the provisions of any Treaty which they | plain that a fourth might be added to may renew or propose. So that, before these in the person of the hon. Member the House of Commons is asked, as it for North Warwickshire. Now, looking must be asked, to give its sanction to any at his Amendment, he must say that it new or renewed Commercial Treaty, we was well worthy the consideration of the shall each and all of us be assured that House, though he might say that he we shall have time to consult our consti- was rather doubtful about the grammar tuents. If any engagement is to be entered into between this country and France, I hope it will be with France alone, leaving this country at liberty to negotiate with the other Powers; not compromising our position towards the whole world through France, but negotiating with France, for herself only, so as to secure Reciprocity with France, whilst our hands shall remain free to seek Reciprocity from the other nations of the world. I hope that any future Commercial Treaty will be in the sense of Mr. Pitt's Treaty of 1787-that the Conservative Ministry of the present day will follow the example of that great Conservative statesman, by affording ample opportunity for consideration and inquiry, before they propose that this House should commit itself to any scheme they may have in hand. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will not recognize or accept as binding any Treaty or other engagements entered into by Her Majesty's Ministers which might forestall or limit the control of this House over the financial resources and taxation of this Country, until full information as to such contemplated engagements has been laid upon the Table of this House, and this House shall have had the opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon,"-(Mr. Newdegate,) -instead thereof. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." SIR WILFRID LAWSON said, that he had listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down with much interest, as he had given them a new idea of the intention of protective duties, for it appeared that those duties were levied in Russia to protect the life of the Emperor. The hon. Member was enthusiastic in favour of his old scheme. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had lately read in a newspaper that there were only three great statesmen now living who believed in Protectionnamely, Prince Bismarck, Lord Bateman, and Mr. Mac Iver. But it was Mr. Newdegate he thought it was bad, but it was good sense; and he was very glad that the hon. Member had had the courage, sitting on the Ministerial side of the House, to move an Amendment to the Budget of his own Chancellor of the Exchequer, because, although they had two nights' debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), the subject had not been thoroughly thrashed out even on that occasion. He had himself intended to propose an Amendment at a subsequent stage of the Budget proceedings; but his noble Friend on the front Opposition Bench got up and asked him, as a matter of convenience, not to move it then, and he had acceded to his request, though at the time he thought he was rather pooh-poohed by his noble Friend. In fact, his Amendment was rather too good for the noble Lord. However, he thanked the hon. Gentleman opposite for giving him the present opportunity of expressing his views on the Budget. No policy could be carried out without involving more or less expenditure, and that was the meaning of the expression of the Prime Minister; but the expenditure depended upon policy. He presumed that the reason why his hon. Friend had brought for ward this Amendment was because his hon. Friend felt as he felt-that on many important occasions the policy which the Government were going to adopt had been unduly kept back from the House. The House had been kept far too long in the dark concerning it. The hon. Gentleman, in his Amendment, advocated the desirability of not policy of the Government, they were told "It's no use talking about it; let bygones be bygones." If the policy of the Government were abandoned, there would be something in that advice; but they found that the Government intended to proceed on exactly the same line on which they had formerly proceeded. At a late Conservative dinner, Lord Salisbury said the Government, for the sake of peace, had given up a great deal, but they could give up no more. It was the foreign policy of the Government-a policy which they seemed resolved to persevere in-which entailed the enormous military expenditure, and that expenditure was the heaviest burthen of the enormous Revenue which had to be raised. He need not dwell upon the details of the Budget; it was a Budget which might be summed up in the sentence in which the moralist advised the young man-" Always live within your income, even if you have to borrow money to do it with." It was the old story-the Liberals came in and earned money; the Conservatives came in and spent it. The Liberals were the drudges of politics, who earned the money; the Conservatives were the Gentlemen who succeeded them, and spent it. ["Question."] Well, he thought the question was the Budget. ["No, no!"] When all this money had been borrowed to carry out the policy of the Government, he was rather surprised at the course taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who condemned the proposed remission of the Income Tax by the late Prime Minister in 1874. The First Lord of the Admiralty said we had not a ship or a man too many. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) thoroughly agreed with that statement. If they were to carry out the policy the Government intended should be carried out, in his humble opinion, they had far too few men, because they were told that the Government were resolved to do its duty to the world. If this little Island were to do its duty to the world in the sense of the Government, three times the money asked for at present would be required for that purpose. He wished Ministers, who regarded it as their duty to be interfering in every part of Europe, would bear in mind the speech in which their Colleague, Lord Cranbrook, had asked what divine right this country had to go crusading in every part of the world? The present was not the VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.] right time to call upon the country to raise an enormous sum of money. There were, of course, two opinions about the depression now existing in the country. One was the opinion held on the other side of the House, that it arose from four bad harvests, one hard frost, and the failure of the City of Glasgow Bank. The other was the opinion prevalent on this side of the House, that, although those causes had something to do with it, the commercial depression had been greatly aggravated by the enormous expenditure which had been imposed, and by the feeling of insecurity which the foreign policy of the Government had created.["Question."] He knew that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House did not wish him to go at any great length into this matter. He had heard right hon. Gentlemen on the front Ministerial Bench declare that theirs was a policy of Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform. He need not say more with respect to their policy of peace, than that they had already two wars in hand, and any number on the stocks. As to retrenchment, the country was now called upon to raise a larger Revenue than it had ever previously been required to furnish; and as to the reforms effected by the present Administration, the less said the better. He had said that England was engaged in two wars; but they had heard that night that one of those wars had been brought to a conclusion. [Cheers.] He heard the cheers of hon. Members on the opposite Benches who rejoiced that peace had been made; but he condemned the war in spite of the success that had attended it, for he could see nothing to be delighted at in the fortunate issue of a policy of triumphant wrong. What the cost of the war in Africa would be no one knew, and why was it carried on? He supposed it was to retrieve what was called the military situation. In other words, revenge, because they had been defeated in one battle. He altogether condemned the spending of money for such a purpose. He, therefore, gave his hearty support to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, not because he thought that Commercial Treaties were the only Treaties which should be brought under the review of the House, but because that Amendment struck at the neglect of the opinion and sentiment of 2 C the House; and because he felt that if | bought, and they were not so enabled the views embodied in the Amendment under the Commercial Treaty with were carried out, it would be more diffi- France; they were not so under their cult in future to involve the country in commercial relations generally with the those ruinous enterprises which had rest of the world. Why did the French done so much to bring discredit upon people meet us so hardly in the case of them, and which, if not prevented in sugar, for instance? Was it not the the future, would involve them in still belief that we in this country were steadgreater disasters and distress. fastly and firmly wedded at all hazard to the principles of Free Trade, and that we should never modify them? He asked that we should look at the circumstances of each case by themselves; that we should be Free Traders as far as it was practicable, but that we should be Protectionists where it was our interest to be so. That was something very different from advocating Free Trade at all hazards. He would only trespass for a very few moments more upon the attention of the House; but he wished to make one quotation which many hon. Gentlemen opposite might have seen or heard of for the first time. It was from a book called Smith's Wealth of Nations MR. MAC IVER said, it was much to be regretted that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle should, in seconding the very important Amendment introduced by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, have favoured the House with a speech that must have been prepared for some other occasion, and sought to divert attention from the real point at issue. What had the speech of the hon. Baronet, save a little at the commencement and conclusion, to do with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill? The renewal or abandonment of our commercial relations with France, however, had a great deal to do with it. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) should depart this life, his epitaph might be "Estimable in all relations of private life, he gave us sour claret cheap, and ruined the weavers of Coventry." [Murmurs.] The motto of the Cobden Club was-" Free Trade, Peace, Goodwill amongst Nations" good intentions enough, no doubt; but they had all heard of the way that was paved with good intentions. Well, the word "reciprocity" was a very much abused word; but he ventured to think that even Mr. Cobden never meant that the people of this country should fight the battle of Free Trade single-handed against the world. Where, except in England, he asked, could they find any statesman who seriously advocated unqualified Free Trade? The good intentions of the Cobden Club were not sufficient; and he thought that, without Reciprocity in some form, true Free Trade could not exist. They must be permitted to sell as well as to buy. All barriers between one nation and another should be broken down, and there should be the most unrestricted interchange of commodities between the nations of the world. That was the kind of Free Trade which he wished to see, and he was not the only man in England who wished to see it. It was not Free Trade at all unless they could sell with advantage as they Sir Wilfrid Lawson tion how far it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods, when some foreign nations restrain by high duties the importation of some of our manufactures in their country. This case naturally dictates retaliation, and that we should impose the like duties upon some or all of their manufactures coming into our country." "It must sometimes be a matter of delibera Such was the opinion of Adam Smith, and he commended it to the study of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Reciprocity, in his (Mr. Mac Iver's) view, meant, as in any good dictionary it was defined to mean, "equal mutual rights or benefits to be yielded or enjoyed." Reciprocity involved the great principle of fair trade as well as Free Trade; that we should encourage the mutual interchange of commodities. The commercial relations existing between this country and France did not meet his idea of Free Trade. What did they get from, and what did they give to, France? From the Board of Trade Returns he found that they imported to the value of about £45,000,000 of goods of one kind or another from France, and that they sent to France in exchange £25,000,000, of which only £14,000,000 worth could be said to be manufactured goods, the residue consisting of raw material. M. Michel Chevalier well stated French policy on this subject, in writing to the Liver pool Chamber of Commerce two years ago, when he said "We collect Customs duties to protect the manufacturing interest, and the surtaxe d'entrepot was for the protection of the shipping interests of France, by making it impossible for foreifin nations to compete with her shippers for the conveying of a large part of her imports." He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) in his place, because he wished to tell him that, as regarded our commercial relations with France, he knew nothing whatever about the most important points affecting the shipping interests of the country. He wished to explain to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the surtaxe d'entrepôt, no matter what the theory might be, was, owing to our geographical position, practically a differential duty against Great Britain. England was the only country from which foreign produce was likely to be re-exported to France, and this was a special tax of about 30 francs a-ton against such shipments. They heard a great deal, but he must say chiefly for election purposes, about what the Opposition would like to do. Let him point out what they had done. The French Treaty was unquestionably very much their work. He charged against the right hon. Member for Birmingham and his Friends that in this Treaty they reduced the duties on the luxuries of the rich; but they did nothing whatever that could in any way benefit the working man in England. ["Oh!"] Was that not true? Would the right hon. Member for Birmingham contradict it? They had done some things, no doubt. They interfered with sugar refining in Great Britain, and the ruin followed, not only of the sugar refiners of England, but of the sugar-growing Colonies, on whom the policy re-acted. We were a nation of producers; the consumers were the drones; but he knew, as a carrier, that he was now taking to French and Italian ports cotton which, under other circumstances, would come to this country. This showed that other nations were now making for themselves what we used to make for them, and they were enabled to do this by their restrictive duties, which we could never induce them to abandon unless we had something to give them in return. The silks and woollens we got from France could, in many instances, be made better and just about as cheaply in England, very little, indeed, would turn the scale. The extra cost of home-made goods-id. or d. a-yard-would be an inappreciable tax on the consumer. Hon. Members did not know whether their coats were made in France or England. [Laughter.] The loss to the English manufacturer was real indeed. He was at a disadvantage as compared with the more extended range of customers of the French manufacturer, for he must find his only market at home-he was shut out of our own Colonies as well as France. This Commercial Treaty with France was a thoroughly bad bargain, and he desired to see a new one more advantageous to British interests. Let hon. Members remember that John Stuart Mill had written the power of taxing foreigners, unless foreigners "A country cannot be expected to renounce will in return practise towards itself the same forbearance. The only mode in which a country can save itself from being a loser by the revenue dities is to impose corresponding revenue duties duties imposed by other countries on its commoon theirs." Hon. Members opposite could hardly get over that. The day was gone by when mere abuse would be considered a sufficient reply. His MR. PEASE thought that the House would agree with him that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was very much to be congratulated that evening, as a diversion had been made in his favour. They had come down to hear the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, and they had had a discussion upon Free Trade. With regard to the arguments which had just been used, he was sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to dispose of them in a very few sentences. great object in rising was not to discuss. the Protectionist measures of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, or the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Mac Iver), but to make a few remarks upon the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on introducing the Bill, had stated that they should all feel that the demand this year upon the National Exchequer was unusually great. He thought it was generally agreed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asking for a very considerable sum of money. He was not about to find fault with the Government on the | to £10,000,000. Whilst things were in manner of defining payments which that state abroad, they might look for they proposed and to which he ob- some check upon the expenditure at jected; but he thought that the policy home. He had gone pretty carefully which was being pursued cost the through the various items in the Esticountry a great deal of money, and mates. There were various charges for would cause much further expendi- education, for the police, and for grants ture. It behoved them to look at what which were made in aid of local taxathe state of the country really was tion, and in almost every Department of at the present time, when they were the State the expenditure was increased. indulging in a foreign policy which With regard to education, it seemed to would require a large expenditure. If him that the noble Lord the present there was any trade or description of President of the Board of Trade industry which required protection at (Viscount Sandon) made a very conthe present moment, it must be agri- siderable mistake in allowing the addiculture. But would any hon. Member tional grants from the Government in be bold enough to come down to the aid of local taxation as regarded eduHouse to ask that corn and meat, or any cation. He would call the attention of those articles the cheapness of which of the right hon. Gentleman the Chanhad done so much to vindicate the policy cellor of the Exchequer to a paragraph of the country, should have Protectionist in the Report of last year, in which it duties placed upon them? And what was said that the demand for educawas the state of the industries of the tional purposes from the Imperial recountry? The manufacturing districts sources would become still greater. By of the North, especially on the western the Education Act they had again placed side of the country, were at the present local hands in the Imperial pocket; and moment almost paralyzed. The iron they had also done the same thing by and coal trades were in a very depressed giving an opportunity of borrowing for condition. Whether they looked to the purposes neither national or Imperial. commercial, the agricultural, or the He believed that these facilities for obmanufacturing interests of the country, taining money for education, for sanithey found them all in the same state. tary, and other purposes, was producing And when the Chancellor of the Exche- a very considerable waste. It was very quer came to the House and asked for easy to borrow; but it was very difficult an abnormal amount of taxation-5d. in to repay. He had not the slightest the pound Income Tax-and no remis- doubt in his own mind that if local taxasion whatever of taxation, it became a tion had been more resorted to for very serious matter. The House might purely local purposes, they would have know by the state of the Poor Law had the Imperial Exchequer not only Returns what the condition of the coun- left alone, but the local taxation contry must have been during the last two siderably lower than at the present years. The figures of those Returns, moment. He made these remarks beshowing the percentage of paupers, cause he felt that this country, if it spoke for themselves; and in that state were going again to be prosperous, must of things the Government ought to use adopt the rules by which it had become every possible effort to stop the enor- prosperous, must practise economy at mous expenditure going on abroad and the present moment. Economy had to be at home. They had an extravagant exercised by all classes of the people, war in South Africa, and it seemed to and ought also to be exercised by the him that they had a Governor there who Government, both in regard to their had violated every instruction sent to foreign and home policy. A reduction him, and who had acted in direct oppo- of expenditure seemed to him to be the sition to all the directions as to policy only means of restoring that prosperity, which he had received from the Home the absence of which they so much Government, and at that moment was deplored. plunging them into a war which was a disgrace to their Christianity and civilization. The war was condemned by Her Majesty's Government, and would cost them no less than from £5,000,000 Mr. Pease MR. J. G. HUBBARD was not going to follow the discussion into all the questions that had been raised, for he did not think that the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill was necessarily con |