox any one to say that a single coolie is being
kept in South Africa against his will, we are prepared to find,
from Imperial funds if necessary, the money to enable the
coolie to pay the cost of his passage out and back so as to free
himself from a contract which was not what he expected. How
can any one estimate the cost at present ? When I know I will
tell the hon. member. There is nobody in this House so
anxious as I ami to save every halfpenny of money for the
State ; tout I feel that, inasmuch as the responsibility for this
Ordinance rests, not upon the Transvaal, who were never con
sulted about it, but upon the Imperial Parliament and the
Imperial Government, whatever expenditure is necessary for
the purpose of removing this taint of compulsion from these
coolies ought to be met, not out of Colonial, but out of
Imperial funds.
Now I come to what is to happen when responsible govern
ment is granted. When the Transvaal receives responsible
government it is our intention that it should
X e ., have responsible government in the fullest and
Final Decision 'most complete sense of the term. Therefore it
will be left to them to say whether or not' they
care to retain Chinese labour in South Africa. Do not let the
House misunderstand me. It will be for the colonists them
selves to determine whetiher or not they will allow yellow .men
to go on labouring in their midst, either in the mines, on farms,
or exercising any trade in any way. That is a matter which
is a purely economic question, and every self-governing British
colony is perfectly entitled to say whether it will have yellow
labour. If .the colonists should say, " We will not have yellow
men here," why should the Imperial Government interfere ? It
is purely a matter for them and for nobody outside. The
Transvaal Legislature must, however, have the fullest and
most complete power of expressing a free and unfettered judg
ment. But supposing they should come to the conclusion that
they will allow Chinese labourers within the colony, then arises
the question what are to be the conditions. A question was
asked of the Under-Secretary for the Colonies yesterday as to
what is called "re-enlistment." The answer he gave was: —
" The earliest contracts will not expire before May, 1907, by

246

Chinese Labour

which date the Transvaial will have become a self-governing
colony. In these circumstances his Majesty's Government,
while reserving to themselves entire freedom of action upon the
general question of the conditions under which Chinese labour
is carried on, do not propose to cancel the provision of the
Ordinance referred to." That answer is perfectly consistent
with What I am going to say. We think that the new Trans
vaal Government should, in the first instance, have an oppor
tunity of submitting its proposals upon this subject ; and for
that purpose it is essential that it should not inherit from the
state of things which now exists the present Ordinance. If they
did inherit this Ordinance, it would be part of the law of the
land ; and therefore, unless something were done to annul it
or repeal it or amend it, all its powers would be in force,
including this power of " re-enlisting " or detaining under the
conditions of that Ordinance the coolies now out 'there. We
do not think that would toe right. I am not now 'indicating
what should be the precise legal proceeding adopted. I could
indicate three or four ways, tout I do not wish at this moment
to commit the Government to any definite method. I am only
saying what the Government mean to do and what the country
will carry out by one way or the other. That is, to secure
that the new Legislature of the Transvaal, unembarrassed and
unfettered by this Ordinance, shall by its own action submit
a scheme for the future dealing with Chinese labour in that
colony. But that is not all. This is a matter in which the credit
and responsibility of the Imperial Parliament are concerned,
. . . and therefore I go a step further. I say on be-
Responsibility ^a^ °^ *"s Majesty's "Government that, while we
should not think it desirable, but, on the con
trary, we should think it impolitic, and in some respects dis
respectful, to insert in the Constitution foT the new colony any
disabling condition which would even seem to suggest that we
expected a decision contrary to what we ourselves believe to be
right and just, yet, by the power which is reserved under the
Constitution of every self-governing colony to submit all legis
lation of that colony, in such cases as the Governor thinks fit,
to the Royal Assent, we should have the right, and we should
exercise it, of dealing with this legislation. What is more, I
think we should make if part of the instruction to the Governor
of the new colony that any measure dealing with labour of this

Chinese Labour 247
kind should be expressly reserved for the consideration and
assent of the Imperial Government. I will fortify myself by
reading a short passage — I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite
will listen to it with great respect — from the despatch of Mt.
Lyttelton to Sir Arthur Lawley, transmitting the letters patent
of the Order in Council providing for the constitutional
changes in the Transvaal, dated March 31 last year. Mr.
Lyttelton, in that despatch, uses these words: — "His Majesty's
Governmenf have been unable, having regard to fhe terms of
peace signed in 1902, to make provision for the representation
of any of his Majesty's coloured subjects. As a protection,
however, of the interests of those sections of the population
which are not directly represented in the Legislature, the
Governor will, as now, toe required by his instructions to re
serve any Bill whereby persons not of European birth or
descent may be subjected to any disability or restriction to
which persons of European birth are not also subjected."
Similar instructions, fhe House may be sure, will be given to
the Governor by his Majesty's present Government.
So, how does fhe matter stand ? The Transvaal Government
have absolute power to determine the economic question
. whether they will have Chinamen labouring in
Summec^Up" the coun'try- Not inheriting the Ordinance,
•they will be required, if they so determine, to
frame legislation as to the conditions under which such labour
should be carried on. That legislation will, not only by the
inherent power invested in the Crown in the case of a colonial
Constitution, but by express instructions given to the Governor,
be reserved for the consideration of his Majesty's Government.
Let me add that, though I do not anticipate any such contin
gency arising, yet if such a contingency did arise, so long as
we on this 'bench are responsible for the conduct of affairs, any
legislation corresponding to that of this Ordinance and incon
sistent with our best British traditions would unquestionably be
vetoed. The right hon. and hon. gentlemen opposite have been so
long out of Opposition that perhaps it would not be fair to criti
cise with severity their first attempt after so many years to draw
up an amendment. Otherwise I should say it was a singularly
clumsy production. In vain is the net spread in the sight of so
many clear-sighted toirds. I feel perfectly confident, after the
statement which my hon.. friend made yesterday, and which I
have endeavoured to supplement and amplify to-day, that this

248 Chinese Labour
House of Commons by an overwhelming majority will declare
to-day when the division comes that it was the duty of his
Majesty's Government to do everything in their power, in view
of the assurance which they and their supporters had given to
the country, to set this matter right. The steps which they
have taken both as regards the immediate and more remote
future are the only steps which could be really effectual for the
purpose without inflicting grievous and unnecessary hardship
on innocent persons and the interests of a great and loyal
community.

XXVIII.
THE TRADES DISPUTES BILL.
(From The Times, Aug. 4, 1906.)
[In the Commons, August 3, 1906Z]
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Asquith)
said the right hon. gentleman had made a very temperate and
moderate speech, and he thought he might fairly grant to him
that he had not taken undue advantage of the Parliamentary
situation, tempting as it undoubtedly was in some respects. But
since the right hon. gentleman had referred to him, and because
he had for many years past taken a very great interest in the
affairs of trade unions, he would say a few words.
How did the. problem become a pressing one ? Everybody
believed that some legislation was required to give trade unions
certain advantages. During something like
p0<hl 6 thirty years they would not find a case in which
Arose any Court of law had enforced, as against the
funds of a trade union, liability for acts done
in contemplation or furtherance of, or incident to, a trade dis
pute, and that state of the law was not only universally
understood, but, so far as he knew, was universally acquiesced
in both by masters and men, and nobody had succeeded in
showing that there was any detriment to the community at
large. Then came the Taff Vale decision, and that decision
was preceded and accompanied by another series of decisions
in the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal. The applica
tion of the common law of agency to minor and subordinate
agents of the trade unions, coupled with the entirely novel
principle that the funds of the unions were liable to be taken
into execution for their acts produced a situation which it was
necessary for statesmen to face.

250 The Trades Disputes Bill
Then the question arose, What was the best way of bringing
the law back into harmony with what every one understood
,. „ . ,. it to have been so long without injury to any
Its Solution . , „ ,, , . ., ° ., 1 _ j
party ? He thought that the simplest and most
practical way of dealing with the matter was to alter the law
of agency in its application to trade unions. He was not
sure that he did not still think that that would have been the
preferable course. There was another plan suggested — the
plan embodied in the alternative clause of the Attorney-General
— which was to exempt the trade unions from liability even in
cases where agency was established. He would never assent
himself to a proposition of that kind, unless the same law was
applied to the masters as to the men. He never had been and
never would be in favour of legislation which would give one
set of persons in an industrial dispute an advantage over the
other, which would tie the hands of one side and leave the
hands of the other side free. Therefore, he could only assent
to an arrangement which established perfect equality as be
tween the combinations of masters and the combinations of
men, and his objection in principle on this point was met by
the alternative clause of his hon. and learned friend the
Attorney-General. As he had said, he thought the balance of
practical convenience would have been met by the adoption
of the course which he had originally suggested. But he had
to bear in mind two very important facts. The first was that
the solution in the alternative clause commended itself to the
vast majority of those concerned. That was not a decisive
consideration ; but it was one that was not without weight.
But a more important point was that upon the whole he had
come to the conclusion— gradually he admitted— that there
was less risk of actual legislation on disputed questions going
to the Courts of law, passing from one stage of appeal to
another, and involving loss of temper, money, and time, by
adopting the perfectly simple and common-sense method em
bodied in the alternative clause, than if they were to lay down
in regard to industrial combinations a new code of the law of
Mr. Balfour's ^^cy. The leader of the Opposition admitted
Admission that if tney looked at the past conduct of the
trade unions, at the nature of their present
operations and at the character, objects, and methods of their
leaders there was no real and practical danger of power of
this kind being abused. For his part, he said-not for the first

The Trades Disputes Bill 251
time and certainly not with any intention of flattering the trade
unions, but simply for the sake of historical accuracy and
justice — that the operations of. those great combinations, since
they had been freed by the law which previously held them
in restraint, had been in the direction, not of industrial warfare,
but of industrial peace. He said the same of the combination
of employers. There was no doubt that the recognition by
the law of combination, and the operation of the work of
combination, in industrial matters, instead of embittering,
would reconcile the relations of all parties concerned. If, as
the leader of the Opposition admitted, there was nothing in the
present conduct of the trade unions to lead to an anticipation
that they were likely to depart from the path of moderation
they had so long pursued, why should the right hon. gentleman
frighten them with imaginary dangers of the remote future?
It was because he believed it was the duty of Parliament to do
everything in its power to place in a position of perfect freedom
both employers and employed — freedom of combination and
freedom of action within those well-understood and almost
traditional limits of moderation which had always prevailed in
industrial conflicts — that he should support the new clause.

XXIX.
LIBERALISM AND SOCIALISM.
(From The Times, Oct. 15, 1906.)
[Addressing his constituents at Ladybank, October 73, 1906, Mr.
Asquith, after dealing with political affairs of the moment and
the work ofthe last Session, passed to the following criticism of
Socialism in its relation to LiberalismZ]
To interpret the result of the late General Election as if
it had meant the acceptance by the electors of this country,
or even by any considerable section of the electors, of what
was called Socialism would be altogether to misrepresent its
• meaning. The number of avowed Socialists in the present
House of Commons was extremely small. The great bulk
of those who were called Labour members obtained their seats,
as they frequently and loyally acknowledged, by the combined
support of all the progressive forces in their constituencies. If
by Socialism was meant the extinction of private property, the
complete subordination for economical and social purposes of
the individual to the collective will, the creation of a form of
social organisation in which, as had been well said, every one
would be not a citizen in a free State but an official in. a
hierarchy, then he ventured to say there was no community
in the world where Socialism had, in the long run, a worse
chance of ultimate success than here, because there was none
in which it ran in more direct hostility to the instincts, tradi
tions, genius, and necessities of the people. He had not the
least fear of it, nor did he see any tendency amongst the great
mass of the people in that direction.
But at the same time, he pointed out that what was called
" individualism," in the extreme sense of the term, had been by
general consent repudiated by the people of this country.
After a sketch of the rise of industries from the domestic
to the organised system and a description of the evil results
which followed from unregulated factories, Mr. Asquith turned
to the legislation which the State had to enact in order to

Liberalism and Socialism 253
enforce the supreme and overriding law of social safety. No
one could assert, he said, that the process had come to an end
and the time arrived for the community to relapse into the
old attitude of indifference and impartial neutrality. So long
as we had forced upon us the problems connected with over
crowding, intemperance, defective nutrition, and the training of
the young and the unmerited indigence and dependence of the
old there was work which the State, and nobody but the State,
„ . .. could effectively supervise. He was all
"Woolgathering" against wasting time and energy in going
woolgathering with the Socialists. We
could not equalise men's fortunes and men's positions any more
than we could equalise their height or their weight. All the
more reason that we should do whatever the organised power
of the community could do to secure at least for every one
an average level of opportunity, and if not neutralise, at least
mitigate, the evils and injustice for which neither freedom
nor order provided a remedy. They believed that in this
matter Liberalism and the Liberal party had a special mission.
Just as in another sphere, the Liberal conception of Empire
came to this, that by giving the fullest freedom and power
of self-development to every member of the Empire they
best secured the coherence, unity, and mutual loyalty of the
whole, so as regarded these social problems at home, while
they were prepared to do nothing to uproot or undermine pri
vate ownership, individual initiative, and the freest possible
field for brain, character, ane} enterprise, yet they were re
solved to reconcile with these things laws and institutions
that sought, as their governing aim and purpose, to co-ordinate
the good of each with the good of all.

xxx.
WOMAN'S SUFFRAGE.
(From The Times, Oct. 15, 1906.)
[At Ladybank, October 13, 1906. In reply to a deputation of
ladies, resident in his constituency, soliciting his support to
their claim upon the Government for the grant of the franchise .
to women.]
Mr. ASQUITH, in reply, said that when he was informed
that some of the ladies of East Fife — wives and daughters of
his own constituents — were anxious to lay their views on this
subject before him, he did not hesitate for a moment to select
the earliest opportunity of seeing them and hearing what they
had to say. He was bound to say that, if the case for woman
suffrage were presented always, or even usually, in the same
persuasively admirable manner in which it had been presented
by the lady who had just addressed him, he believed more
converts would be won than, perhaps, some missionaries who
were at present on the war-path were ever likely to secure.
He wanted to speak quite frankly to them. Let him, in the
first place, say something which might inflict upon them a
His Lack of surprise, if not a disappointment. It was that
Personal this question of woman suffrage was one in
Interest in which for a considerable time past he had not
the Question takell; an(j in which he did not now take, a very
strong personal interest. The notion that he spent his time,
or any part of his time, in endeavouring to counteract and
frustrate the purposes of more enlightened and enthusiastic
colleagues who were panting for the earliest opportunity for
conferring the suffrage upon women — that notion, he assured
them, was a picturesque myth. It had hardly got any founda
tion in history or in fact. What the opinions of his colleagues
were, with one or two exceptions, he had only the vaguest idea.
For himself, to the best of his recollection, unless it might
have been in answer to some passing mention, he had not
opened his lips on the subject during the last fourteen years ;

Woman's Suffrage 255
and that was a very long spell in the life of a politician to
keep silence about anything. They might say that was a
strange, blamable attitude. The reason was that he had long
been of opinion that the probable results, whether for good
or for evil, of the political enfranchisement of women were
much exaggerated toy almost all the supporters, and by very
many opponents, of the proposal.
At the same time, he should not be dealing frankly with
them if he did not say that he still retained the opinion that,
The Balance on tne whole, the balance of argument was
of Argument against the change. There were two things, just
Against the by way of illustration, which he would submit
alm for their consideration and the consideration of
those who, like themselves, were working for the spread of this
movement. The first was this — What was the evidence that the
change was desired by a majority of women themselves ? He
had yet seen no satisfactory evidence on that point ; and he
did not know that such evidence was procurable. He assured
them that that had been a serious hindrance ; for this was,
after all, a very great constitutional change, and there was
no case in our history in which a constitutional change of this
kind had been effected without the clearest possible proof that
it was desired, and indeed demanded, by the vast majority
of those in whose interests it was made. The other point which
he wanted them to bear in mind was this Better that no addi
tion should be made to the opportunities for ventilating and,
perhaps, remedying special grievances or special interests of
particular classes of women than that they should be dearly
purchased in the interest of the sex and of the community at
large, if at the same time* they might have to pay as their
price for suffrage — and he was very much afraid they would
have to pay it — the putting in jeopardy of the status, the posi
tion, the real authority, the unique influence of women as a
whole in the community. They might be sure that any change
of this kind would not commend itself to the general opinion
and the intelligence of the nation unless they could satisfy
it that they could carry it through without permanent injury
to the best interests of women themselves. In the meantime,
he could assure them he should be very happy to give full
consideration to all that they had said.
Let him add one other thing, for there had been a great
deal of misapprehension about it. There was a Plural Voting

256 Woman's Suffrage

Bill now before Parliament. It was a Bill of which he himself
had charge. He saw there was a notion that it would be pos
sible to engraft in this Plural Voting Bill, in some form or
other, a clause for the enfranchisement of women. He could
assure them, if the Liberal Government were almost unanimous
in their desire to do so, it was a Parliamentary impossibility.
It might seem a strange thing, but under the rules of procedure
they could no more engraft a woman suffrage clause upon
the Plural Voting Bill than upon the Education Bill or the
Trade Disputes Bill. It was outside the title and not germane
to the scope of the Bill ; and, so long as the rules remained
what they were, he was pretty confident that anybody who had
to decide that matter would rule it out of order at once. If
woman suffrage was to be brought forward in this Parliament,
it would have to be brought forward in a separate Bill and on
its own merits. It could not be introduced in the way of an
amendment with other legislation which dealt with a different
purpose. He told them that so that they could not blame even
their own friends if they found themselves unable, as they
certainly would, to engraft this change which they desired upon
the Bill which was now before Parliament.
Mrs. MILL asked if the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when
a measure favourable for extending the franchise to women
was brought forward, would at least withdraw his opposition.
Mr. ASQUITH. — Not as at present advised. I tell you, like
everybody else, I am open to reasonable argument ; but as at
present advised I can certainly give no such promise. Mr.
Asquith added that he was quite willing to hear replies to his
views in the form of correspondence.
A member of the deputation. — There is no hope for the
women ?
Mr. ASQUITH. — The women must work out their own salva
tion. Mrs. MILL. — Just as we expected.
The deputation then withdrew.

XXXI.
THE BUDGET, 1907— THE INSTITUTION OF THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN EARNED AND UN
EARNED INCOMES.
(From The Times, April 19, 1907.)
[In the Commons, April 18, 1907, Mr. Asquith, as Chancellor of
the Exchequer, introduced his second Budget. His speech
occupied more than two hours in deliiiery, and the part leading
up to the distinctive feature of the Budget proposals — differentia
tion in the levying of income-tax on earned and unearned
incomes — is consequently summarised here.
He announced a realised surplus of £3,399,000. The estimated
revenue for 1907-8 on the basis of existing taxation would be
£144,190,000, while the estimated expenditure would be
£140,737,000, showing an estimated surplus of £3,433,000.
From this, however, the grant of £200,000 for necessitous school
areas must be deducted, so that the available surplus would be
£3,233,000. He explained very fully what he had done in the
course of the past year to reduce the capital liabilities of the
nation. The total reduction effected in the capital liabilities
of the nation last year and this would amount to £23,223,000.
He then outlined .he financial policy of the Government for the
next few years. We had arrived at a point when we could
no longer afford to drift, treating each year's finance as self-
contained. Henceforth a Chancellor of the Exchequer ought
to budget for several years, not for one year only. The first
duty of Parliament was to reinstate and to improve the
national credit. Another duty which the Government could
not disregard was that of furthering social reform. There

258 The Budget, 1907
were two figures in our modern community whose appeal for
assistance was irresistible. He referred to the child for whom
the parent did little, if anything, fn 1906-7 it had cost ihe
State altogether more than £23,000,000 to educate these
children, and yet no otie was prepared to recede from that
enormous liability. Another class that appealed to the
conscience of society consisted of the me?i and women who after
a life of ill-requited toil found themselves confronted in old age
with the prospect of physical want and the sacrifice of social
status. It was the intention of the Government to deal with
it before, the close of next Session.
Turning to the uses to which he proposed to put his estimated
surplus, he gave reasons for not reducing the tea duty or the
sugar duty. He proposed to sweep away root and branch the
system under which the proceeds of Imperial taxation were
intercepted and handed over to local authorities. Local
authorities, as fro?n April 1 7iext, would receive out of the
Consolidated Fund a7nou7its equivalent to those which they
were entitled to receive wider the prese7it law. Mr. Asquith
then came to the cardinal feature of his Budget — the Income-
Taxi]
Now I come to more thorny ground. I have said that I do
not propose in any way to alter indirect taxation ; but I do pro-
pose to deal with the income-tax. The income-
Income-Tax tax' as 'l *s one 0^ t^le most productive, so it is
one of the most delicate parts of our fiscal
machinery. There is nothing like it to be found anywhere else
in the world. It produced this year something like ^32,000,000
to the Exchequer, and the largest part of that sum, no less than
two-thirds of the whole, through the operation of our system of
deduction at the source, is collected, without difficulty or fric
tion, without any necessity fox the taxpayer to draw a cheque
or even open his purse, and almost without his being .made
conscious that he is being taxed at all — I said almost. As
regards the remainder, one-third of the whole, the process of
ascertaining and getting in what is due with ease and expedi
tion depends upon a certain amount, at any rate, of co-opera
tion — it is not expected to be very cordial — between the taxing
authority and the person assessed, and still more upon the har
monious interaction of the central and localised parts of the
machine. Now there is nothing in the world easier, I know it

Earned and Unearned Incomes 259
because I have tried the experiment, than to sit down at a
taible and draw up on a piece of paper an ideally perfect scheme
of income-tax, logically graduated from the top to the bottom,
safeguarded by an elaborate machinery of inquisition, and
detection, and punishment, all administered by the pitiless and
impartial hands of a perfectly dispassionate central authority.
Nothing is so easy on paper ; but when you are brought into
contact, as I am almost daily, with the actual administrative
problem, you find you have to content yourself with something
very muph less ambitious. And if the reform I am about to
propose falls short, as I am afraid it will, of some people's
expectation, it is governed and limited by severely practical
considerations. The income-tax is really a two-fold tax, it is a tax on pro
perty and a tax on earnings. I start with this proposition,- and
a most important proposition it is, that -it must
Two-fold now jje regarded as an integral and permanent
Income-Tax Part °^ our nnancial system. If that proposi
tion is once enunciated and admitted, it makes
it impossible to justify, if there be any practical way of escape,
the present incidence of the income-tax. After you have
reached the limit of abatement, which is now £700, the State
taxes all incomes at the same rate, whatever may be their
character or source. Just compare two cases. You have here
A, a man who derives, we will say, a thousand a year from a
perfectly safe investment in the funds, perhaps accumulated
and left to him by his father; on the other hand you have B,
a man making the same nominal sum by personal labour in
the pursuit of some arduous and perhaps precarious profession
or some form of business. The one is under no necessity to
make provision either for his children or for old age — the
income will go on being automatically received as long as
the investment remains ; the other, if a man of ordinary pru
dence, is bound, his work being carried on subject to risks
to health and all the other vicissitudes of fortune, year by
year to deduct from his nominal income and set aside a suffi
cient sum to make provision for contingencies in the future.
To say that those two people are, from the point of view of the
State, to be taxed in the same way is, to my mind, flying in
the face of justice and common sense. That is a feature of the
tax which has never been justified by any of the great men, Mr.
Pitt, Sir Robert Peel. Mr. Gladstone, and the others who have

260 The Budget, 1907
been concerned in its introduction and development; it has
always been palliated on the ground either that the income-tax
was a mere temporary expedient, or on the ground that it was
impossible to make the distinction without destroying its pro
ductiveness, which is the! same thing as saying that it ought
not to be more than a temporary expedient. For a tax whose
effective continuance involves the annual perpetration of a
gross injustice is a tax which ought to be reserved, at any rate,
for great and pressing emergencies.
Let me very briefly review the history of the tax. The income-
tax was introduced by Mr. Pitt in 1798, in almost the darkest
The History hour in our greatstruggle with France. It was
of the Tax avowedly a temporary tax put on for the pur
poses of war. Our ancestors, when they did
these things, did not do them by halves, and the tax was 2s.
in the pound. Incomes of ^60 and under were exempt, and
UP t° £2°° there was a differential rate proceeding by steps.
That tax was reintroduced, after a year of peace, in 1802-1803,
by Mr. Addington, at the lower rate of is. In 1806, war still
continuing, it was raised by Lord Henry Petty, the Whig Chan
cellor of the Exchequer, to 2s. ; and he for the first time intro
duced a distinction, since dropped, between earned and un
earned incomes by providing— and this was the state of things
that prevailed from 1806 to 1816— that, as regards abatements,
only earned incomes should be entitled to them. In 1816 the
tax came to an end, and, although Lord Liverpool's Govern
ment attempted to continue it, they were, by a large majority
of this House, defeated in their attempt; and I think it was
Mr. Brougham who moved that all the records of the tax should
be burnt or destroyed, in order that posterity should never
know that such a tax had existed. That was the early history
of the tax. It was revived in 1842 by .Sir Robert Peel, not as a
war tax, but again as a temporary expedient, only for a period
of three years, to enable him to effect a reconstruction of the
tariff. Mr. Gladstone never liked the income-tax; as a member of
Sir Robert Peel's Government he opposed its introduction;
Mr Gladstone's during the whole of his life he was anxious to
Dislike of the See "S §Tadual extinction ; and on a celebrated
Income-Tax historic occasion he invited the country to agree
with him in abolishing it altogether. In his
picturesque language, speaking of Sir Robert Peel's revival

Earned and Unearned Incomes 261
of the tax in 1842, he spoke of calling forth from its repose this
giant, which had once shielded us in war, to come to assist our
industrious toils in peace. The industrious toils were assisted
to this extent, the tax was imposed by Sir Robert Peel at the
comparatively moderate rate of 7d. in the pound ; but he raised
the limit of total exemption to ,£150, and above that everybody
was taxed exactly alike. Sir Robert Peel defended it mainly
on the ground that the tax was a temporary one. It was taken
in hand again by Mr. Gladstone in 1853, who proposed that
it should continue seven years at a diminishing rate, and ex
tended it to Ireland, not altogether without consideration. He
reduced the limit of exemption to ;£ioo, but between ;£ioo and
,£150 gave abatements at a lower rate of tax. I should like to
quote two sentences from Mr. Gladstone's speech on that occa
sion. In refusing to make any differentiation between earned
and unearned incomes, he said: — "I do not at all deny that
the case of the professional man appeals to my sympathy;
in my opinion, that is one of the reasons which indicate that
the tax ought to be a temporary tax." And again he said : —
" It is not adapted to be a permanent portion of your fiscal
system unless you can by reconstruction remove its anomalies."
I found myself on that opinion.
We now recognise the tax to be a permanent part of our
system ; and, following Mr. Gladstone, I think that we must do
something to remove the anomaly and to arrive at some scheme,
without destroying the essential features or the productive
„ , . character of the tax, which differentiates in-
Scales of , ' . , . ,
Abatement comes, not only as to amount, but also as to
the source whence they are derived and the con
ditions under which they are enjoyed. I need not weary the
Committee by giving the history of the different steps by which
the present scale of abatement has been reached We all know
that in incomes up to ,£700 there is a substantial abatement ;
but it may be interesting to point out that at the present rate
of one shilling in the pound an income of ^200 pays 2jd. ;
an income of ^300, s£d. ; ,£400, 7Jd. ; ,£500, 8£d. ; ;£6oo, o£d. ;
and ,£700, iofd. What is the result ? The income-tax is not
only is. in the pound, but of the million of taxpapers, 800,000
to 850,000, or four-fifths of the whole, showing an income of
,£275,000,000, are under ,£700. This extension of the scale of
abatement has much simplified the question. Mr. Gladstone
used to say: — "Take the poor widow with ,£300 a year derived

262 The Budget, 1907
from investments, and bringing up a family; is she to be
placed in a worse position and to be taxed at a higher
rate than the small business or professional man making
,£300 a year from his business?" There is great force in
the argument. But it should be remembered that nobody
pays the whole rate unless his or her income is over
,£700 a year.
Having been impressed with these general considerations, I
last Session moved for the appointment of a Select Committee,
which sat under the presidency of my right hon.
Earned and friend the member for the Forest of Dean (Sir
Unearned c Diu e) This Committee took evidence, and
Incomes made a valuable report ; and I am sure that the
House is very much indebted to the members of the Committee
for their labours. They were unanimous, as I gather — and it
was a Committee which represented all parts and sections of the
House — in upholding the necessity of making a difference be
tween earned and unearned incomes. What is an earned
income ? It is not easy to draw a distinction, but we can but
do our best. First of all, there are the incomes of all officers
and employes paid by salary. That, I think, includes the
clergyman. Although he derives his income and pays income-
tax under Schedule A from the glebe or tithe rent-charge, his
income is really paid to him in consideration of the services
rendered by him in the performance of his clerical duties.
Second, it clearly includes every class of professional man ;
and, third, all traders whose income is substantially — and I
lay stress on the word "substantially" — derived from their own
personal labour. In the first two categories no difficulties arise
at all. The difficulty arises in the third class — how to take into
account the amount of capital a man brings into his business,
and to deal with the class of incomes which are either wholly
earned or partly earned and partly unearned means a degree
of logical precision where there will be the greatest possible
difficulty in hindering overlapping in dubious cases. I am
satisfied, however, that a much more practical way of dealing
with this branch of the question is to confine the differential
treatment to earned incomes which do not exceed ,£2,000 in
amount. The Select Committee suggested ,£3,000, but I think
that ,£2,000 is quite as far as prudence should go. I confine
the differential treatment, therefore, to persons whose total
income from all sources does not exceed ,£2,000 — not merely

Earned and Unearned Incomes 263
their earned incomes, but from all sources. In the case of a
man who is left ,£40,000 or ,£50,000 a year by his father, and
by becoming a director of companies earns another ,£1,000, I
think it is absurd to give him a preferential treatment on
the score that he is a man with an earned income. I do
not think that the principle should be carried to that
extent. First of all, therefore, the earned income in
respect of which relief is given should not exceed ,£2,000,
and, second, that the whole income from all sources does not
exceed ^2,000.
How do we carry out the differentiation ? I propose that
where these conditions are satisfied — the income-tax remaining
as a normal tax at the rate of is. — the income-
How the tax should be imposed on the earned incomes
will Work within these limits at the lower rate of gd. in
the pound, being a relief of 3d. in the pound
to this class of income-tax payer. That is to be in addition to,
and not in derogation of, all existing exemptions and abate
ments. The burden of proof will be on the individual claiming
the lower rate, and we shall provide that he must make his
claim with his return — this is a most important point — if he
is a person to whom the formal return is sent and is required
to fill it up ; if he is not, he must claim exemption and abate
ment not later than September 30 in the year. In this way we
shall avoid the enormous congestion of claims for refunds
and abatements which accumulate at the end of every year.
It is only fair to say to such a claimant, " If you want to be
rated at the lower rate you must be zealous in the matter
yourself." I propose to supplement these provisions with
another set of provisions which are very much needed, and
which carry out in the main the provisions of Lord Ritchie's
committee which sat two or three years, ago. That committee
proved that under the present system there is much evasion
and leakage. I propose to make it compulsory on every man
who receives a form — that well-known buff-coloured form — as
one of the annual incidents of the tax to make a declaration
and to send back the return, even though all his income may
be taxed. at the source. If he has no unearned income he must
say nil. At present also he is under no. penalty, because he is
under no statutory obligation to make it. I, propose to make it
compulsory in all cases that the return shall he made. In the
next place, we shall increase the penalties and extend the period

264 The Budget, 1907
of recovery in cases of evasion. In the third place we shall require
extended returns from all employers, whether private persons
or companies, requiring them to give not only the names but
the salaries of their employes. This will, of course, impose a
slight additional burden on the employers, but the precaution
will tend enormously to prevent evasion. Further, I propose
to repeal section 133 of the Act of 1842, which allows an abate
ment of duty at the end of the year of assessment where it is
found that the profits of that year fall short of the average of
the previous three years. I may add also, as the representative
of a Scottish constituency, that as the delay in the collection
-is almost entirely due to the persons directly assessed — the
persons to whom we are going to give relief — we intend that
the English machinery shall be levelled up, so that it may
with equal efficiency correspond to the admirable machinery at
work in Scotland.
In order to make the matter clear I should like to point
out how the system will work by a concrete instance. I take
the amount of income-tax payable on certain
Illustration6 incomes under the present and proposed scale.
First of all I will take an income of ,£1,500 a
year. At present, whatever may he the source of that income,
at the rate of is. in the pound it pays ,£75. Under the new
system, if the income is derived wholly from the Funds, it will
continue to pay at the rate of is. in the pound, or ^75. If,
however, it is derived wholly from a profession or a trade, it
will pay at the lower rate of gd., or ^56 5s. If, on the other
hand, it is a composite income, say ,£500 from the Funds and
,£1,000 from a profession or trade, it will pay is. on the ,£500
and gd. on the other portion, or ,£62 10s. instead of ^75. Now
as to the abatements. I will take an income of ££>oo. At
present such an income is allowed a deduction of ;£i20, so
that income-tax is paid on ^480 irrespective of the source of
income. Under the new system how will it work out ? If the
income of .£600 is derived wholly from the Funds, it will pay
,£24 ; if wholly from a profession or trade, it will pay ,£18,
at the rate of gd. per pound, coupled with an abatement ; and
if the income is made up of ^200 from the Funds and ,£400
from a profession or trade, it will pay ^20 10s., the abatement
of ,£120 being deducted from professional earnings. The effect
of this change will be a very sensible relief to that class of
income-tax payers who are grievously oppressed by the present

Earned and Unearned Incomes 265
burdens, and it will enable us, with a clear conscience and with
much greater ease and simplicity of working, to treat the
income-tax, as I intend it should be treated, as a permanent
part of pur fiscal machinery.
There was another point in connection with this question re
ferred to the committee presided over by my right hon. friend —
_ . the practicability of graduation, whether by pro-
Graduation of . i r .a. 1 . L
Income-Tax gression upwards from the normal tax by an
ascending scale for higher incomes, or by de
gression from the normal rate by a descending scale to a
lower rate. On this point there was a considerable divergence
of opinion in the committee, and I may say at once that, quite
apart from other reasons, it would not be possible for- adminis
trative reasons to introduce any change in graduation simul
taneously with the already sufficiently complicated alterations
of a differentiated tax. The machinery would break down
under the strain. I do not announce at this moment any final
opinion on the various schemes submitted to the committee.
I see, as every one conversant with the national finance must
see, enormous difficulties in the application of that principle.
It would require a compulsory declaration of income from
every one. I should like to see it very much ; but how are we
to get it? Only by giving an advantage for it. You get a
compulsory declaration now where abatements' are claimed.
Under the scheme of differentiation you will have no difficulty,
because it will be to a man's interest to make the declaration.
But the moment you come to tell a man, "You are to declare
your income, not for your benefit, but in order that you may
be taxed at a higher rate," you find yourself confronting a good
many formidable difficulties. As to the experience of foreign
countries, in my opinion there is no foreign or colonial ex
perience which is really relevant or helpful. I do not mean
because our social and economic conditions are very different.
But you will find, if you examine the various systems of so-
called graduation, that they all stop at a comparatively low
point. Most of them stop at ,£5,000. As far as I know, none
of them goes beyond ^8,000. That is just about the point
where, by compulsory declaration, we should hope to rake in
for income-tax a lot of money that we do not now receive.
But I am not now expressing a final judgment in the matter.
I am pointing out difficulties which must be present to the
minds of all who have considered the question ; and, as far as

266 The Budget, 1907
the present year is concerned, we must be content with the
reforms of differentiation.
What will be the cost ? This, I may say, is a very opportune
moment for making a change of this kind, because, as the
_, _. , Committee will observe from the estimated re-
The Cost of . . _• ¦ _•
the Change venue °f the year, we are anticipating an
increased receipt from income-tax next year of
no less than ,£goo,ooo. That is a time when we may well be
able to risk a little in the way of cost. Nothing is more re
markable in respect of the income-tax, notwithstanding the
growing abatements and the rise in the rate of charge, than the
growing produce of a penny. In the year before the war, i8g8,
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach completed the present system of abate
ments up to ,£700 ; and the income-tax then stood at 8d. in the
pound. Notwithstanding these abatements and the fact that
the tax is now at is. in the pound, the produce of each penny,
which was ,£2,284,000 in i8g8, is now ,£2,600,000 — a remarkable
proof of the elasticity of this tax. But it is very difficult to
estimate either a possible gain or a possible loss on this tax ;
though its tendency for many years has been in an upward
direction. There are, perhaps, from 800,000 to 850,000 persons
with incomes between ,£160 and ,£700 a year. There are, per
haps, 120,000 taxpayers with incomes between ,£700 and
^2,000 a year. How much of their incomes is earned and how
much unearned is largely a matter of conjecture. Therefore,
the figure I give must be taken more or less as guess-work.
But I estimate, from the best materials available, the loss
during the year from this differentiation at ,£1,250,000.
Further, during this first year there will be an additional loss,
which will not recur, owing to the delay which must neces
sarily result in getting in the tax in the early months of next
year owing to the more complicated machinery. We antici
pate that we ought, for safety's sake, to reckon that we may be
delayed to the extent of ^750,000 in the collection. That
would make a loss for the year of ,£2,000,000. But you
must set against that the fact that we shall get ,£goo,ooo
more this year, according to our estimate; and the. ,£750,000
is only a deferred payment and not an actual loss. As I
say, I do not present it to the Committee as more than
a well-founded guess ; but I hope it is an outside estimate of
the loss.
With many apologies for the long time that I am detaining

Earned and Unearned Incomes 267
the House, I approach the last chapter of my task. The very
T, substantial relief that I am giving to the income-
Duties earner necessarily suggests the question whether,
at the other end of the scale, property is contri
buting its fair proportions. As I said some time ago, I can
not, with a view to the needs of the immediate future, afford
any substantial loss of revenue, and I must add that, even if
I had not to deal with the income-tax at all, I should have felt
myself bound to invite the Committee to consider a revision of
the death duties. Whether, and how far, those duties ought to
be regarded as a sort of deferred income-tax is a controverted
economic problem on which I do not desire to enter. But, at
any rate, they are in pari materia; and, indisposed as I am,
not only to lose revenue, but to disturb the balance between
direct and indirect taxation — and, remember, I am doing
nothing directly this year for the indirect taxpayer — unwilling
as I am to disturb that balance in favour of direct taxation, I
am going unhesitatingly to ask the Committee to inquire with
me whether the greater part of what I have lost or may lose in
making the income-tax just and equitable may not be recovered
without injustice or lack of equity in another way from the
owners of property. We all remember the gloomy predictions
uttered in this House at the time the late Sir William Harcourt
imposed the death duties in 1894. We were told that they
would check the accumulation of capital and drive it out of the
country ; that people would have to shut up their country
houses and curtail the area of employment for honest and
industrious, men ; that the foreign millionaire would no longer
make England his home, or, at any rate, the place of his death.
None of these predictions has been verified by the event. It
used to be said of a great landowner in the West of England, at
the time of the repeal of the Corn Laws, that he was convinced
that he was going to be ruined, and went about saying that he
must make economies if he were to continue to live. After a
time, a friend asked him what form his economies had taken,
and he replied, "I have put down my pew." I am not at all
sure that a revision of the death duties ever had so prejudicial
an effect as that on the spiritual welfare of the upper classes.
I doubt very much whether they have at all curtailed their con
tributions to the weekly offertory. But I am satisfied, after a
great deal of investigation, that we may, without injury to pro
perty without checking the accumulation of capital, and

268 The Budget, 1907
without injustice to any human being, reconsider the scale of
duties imposed in 1904. I propose to leave the scale as it is
up to ,£150,000. The unfortunate man who is unable to leave
more than ,£150,000 will remain in exactly the same position
as he is to-day. But when the principal value of the estate
exceeds ,£150,000 and does not exceed ,£250,000, I propose that
the rate of duty shall be 7 per cent, instead of 6J per cent. ;
from ,£250,000 to ,£500,000 it shall be 8 per cent, instead
of 7 ; from ,£500,000 to ,£750,000, g per cent, instead of 7I ;
from ,£750,000 to ,£1,000,000, 10 per cent, instead of 75 ;
and when the estate exceeds ,£1,000,000, 10 per cent, on the
first million.
And here I introduce a new element, or what is called, in
another connection, a super-tax. I propose that when a man's
income exceeds a million — I do not know what
Su r-Tax we ought to do with such a man. When a
man's estate which passes at his death exceeds
,£1,000,000, but does not exceed ,£1,500,000, I propose that it
should pay 10 per cent, on the first million, and an additional
1 per cent., or n per cent, in all, upon the remainder; if the
estate exceeds ,£1,500,000, and does not exceed ,£2,000,000, it
will pay 10 per cent, on the first million and an additional 2
per cent., or 12 per cent, in all, on the amount in excess of
,£1,000,000; if it exceeds ,£2,000,000, and does not exceed
,£2,500,000, the tax will be as before, 10 per cent, on
,£1,000,000, but 13 per cent, on the balance; between
,£2,500,000 and ,£3,000,000 it will be 10 per cent, on ,£1,000,000,
with 14 per cent, on the remainder, and above ^3,000,000
everything in excess of the first million (which will still bear
10 per cent.) is to be taxed 15 per cent. There we stop. I
need not point out, what I think must be clear to the Com
mittee, that this applies not to the living, but to the dead. I
shall be asked, of course, the pertinent question — and the
answer to it will show the extreme moderation of my scheme —
What addition will this make to the revenue of the country?
Death duties in former years were very uncertain, and there
fore we must take an average. I estimate that the average
extra proceeds from the increased scale of death duties will be
,£1,200,000 a year. I ought to add that I propose that the new
scale shall apply to all estates that pass by death after to-day.
But it will be obvious to the Committee that, in consequence of
the delay in winding up estates, the new scale will only operate

Earned and Unearned Incomes 269
, \
practically for a few months of the present year. Therefore,
for the present year, I think it is wise not to anticipate a larger
receipt than j£6oo,ooo from this source ; but the ultimate annual
receipt I estimate at ,£1,200,000.
I am now able to present a balance-sheet showing how I have
dealt with the surplus up to this point. The surplus of re-
¦j-^g venue over expenditure is ,£3,233,000. If you
Balance-Sheet add t0 that the addition to the death duties of
,£600,000 you bring it up to ^3,833,000. The
cost for the year of the proposed change on the income-tax is
estimated at ,£2,000,000. This leaves a still disposable surplus
oi ^I)833.0°o- The odd figure of ^333,000 I will keep in hand
for the contingencies of the year — not an excessive amount for
the purpose. As regards the other ^1,500,000, I propose to add
it to the New Sinking Fund, making a fixed provision for the
year of ,£29,500,000. Why do I do that ? I have said I am not
going to part with revenue, and I think the arrangements I
have made are such as to show that I shall not suffer in revenue
from the Budget proposals. I cannot part with this ,£1,500,000.
I shall need the money for the future. I shall need it next
year. In the meantime I make the best investment I can by
diminishing pro tanto our national obligations. We recognise
that the income-tax is a fiscal engine with which we cannot
dispense. But we shall remove from it its greatest blot by
giving effective relief in the form of a lower rate of charge to
that class of incomes on which it presses most heavily. We
shall have made a substantial, but not, as I have shown,
an excessive addition to the toll which the State exacts from
large estates which pass at death. We shall have fulfilled to a
degree never attained, or even attempted, before on the same
scale in any single year the discharge of debt. Then in regard
to the future. There are urgent, long-delayed, and overdue
problems of social reforms ; and we shall have begun to pro
vide the nucleus of a fund for the relief of necessitous, old age.
I shall have in hand next year, free and ear.marked for the
purpose, the ,£1,500,000 to which I have just referred, together
with the uncollected arrears of this year's income-tax, amount
ing to ,£750,000, which will make a total of at least ,£2,250,000,
and an additional sum from the increased estate duties. I
count with confidence on further economies in expenditure ;
and let me add, as time goes on, nowhere with more hope than
in the department of expenditure for the relief of the poor.

270 The Budget, 1907
And if I expect economies from my colleagues I appeal for
them with still more emphasis to this House. You cannot have
_ everything at once, or everything together ; but
The Resources jf you have set your purpose, as I believe you
of Taxation , J , i \.i.- t ,. j _
Not Exhausted nave> and as we have, on this greatest and most
urgent of social reforms, you must be willing
to sacrifice, or, at any rate, to postpone, other forms of useful
and even beneficent expenditure. Nor are the resources of
taxation, within free trade, yet exhausted. I make no prophetic
estimate as to the future. There must always be in our calcu
lations a place for the unforeseeable and the unforeseen.
There are what we call accidents, shiftings, mutations, and
vicissitudes of fortune, rfrom which States are no more exempt
than are the men and women who compose them. But, subject
to those necessary reservations, I ask the House to sanction
proposals which are intended to open the gate and straighten
the way to a better and a brighter future.

XXXII.
THE IMPERIAL CONFERENCE— THE COLONIAL
PROPOSALS OF PREFERENTIAL TARIFFS
REFUSED.
(From The Times, May 3, 1907.)
[At the meeting of the hnperial Co7iference on May 2, 1907, Mr
Asquith, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, su77imed up the
reasons for the British Goverm/tenl's inability to entertain the
proposals put forward by the Prime Ministers of the self-
governing Colonies for the establish77ient of " preferential trade
by way of tariff preference."]
Mr. ASQUITH paid a tribute to the ability and clearness
with which the case of the Colonies had been presented. He
was impressed with the salient fact that though there might be
difference of opinion, nothing had been said which could
weaken the sense of Imperial unity or the determination to
cement that unity so far as possible. He also dwelt upon the
great advantage of discussing these questions face to face, and
said that this alone was enough to justify the Conference. Sir
Wilfrid Laurier had pointed out on several occasions that the
basis of unity must be that each member of the Empire must
look first to what was its own interest and would best serve the
whole by so doing.
The essential characteristic of the Empire was that it com
bined loyal attachment to each other of its component units
with the completest freedom on the part of those
Independence units where they are self-governing. This is
nowhere more true than in the domain of fiscal
policy. In the eighteenth century we had our warning in the

272 The Imperial Conference —
shape of the loss of the United States. Statesmen of all parties
have never forgotten that warning. Without fiscal indepen
dence self-government would be worthless. That indepen
dence the Colonies have fully received, and they have even
used it to build up tariff walls against the Mother Country. If
the Colonies thought it their duty to foster industries by pro
tective tariffs their action would not evoke remonstrance or
even criticism from him. He noted that various self-governing
Colonies gave preference to the Mother Country, but it was _.
fact that those preferential tariffs did not admit the manufac
tures of the Mother Country to compete on equal terms with the
local product. Doubtless the Colonies held this to be vital to
their interests, and in the same way his Majesty's Government
held that free trade was vital to the interests of the United
Kingdom. Reference had been made to the fact that Cobden
advocated free trade here as a part of a universal system of free
trade, but the official author of the policy, Sir Robert Peel,
defended it on the ground of its necessity to this country alone.
His Majesty's Government held that it was more necessary now
than it was in his day.
He pointed out the position now existing. We had a popula
tion of 44,000,000 bearing the whole weight of an enormous debt
largely contracted in building up the Empire,
Great Britain s an(j 0f tjje cost Qf imperial diplomacy and Im-
on Free Trade Per'a* defence. That population was depen
dent foT food and raw materials on external
sources of supply. This is the essential point for considera
tion. He asked how the supremacy of Great Britain was main
tained. He thought it must be attributed to our special pro
ductive activity, to the profits which we obtain from keeping
the biggest open .market in the world, and to the enormous
earnings of our shipping. All these were based in the long Tun
on keeping out food and our raw materials on the same basis and
as nearly as possible at the same price. Free trade was no
shibboleth, but a principle maintained because it was a matter
of vital national interest. He drew attention to the tariff
reform campaign, and observed that, after the fullest examina
tion and discussion, the people of England had declared in
favour of free' trade by a majority of unexampled size. As
spokesman for the people, his Majesty's Government could not
accept any infringement of that policy, even by way of such
an experiment as Dr. Jameson had suggested.

Preferential Tariffs Refused 273
It .pas necessary to state that fact fully and frankly at the
outset, Having stated it, he would proceed to offer some obser-
\ vations on some points raised during the dis-
Foreigjn, and cussion. Mr. Deakin had said that we were
Tradi. '* being excluded from foreign markets by tariff
walls. He pointed out that we had practically
everywhere most-favoured-nation treatment. We stood on the
whole iri a better position in protected markets than did the
nations under a protective system. Our foreign trade had
grown rather more rapidly in those markets than elsewhere.
The reason was that people required what we could sell, and the
supply would last as long as the need did. He pointed out
that papers before the Conference showed that Germany stood
next to India and Ceylon as the best market abroad for the pro
ducts of the United Kingdom. He noted that other papers
showed that, though the volume of British trade had largely
increased, the proportion of it as between the Colonies and
foreign countries remained practically constant. In 1855-59 in
the case of imports the proportions were 23.7 per cent, and
76.3 per cent, respectively, and in igo6 23.4 per cent, and 76.6
per cent, respectively. In the case of exports of United King
dom produce the proportions for the same periods were 31.6
and 68.4 and 32.8 and 67.2 respectively. He examined the pre
ferential tariffs now existing in the self-governing Colonies,
not with any disposition to underrate the spirit in which
they had been given, but as one who had to take facts as
he found them. The South African preference was very
liberal, but it was too early to judge as to its effect on British
trade. He thought the Conference was indebted to Sir Joseph Ward
for his statement regarding New Zealand, which had thrown
much light on the subject. Still, their preferen-
Colonial tial tariff covere(j oniy 20 per cent, of the import
trade, and the preference was arrived at, not by
lowering duties, but by raising them against the foreigner.
The Canadian tariff had been beneficial to British trade
rather by way of stopping decrease than by actual increase in
proportion to the total trade. Canadian .manufacturers, how
ever, remain protected. Raw materials were free. On dutiable
goods the average ad valorem rate was about 25 per cent, for
both the United Kingdom and the United States. Taking an
average on all goods dutiable and free, the ad valorem rate for

274 The Imperial Conference —
United Kingdom goods was ig per cent., and for United States
goods 13 per cent., or 6 per cent, lower.
As regards the Australian tariff, he was aware of the circum
stances in which it was passed, but he must deal with it as the
only present proposal before him. Preferential rates were
given only to goods in British ships manned by white labour,
and this was a serious consideration, as it involved a policy
which his Majesty's Government could not but deprecate. Pre
ference was restricted to 8 per cent, of the trade, and it would
appear that the profit to the British importer might amount to
about ,£go,ooo to ,£100,000 in the year as a maximum. He
stated all these matters in no spirit of criticism, but only to
show the difficulties in the way of an advantageous preferential
tariff in favour in this country where there is a system of pro
tection. In a free-trade country where duties were levied for
revenue purposes only, the difficulty was much greater. Great
Britain at present offers the freest possible market, and pre
ferential tariffs would involve the giving of less to other people
and not of .more to the Colonies. They involve setting up a
system of new duties, which would be an infringement of the
root principles of free trade. It is a question of principle, and
there is no possibility of such a compromise as had been sug
gested by some previous speakers.
He proceeded to consider on what preference must be given,
if given at all.
In igo5, 5! millions represents the value of articles, wholly
or partly manufactured, imported from the Colonies ; y.\
Taxation of millions raw materials ; 27J millions food,
Food and drink, and tobacco. This means that prefer-
Raw Materials ence, to be of value, must be in respect of raw
Essential to materials and food stuffs. If such a preference
Preference were g,rante(j; the very citadel of free trade
would be attacked, and sources of supply would be restricted
and prices raised.
He was aware that this view was disputed, but his Majesty's
Government adhered to it and the people of this country had
expressed their agreement. In the case of articles of necessity
where there is no chance of local production fully making up
for deficiencies, the levying of a duty must sooner or later raise
the price to the consumer.
For these reasons his Majesty's Government, speaking for the
people of this country, could not accept the principle of pre-

\ Preferential Tariffs Refused 275
V
ferential trade by way of tariff preference. He thought, how-
\ ever, that the discussion had thrown light on
Z , , ., other methods by which inter-Imperial trade re-
Refusal lations might be improved. Reference had been
made to the improvement of means of communi
cation, especially steamer services, to the increase in the number
of commercial agents in the Colonies, to the desirability of
removing or reducing the Suez Canal dues, and of establishing
mail communication with the Australasian Colonies via
Canada. All these were matters on which his Majesty's Gov
ernment would be fully ready to consider and co-operate with
any practical proposals, and he said this the more earnestly as
he felt that in the performance of his duty it had been neces
sary for him to enunciate a general policy which was not in
accord with the views of the Colonial representatives.

XXXIII.
THE REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
(From The Times, June 27, 1907.)
[hi the Commons, June 26, 1907, on windhig up for ihe Govern
ment the debate on Sir Henry Campbell- Bamierman's motion :
" That, in order to give effect to the will of the people as
expressed [by their elected representatives, it is necessary that
the power of the other House to alter or reject Bills passed by
this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that
within the Ihnits of a single Parliament the final decision of
the Commons shall prevail."]
It is always a pleasure to hear and a difficult task to follow the
noble lord * in debate. He will not, I am sure, take it amiss if
I say that, if we could regard him as a typical instance of the
normal operation of the hereditary principle, some of our objec
tions to the House of Lords would be substantially mitigated.
But unfortunately experience shows us that the case of the
noble lord cannot be relied upon as the outcome of the settled
purpose of Providence, but rather as a happy and unforesee
able episode in the chapter of accidents. Much as I admire,
and as the House must admire, his dialectical debating ability,
I must say, having carefully listened to him to-night with that
attention his speeches always deserve, it is with surprise I find
that the noble lord has contributed — at least, so far as I have
been able to discover — only two new arguments to our debate.
The first is, that he discerns in the resolution a covert and
disguised attack — upon what? The veto of the Crown. Well,
I was under the impression that the veto of the Crown was one
of the obsolete powers in the British Constitution. I do not
know precisely how long it is since the power was exercised, I
think not since the reign of William III. I have it on good
authority that it is more than 200 years since it was exercised,
and if it should ever be exercised again, upon whose advice
* Earl Percy.

The Reform of the House of Lords 277
would it he exercised? By the very Ministers of the Crown
whom the noble lord regards and denounces as the enemies
of popular freedom.
The other novel argument contributed by the noble lord is
this, that if the resolution were brought into operation the
House of Lords, which he admits does now by the exercise of
its powers substantially delay legislation, would be able to
do it as much in the future as it has done in the past. He has
omitted to notice a most important phrase in the resolution,
which in the view of the Government is a phrase of the highest
moment — that it is in the lifetime of a single Parliament that
the House of Commons is to be supreme. It would take a
great deal more than the somewhat superficial review the noble
lord has given us of the acts of the Lords during the present
. century to convince any student of history and politics that the
restriction of their veto to the lifetime of a single Parliament
would not have had an enormous effect in adding beneficial
measures to the Statute-book.
I want clearly to state what is the position as it emerges
at the end of our debate. I begin with an acknowledgment
that personally I have been a slow and, to some degree, even a
t reluctant convert to the necessity of this par-
Convert ticular method of dealing with the problem. I
have cast about, as which of us has not, during
all those years of opposition in this House to try and discover
some way of escape from the situation which almost every
speaker in this debate, on whichever side of the House he
sits, has acknowledged to be indefensible, that would at one
and the same time give effect to the democratic principle that
the will of the people must prevail and do the least practical
violence to our constitutional usages. I have even — scandalous
as I am sure the avowal will seem to some hon. friends behind
me — at one time coquetted with the referendum. But hoping,
as many of us have hoped, that a solution could be found in
the shape of what I may call a constitutional modus vivendi —
a convention similar to the conventions of which both our
common law and our Parliamentary law are full, not written
on paper, not defined in the exact language of an Act of
Parliament — hoping for the establishment of such a modus
vivendi (a re-establishment, let me remind the House, of a
practice which actually prevailed sixty or even fifty years ago,
when the House of Lords submitted to the guidance of the

278 The Reform of the House of Lords
sagacious Duke of Wellington, Lord Aberdeen, and other
statesmen of the past), the experiences of recent years have
convinced us that that is an untenable hope.
Yes ; but why ? Because it would be the essence of such an
understanding that the House of Lords — admittedly in the
language of the leader of the Opposition a subordinate partner,
admittedly powerless to control executive action
d »¦« uA_ or financial policy— should in the sphere of
legislation also be content with the function of
revision and consultation, and, if need arose, of reasonable
delay. But has the House of Lords shown any disposition to
accept such an understanding? It has fallen, unfortunately,
in these latter days into the hands of guides and leaders — not
necessarily and not always sitting within its own walls — who
have degraded it from the position of a revising Chamber,
and in some sense an arbitral authority, and who have converted
it, as everybody knows, into the docile and subservient instru
ment of a single party in the State. That is the crux of the
whole problem. It is that fact clearly brought home and
borne in upon the minds, at any rate of the progressive elec
torate of this country, which accounts for the indignation and
the resentment which is felt outside these walls. What the
people see is a partisan Assembly worked in a partisan spirit,
and yet assuming to hold the position and to exercise the func
tions of an unprejudiced umpire. In my opinion it is a moot
point whether the House of Lords is more dangerous to the
State when it abdicates or when it abuses its proper functions,
for that is the vicious alternative to which, under the unhappy
guidance to which it now submits, it is in practice reduced.
I take once again the hackneyed, but most instructive case of
education. Whatever else may be said about the election of
Thp Ed rati 1900, no one can pretend that the education
Question question was at that election a live issue. Yet
within two years a Bill was passed through the
House of Commons which, it was not an exaggeration to say,
effected a complete revolution from top to bottom in our educa
tional system, a Bill which was assented to by the House of
Lords without delay and without demur, although not only had
it never been submitted to the people, but as we now know
from what has since happened if it had been submitted to the
people it would have been by an enormous majority repudiated.
Then we come to the General Election of igo6. In England

The Reform of the House of Lords 279
and Wales education was one of the predominant controversies
of the hour. A new Parliament, fresh from the polls, with the
instructions of the electors freshly written as it were upon their
electoral tablets, passes through this House — what shall I call
it? I believe it was a very good Bill, but at any rate it was
reduced, it was diluted, it was the attenuated minimum as
compared with the popular demand, and that Bill, as we know,
was first mutilated and then strangulated out of existence by
this impartial, dispassionate, revisory body. The truth is that,
whatever the noble lord's theory may suggest, in practice the
House of Lords gives effect to the will of the House of Com
mons when you have a Tory majority ; the House of Lords frus
trates the will of the House of Commons when you have got
a Liberal majority ; and neither in the one case nor in the other
does it consider — what, indeed, it has no means of ascertaining
— the will of the people. We have heard in the course of this
debate put forward by various speakers what I believe to be
an entirely new-fangled constitutional doctrine — the doctrine,
I mean, that the House of Lords has by prerogative the power,
and by some mysterious form of intuition the means, of deter
mining at what precise moment the House of Commons ceases
to represent the will of the people.

XXXIV.
THE LICENSING BILL
(From The Times, Feb. 28, 1908.)
[hi the Commons, on introducing the Government's Licensing Bill,
February 27, 1908.]
Although I am afraid it may be my duty to occupy the atten
tion, and perhaps to exhaust the patience, of the House by a
somewhat detailed explanation of the provisions of a neces
sarily complicated measure, I must — and I think in the long
run it will prove a saving of time — preface what I have to say
with one or two observations of a more general character. I
shall not on this occasion dwell on the magnitude and gravity
of the evils which, by universal admission, confront us in the
sphere which will be dealt with by this Bill, nor, except inci
dentally, on the inadequacy of the attempts which Parliament
has made in recent years to provide a remedy. Everybody
who is interested in social progress, in whatever quarter of the
House he may sit, will, I am certain, agree with his Majesty's
Government that effective reform of the licensing laws is now
long overdue.
What do we mean by effective reform ? In the opinion of
the Government, reform, to be effective, must aim at the attain
ment — and its success will be judged by the measure in which
__ . it effects the attainment — of two main purposes.
Reform The ^rst *s an immediate and a progressive
reduction in the excessive facilities which are
now allowed for the retail sale of intoxicating drinks. The
second — not less important though, perhaps, less easy of attain
ment — is the gradual but complete recovery, with due regard
for existing interests, by the State of its dominion over and
its property in a monopoly which has been improvidently
allowed to slide out of its control.
Upon the latter of those two points so much misapprehension
still prevails that, although I may seem to be reiterating that
which is familiar, I will, nevertheless, venture at the outset
to restate one or two elementary propositions. By the statute
law of this country ever since the reign of Edward VI. no one

The Licensing Bill 281
has been able to set up or to carry on the retail sale of intoxi
cating drink except with the permission and licence of the
State. The power of. granting that permission was always
vested, until the Act of 1904, in the local justices, who had
knowledge of local conditions, and who might be supposed,
more or less at any rate, to represent local opinion and local
sentiment. . The justices, in the exercise of an unfettered dis
cretion, could multiply the grant of licences at their will ;
and again, until the Act of 1904, in the exercise of the same
discretion and the like freedom they could refuse to renew
licences which they, had previously granted. So far as my
knowledge goes, there was no case in the annals of our law
over now more than three centuries and a half in which any
court has assumed to compel a body of justices against whom
there was no charge of corruption and dishonesty to regrant
a licence which, in their discretion, they had refused to renew.
That is the law of England, and always has been the law of
England — plain, simple, indisputable, and, at this time of day,
not by any competent authority disputed.
How, then, has that which we are accustomed to call the
monopoly value in licences in private hands come into existence
_, M . and been allowed to grow up ? How have these
Value 'enormous values, which I see variously estimated
—though I am not disposed to accept any of the
estimates myself — at from 100 to 150, or even 170 millions
sterling — some people say even more — how have these enormous
values been allowed to come into existence ? The answer is
very simple. The State has received nothing, unless, indeed,
the very small licence duty that is exacted from the owners of
licences of public-houses can be regarded as anything — and,
as everybody knows, it is a mere drop in the ocean. The State
has received nothing, or nothing that can be described as in any
sense a substantial or even a partial equivalent for the mono
poly value with which it has parted. What the monopoly value
really means is this, when it comes to be analysed. It means
what people have been ready to pay, not for a right —
there never was any right — 'but for an expectation, or,
to speak with strict accuracy, for a double expecta
tion. What do I mean by a double expectation ? I mean,
in the first place, the expectation that licences once
granted would, in the absence of misconduct, be periodically
and indefinitely renewed, and, in the next place, an expectation

282 The Licensing Bill

that the justices would not allow effective competition with
those to whom they had once granted it. I say — and it is most
important that this should be clearly understood and laid down
at the very opening of our debates — that those were mere
expectations. As regards the first of them the justices, as I
have said, might and very often did — the law has been adminis
tered at one time with greater stringency and at another time
with greater laxity — but the justices might, and very often did,
refuse to renew a licence without any suggestion of misconduct
on the part of the licensee. And as to the second explanation,
it' is also trueHhat the justices could establish, and sometimes
they did establish, as in the well-known case of the licensing
Bench at Liverpool, complete free trade in drink within the
area of their licensing jurisdiction. It follows that in either
case, without any violation of the law, without inflicting any
wrong for which any single human being could seek, any legal
redress, either or both of the expectations upon which the
monopoly value rests might be frustrated, and the whole fabric
of the monopoly value itself brought down to the ground.
I will just notice in passing— not to deal with it in detail —
an argument often put forward and as often refuted, that the
No State State by levying Estate Duty or Death Duty
Guarantee of upon the value of licences, as though they were
a Permanent perpetually renewable, has given some implied
Licence recognition to an assumed right of property
which the law has never created or acknowledged. Well,
that arguments rests upon a fallacy of the most obvious
description. When a man dies and when the State takes toll
of his property it takes everything of which he died possessed,
considers what is its market value, and exacts the toll upon it.
Very often his property is of a highly speculative nature. It
may consist of a licence. It may consist of a racehorse. The
question, and the only question of the State when it is levying
death duties is, what anybody in the market will give either
for the one or the other. And it no more guarantees, when it
takes ten per cent, or whatever the percentage may be of the
market value of a licence, that that licence will last for ever
than when it takes a corresponding proportion of the value
of a racehorse it guarantees that the horse will live to fulfil
its engagements and satisfy the anticipations of its trainers.
But it is not necessary to labour this point, because we have
before us the legislation of igo4, and if it could have been

The Licensing Bill 283
alleged with even a show of reason or even of plausibility that
for the State -to withdraw from the holder of a licence the
renewal of that licence at the end of the term was, to take away
a right of property, upon whom would that burden of compensa
tion have been thrown ? Obviously upon the State. When we
emancipated the slaves, one of the most nefarious and dis
creditable forms of property the English law has ever recog
nised, this House did not hesitate to vote public money for the
purpose. When a Conservative Government, the traditional
and hereditary protectors of the doctrine of property, came to
reduce licences, upon whom did they throw the burden of com
pensation ? Not upon the community, but upon the trade.
I think it is necessary to lay down these propositions in the
plainest possible terms. I want to deal with this matter, if I
can, not controversially — I have not said anything hitherto
which any one acquainted with the history and law of the sub
ject can describe as controversial — I want to deal with it, not
controversially, but in a fair, and, as far as possible, in a
judicial manner. The law being perfectly plain, as I have
tried to define it, interests have been allowed to grow up outside
the domain of the law, interests created, or at any rate fostered,
by expectations which for so many years were so widely enter
tained, and, I will add, so commonly realised, and it is impos
sible for any statesman who has to deal with the matter now to
ignore them or to leave them out of account. Now, sir, having
made that preliminary statement as to the nature of the problem
with which we have to deal, I will ask the House, and I am
afraid I must make some draft upon its patience, to accompany
me while I proceed step by step to show how the Government
propose to act in the matter.
I said a few minutes ago that the first thing is effective reform
of our licensing laws based upon the necessity for immediate
and progressive reduction in the facilities for
f fqn/l* t^le sa^e °* drink alJd tne provision of some really
practical means of bringing that about. How
do we stand in regard to that matter? On January i of the
present year there were in England and Wales g5,7oo on-
licences, or a proportion of 27.62 per 10,000 of the population.
That figure compares with gg,478 on-licences, Or 29.13 per
10,000 of the population, on January 1, 1905, and shows, there
fore, a substantial diminution in those three years. I say so—
a substantial diminution. But the diminution began before

284 The Licensing Bill
igos. Indeed, all of us who followed the debates in igo4 know
that the fact that what is called the trade was becoming
alarmed at the reviving and formidable activity of the licensing
justices in exercising their discretion to get rid of redundant
licences was one of the main causes of the Licensing Act of
igo4. I agree that the process of reduction has been accelerated
by the provisions of the Act of igo4, but it is wholly inadequate
to the needs of the case, and I beg the House to note, if you
have regard to all the conditions which surround the case, that
it is on the whole more likely to diminish than to grow. Why
do I say that? In the year igo7 1,716 licences were extin
guished, and the holders were entitled under the Act of igo4
to compensation. The average cost to the compensation fund
per licence was ,£gig. The total compensation levied for the
year was ,£i,ogg,ooo, which, at that cost of ,£9ig per licence,
would only have paid for the extinction of i,ig4 licences. The
justices were only able to make the reduction which they did —
something like 500 or 600 more than the compensation levied
for the year would have provided for — by the fact that there
was a balance in hand from the fund for the previous year.
If you add to that the facts that the smallest and cheapest
houses have really been the victims in these first two or three
years and that the survivors to some extent — I do not say to
what extent — have been raised in value, that there are at this
moment thirteen compensation areas in which the maximum
levy is not raised and six compensation areas in which no levy
is made at all, and, lastly, that you have no guarantee what
ever that the licensing authorities who are acting now will
continue to show the same rate of activity in the years that are
to come, I venture to say you may well look forward with appre
hension lest the rate of reduction, inadequate as I believe it
to be even now, should slacken in the future.
In view of these facts, the Government propose in this Bill —
this is the first clause of the Bill — to provide for the compulsory
. . . reduction within a specified period of a number
Population °^ on-licences in the country on a uniform scale t t
operating throughout the country and based
mainly on the ratio between licences and population. We have
taken as our general guide in fixing that ratio the recommenda
tions of the minority report of Lord Peel's Commission. That
report recommended that the statutory maximum should be
one on-licence to every 750 people in towns, and one on-licence

The Licensing Bill 285
to every 400 people in the country. Now, sir, when you come
to work that out in practice, as we have tried to do, you will
find the distinction between town and country is almost as
difficult to draw as the impalpable boundary line that separates
day from night. When you look at social and economic condi
tions, it does not follow with anything like strictness the
technical division between urban and rural areas, and a sudden
jump, whether it be a jump upward or a jump downward, when
there is little difference in the actual condition of the locality,
is a thing that is quite impossible to justify. We have given
a great deal of thought and attention to the subject, and after
much inquiry, and examining the test results" in a number of
sample cases, we have adopted as the basis of our scale density
of population — in other words, the number of people per acre.
I will show the House how that works out. We begin with
the density — whether it be in a rural parish or an urban area
it does not matter for this purpose — of two per-
The 1 Working sons or \ess per acre. Where that state of things
Scheme exists we propose that on-licences should not
exceed one for 400 persons. That covers prac
tically the whole of what are commonly called the rural districts
of the country. Our next step is between two persons and
twenty-five persons per acre. Where that condition of popula
tion exists we propose that the maximum shall be one to 500.
It will be found in practice that covers the great bulk of some
urban parishes and districts. The next step in the scale — and the
three minor stages cover practically the same class of popula
tion — is between 25 and 50, one to 600; between 50 and 75, one
to 700; and between 75 and 100, one to 800. These three stages,
which, as the House sees, go from 25 per acre to 100 per acre,
comprise the ordinary town areas. Therefore, in an ordinary
town you have a statutory maximum of from one to 600 to one
to 800. Then you get to the highest stage in the scale, 100
to 200 persons per acre, one licence to goo, and over 200 per
sons per acre, one licence to 1,000. Those are the poorer and
crowded quarters of the great cities of the country.
That, sir, is, after a great deal of consideration, the best
practical method that we have been able to discover of applying
the principle laid down — which we have accepted — in the
minority report of the Peel Commission. We quite recognise,
and the Bill recognises, that in the otherwise rigid application
of that scale you must allow a certain amount of latitude to

286 The Licensing Bill
meet certain special conditions of common occurrence. Let
me point out to the House by way of illustration what I mean.
First of all, where the number of licensed premises in a parish
or area does not exceed two, and it does not seem expedient for
the licensing authority to reduce it to one, which would give a
monopoly to that one particular public-house, no reduction
need necessarily take place. Next, where there are two or three
scattered hamlets which are technically and legally within the
area of a single parish, or where, as sometimes happens, there
is an isolated roadside public-house, we would allow the
authorities to make special conditions applicable to that case.
Again, and this is important, because it is of wider application,
in the case of premises that have an on-licence, but have been
constructed and are intended to be used in good faith foi
purposes for which an on-licence is merely an auxiliary, a
restaurant, a railway refreshment room, or some classes of
hotels, we allow exception from the strict application of the
proportionate scale. Finally, and perhaps this is the most
important of all, we have to deal with places whose normal
Holiday an(^ resident population is no index of their real
Resorts and requirements. That may be so in two cases.
Business First, there are places resorted to only in special
Quarters seasons by holiday makers and seekers after
rest, like seaside places ; and, secondly, there are the business
quarters of great towns, like the City of London, where the
day population is very considerable, while the night population
is relatively very small. I find in the Market Hall Ward of
Birmingham that the strict application of our scale would
require the suppression of no less than 141 out of 158 licences.
In the Central Ward of Cardiff, our scale would require the
suppression of no less than 85 out of 108. ¦ In the Market
Ward of Nottingham it would require the extinction of 6g
licences out of 70. These are obviously places that require
exceptional treatment, and accordingly the rigid application
of the proportion or ratio will be allowed in these cases to be
mitigated or modified by the licensing authorities.
The general result will be this — that applying
30,000 the scale with due allowance for the modifica-
Supprlssed tions l have indicated— the House will take this
as a mere rough approximation — we estimate it
will lead to the suppression within the specified term of from
30,000 to 32,000 on-licences, or in other words to more than

The Licensing Bill 287
one-third of the whole. It will be the duty of every licensing
authority to prepare by the early date named in the Act a
scheme for carrying out the statutory reduction according to the
ratio I have described in their own district. The scheme so
prepared by the licensing authority will show the effect in the
way of reduction of the application of the scale to each area
within their district, and it will provide for a reasonable dis
tribution of the reductions over the whole of the statutory
period. As schemes of this kind must be more or less tentative
and experimental, the widest powers are given the licensing
authority to revise their schemes from time to time.
These schemes, whether original schemes or revised schemes,
will be submitted for approval, not on grounds of policy, but
on grounds of finance, to a central Licensing
A Central Commission, in whom, as I will presently ex-
Licensinsr .
Commission plain, the compensation fund will be vested.
Assume that a scheme has been prepared, sub
mitted, and approved, as, of course, it will be if the financial
exigencies of the case allow, it will then be the duty of the
licensing authority to give effect to it by selecting the particular
licences to be extinguished. We leave the selection entirely
in their hands. In order to provide for the possible case of
licensing authorities making default, either in preparing a
scheme or in carrying it out, or in the selection of the licences
to 'be suppressed, we provide that the Licensing Commission
can act in their stead. The next point is one of very great
moment. Reduction according to the statutory scale is a duty
which the licensing authorities are compelled to perform. But
their performance of that duty is not to affect their power,
during the period of reduction, to extinguish licences still
further, subject, of course, in cases where extinction involves
compensation to the sufficiency of the compensation fund. That
power we call in the Bill the power of optional reduction. It
is a power vested in the authority in addition to its statutory
duty. We restore in this Bill — reversing the policy in this
respect of the Act of igo4 — we restore to the licensing authority
the discretion which was taken away from it by that Act with
regard to the refusal, renewal, and transfer of all existing on-
licences, and we repeal the provision in the igo4 Act vesting
such power in the quarter sessions. As I pointed out a few
moments ago, until igo4 the local Licensing Justices have
always been regarded as the proper persons to deal with these

288 The Licensing Bill
matters, and we think this power ought never to have been
taken away from them.
Mr. BALFOUR (City of London).— Subject to compensation ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER— During the
compensation period. We add a special provision which we
propose to make with regard to Wales, where opinion in these
matters is more advanced and more ripe than in England
generally. It is proposed in Wales — and for this purpose
Wales will include Monmouthshire — to give by vote to paro
chial electors in a licensing district power to declare by a
direct vote whether a reduction of licences beyond the statutory
amount should be made, and upon an affirmative vote the com
mission will authorise such further reduction provided during
the statutory period that the existing levy gives sufficient funds
for the purpose.
Now I come to the question of compensation for licences
suppressed, and I use the word with a caveat because it does not
accurately express what I mean — but licences which are sup-
., . pressed on the ground of redundancy during the
from the Trade statutory Peri°(l) whether compulsorily under
the scale or in the exercise of the further power
which I have just described as optional reduction, will be
compensated for. We propose to make no change in the source
from which the compensation money is to be derived. The
compensation money will continue to be raised as under the
Act of igo4 by a levy from what is called "the trade." But it
follows from our decision to make reduction compulsory and
uniform, which it is not under the existing system, that the
area of the levy should cover the whole of England and Wales,
that the whole of the authorised levy should every year be raised,
and that the fund should become a national fund and should
be vested in the central authority, the Licensing Commission.
For the purposes of the levy we adopt prima facie the scale of
charges in the schedule of the Act of igo4, subject to one or
two qualifications which I will proceed to enumerate. In the
first place, the annual value of the premises is for the future
to be taken as the annual value given for the purpose of
schedule A of the income-tax. In the next place, power is
given to the Licensing Commission to raise charges in class B
graduated in the same proportion as in the cases shown in
the scale, but to raise them only for the purpose of compulsory
suppression, not- for the purposes of optional, for reasons which

The Licensing Bill 289
will soon appear. That is a power which probably will not
require to be exercised. Again, the Licensing Commission are
not to sanction an optional reduction if it would involve raising
the rates in the scale. The Licensing Commission can borrow
on the security of the compensation fund, and they are to
exercise their powers under the Act so that, so far as possible,
the assets and liabilities of the fund may balance at the end
of the reduction period.
I come now to the much more important point — namely, the
amount of compensation to be paid. It is when we come to deal
with the great problem of fixing the amount of
ComDensation compensation that we find ourselves compelled
to part company from the Act of 1904, and still
more widely from the judicial interpretation which has been
put upon that Act — an interpretation contrary to the intentions
of the framers of that Act and of Parliament — in what is com
monly known as the Kennedy judgment. What is the provision
in Section 2 of the 1904 Act ? Substantially it says that the
amount of compensation payable must be a sum equal to the
difference between the value of the licensed premises and the
value which the premises would bear if not licensed. The
Inland Revenue, when the Act first came into operation, pro
ceeded to deal with the cases generally that came before them
on what, I venture to think, was the natural construction of
those words. They estimated what would be the annual value
of the premises with the licence and the value of the same
premises without the licence ; then they subtracted the one sum
from the other, and multiplied the result by the number of
years' purchase. But the Act of 1904 gave what was in fact a
freehold interest to the licence-holder, as though he Was
entitled to the perpetual renewal of his licence.
I pause here to point out that the very fact that in our
scheme we adopt a reduction period, a term of years during
which and during which alone compensation is paid as a neces
sary corollary, involves a modification of the Act of 1904 even
if the Act of 1904 had been strictly interpreted. It follows
as a necessary incident of our scheme that the amount payable
as compensation shall only be such a sum — with interest, of
course, at the proper rate, 4 per cent. — as will purchase an
immediate annuity for the unexpired years of the reduction
period equal in amount to the annual value of the licence. We
add to that such a sum — and it is very important, because I

290 The Licensing Bill
think the interests of the tenant, of the actual licence-holder,
the man who is carrying on a public-house, were very unduly
considered; the licence-holder got very little out of the com
pensation; the great bulk of it has gone into other pockets—
we add, and we keep this separate throughout, both in the
assessment and in the payment of compensation, such a sum
as the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may think just to add,
as compensation for the licence-holder's loss of business. That
affects, of course, the number of years purchase.
Now I come to the crucial point — what is to be taken as the
annual value of the licence ? We are going to ask Parliament
to go back to what we believe to have been the
oT a Licence* intention of the Act of 1904, and what, whether
it was the intention of the framers of that Act or
not, ought to be the rule of common sense and common justice.
What is the problem ? The Licensing Justices give to a particu
lar house in a particular street the privilege, which no other
house in that street can acquire without their consent, of
becoming the scene, day and night, of the retail sale of intoxi
cating liquor. The house next door, precisely similar in struc
ture, having cost the builder the same, standing upon land
of exactly equal value, and therefore, before the licence was
granted, let presumably at the same rent — the house next door
is occupied by a grocer or butcher, or whatever tradesman it
may be. The problem to be solved is this. What is the addi
tional rent which a person would pay for the house with the
privilege of the licence as compared with the rent which he
would pay for the house next door, carrying on in that house
an unlicensed trade and not enhanced therefore in value by a
monopoly price ? ' That is the problem. It is a problem which
can be solved with the greatest possible ease when you are
dealing with a free house, a house, that is to say, which is let to
the publican at rack-rent, because you have only got to com
pare the rent which he pays with the rent which his neighbour
pays for the unlicensed premises in immediate contiguity to
find out the additional monopoly value given by the possession
of the licence.
The difficulty, of course, comes in when you are dealing with
the tied house, because,- as everybody knows who is familiar
T" H 1-1 - ~ w*tn ^ese matters, the rent, or so-called rent,
which is exacted by the brewer or distiller from
the tenant — again I must say the so-called tenant — of the tied

The Licensing Bill 291
house, is a rent which, in. the majority of cases at any rate,
bears no relation whatsoever to the actual value of the premises.
Where the brewer comes in and makes his profit is in invoicing
his goods — the only goods which this tenant sitting, as it
appears, at a very moderate rent is allowed to dispose of —
invoicing these goods at a far higher price than the
same class of goods, or, perhaps, a better class of goods are
supplied to the tenant of a free house. Therefore, it is quite
clear that, in the case of the tied house, the rent actually paid
is not a criterion of the monopoly value, and you must find
out what the monopoly value is, as every rating authority in
the country does, by having some reference to the business
which is done in the house. Yes, but the business done by
whom ? By the occupier of the house, and the fundamental
vice — if I may use such an expression in speaking of the
judgment of a learned Judge — what seemed to us to be the
fallacy of the Kennedy judgment, which reversed the whole
practice of the Inland Revenue, and which added to the sum
payable for compensation in the case of these tied houses 50
or sometimes 100 per cent., the fallacy consisted in taking into
account, not the profit made by the retailer qua retailer, but
taking into account the profit made by the manufacturer in
regard to the drink which he supplied to the house. In other
words, you have to deal with the house, not as though it were
a place simply of retail trade, but you have to consider, also,
its value as an outlet for the wholesale producer, and for. the
trade in which he is himself engaged. And the result is most
striking. In the first place it has vastly inflated the figures
which are given. by way of compensation, and it has established
a most inequitable and indefensible distinction between tied
houses on the one side and free houses on the other. It is
possible under the law as laid down in this judgment, and
necessarily followed by the Inland Revenue, for the owner
of a tied house to get half as much again, and sometimes twice
as much again, in the shape of compensation as is got by the
owner of a free house. Well, we do not think that is right,
because, in addition to its obvious injustice, it gives an encour
agement to the tied-house system, which, in our opinion, is
contrary to public policy. We are going to provide — this will
be the rule laid down in the Bill — that the annual value of the
licence is to be taken to be the sum by which the actual annual
value of the licensed premises adopted fpr Schedule A of the in-

292 The Licensing Bill
come-tax exceeds the amount which the Commissioners of Inland
Revenue determined would be the annual value if the premises
were not licensed. That is a perfectly simple rule, which the
Commissioners of Inland Revenue are thoroughly capable of
applying for themselves, and avoids the expense and complica
tion of a special inquiry ad hoc in regard to each particular
case that arises ; and we propose that in regard to it there shall
be no appeal to a Court of law, the decision of the Commis
sioners of Inland Revenue shall be final.
I come now to the question, of the length of the statutory
period, or what is commonly called the time limit. The ex-
T. _. pediency of laying down a time limit is a
Limit question which formed the subject of frequent
and anxious debate in the last Parliament. The
Government of the day — right hon. gentlemen opposite — not
withstanding our urgent insistence, and notwithstanding an
amendment moved in the same sense by the Archbishop of
Canterbury in another place, refused to insert any time limit
in their Bill. Now, I should like to quote one or two things
that were said in the course of those debates. I quote one
passage, a remarkable passage, from a speech of a supporter
of that Bill, unfortunately no longer in this House — those of
us who were in the last Parliament miss almost every day his
lofty eloquence and his great Parliamentary ability — Lord
Hugh Cecil. He said, " This Bill did not interfere in the
least with the future right of Parliament to set up whatever
time limit it might think proper under which licences might
cease altogether after due notice given."- And I find that in
another place — I am glad to be able to quote him — my noble
friend Lord Rosebery used these very remarkable words, words
which I entirely adopt : —
" I do not care what your limit is, but I am certain of
this — that the only way in which you will ever achieve a real
temperance reform is by fixing a date, at the expiration of
which all interest in the licence shall be held to be exhausted,
and the nation will then resume its claim, its absolute dominion
over interests which have been created at the expense of the
State and no other than the State."
The notion put forward frequently in records of those debates
that a time limit was inconsistent with the payment of com
pensation by the trade during the time was, I think, over and
over again exploded. I quite admit that the enactment of a

The Licensing Bill 293
time limit involves a double insurance on the part of the
trade — an insurance, that is to say," in regard to the risk of
being extinguished during the currency of the time limit, and
an insurance against the general and universal change which
will take place when the time limit has come to an end.
Before I mention the length of the time limit I would like
to point out one or two facts. Every one interested in the
trade has known, at any rate since the cele-
^ Wakefield5" brated case of "Sharpe v. Wakefield," which
Judgment *a*d down no new principle, but which made
notorious and a matter of common knowledge
that which had for three centuries been the law — every one has
known since that case was decided, now nearly twenty years
ago, that the prospect of continuous renewal was no more
than an expectation not founded on any legal title and in no
way guaranteed by the State. But, further, since the debates
on the Bill of 1904 every one has known that the expectation
of perpetuity was certain not to be realised, that the imposition
of some time limit was inevitable, and that the only question
was how soon it would be imposed and what would be the
length of its duration. What inference do I draw from these
two facts ? Why this, that for the best part of twenty years
probably, and for the best part of four years certainly, every
prudent trader engaged in this traffic has been, or ought to
have been, setting his house in order by insurance, and, as
many of them have done, by strengthening their reserve fund.
To us who sit on this side of the House, more particularly
to those of us whp took part, as I and many of my friends did,
in the strenuous opposition to the Bill of 1904, it is a matter,
not only of justice and expediency, but of political honour,
that there should be a time limit. We pledged
Time Limit ourselves to it then, and we pledged ourselves
of Fourteen tQ i(. again at the tjme 0f t-^e General Election,
and we had then, as we have now, in support of
the proposal for a time limit, the sympathy and the active
advocacy of every temperance organisation, even the most con
servative, including the Bishops of the Upper House of Con
vocation of the Province of Canterbury. The question now is
not whether a time limit shall be imposed, but what shall be
its duration? However that question is decided it is certain
the decision will not please everybody; it is probable that it
will not please anybody. On the one hand, whatever the dura-

294 The Licensing Bill
tion we prescribe for the time limit, we shall be charged,
I daresay to-night, and quite certainly to-morrow morning,
with confiscation and spoliation. On the other hand, however
short our time limit may be, I am not sure we shall escape
the criticism of some of my hon. friends behind me that we
are showing an over-tender regard for interests whose ante
cedents are doubtful and whose title is precarious. It is a very
difficult situation. In a difficult situation it is generally desir
able if you can to found yourself on some principle that will
stand the test both of common sense and common justice.
Having regard to the legal situation on the one side, and to
the up-growth of these expectations and interests on the other,
what is the principle we ought to adopt ? I say, then, that
your time limit should be as long as and. not longer than the
time which will suffice for a prudent trader who has carried
and is carrying on his business with due regard to its special
character and its peculiar risks to make adequate provision
against the disappearance at the close of the time limit of that
part of his profits which is to be attributed to the monopoly
value of his licence. I say it ought to be as long as that,
because, though there is no question of legal title, there has
grown up, as I have shown, a claim for equitable consideration
which cannot be ignored. I say it ought to be no longer than
that, because at the earliest possible moment compatible with
equitable regard for existing interests the State ought on every
ground of policy to recover possession of the monopoly value
which it ought never to have parted with. Well, after much
consideration, we have come to the conclusion that these con
ditions will be satisfied by a term of fourteen years. The
community will at the expiration of that time recover complete
dominion over licences and unfettered freedom of dealing
with them, and in that recovered freedom I include the power
of the locality by a popular vote to deal either by way of
prohibition or reduction with the state of things for the future.
Mr. BALFOUR. — Does the right hon. gentleman provide in
his Bill for the establishment of local option ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.— Yes, _sir, local
option as regards either prohibition or reduction, but we do not
and, indeed, it would be impossible at this moment to lay down
the precise conditions, the machinery, procedure, and so forth,
subject to which, fourteen years hence, that right will be
exercised- But the right itself is clearly stated in the Bill.

The Licensing Bill 295
As regards authorities. Under the Act of 1904 counties and
county boroughs were taken as the compensation areas. Now
, . . that we make the area not local but national, we
1 icsnsinfir
Authorities must create a central authority, and accordingly
we substitute for quarter sessions and borough
justices this Licensing Commission. The Commission will
consist of three persons — the Chairman and two other Com
missioners appointed by his Majesty on the recommendation of
the Home Secretary. Their powers will continue in force until
the end of the reduction period, and may, if necessary, be
continued by Order in Council. The expenses of the Com
mission will be paid out of the compensation fund. I do not
think it will be a very serious charge. As regards the licensing
authorities, a much more difficult question arises — a question
which deserves and has received much consideration — namely,
whether the local licensing authority shall be wholly or in part,
directly or indirectly, elective. Personally, I confess I was
very strongly predisposed in favour of the introduction of an
elective element ; but there is great objection to it. It would
almost certainly tend to make local elections for general
administrative purposes turn on the single issue. That is a
very grave evil, and when you take that into account and
remember further that the first duty imposed on the justices
will be to bring about the statutory reduction in their district,
as they are bound to do, there seems less reason for making
them directly responsible to the ratepayers, and, on the whole
— I confess not without doubt  we have come to the con
clusion it would be best to retain the licensing jurisdiction in
the hands of the justices.
We have, however, made some not unimportant changes in
the large boroughs. A large borough for this purpose means
any borough with a separate commission of the
ppea s peace, which is a county borough, or has a
population of over 25,000. In such borough the licensing jus
tices will exercise their powers through the borough licensing
committee appointed under the Act of 1872, seven being sub
stituted for three as the minimum number of the committee.
In all such boroughs, whether county boroughs or not, there
will be set up an appeal authority. In quarter sessions
boroughs it will consist of the Recorder and four justices
chosen for the purpose by the whole body of justices, and in a
large borough not having a separate quarter sessions and, there-

296 The Licensing Bill
fore, no Recorder, it will consist of the mayor and four justices
appointed by the whole body of justices. A member of the
appeal authority will be incapable of acting as a member of
the licensing committee. The powers of the appeal authority
will be twofold — first, the power of confirming new licences
granted by the licensing justices ; and, secondly — and this is
important — exclusive jurisdiction in appeals against refusal to
renew or transfer licences. Such appeals in large boroughs
will no longer go to quarter sessions. Licensing justices may
pay to their clerk, in addition to his salary, such remuneration
as they think fit for special work. Finally, under this head,
we remove a grievance which has sometimes operated very
harshly, by providing that in cases where the decision of the
licensing justices has been appealed against, whether by
mandamus, certiorari, or otherwise, the Court shall order the
local treasurer to pay to the justices a sum sufficient to
indemnify them for all costs properly incurred and not
recoverable. Now I come to a totally different topic — namely, new
licences. As regards new licences, the Act of igo4 contained
. . in its fourth section a most invaluable enact-
IN 6 W I irortppc ment — that which seoures the monopoly value in
the case of new licences to the public. Experience shows that
that provision needs amendment in two particulars — first, pay
ment for any year in respect to monopoly value ought not to
exceed, and we propose it shall not exceed, the licence value
for the year as estimated by the justices. I have a large
number of cases here, which I could quote if necessary, in
which a very considerable lump sum of money has been paid
down as a condition of the grant of new licences, and when that
is the case, obviously it fetters the discretion of the authority.
It is much better, we think — and most of the Licensing
Benches agree — that we should provide, as we do, that for any
year the payment is not to exceed the licence value for that
year ; and, secondly — a very important provision — we propose
as a condition for securing the 'monopoly value, to provide for
the revision of the payment on the renewal of the licence
either annually or periodically. In regard to this question
of new licences, we introduce at once a new machinery
altogether. There is no question here of frustrated expec
tations or compensation. The monopoly value is declared
by the Act of igo4 to belong to the community, and the

The Licensing Bill 297
possibility of the upgrowth of parasitic interests is effectively
prevented. It is, in out opinion, not sufficient that the public should be
secured in the enjoyment of the monopoly value of any new
. licence the justices may think fit to grant. We
Local Option think thg people of the locaiity ought further in
such case to have the power of saying, just as the owner of the
soil may say, that no new licences shall be granted at all. Our
Bill by its second clause confers this power on the parochial
electors in every licensing district. Upon a requisition signed
by not less than one-tenth a poll may be taken on a resolution
prohibiting the grant of new licences, and that resolution may
be carried by a simple majority. It remains in force until
revoked by a rescinding resolution, similarly required and
similarly carried.
An Hon. Member. — At what interval ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.— Three years.
Where a poll has been taken either on a prohibitory or rescind
ing resolution a further poll is not to be taken until the expira
tion of three years. Powers are given to the Local Government
Board to regulate procedure in regard to such resolutions, and
to apply to. them the enactments relating to Parliamentary or
local government elections. While the prohibitory resolution
is in force no new licences, in the ordinary sense, on or off, may
be granted-in the district. This will not prevent the licensing
justices dealing with business premises constructed, fitted, and
intended to be used in good faith for any purpose which the
holding of an on-licence is merely auxiliary. We shall grant
for the first time electors the power of saying whether or not
no new off or on licences shall be given. No one can contend
that this interferes with any interest either equitable or other
wise, and there is no reason why it should not come into force
at the earliest possible moment.
Now I will say a word with regard to off-licences. The
statutory, reduction does not apply to off-licences. We propose
. to Tepeal the exceptions allowed in section io of
- ences the Act of igo2 in the case of spirit dealers and
wine merchants, and to provide that a justice's licence should
be required for every Excise licence for retail and consump
tion. In regard to new off-licences, we propose that they
should be brought under the provisions of section 4 of the Act
of igo4, and should also be subject to the power of prohibition

298 The Licensing Bill
vested in the inhabitants of the district. Further, we apply
section 22 of the Act of 1874 in regard to provisional licences
in the premises to be constructed for off consumption.
I come now to deal with the still more important matter of
registered clubs. Between January 1, 1904, and January 1,
. i9°7j the number of registered clubs — clubs in
Ckjbs61"6 which intoxicating liquors could be supplied —
increased from 6,371 to 6,907, and after the
expiration of another year they have probably reached the
number of 7,110. I need hardly say that there is no intention
on the part of the Government to interfere with the freedom of
the bona-fide club. I need hardly say also that all clubs in
which liquor is supplied, whether to the rich or the less fortu
nate in the community, stand on precisely the same footing.
Under the Act of igo2 such clubs already require to be regis
tered, and any club may be struck off the register which is not
conducted in good faith or where certain objectionable prac
tices or specified acts are proved to be committed on the pre
mises. We propose to strengthen the law by providing that the
registration of such clubs should be annually renewed to afford
an opportunity for notice of objection to be submitted and con
sidered by the licensing justices. That sounds at first sight an
annoying provision ; but since I have had this .matter in hand
in the last few weeks and months there have been brought to
my notice cases in which the suppression of a licence uncler the
right hon. gentleman's Act of igo4 has been followed by the
upgrowth of clubs, not in the same premises, but next door,
carrying on the same business, often tied to the same brewer,
who is financing the whole affair, and frequented by the same
class of persons. No licence duty is paid, and there is no re
striction as to hours. The place is occupied during the whole
of Sunday, sometimes in betting and gambling, as well as in
drinking, and there is no effective police supervision. That is
a monstrous evil. It is a bad thing in the interests of the com
munity, and thoroughly unfair in the interests of the trade. I
can understand the indignation, the perfectly legitimate indig
nation, which is felt by those who are interested in the trade
and have contributed compensation to the levy fund for the sup
pression of public-houses, and yet see that the moment one of
these institutions is suppressed its place is taken by a club
carrying on the same business. I might almost here appeal
for the unanimous support of all sections of opinion in the

The Licensing Bill 299
House with regard to this question, anxious and eager as we
are not to interfere with the bona-fide club. But this provision
for the registration of clubs being annually renewed is urgently
needed. If an objection is made on the ground that a club is
used mainly as a drinking resort, or on any ground specified
in the Act of 1902, and it is upheld by the justices, they may
make an order directing that the premises shall not be used for
the same purposes any time during the next five
Police _ years. This order is subject to appeal. To
0" Clubs" secure an enforcement of the law we propose
that power should be given to any chief con
stable, inspector, or superintendent of police, or an officer of
superior rank specially authorised by the chief constable, to
enter and inspect the premises of any registered club. That is
a provision to be applied to all registered clubs alike — in Pall
Mall and St. James's Street as elsewhere. The conditions are
carefully framed so as to prevent any possibility of offence or
any legitimate cause of irritation. We are dealing with an
admitted and growing evil. Anxious as I am from the point of
view of both sides not to interfere with political and working
men's clubs, with bona-fide institutions to promote social inter
course and political and economic discussions, we cannot fail
to recognise that under the guise of clubs there are springing
up in this country a set of ill-regulated public-houses, and that
it is quite time the law stepped in.
There is one other serious provision in the Bill to which we
attach the greatest importance. I classify them under the
general head of conditions.. Experience has
Ou tion a^ shown various abuses in connection with the use
of licensed premises which, apart from any ques
tion of compensation or monopoly value, ought to be dealt with
in one of two ways or by both — either by increasing the
stringency of the general law or by reviving and enlarging the
powers of the licensing justices attached to the conditions
relating to the renewal of the licence. I will take the first
question — -namely, that of the Sunday opening of public-
houses. We propose to apply the Welsh Sunday Closing Act
to Monmouthshire, but we do not believe that public opinion in
England is ripe for a measure of universal Sunday closing. On
the other hand, there is little doubt that the hours during which
public-houses are open on Sunday are, as a Tule, excessive in
the interests both of the persons engaged in the trade and of the

300 The Licensing Bill
community at large. Both the majority and the iminority of the
Peel Commission were of opinion that a case was made out in
this respect for further curtailment. We propose that outside
the metropolis, where the state of things is quite exceptional,
no public-house should be open on Sundays more than one
hour in the middle of the day or more than two hours in the
evening. Further, the justices are empowered to attach as a
condition to the renewal of the licence any particulars either
of total prohibition or of further restriction on the sale of liquor
in particular premises on Sunday. Where the justices attach
that condition and convert a licence practically into a six days'
licence, the Bill provides that the licence duty shall be reduced
by one-seventh. [An Hon. Member. — " Any compensation ? "]
No compensation.
Another evil of a cognate character arises in connection with
the definition of the bona-fide traveller. At present under sec
tion io of the Act of 1874 a person satisfies the
^ne definition if he has spent the previous night
Traveller6 three miles away. We propose — again follow
ing the recommendations of the Peel Commis
sion — to substitute six miles for three miles in all cases. Here,
again, we empower the justices to attach by way of condition to
the renewal of the licence any further restrictions in regard to
particular premises in this respect that seems to them to be
reasonable. There are cases where some such restrictions might
be reasonable.
There are a number of other matters which require elasticity
in their treatment and as to which therefore, while making no
w change in the general law, we give the widest
Children discretion, subject to due notice to the owner
and to appeal, for the justices to attach condi
tions to the renewal of licences. First, as to the exclusion of
children from the- bars of licensed premises. I will read the
proposed clause, " In the case of any licensed premises to which
this section applies, the holder of the licence shall not allow
any child to remain any time in the bar of the licensed pre
mises. On the grant of renewal of licences in respect of pre
mises other than railway refreshment rooms, the licensing jus
tices may order that this section shall apply to those premises,
and may, for the purpose of the operation of the order in those
premises, fix any limit of age under which a child shall be
deemed to be a child." That gives considerable latitude for

The Licensing BilL 301
local conditions, and no doubt, as a rule, the justices will fix a
sufficiently high age to prevent this terrible and growing evil
of keeping young children in bars. Next, we give the justices
power to make conditions as to the employment of women or
children on the licensed premises, as to the arrangement of any
part of the premises open to the public, as to any access to
them, as to the supplying to any person of a .measure of liquor
exceeding that asked for, as to the closing of the premises at
specified hours on particular days, and as to closing the pre
mises completely or for a specified time on polling days during
Parliamentary or municipal elections. If the holder of the
licence makes default in any of the conditions so attached to it,
the justices may, on the next application for its renewal, refuse
renewal, and refuse it without compensation. There are a
number of other minor .provisions in the Bill dealing with
special branches of the law which I will pass over.
I have explained as clearly as I can the main provisions of
the Bill ; and, whatever be its merits or demerits, the House
will see that it is a large and comprehensive
Character scheme. All its provisions are directed, and
of the Bill directed solely, to securing the two object.
which I indicated at the outset — first, an im
mediate improvement, not only by the reduction of licences, in
the conditions under which this traffic is now carried on ; and,
secondly, the ultimate recovery by the State of complete
dominion of its property and freedom of action. The Bill is
not conceived, I say once again, in a spirit of vindictiveness or
hostility to any particular interest. It is not proposed by us at
this moment as incapable of amendment. We invite criticism
upon it; and, as long as that criticism is honest — and by
"honest" I mean loyal to the general and governing purposes
of the scheme — we shall welcome it ; and, if we are convinced
' of its justice, we shall be ready to defer to it.

XXXV.
REDUCTION OF ARMAMENTS.
(From The Times, March 3, 1908 )
On March 2, in the Commons, it was moved and seconded by
private members of ihe Liberal Party : " That, in view of ihe
continued friendly relations wilh foreign Powers announced
in the gracious Speech from the Throne, this House trusts that
further reductions may be made in expenditure on armaments,
and effect be given io the policy of retrenchment and reform, to
which the Government is pledged." On behalf of the Govern
ment Mr. Asquith, hi ihe absence through illness of the Prime
Minister (Sir Henry Campbell- Banner -mail), moved an amend
ment declaring that the House " will support His Majesty's
Ministers in such economies of naval and military expenditure
as are consistent with the adequate defence of His Majesty's
dominions.]
I can assure my two hon. friends who have supported this
motion with so much force and feeling that in the dominating
motive which I am certain has actuated them in bringing it
forward — namely, a desire to do something effectual to reduce
the growth of naval and military expenditure not only in this
but in other countries — they have the complete sympathy of
every member who sits on this bench. Among all the
avoidable curses which in these days afflict the civilised world,
there are few I think that bring a greater sense of despair than
the competition in armaments. Looked at even from the
varying economic point of view it means the annual diversion
from productive to unproductive employment of an almost in
calculable quantity of potential wealth both in money and in
men. I have complete sympathy, therefore, with the intention
and the motive of my hon. friends. Further, I quite accept
their disclaimer — couched though it was in rather menacing

Reduction of Armaments 303
terms by my hon. friend who has just sat down — of any hostile
intention to the Government in bringing forward the motion.
I need hardly point out to them and to the House that a
motion of this kind, if adopted, must and would be judged, not
7 ne by the spirit in which it is conceived, but by the
Government sense in which it will be interpreted; and I
and the cannot but think, and the Government think,
Motion .^^ a resoiut)ion 0f this kind deliberately passed
by the. House of Commons a week after the Army and Navy
Estimates have been circulated would be construed, and must
be construed if passed in the form in which it now stands, as
a declaration that the Government had failed to make such
reductions as were required for the interests of the State— at
any rate, that they had been slack in redeeming the pledges
which they gave to the constituencies. I need not say that the
Government cannot admit the accuracy of either of these pro
positions ; and hence I have thought it to be my duty to put
down an amendment which I now move. I should not have
thought it right to meet the motion of my hon. friend by a
direct negative. On the contrary, we adopt, and we gladly
adopt, the preamble with which his declaration is prefaced. We
invite the House, however, in our amendment, to make a
declaration in favour of economy and of support _to the
Government in all the efforts it is making towards this end.
The Government will then be more solemnly pledged than ever
before to do' everything in their power to promote this economy ;
but at the same time we ask the House — we are bound to ask
the House — ito give explicit recognition to the governing con
sideration by which all economies must in the long run be
regulated— namely, that they are -consistent with the adequate
defence of his Majesty's dominions.
Something is said in the motion of my hon. friend about
the pledges given to the country in favour of economy by the
Government and their supporters. I quite agree
PI H of '^at one of the heaviest counts in the indictment
Economy which many of us preferred against the late%
Administration was this, that during their term
of office the expenditure of the Army and the Navy had enor
mously and unnecessarily increased, and increased to a degree
which was not and could not be justly measured merely by the
sums annually voted by the House, for the actual outlay was
substantially added to by capital expenditure with money

304 Reduction of Armaments
borrowed for the purpose. We were undoubtedly pledged, and
are pledged, to do everything in our power as promptly and
as effectively as we can to effect some mitigation of that
enhanced scale of expenditure. But some of us pointed out at
the time of the General Election that while it is very easy to
raise the level of expenditure for purposes like these it is
very difficult to cut it down again. When pledges are
spoken of I should like to cite some words which I used, not
on one occasion only, but often. It is only a sample of what
I said even at the time when I had just assumed the office of
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on which I laid stress at the
General Election. Speaking at Perth on January nth, 1906, I
used these words : —
" It is very easy to pile up expenditure, but once you have
raised the standard of expenditure in the Army, Navy, Civil
Service, and other departments of the State, it is extremely
difficult to cut it down again to the level from which you started.
New interests have been created, new expectations held out,
new and expensive services have been begun and developed,
large worits of construction are in the course of erection, and
you cannot in a moment as by a magic wand bring things
back to the condition in which formerly they were."
This was an expressive and authoritative statement which the
newly-formed Government made at the time of the election ;
and I am bound to say more or less as an outsider — as one at
any rate having a superficial and preliminary acquaintance with
the duties of his office — that after more than 'two years' experi
ence, in which I can honestly say that almost day and night
I have been battling — I will not say with my colleagues, though
in that I should not be saying anything far from the truth — in
every department of the State, not merely to bring about reduc
tions, but to prevent increases in expenditure, I found out how
prescient I was then in the words I had uttered, how serious,
grave, formidable, almost insuperable, were the obstacles when
inflated and reckless expenditure once presents itself
to those who conscientiously and resolutely desire to lessen it.
Apart from that, I ask the attention of the House to the
actual facts in order to see what we have done during the two
R . .. years. I will take first of all the case of the Navy.
in the Navy "^he tota" ou'tlay on the Navy consists of three
different heads. First of all there .are the sums
voted by the House in the Estimates, from which, of course, it

Reduction of Armaments 305
is only fair to subtract the amount under the Naval Works Act,
which represents the payment of interest and reduction of
principal on works created. In the second place, there is the
money raised and spent on loans ; and, in the third place,
there has been in the last few years another item of considerable
importance, though it has largely escaped the attention of the
House — namely, the stores in stock which have been drawn
upon for consumption without being replaced. These three
items together represent the total outlay on the Navy for any
given year. What did they amount to during the last few
years ? I begin with the year 1904-5, and I use round figures.
The expenditure in that year was ,£41,400,000; in the year
igo5-6 it was ,£38,300,000 ; in the year igo6~7 — for a part of
which only we were responsible — it was ,£36,000,000 ; in the
year igo7-8 it was ^34,750,000; and in the year igo8-g it will
.be just short of ,£34,000,000. So that if you compare the total
actual outlay — and I am speaking of gross expenditure^for the
year igo7-8 with the year igo5-6, you have a reduction of
,£3,500,000 ; and if you compare the same year with igo5-7, you
have a reduction of ,£1,200,000. Let us take the figures in
reference to one particular item — the item of new construction.
Here, again, I won't make a comparison with the years 1903-4
or 1904-5, because they were exceptional years. In the years
1905-6 the item for new construction was ,£9,690,000 ; in 1906-7
it was ;£8, 860,000; in 1907-8 it was ;£8, 100,000; and in the
present year it was ,£7,540,000. So that the Estimates now
before the House compared with those of 1905-6 show a reduc
tion in respect of this item of ^2,140,000, and, compared
with those of igo6-7, a reduction of ,£1,316,000. That is a very
solid, substantial, and successful effort to reduce expenditure.
But when you are comparing what appears to be the outlay on
the Navy in different years, you ought to analyse the figures
and read between the lines. Let me make some explanatory
notes from that point of view.
First as regards loans. Under the administration of the late
Government a great deal was spent on the Navy which did not
appear in the votes at all. For several years
'"''"" the loan expenditure reached nearly ,£3,500,000
a year. I have never said that under no .conceivable circum
stances is it right to defray capital expenditure on any service
out of borrowed money. I shall never say anything of the
kind. But I do say unhesitatingly that the system followed

306

Reduction of Armaments

during these ten years was wasteful and extravagant ; that both
the Army and the Navy got into the habit of resorting to
borrowing for defraying the cost of services which ought to
have been defrayed out of revenue, and that through the neces
sary withdrawal from direct Parliamentary criticism and control
of the money raised by loans, works of an expensive and un
necessary character were undertaken with no productive result.
That item of expenditure, which in some years was as much as
£3,500,000 under the last Administration, sank last year to little
over £1,000,000 ; and it will now soon disappear. On the other
hand, and this is another consideration to be taken into account
when dealing with the apparent expenditure on the Navy, our
expenditure has been ostensibly swollen by the growing charge
for the annuities necessary to repay these loans raised in the
past. If you go back to igo2, the amount of annuities charged
on the votes was only £122,000. In 1906-7 it was £1,094,000;
in 1908-g it will be £1,264,000; and in igio-n it will be
£1,360,000. Thus in eight years the apparent annual cost of
the Navy in consequence of meeting these loans out of
annuities will have risen by £1,228,000.
Then there is the question of stores. Every one knows that
in the year following the Estimates of igo4-5 there was an enor
mous apparent reduction in the Navy Estimates, due to the
initiation of the policy which is known as
ava. ores "&crapping" — the discarding of obsolete ships
which had been hitherto kept in commission. I say nothing
now as to the wisdom of that policy. It is a matter of acute
controversy in naval circles. But one result of the policy of
scrapping on a large scale was this — that there was set free a
huge quantity of surplus or redundant stores, otherwise needed
for the purposes of these discarded ships. Ever since the year
1904-5 the Navy has been living to a considerable extent on
these redundant stores. Instead of Parliament's being obliged
to provide money on the Estimates to supply these stores to
the Navy, the Navy, through the stores set free, has been able
to supply itself. During the last three years the naval expendi
ture has been aided by these redundant stores by sums which
have varied from £768,000 in the first year to no less than
£1,241,000 in the last. Like other things, except the widow's
cruse, these stores have come at last to an end ; and, during
the next financial year, we shall only receive aid to the extent
of £500,000, and in the following year none at all. We have,

Reduction of Armaments 307
therefore, to provide out of cash — and that is one-of the reasons
for the apparent increase this year — for the requirements of a
Navy which .has been living on capital in this respect. It is
thoroughly acknowledged by my hon. friends that such emer
gency and contingency expenses are not likely to be recurrent
as those we have to provide for — the cooling or refrigerating
magazines for the great battleships which we now know are
absolutely essential to their safety ; and the extra cost of fuel,
due to what we think is a temporary rise in the price of coal.
The Navy contracts had to be made when the price was still
exceptionally high. These things are beyond the region of
controversy; and when these facts are taken into account, I
say that during the two years when we have had actual control,
we have made substantial progress in redeeming our pledges.
And I add that I do not believe the Navy was ever in a more
efficient condition than it is at present. It is not possible to
suggest that that substantial reduction has been incompatible
with maintaining and even with improving the fighting
efficiency of the Fleet.
I pass from the Navy to the Army, and here, again, I deal
with gross expenditure. There is no question here of surplus
stores, and so the actual outlay means the
Economies sums voted by Parliament and spent — not
always Che same thing — and the money
actually raised and expended from loans. The figures
circulated by the Secretary for State deal only with net expendi
ture. In the year' 1904-5, the expenditure was £36,300,000 ; in
1905-6, it was £32,800,000; in 1906-7, it was £32,050,000; in
1907-8, it was £30,691,000 ; and in 1908-9, it is £30,390,000.
If again I compare the year 1907-8 with the years igo5-6 and
1906-7, we see that there is a reduction on the expenditure of
igo5-6 of £2,100,000, and on that of igo6-7 of £1,362,000.
Here, again, the same analysis will be necessary. The average
annual expenditure, out of loans for the three years ended igo5-6
was £2,500,000. That my right hon. friend has brought down
.jo £320,000. On the other hand, the loan annuity, which in
the Army as in the Navy has been growing all the time, which
we have got to defray out of the votes, and which in 1904-5 was
£651,000, in 1907-8 was £1,222,000, and in igog-io will amount
to £1,158,000. Thus the House would see that in the course of
five years the apparent, not the real, cost of the Army, in
consequence of the extra charge of the Annuity, has risen by

3o8

Reduction of Armaments

half a million sterling. If you add to that the non-recurrent
expenditure which my right hon. friend has had to face in
connection with the winding-up of the Volunteers and with the
initial expenses of the Territorial Army, the House will find
that in the Army, as in the case of the Navy, we have made
very substantial progress in the direction of retrenchment.
I now take the actual outlay on the Army and Navy combined,
and make the same comparison. As compared with igo5-6, the
reduction for igo7-8 on the Army and Navy together is
£5,632,000, and as compared with igo6-7, £2,553,000. Those
facts are, I think, sufficient to show that we have kept steadily in
view the pledges we gave, though I quite agree that the reduc
tions are not so large as some of us hoped for.
I shall be asked " what about the future ? " The motion of
my hon. friend is prefaced by a reference to the growth which
. we have witnessed in recent years of friendly
Aeeements agreements and intimacies between ourselves
and other Powers. I propose, as I have said,
in the amendment which I am about to submit, to retain that
reference. The happy working of a wise and skilful diplomacy,
conducted with equal earnestness and skill and tact both by Lord
Lansdowne and my right ihon. friend the present Secretary of
State for Foreign Affairs, has established relations based upon
written covenants, but cemented, I am glad to say, by reciprocal
good will, which remove some, at any rate, of the dangers with
which we used to have to reckon in days gone by. There are,
to speak first of the Navy, some combinations — I will not
particularise them — which used to trouble the minds and colour
the policy of statesmen which, to say the least of it, have
become in the highest degree improbable and which, we may
hope in a very few years, at any rate, will have passed into the
region of the inconceivable. And even where, as in the case
of Germany, there is no express compact, we have the best
reason to hope and believe that the two peoples are every year
advancing nearer and nearer to a complete mutual under
standing. We, on our side — I say it advisedly — have no reason
to witness with suspicion or with apprehension any naval ex
pansion there or elsewhere which should simply correspond to
the economic and defensive needs of the country and a rapidly-
growing population becoming more and more dependent both
for food and raw material on overseas sources of supply and
with an expanding maritime commerce which she is bound to

Reduction of Armaments 309
protect. Those are perfectly legitimate limits of naval
expansion. On the other hand, I say emphatically, our shipbuilding
policy, and the whole of our naval policy, is a purely defensive
one. We not only do not wish to take the lead,
Command of jjU.t we want to do everything in our power to
Vital Necessity Prevent a new sPurt in competitive shipbuilding
between the great naval Powers. We do not, as
the Estimates which are now circulated sufficiently show, build
against programmes which are merely on paper. The policy
of the Government is most clearly defined in a single sentence
of the Memorandum of my noble friend the First Lord of the
Admiralty, which I will read to the House. After dealing with
the shipbuilding programme for the new year, my noble friend
says: — "This programme suffices for igo8-g ; whether, and to
what extent, it may be necessary to enlarge it next year, or in
future years, must depend upon the additions made to their
naval force by foreign Powers. His Majesty's Government
have every intention of maintaining the standard of the British
Navy which has hitherto heen deemed necessary for the safe
guarding of our national and Imperial interests." What does
that mean? Our naval position is at this moment, as I believe,
as the Government believe, one of unassailable supremacy, and
such it must remain. The command of the sea, however im
portant and however desirable it may be to other Powers, is,
to us, a matter of life and death. We must safeguard it, not
against imaginary dangers, not against bogeys and spectres and
ghosts, but we must safeguard it against all contingencies that
can reasonably enter into the calculations of statesmen. For
that purpose, we believe it to be our duty to maintain our
standard of relative naval strength.
Both my hon. friends have said something as to the historical
origin of what is called the two-Power standard, and I daresay
they are correct in the statements which they
The Standard made on that point. But I do not think the
ot Naval historical origin of the standard matters very
much. The combinations of Powers- and the
relations between Powers necessarily shift from time to time.
The standard which is necessary for this country — you may ex
press it by any formula you please, though I believe it to be a
convenient and practical formula — the standard which we have
to maintain is one which would give us complete and absolute

310 Reduction of Armaments
command of the sea against any reasonably possible combina
tion of Powers. I do not think it desirable, on the contrary,
I think it in the highest degree undesirable, in the public
interest to speculate as to what the possible groupings may be;
whether this Power or that may or may not become, in the
future, the enemy of this country. Of this I am perfectly cer
tain, and I believe I can make this statement in the face of
-this House and in the face of Europe, that there is none of the
Great Powers of the world at this moment, I believe without a
single exception, which views with animosity, jealousy, or mis
giving the Navy of Great Britain being maintained at what we
call the two-Power standard. I do not believe they do. I see
no evidence that they do ; I do not believe any evidence can be
produced that they do. But I may add that, further than that
limit, the limit laid down by the First Lord of the Admiralty
in his Memorandum, we have neither any temptation nor any
inclination tp go.
I pass to what is, undoubtedly, a difficult question, the ques
tion of the Army, because it 'raises considerations of a
different kind. It is not on the Army, in the
The Army long run—that we rely for the defence of this
and its
Funrtio ¦; kingdom and the protection of our possessions.
But, as everbody must agree, though we may
differ about numbers and so on, our Regular Army has certain
defined and indispensable functions, as to which there is now
a general consensus, and which no other instrument, neither
the Navy nor the Territorial Force, nor any combination of the
two, can adequately discharge. There are two principles
affecting the size of the Home Army, and I speak, of course, of
the Regulars, which have been adopted and pursued, with
-general agreement, for the best part of forty years. Their
history and their justification are very carefully set out in the
Memorandum of my right hon. friend * the Secretary of State
for War. The first is that we ought to get rid, as far as pos
sible, of foreign service for the Regular Army and leave to the
self-governing parts of the Empire the eost and responsibility
of local military defence. The second is that we ought to
make our home establishment a central reserve force for Im
perial purposes, and, therefore — and this is where the question
of numbers comes in — to proportion its numbers and strength
* Mr. Haldane.

Reduction of Armaments 311
to the troops required for service in India and in the outlying
parts of the Empire. That principle lies at the root of what
is called the Cardwell system of linked troops, which is the
governing, though it is not the only, factor in determining the
size of our Regular Army.;
What is the enormous increase in the cost of the Army,
something like £8,000,000 during the last ten years, due to ?
It is not mainly or substantially due to any
Causes of great increase in numbers. The establish-
of Armv ' ment abroad — I think the figures will be found
in the Memorandum of my right hon. friend —
has grown in those ten years by less than 5,000, and that at
home by less than 3,000. What, then, has been the 'main cause
of the increase ? By far the laTgest cause, I think, is the higher
pay which has been given to the men and the officers. I need
not go into the figures, but I am sure I am not exaggerating
when I say that at least two and a half millions, two millions
at any' rate, of the additional cost of the Army is represented
by the increased pay, the greater comfort in various ways of the
men alone. I do not know whether, if we had" to go through
that process again, we should find it possible to justify every
step that has been taken, but I- am certain that neither this nor
any other House of Commons would go back on what has been
done. You cannot reduce the wages of the soldier. You can
not, in these days particularly, possibly ask a man who has
gone to serve his country in the Army to accept a lower
standard of comfort and of remuneration than that which at
present prevails. I do not believe that is practical politics,
and I do not believe that there is any party in the House in
favour of it.
Then how are we to reduce the cost of the Army? That is
the serious matter for us. I agree with my hon. friend who
has just sat down in saying that there never has
The Army been _et ,_._. in regard to our Regular Army any
such standard as the two-Power standard, and
for a very good reason. The Navy is our vital instrument ot
national defence, whereas the Army exists for much more
defined and much more limited purposes. How, then, are we
to reduce the cost of the Army ? As I have said over and over
again in this House, there is only one way in which it can be
done — that is by reducing the number of men. I should like
to mention one or two considerations of a more general kind

312 Reduction of Armaments
which you have to bear in mind — those of you who are anxious,
as I am, for a reduction in the number of men. In the first
place, the whole problem of the size of your Regular Army at
home must in the long run, under the Cardwell system- 
Colonel SEELY (Liverpool, Abercromby) interjected a
remark which did not reach the Gallery.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.— Of course, if
you are going to abolish the Cardwell system, I agree ; but my
hon. friend has first to persuade this House to abolish it. But
so long as the Cardwell system exists, the size of your Army
must bear a strictly definite relation to the size of the force that
you keep in India and the other parts of the Empire.
In talking about India both my hon. friends referred, very
naturally, to the Anglo-Russian Agreement, in regard to which
so many congratulations were offered the other
T , _ . night, and rightly, to the Secretary of State for
Anglo-Russian ,, .' .„ ¦ JZT -,..._ a
Aereement toreign Affairs. No one rejoices in that Agree
ment more than I do, or appraises its value
more highly ; but it is only fair to remember that while, as I
hope and believe, that Agreement will produce in time a very
considerable effect on the military situation in India, you must
remember that Anglo-Indian military requirements never have
been and never can be governed solely — I might almost say
mainly — by the possibilities of an invasion on the North -West
frontier. That is only one of the contingencies against which
you have to guard ; and your force in India, which was fixed
as far back as the time immediately after the Mutiny, was fixed
in reference to a large number of considerations quite indepen
dent of the possibility of invasion — considerations many of
which still have, or ought to have, as much weight as they had
at the time. I do not think it is expedient or desirable to go
into detail as to what those considerations are. They are per
fectly familiar to any one who has studied the matter, and I
only allude to them in order to enteT a caveat against the
notion that the Anglo-Russian Agreement, important as it is,
must necessarily lead in a short space of time to any substan
tial reduction in the garrison. But this I will say, and I am
sure it will be gratifying news to both my hon. friends, that my
right hon. friend the Secretary for India is now and has for some
time been in close communication with the Indian Government
in regard to the whole question of the maintenance and distri
bution and size of the military *forces in India. I think the

Reduction of Armaments 313
House ought to be satisfied for the 'moment with that declara
tion. I cannot anticipate what will be the result of the delibe
rations which are taking place, but the House may be quite
certain that they will be continued in a serious spirit and with
a desire to arrive at a thoroughly satisfactory result.
Leaving India for the moment out of the question, there are
other parts of the Empire where we still maintain garrisons
Colonial which, in my opinion and in the opinion of the
Garrisons Government, it is our business to reduce. My
right hon. friend, in his statement circulated
with the Estimates, states what is to be done in that direction
as the result of a decision of the Cabinet during the coming
year. He says: — "The policy of concentrating our forces is
still being continued, and in pursuit of this policy the Govern
ment has, during the last two years, materially reduced our
garrisons abroad, and aims at reducing them still further
wherever withdrawals can safely be effected. With this object
in view, it has been decided to bring home from Colonial
stations during the coming financial year one cavalry regi
ment and four battalions of infantry. This arrangement has
the full assent of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is
of opinion that the time has arrived when the interests of South
Africa admit of some reduction of the garrison." I hope and
believe that is only a first step. We have granted self-govern
ment to the two colonies in South Africa, and the necessity for
the maintenance of a large military garrison there has, we be
lieve, ceased to exist. There is no part of the world where it
is so costly to maintain British troops as it is in South Africa,
and if we bring home, without danger to the peace and good
order of South Africa, as we believe will be the case, first this
instalment and then gradually more and more of the garrison
out there, we shall be establishing not only an immediate
saving in the cost of the men who are brought home, but, by
being able to dispense with expensive expedients like provi
sional battalions here and producing a complete balance .be
tween the units at home and abroad, we shall make a double
economy which will have visible and substantial effect. Before
I leave that point, let me say in regard to this question of
Army reduction that, since we came into office, my right hon.
friend the Secretary of State for War has reduced the numbers
of -the Regular Army by 21,700 men — the announcement does
not seem to receive very .much credit from hon. gentlemen

314 Reduction of Armaments
opposite — there again, I believe, not only not impairing but
substantially increasing the efficiency of the forces.
I have endeavoured to describe to the House what I may call
the political limits which circumscribe the finance of the Army
and Navy. Those limits depend upon policy,
Political anci policy, I quite agree with my hon. friend
and" ExoTrts " w^° Just sat down, ought to be determined,
not by the opinion of experts, but by the de
cisions of the Cabinet. But I must not be understood as
alleging or admitting that even within those limits there is no
room and no need for further economies. Experience shows
that .many things in the judgment of experts are indispensable
or were indispensable so long as the Exchequer was readily
accessible, and still more so long as money could be raised
easily by loan which posterity had to pay. Many things which
were then regarded as indispensable assume a very different
complexion under a more rigid financial system, and are found
to admit of substantial curtailment, or even in some cases,
without any damage to the real interests of the country, of
indefinite postponement. The abolition of the loan system is
in itself a powerful guarantee of this kind of economy. But I
repeat — and I should not be telling the House the wholetruth
if I said I was satisfied — I am not satisfied. I welcome, and I
am asking the House leave to adopt, an authoritative declara
tion in favour of economy, carefully safeguarded, as I think
every such declaration should be, by the due and full con
sideration of our national and Imperial risks. I welcome such
a declaration on international grounds as making for peace
and goodwill, and I welcome it also on domestic grounds as a
warning to us, a warning which, I can assure my hon. friends,
the Government did not need to have clamourously dinned into
their ears, which they are only too ready to take, a warning
to all of us, in whatever quarter of the House we may sit, to be
on our guard lest we drain away into the channel of unproduc
tive expenditure that reservoir of resources, limited as it is both
in area and in depth, upon which alone we can draw for the
enriching work of social reform. I beg to move the amendment.

XXXVI.
THE TWO-POWER STANDARD FOR THE NAVY.
(From The Times, March n, 1908.)
[In reply to inquiries addressed to. the Government by the Leader
of the Opposition (Mr. Balfour) during the debate on the
¦ Naval Estimates on March 10, Mr. Asquith made the following
notable declaration of the Cabinet's and the. Liberal Party's
policy in regard to the Navy.]
I do not in the least complain of the spirit in which the right
hon. gentleman has addressed himself to the matter or of his
-putting this question, for I am glad to say we do not deal with
the Navy in a party spirit. I agree with him that it is of the
greatest interest to the community. Before I proceed, to the
best of my ability, to answer the question, let me repeat what I
. said a little while ago. I do not think there is the faintest dif
ference of opinion between us on two points, one of which may
be said perhaps to involve the other.
The first is that we must maintain the unassailable supremacy
of this country at sea ; and the next is that for that purpose the
two-Power standard, as it is commonly called,
Tne whether it is a scientific formula or not, is quite
oi1__"_.?jer a practical and workable standard. On that
btandard r . ... _, ,,
there is no difference of opinion. My noble
friend the First Lord of the Admiralty pointed out, I think
clearly, in the memorandum circulated with the Estimates,
that there is no difference on that point between successive
.Administrations. The question of the right hon. gentleman, however, does not

31 6 Two-Power Standard for the Navy-
affect the second question at all, because in dealing with the
_ , two-Power standard you must not, of "course,
Classes or
Battleshios simply compare the comparative wealth, as it
were, of the various Powers in Dreadnoughts
and Invincibles. Everybody will agree that there are other
classes of battleships which must be brought into account also.
I myself, from such, knowledge as I have, can say that the Lord
Nelson and Agamemnon, although they may not be put in
quite the same class as the Dreadnought, yet are so superior to
most other battleships of other Powers, and in some respects so
little inferior to the Dreadnought, that they ought to weigh not
a little in the balance. But the question put by the right hon.
gentleman is confined entirely to vessels of the Dreadnought
and Invincible class. First of all, let us see what the assump
tion is in regard to Germany. The right hon. gentleman's
assumption is that in the month of December, perhaps in the
month of November, igi i, at any rate in the last two months
of 191 1, Germany will be, or may be, in possession of thirteen
ships of this class.
That statement, of course, is based on two preliminary hypo
theses. The first is that the whole of the German pTograimme
„ . . as now laid down on paper will be carried out
Construction t0 t^ie letter > an<l next, that the German rate of
construction will be such as at any rate to admit
of the building of one of these vessels within thirty months of
the date of its being laid down. If the ship takes longer than
thirty months from the date of laying down to completion, then
the thirteen vessels will not be there by the time the right hon.
gentleman mentioned. I need not say I am not going to dis
cuss whether those two hypotheses are or are not well founded,
whether the Germans will find it possible to adhere to their
programme, or to maintain this rate of construction. I think
there is very grave reason, on the second point, to doubt
whether they will. But let us assume it — only it must be
cleariy understood that it is upon those two hypotheses, and on
the assumption that they are real, that the problem presents
itself. Let us look at the other side of the image — the British.
By the end of the year 1910, when the battleship and the
cruiser which form part of the programme of this year's new
construction will have been completed — to put it at the latest
date, by the month of January, 191 1 — we shall have twelve
ships of this class. But when you cpme to the month of

Two-Power Standard for the Navy 3 1 7
November or December, 191 1, the Germans, if they have com
pleted their programme, and are able to carry out their ship
building in the time suggested, will have thirteen. In other
word's, we should be one short. That, of course, assumes that
nothing is done next year at all in the way of new construc
tion, because the twelve vessels referred to are provided for in
the programmes of the present and past years ; or that, what
ever is proposed to be done, vessels will be laid down at such a
date that they will not be completed by the month of November
or December, 191 1.
But without in any way forecasting what the shipbuilding
programme for next year may be, I will say, without the
faintest hesitation, that, if we find at that time
Pf, Po,lcy that there is a reasonable probability of the
Government German programme being carried out in the way
that the paper figures suggest, we should deem
it our duty to provide, and we should provide, not only for a
sufficient number of ships, but for such a date of laying down
of such ships that at the end of 191 1 the superiority of Ger
many, which the right hon. gentleman foreshadows, would not
be an actual fact. I hope that it is quite explicit. That is the
policy of his Majesty's Government ; it remains on record ; and
I think it ought to reassure the House that we do not intend in
this matter to be left behind.

XXXVII.
UNEMPLOYMENT AND THE RIGHT=TO=WORK
BILL.
(From The Times, March 14, 1908.)
[On the second reading of the Unemployed Workmen Bill, intro
duced by the Labour Party March 13. The Bill was rejected •
by a majority of 149.]
The right hon. gentleman * who has just sat down has re
pudiated with not, I think, unnatural warmth the imputation
that the germs of this measure are to be found in his own Act
of 1905 and that, as I think was rather suggested by my hon.
friend t the member for Leicester, henceforth he must be
regarded as the stepfather of Socialism in this country. I do
not think that any of us who have followed, whether as friends
or foes, the political career of the right hon. gentleman for the
last twenty years will regard that as a charge which he need
take either much trouble or time to confute. But I only rose-
for the purpose of pointing out before we come to a division, as
I hope we shall, first what is, and next what is not, the issue
before us.
The real issue is whether we are to give a second reading to
a Bill of which it is admitted by all its promoters, with the
_, _. . . . exception of my hon. friend who occupied a
The Right-to- r , ,._».,  V .
Work Clause somewhat difficult position in initiating the de
bate, that the gist and essence is to be found
in the third clause. The hon. member for Leicester
described it as the kernel. To pass the Bill without
that third clause would be to pass a bloodless and boneless
* Mr. W. H. Long. t Mr. Ramsay Macdonald.

Unemployment and Right to Work 319
absurdity, to set up a machine and at the same time to deprive
it of that measure of fuel and motive power which alone could
set if to work. The real issue raised is whether the third clause
does or does not meet with the approval of the House. What
is the clause? Shortly stated, it comes to this, that, as a
remedy for the problem of unemployment, you are to give to
every man and every woman who registers himself or herself
as an unemployed person the right to demand and to impose on
the local authority in the district or area in which he or she
resides the obligation to provide work, and work, as I read the
Bill, at the standard rate of wages, for I am perfectly certain
that trade unionists would not submit to work being given on
any other condition, or, in default of such work, to maintain
him or her and all those dependent on them. That is, as the
right hon. gentleman has said, an entirely novel principle.
That is a principle which involves in its application, as * the
hon. member for Burnley said, the complete ultimate control
by the State of the full machinery of production, and which,
in my opinion, for the reasons which have been given by pre
vious speakers, and which I will not repeat, so far from remedy
ing or helping to remedy the problem of unemployment, will
vastly aggravate it. That is the issue before the House.
But there is another matter which has very naturally and
very properly bulked largely in the speeches of hon. members
which is not in issue at all. That is whether
The we are satisfied with the provisions at present
11 1 *iTL_lIi!..?r^_.r.* made by the law and the administration of the
Unemployment J
law for dealing with the problem of unem
ployment. For my part, I say without any hesitation, and I
speak for my colleagues as well as for myself, I am not satis
fied. The problem of unemployment is a many-sided one.
It is a problem which you cannot solve unless you consider
causes as well as remedies, unless you are prepared not merely
with correctives, but with preventives, and, for my part, I very
much deprecate any attempt to solve it except in a" comprehen
sive and thoroughgoing fashion upon an all-round survey of
all the conditions of the case. The problem is of the gravest
magnitude and the greatest urgency; I do not think that any
spectator of our social conditions will deny that. The real
gravity of it consists in this — I am not going into controversial
* Mr. F. Maddison.

320 Unemployment and Right to Work
matters ; I am not going to say whether it exists in a more or
less degree in free trade or in protectionist countries or in
certain periods of trade development more than in others — the
real gravity of it is this— that we have in this country, and in
all highly-developed commercial communities in these days, a
chronic state of intermittent employment on the one side, with
its concomitant of casual labour on the other. That is the real
difficulty you are dealing with.
It is an economic difficulty in this sense, that it arises from
economic causes, and from the want of ease and automatic
„ adaptation in the machinery both of production
ResDonsibilitv an<^ distribution. But the fact that it is an
economic difficulty does not absolve the State,
in my opinion, from taking regard to it, and from seeing
whether it cannot, at any rate, facilitate the solution of it.
Even the Act of the right hon. gentleman himself, of which
I do not wish to say one word in disparagement, or to draw
from it conclusions which he would not admit, is an admission
on the part of all parties in the State that in this matter the
State must step in — either the central authority or the local
authority, as the case may be — at least to this extent, to co
ordinate and supplement the ineffectual private and communal
efforts which have, hitherto, failed effectually to deal with the
problem. I accept that principle, but I am not going to com
mit myself to a particular application until I am perfectly
satisfied that I am not going to do more harm than good.
We are expecting, we hope to receive in the course of a very
few months, the report of the Commission which has been
Xhe sitting for some years. I am sanguine enough
Government's to believe that, at any rate, the report of that
Policy Commission will throw a great deal of much
needed light on the darkest and more obscure sides of this
problem ; but, speaking for the Government, I can assure the
House that we are giving, and shall continue to give, with such
assistance as that report may supply, the most careful and
earnest consideration during the autumn and winter to the
best way of dealing with the matter. Whilst I do not pledge
myself, it would be dishonest to do so, not having in my mind
anything like what I could regard as a complete and adequate
solution, to introduce specific legislation. Certainly we shall
not fail in the most earnest, strenuous, and resolute desire to
bring before Parliament some practical method of dealing with

Unemployment and Right to Work 321
this chronic, but at the same time most urgent ahd pressing
problem. I say that to make it abundantly clear to those who
vote, as I am going to vote, with the hon. member for Burnley,
that we are in no sense indifferent to the question of finding
a solution of the problem that confronts us. But I would recall
the House to the fact that the real issue is not that. The real
issue is, Is this House going to recognise, for the first time in
the history of Parliament, this principle of the right to work
and the obligation to provide work, which, once recognised,
will, I venture to say, lead to conclusions little dreamt of or
suspected to-day, though fully realised by some hon. gentlemen
opposite ? I believe that these conclusions, if carried into
practical effect, will have consequences which, in my judgment
and the judgment of the Government,, would prejudice no class
of the community more seriously than the working class.

XXXVIII.
HOME RULE FOR IRELAND.
(From The Times, March 31, 1908.)
[In the Commons, March 30, 1908, on Mr. Redmonds motion
calling upon the House to declare itself in favour of the grant
of Home Rule to Ireland, Mr. Asquith, - on behalf of the
Government, refused to accept the original motion. In this
speech, almost on the eve of his appointment as Prime Minister,
it is striking to note his insistence on the same two cardinal
points which he emphasised in discussing the question of Home
Rule in 1893 (vide Speeches III. and V.) viz., the necessity of
safeguarding the Imperial supremacy in any grant of Home
Rule to Ireland, and his declaration that Irish Home Rule
must be regarded as part otily of a more comprehensive change
in order to set free the Imperial Parliament for Imperial
affairs.]
I agree with * the right hon. gentleman that it is quite impos
sible in the short space of time allocated to a debate of this
kind to survey in all its aspects the question of Home Rule. I
shall not attempt to do so, nor shall I attempt to follow the
right hon. gentleman into a part of his argument which is open,
I think, to a good deal of obvious criticism, in which he claimed
for himself and the party to which he belongs something in the
nature of a monopoly in regard to beneficent legislation for
land purchase and local government in Ireland. Those who
remember the history either of the one question or of the other
will know how to appraise properly his claim. But the right
hon. gentleman has not been content with making his own
speech ; he has been good enough to sketch out for me the
speech which he thinks I ought to make. I am very much
obliged to him, but, although I hope when I sit down I shall
* Mr. Arthur Balfour.

Home Rule for Ireland 323
not be open to the charge of nebulousness or obscurity, I am
going to make my own speech after my own fashion. The right
hon. gentleman appears to think that, while he and his party
in this matter occupy a clear and unequivocal position, and
while the same may be said of the followers of the hon.
member * for Waterford who sit below the gangway, we here,
and we orj this bench in particular, find ourselves to-night in a
position of considerable embarrassment. Well, I have had a
somewhat prolonged experience in this House, and I will ai
once relieve the kindly solicitude of the right hon. gentleman
by informing him that never in the whole course of that experi
ence have L felt less embarrassed than I do to-night— never.
For twenty years, for more than twenty years, I and .many of
my colleagues whom I see sitting around me here have steadily
and consistently voted, time after time, for
SeffGovernment propositions which, while explicitly safe
guarding the supreme and indefeasible
authority of this Imperial Parliament, have declared that the
ultimate solution of the Irish problem can only be found in a
system of self-government in regard to purely local -affairs.
From that opinion I have never receded, and I hold it just as
strongly to-night as ever I did. How then do we stand, those
who have acted in the past as I and many of my colleagues
have done, how do we stand on this question ? I am going to
. ask the attention of the House first of all in regard to the
motion of the hon. member for Waterford, and next in regard
to the amendment of-4- the noble lord. Shall I say at once,
and I hope there is no ambiguity here, I could not vote
for the motion of the hon. memher for Waterford in the form
in which it at present stands ? Why ?
Because I find 'in it no explicit recognition of what to my
mind has always been the governing condition in regard to this
matter— Imperial supremacy. The hon. gentle-
Supremacy man said in his sPeecn that any sucn addition
" was unnecessary ; I do not agree with him. I
can accept his assurance as to the sense in which his motion is
intended ; but I can remember motions, not of a similar
character, but in the same direction, made in the years gone
by in this House in which a claim was put forward for an inde
pendent Irish Parliament, motions which were strenuously
* Mr. J . Redmond. t Earl Percy.

324 Home Rule for Ireland
resisted by Sir William Harcourt, and against which Sir
William Harcourt and all of us went into the lobby. In my
opinion the recognition of the claim of Ireland for self-govern
ment must be accompanied by the express statement that what
ever is granted must be granted subject to the dominant^ and
paramount supremacy of this Imperial Parliament.
That defect, the cardinal defect of the motion of the hon.
and learned member for Waterford, would be set right by the
acceptance of the amendment which my hon. friend the
member for Walthamstow has placed on the paper.
Furthermore, and here again I hope there will be no
ambiguity, I could not vote for the motion of the hon. and
Home Rule learned gentleman if it were intended, or
a Question could be considered as being intended, to
for a _ declare it to be the duty of the present Parlia-
General Election ment t0 set up^ or t0 i,eg[n to set upj jn jre.
land a legislative or executive system. I say that for two very
obvious reasons. In the first place, I do not think any House
of Commons in these days would be justified in embarking
upon such a task, unless the matter had been, I will not say
the leading, but, at any rate, one of the leading issues sub
mitted to the electorate by which that House of Commons was
returned. That, obviously, was not the case in the General
Election of 1906. In the next place, many of us, including, I
am not ashamed to say, myself, are under- an express and
deliberate pledge to our constituencies and the country. The
right hon. gentleman in the concluding passages of his speech
actually went the length of taunting us as if we were prepared
to violate these pledges.
Mr. BALFOUR. — I really did not suggest that. I did sug
gest that you ought never to have made them.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.— That may
have been the right hon. gentleman's intention ; but I do not
think that was the effect his words produced on the House.
The reason why we gave those pledges was perfectly justi
fiable. We were engaged upon one of the greatest struggles
in which this country has ever engaged — a
Reform struggle on behalf of free trade. We saw, or
we thought we saw,- the very foundations of the
industrial and commercial supremacy of this country exposed
to a menacing and formidable danger. We believed that in
the paramount interests of the nation it was important that in

Home Rule for Ireland 325
such a crisis the forces of free trade should be concentrated in
defence of our fiscal system. The right hon. gentleman says
we were not justified in giving the pledges to which I have
referred. I can understand that", coming from the right hon.
gentleman. His degree of attachment — the warmth, -luke-
warmth, or coldness of his attachment — to free trade was at
the time one of the most speculative problems in the whole
domain of politics. I therefore quite understand the right hon.
gentleman not appreciating our position. But to those to
whom free trade was the great, the vital, the dominating issue,
nothing could be more natural or more proper than that we
should strive to concentrate, so far as we could, the support of
the whole country upon the side of that issue. That being so,
it would have been inexcusable on our part, having regard to
the. promise upon which the votes of the electorate were
obtained, were we to take any steps during the lifetime of the
present Parliament to set up a system of Home Rule in
Ireland. The utmost that could be done, consistently with the prornise
we gave, we attempted to do last year in the Irish Council Bill.
That Bill — I won't discuss it now — was not
The Irish inconsistent with further changes of a constitu-
1907 tional kind> but k did not involve tnem as a
necessary practical effect or logical conse
quence. I think myself that it would have brought great
beneficial and administrative benefit to Ireland, and that in ils
working it would in all probability have reconciled, probably
it would have stimulated, British opinion in favour- of a larger
measure of devolution. But by, as I think, an unhappy con
juncture of circumstances we were obliged to drop it, and so
far as the present Parliament is affected we have exhausted our
powers with regard to the problem of Irish government. I
hope I have made myself clear upon that point.
Let me pass now for a moment to the amendment of the
noble lord *the member for Kensington. I shall vote against
that amendment without hesitation for two
™e . reasons. In the first place, I shall vote against
Amendment i(. because it attacks and, by -implication, attri
butes to us here a position which was never held by Mr. Glad
stone or by any of his colleagues. That amendment assumes
* Earl Percy.

326

Home Rule for Ireland

that there is a policy — a policy formulated by somebody, a
policy supported by so much authority that it ought to be
expressly repudiated by the House of Commons — of setting up
in this United Kingdom two co-ordinate or indeed independent
Parliaments. Mr. Gladstone never proposed anything of the
kind. Whether as in the case of one of the Bills by a reserva
tion of powers, or in the case of the other by enumeration bf
delegated powers, Mr. Gladstone always made it perfectly
clear and distinct — and his words stand on record in a hundred
speeches — that whatever legislative powers were given to the
Irish Assembly should be exercised in subordination to and not
in co-ordination with this Parliament. I have another and
even stronger objection to the amendment of the noble lord,
and it is this — that in so far as it is not, as I think it is, an
empty phrase, it is a perfectly barren negation. The noble
lord's amendment implies either, as my right hon. friend * the
Chief Secretary said, that the present system of Irish govern
ment calls for no fundamental change (an opinion which none
of us on this side, I believe, maintains), or else it implies, by
its assertion of an undivided responsibility in the Imperial Par
liament for legislation and administration in regard to Ireland
— the word is " undivided " and not " ultimate " — that ameliora
tion is not to be sought in the direction of developing Irish self
government ; in other words, as I say, in the growing association
of power and responsibility.
The right hon. gentleman told us in one part of his speech
that this movement for what is called Home Rule was not only
lrish!Home Rule not analogous with, but was directly contrary
Part^of a More to, the development of free institutions in our
Comprehensive colonies. He used the word integration. He
ange said, the one movement was of integration, and
this was a movement of disintegration. Could there be a
greater, a more real, a more fundamental disintegration than
at present exists between Ireland and the Imperial Parliament ?
Is it not really playing with words — because you do not adopt
the same imethod of arriving at your end when the end is the
same, when the object in both cases is to assure loyalty, con
tentment, and unity, by drawing together the members for the
centre through giving greater freedom and larger autonomy to
the members in .matters that concern only themselves, whether
* Mr. A. Birr ell.

Home Rule for Ireland 327
you apply that process to a colony 10,000 miles away or to a
country separated only by a few miles ? The spirit, the object,
and, as we believe, the result are the same ; and let me add
this for myself, and I think I may speak for a great many other
people, I have always regarded what is called Home Rule in
Ireland as part and parcel — a most urgent part, I agree, in
point of both policy and time — of a more comprehensive
change. The constitutional problem — I am not sure it is not
the gravest of all the constitutional problems of the immediate
future — is fo set free this Imperial Parliament for Imperial
affairs, and in matters purely local to rely more and more on
local opinion and local machinery.
Ireland is by far the most urgent case. There is to-day, as
there has been for centuries, the one undeniable failure of
Imperial Supremacy British statesmanship. Nowhere else in
and the Empire is there a deeper or more
Local Autonomy unfailing reservoir on which we draw for
the Basis of Empire the arts both of peace and of waT . and yet
nowhere else in the Empire is there so widespread and fertile a
breeding-ground of perennial discontent. I do not profess to
foresee the precise steps and stages by which the goal will be
reached. Some wiseacres opposite may think that they can. I
have always thought, and I think every year, the more experi
ence I have of the actual working both of legislation and
administration in this House, the goal itself is certain and
inevitable. Are we to go on — I make this appeal even to the
strongest Unionist I see opposite — are we to go on, generation
after generation, treading with blind steps the same old well-
worn, hopeless track which zig-zags between coercion and con
ciliation, and which always returns in a vicious circle to the
point from which it started? Or — for this is the only alterna
tive — shall the British people, because they have got to be con
vinced, we all recognise that ; and until they are convinced you
cannot travel an inch on the road — shall the people of this
country be brought, as in time I both hope and believe they
will, to a higher and wider point of view, and, taught as they
ought to be by their own long and world-wide experience,
recognise that in Ireland, as elsewhere, it is in the union of
Imperial supremacy with local autonomy that the secret and
the safeguard of our Empire is to be found ?

XXXIX.
THE LATE SIR HENRY CAMPBELL=BANNERMAN.
(From The Times, April 28, 1908 )
After an illness disab.ing him from the transaction of business for
nearly two months, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman resigned
office as Prime Minister on April 3, 1908. On April 8, 1908,
Mr. Asquith was received in audience by the King at Biarritz,
and resigning his seals of office as Chancellor of the Exchequer,
kissed hands on his appointment as Prime Minister and First
Lord of the Treasury. Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman died
o?i April 22, and wheti Parliame7it met 071 April 27, after the
Easter recess, Mr. Asquith's first speech hi ihe Cot7i77ions as
Prime Minister was the following eloquent tribute to his
predecessor.]
Mr. Speaker, — Many of us, sir, have come here fresh from
the service in Westminster Abbey, where, amidst the monu
ments and memories of great men, the nation, took its last
farewell of all that was mortal in our late Prime Minister.
But, sir, there is not a man whom I am addressing now who
does not feel that our tribute to the dead would be incomplete
if this House, of which, by seniority, he was the father, and
which for many years he led, were not to offer to his memory
to-day its own special mark of reverence and affection. I shall
therefore, sir, propose before I sit down that we should lay
aside for to-day the urgent business which has brought us
together, and that the House do at once adjourn until to
morrow. It is within a few months of forty years since Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman took his seat in this Chamber. Mr.
Gladstone had just entered upon his first Premiership in the

Late Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman 329
plenitude of his powers and of his authority. A new House
elected upon an extended suffrage had brought to Westminster
new men, new ideas — as some thought — a new era. Among the
newcomers there were probably few, judged by the superficial
tests which are commonly applied, who seemed less obviously
destined than Mr. Campbell, as he then was, to fill the position
he ultimately reached. There have been men who, in,the cruel
phrase of the ancient historian, were universally judged to be
fit for the highest place only until they attained and held it.
Our late Prime Minister belonged to that rarer class whose
fitness for such a place until they had attained and held it was
never adequately understood. It is true that he reached office
much earlier in his Parliamentary career than is the case with
most politicians. In successive Governments, at the War
Office, at the Admiralty, at the Irish Office,, and at the War
Office again, he rendered devoted and admirable service to the
State. It is no secret, and it is sufficient proof that he himself
had no ambition for leadership, that, when he was for the
second time a Cabinet Minister, he aspired, sir, to be seated in
your chair. But though he had too modest an estimate of
himself to desire, and still less to seek, the first place in the
State, it fell to him, after years of much storm and stress, by
a title which no one disputed ; and he filled it with an ever
growing recognition in all quarters of his unique qualifications.
What was the secret of the hold which in these later days he
unquestionably had on the admiration and affection of men of
all parties and men of all creeds ? If, as I think was the case,
he was one of those men who require to be fully known to be
justly measured, may I say the more we knew him, both fol
lowers and opponents, the more we became aware that on the
moral as on the intellectual side he had endowments, rare in
themselves, still rarer in their combination ? For example, he
was singularly sensitive to human suffering and wrongdoing,
delicate and even tender in his sympathies, always disposed
to despise victories won in any sphere by mere brute force, an
almost passionate lover of peace ; and yet we have not seen in
our time a man of greater courage — courage not of a defiant
and aggressive type, but calm, patient, persistent, indomitable.
Let me, sir, recall another apparent contrast in his nature.
In politics I think he may be fairly described as an idealist in
aim, and an optimist by temperament. Great causes appealed
to him. He was not ashamed, even on the verge of old age,

330 Late Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman
to see visions and to dream dreams. He had no misgivings
as to the future of democracy, he had a single-minded and
unquenchable faith in the unceasing progress and the growing
unity of mankind ; none the less, in the selection of men for
the daily work of tilling the political field, in the choice of this
man or that for some particular task, he showed not only that
practical shrewdness which came to him from his Scottish
ancestors, but a touch of the discernment and insight of a cul
tured citizen of the world. In truth, Mr. Speaker, that which
gave him the authority and affection, which, taken together,
no one among his contemporaries enjoyed in an equal measure,
was not one quality more than another or any union of them :
it was the man himself. He never put himself forward, yet
no one had greater tenacity of purpose ; he was the least cynical
of mankind, but no one had a keener eye for the humours and
ironies of the political situation. He was a strenuous and un
compromising fighter, a strong party man, but he harboured no
resentment. He was generous to a fault in appreciation of the
work of others, whether friends or foes. He met both good and
evil fortune with the same unclouded brow, the same unruffled
temper, the same unshakable confidence in the justice and
righteousness of his cause. Sir Henry Campbell-Ban
nerman had hardly attained the highest place and made
himself fully known when a domestic trial, the saddest
that can come to any of us, darkened his days, and
dealt what proved to be a fatal blow to his heart.
But he never for a moment shirked his duty to the State ; he
laboured on — we here have seen it at close quarters — he
laboured on under strain and anxiety, and later, under a
maiming sense of a loss that was ever fresh, he was always
ready to respond to every public demand. And, sir, as we
knew him here, so after he was stricken down in the midst.
of his work, a martyr, if. ever there was one, to conscience and
duty, so he continued to the end.
I can never forget the last time that I was privileged to see
him, almost on the eve of his resignation. His mind was clear,
his interest in the affairs of the country and of this House was
undimmed ; his talk was still lighted up by flashes of that
homely, mellow wisdom peculiarly his own. Still more to be
remembered are his serene patience, his untroubled equanimity,
and the quiet trust with which during these long, weary days he
awaited the call he knew was soon to come. He has gone to

Late Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman 331
his rest, and to-day in this House, of which he was the senior
and the most honoured member, we may call a truce in the
strife of parties while we together remember our common loss
and pay our united homage to a gracious and cherished
memory. " How happy is lie born and taught
That serveth not another's will ;
Whose armour is his honest thought,
And simple truth his utmost skill ;
*****
" This man is freed from servile bands
Of hope to rise or fear to fall ;
Lord of himself though not of lands
And, having nothing, yet hath all."

INDEX

- Africa, South : see South Africa
Aliens — Bill, 225 ; — criminals : excessive percentage, 225 ; — immigra
tion : decrease, 226 ; — immigration board : composition, 227 ; —
political offenders : asylum rights, 227
Armaments — reduction, 302-314; effect of international agreements>
308
Army — colonial garrisons, 313; cost, 311; — expenditure, 307, 308;
— functions, 310; — India: see under India; — reduction, 313
Asquith, Mr. H. H. — constituency, relations with, 60 ; — Oxford con
temporary's appreciation, 1
Australia — Commonwealth Bill, 132 ; — tariff, 274 ; — white labour, 274
Balfour, Mr. A. J. — " An academic anarchist," 49
Boer War : see South African War
Budget (1907), 257-275
Burton — amnesty : see under Ireland — Dynamiters
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. — eulogy on death, 328-331
Canada — tariff, 273
Chamberlain, Mr. J. — fiscal proposals criticised, 150, 157, 160, 169,
187, 193, 199, 204; views in 1885, 200; trade condition (views
in 1902), 208
Chartism — killed by free trade, 201
Children — presence or employment on licensed premises : provisions
of Bill, 300, 301
Chinese labour : see Transvaal
Churchill, Lord Randolph — Home Rule Bill, 33
Church of England — establishment defined, 106; state control, 109,
no
Colonial preference : see under Fiscal policy
Corn tax — abolition ; ministerial dissensions, 154
Cunningham — amnesty : see under Ireland — Dynamiters
Dalton — amnesty : see under Ireland — 'Dynamiters
Daly— amnesty : see under Ireland — Dynamiters
Death duties, 267
Debt, national : see National debt
Dynamiters : see under Ireland
Empire — Great Britain's responsibility, 134 ; — imperial Court of
Appeal needed, 135 ; — Liberal party's ideal, 238 ; — unity in
relation to fiscal policy : see under Fiscal policy
Factories — legislation: alleged inconsistency with free trade, 211
Factories and Workshops Bill — provisions outlined, 92-104
Finance — policy of Campbell-Bannerman ministry, 232

Index

333

Fiscal policy— Balfour, Mr. A. J. : attitude, 158, 171 ;— Chamberlain,
Mr. J. : views in 1885, 200 ; — colonial preference, 273, 274 ;
colonies: attitude, 166, 180, 198; necessity: denial, 151; objec
tions, 151 ;—" dumping," 197, 215 ;— food taxation: effect, 162;
— free trade : benefits, 161 ; effect on prices, 201 ; alleged in
consistency with factory legislation, 211; Gt. Britain's depen
dence on, 272; — general election (1906): verdict, 237, 324; —
imperial unity, 161, 179 ;---Lyttelton, Hon. A. (views), 205';—
manufactures, foreign : taxation, 185 ; imports, increased, 190,
210 ;— ministry (Balfour) : attitude, 193 ; absence of unanimity,
204 ; intentions, 214, 221 ; — protection : dangers, 173 ; trade con
ditions, 199; "protection for beginners," 213; — raw material :
taxation, 164, 182 ; meaning of term, 195 ; — retaliation : conse-
, quences, 216 ; free traders' attitude, 172 ; difficulties, 174 ; —
ministry (Balfour) : intentions, 214, 221 j— Ritchie, Mr. : attitude,
158; — sugar tax : proposed remission, 165, 184; — sweating : effect
of protection, 203; — tea duty: proposed remission, 165, 184; —
trade condition, 152, 167, 176, 188, 193, 230, 273; Mr. J. Cham
berlain's views in 1902, 208
Featherston— amnesty : see under Ireland — Dynamiters
Featherstone riots, 53-59
Foreign relations — agreements : effect on armaments, 309 ;— Russia :
agreement, 312
Free trade : see under Fiscal policy
Gallagher — amnesty : see under Ireland — Dynamiters
General election (1892), 12
General election (1906), 234, 237, 324
Germany — naval building programme, 316, 317
Gladstone, W. E. — Home Rule views, 326 ; — income-tax : original
opposition to, 260, 261 ; views on differentiation, 261, 262
Grey, Sir E. — appreciation, 308
Home Rule — Bill (second), 29-52, 61-77 ; Churchill, Lord Randolph
(views), 33 ; financial proposals, 34, 66 ; Irish attitude, 39, 45 ;
Irish members : retention, 37, 70 ; " imperial supremacy," 34 ;
police-provisions, 68 ; second chamber, proposed, 49, 64 ; Ulster,
position of, 47 ; Unionist party : objections answered, 29 ; —
Gladstone, W. E. (views), 326 ; — Liberal pledges, 324 ; — ministry
(Campbell-Bannerman) : agreement with Irish parties denied,
235 ; — Unionist party : insincerity, 30, 75
" Home Rule all round," 77
House of Commons — Opposition : composition in 1892, 13
House of Lords — party character, 88, 89, 278, 279; — reform, 84-91,
,277
Imperial conference — speech on colonial preference, 271-275
Income-tax, 258-270 ; — Gladstone, W. E. : original opposition, 260,
261 ; — history, 260 ; differentiation : earned and unearned in-
- comes, 259, 262, 263 ; — graduation, 265 ; — millionaires, 268
India — army : how its strength .may be affected by Anglo-Russian
agreement, 312

334 Index

Ireland : —
Administration — Unionist party's policy, 16; Council Bill, 225
Crime : Coercion Act : renewal in 1888, 74
Dynamiters : amnesty, proposed, 20 ; Daly : case for prosecution,
22 ; Egan : release, 24
Home Rule : see that title
Jameson raid, 127, 142
Labour disputes — arbitration, 81 ; — Bill : see Trade Disputes Bill ;
—Featherstone riots : see that title ; — Unemployed : see Un
employed
Labour party — Liberal party, relations with, 229 ; — Parliamentary
representation welcomed, 235
Lansdowne, Lord— appreciation, 308
Legislatures — second chambers, 49, 64
Liberal party — Labour party, relations with : see under Labour
party ; — South African War : see under South African War
Licensing — appeals, 295; — Bill, 280-301 ; — Commission, central, 284;
composition, 295 ,• — compensation, 288, 289 ; Kennedy judgment,
289, 291 ; — clubs, 298, 299 ; — licences : monopoly value, 281 ;
permanency, 282 ; reduction, 284-287 ; annual value, 290 ; grant
ing of new, 296 ; off-licences, 297 ; six days, 300 ; — local option,
294, 296 ; — Sunday closing, 299 ; — tied houses, 290 ; — time limit,
292, 293 ; Lord Hugh Cecil (views), 292; Lord Rosebery (views),
292 ; — travellers, 300
Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred — fiscal policy (views), 205
Millionaires : see under Income-tax
Milner, Lord — policy defended in 1899, 128, 145
Ministers — unity essential, 159
Ministry (Gladstone) — legislation, 84
Ministry (Salisbury) — want of confidence vote, n ; minority, 13
Ministry (Campbell-Bannerman) — policy, 232
National debt — growth, 232
Navy — battleships : classes, 316 ; — expenditure, 304, 305, 308 ; —
Liberal policy, 317; — loans, 305; — strength: building pro
gramme, 309 ; command of sea a vital necessity, 309 ; two-power
standard, 309, 316; — Liberal policy, 81; — stores, 306
Old-age pensions, 269 ; Mr. Chamberlain's promises, 165
Parliament — devolution : need for delegation of local work, 219
Riots — executive responsibility, 53 ; — Featherstone riots : see that
title ; — local authorities' responsibility, 54 ; — military, employ
ment of, 56.
Shipping trade — condition : increased tonnage, 196
Socialism, 252
South Africa— federation prospects, 148 ;— garrison, 313

Index 335

South African War, 125-131, 140-148; — Boers: ultimately re
sponsible, 126, 128 ; their suspicions of British sincerity, 129 ; — •
conduct: difficulties acknowledged, 130 ; Liberal attitude, 144;
alleged inhumanity denied, 144 ;— concentration camps, 146 ; —
Jameson raid, 127, 142,; — Liberal party dissensions, 139; —
Milner, Lord : policy defended, 128, 145 ; — origin, 126 ; — peace :
/ unconditional surrender policy, 145, 147
Sweated industries — protection : effect, 203
Tariff reform : see Fiscal policy
Taxation — protective and for revenue, 183 ; free trade taxation not
exhausted, 270
Trade — condition, 152, 167, 178, 188, 193, 230; Mr. Chamberlain's
views in 1902, 208 ;— imports and exports, 273 ; — state interven
tion, 79
Trade Disputes Bill, 249
Transvaal— British subjects : Kruger's treatment of, 127 ; — Chinese
labourers.: treatment, 241; licence renewals not to be granted,
244 ; ministry (Campbell-Bannerman) : policy defended, 239 ;
" slavery," 239 ; — war : see South African War •
Unemployed, 318-321 ; — Bill, 318 ; — Liberal policy, 231, 320 ; —
" right to work," 318 ; — state responsibility, 320
Unionist party — policy : abandonment of Tory principles, 1 7
Wales, Church of England in — denationalisation ; Geraldus Cam-
briensis : mission to Vatican, 114; — disestablishment: Bill
(1895), 105-124; disposal of Church property, 122; Welsh atti
tude, 118; — dissent: its growth explained, 116 .
Whitehead — amnesty : see under Ireland — Dynamiters
Women — employment on licensed premises : provisions of Licensing
Bill, 300
Women's suffrage, 255

Printed by Hazell, Watson & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury. — 08385.

Uniform with this Volume.
SPEECHES BY THE LATE
Rt. Hon. SIR HENRY
CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN FROM HIS ELECTION AS LEADER OF
THE LIBERAL PARTY TO HIS
RESIGNATION OF OFFICE
AS PRIME MINISTER
1899— 190S
SELECTED AND REPRIN'IED FROM
"Jibe XCin.es
Cr. Svo, 282 pp., Is. net. Cloth Covers, Is. 6a.
Zbe (Times
PRINTING HOUSE SQUARE
LONDON

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 03747 8766