Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Wednesday, 15 August 1906

The PRESIDENT - I ask honorable senators to allow Senator Drake to continue without interruption.

Senator DRAKE - I hope that I have made it clear that this Bill does not deal with the particular kind of combination which I think is most objectionable. But all through the measure it is very clear that there is an effort made to prevent combinations from reducing prices to the consumer. Remembering, the discussions which have taken place here with respect to harvesters and such things, there can be no doubt that the main object of .the Bill is to prevent combinations which would reduce prices in such a way as would compel local competitors to reduce their prices also, and render them unable to pay the rate of wages and to comply with the conditions we require for our Australian workers. It cannot be doubted that that is the main object df the Bill. We are seeking to repress combinations in restraint of trade, and behind the Bill there seems to be a combination between the workers in certain specific trades and the capitalists carrying on those trades, to raise prices to the consumer, and to share the profits between them.

Senator Mulcahy - Or to prevent prices being reduced.

Senator DRAKE - Yes, or to prevent prices being reduced*

Senator Mulcahy - Has the honorable and learned senator gone into the question of the legality of our attempting to settle wages by this Bill ?

Senator DRAKE - There is no provision to deal with wages in this Bill. They are dealt with by Factories Acts and Wages Boards.

Senator Mulcahy - They are dealt with also in this Bill.

Senator Millen - There is no provision in the Bill dealing with wages, but if wages are disturbed by outside competition, that is to be a factor for consideration.

Senator Mulcahy - Is not that an indirect way of dealing with wages?

Senator DRAKE - It is not likely that any such reduction as that would be brought about to any considerable extent by a combination within the Commonwealth. It is more likely that the lowering of prices to the consumer, which would affect Australian industries injuriously, as contemplated by the Bill, would arise from importation. Therefore, we have to look more particularly to what are called the "dumping" clauses of the Bill. Dumping may be of two kinds. There is the dumping which consists in the practice generally adopted by manufacturers of sending their surplus products to some other country, and selling them- there at the highest price they can get, and if they cannot get the price they desire, at whatever they will fetch. That is the form of dumping which is carried on very -largely by ourselves in our butter and meat exporting industries. In the course of the debate we have heard a great deal about manufacturing industries, harvesters', and so on, and suppose, for a change, we turn our attention to mutton and beef. These are the particular articles in which my constituents are more directly interested. We send our meat to the English market, and sell it for what it will fetch.

Senator Millen - We dump it there.

Senator DRAKE - We dump it. I am sorry to say that very often, in consequence of the state of the Home market, it fetches very low prices indeed. But week by week our beef and mutton is poured into the London market.

Senator Millen - Dumped.

Senator DRAKE - " Dumped," if the honorable senator pleases. If honorable senators will look at the trade circulars they will see that the prices realized are sometimes very low indeed. We do not like that, but we accept it as in the natural order of things. I do not know whether the people engaged in the cattle industry in the United Kingdom like the importation of our meat in large quantities, but they do not appear to complain of it. We have been very anxious to find a market for our meat on the Continent of Europe, and we have considered ourselves very harshly treated by France, Austria, and Germany, because we have been practically kept out of their markets by means of their hostile tariffs. I have no doubt that we should be very pleased if representations were made to" the Governments of those countries asking them not to interfere with our practice of dumping meat in foreign markets. It would certainly look strange if we were to make such a request, and accompany it with this Bill. .

Senator de Largie - Have the people of the old country ever made any objection to our sending them food stuffs?

Senator DRAKE - None whatever; but we have been dumping our produce, and this must be against the interests of the people engaged in the old country in these particular trades. .But, supposing the people at Home did raise some objection) what should we be able to say then, in view of this Bill ? I have not the slightest doubt that if we took the opinion of the people of Australia generally, as to whether they were in favour of an International law against dumping, it would prove to be an adverse opinion. They would say that they preferred to keep the power to dump their produce wherever they chose ; and certainly the interests of our people, in connexion with this power or permission to sell their produce in any market for what it will fetch, are much larger than the interests sought to be considered by the Bill.

Senator de Largie - The honorable senator must admit that it is rather a farfetched illustration to use the word " dump ing" in relation to the sending of food stuffs to the old country.

Senator DRAKE - I do not make any such admission. What we send to the old country is our surplus, and we sell it for what is will fetch in competition with the beef and mutton producers there. If a man engaged in this particular industry at Home, went to Smithfield and saw his produce selling at id. per lb. less than it would have brought had he had possession of the whole market, could we not understand him using the same arguments that are advanced in support of this Bill ? Could that man not say that the dumping of produce on the market reduced the value of his productions, and prevented him from paying wages and complying with the conditions of labour he would like to observe?

Senator de Largie - The most rabid protectionist in the old country has never applied the word " dumping " in the sense in which it is being used by the honorable senator.

Senator Millen - But protectionists at Home have asked for protection time and again.

Senator DRAKE - We have seen the time when free-trade was so worshipped in Great Britain that a man scarcely dared acknowledge himself a protectionist. Evidently the tide has now absolutely turned ; and the people of England may yet be asaidently protectionists as they were free.traders when I was a young man. Events march rapidly nowadays, and it is not at all impossible that five, .ten, or twenty years hence, when this Bill is in operation, the men engaged in the grazing industry in England, mav complain about the dumping of our beef and mutton on their market?

Senator Fraser - But the vast population at Home desire cheap beef and mutton.

Senator Playford - Such importations would not be against the interests of the public of England.

Senator DRAKE - They would be against the interests of a section of the public.

Senator Trenwith - Whenever the people of England are distressed by the dumping of goods they will object.

Senator DRAKE - We must remember that we are a Federation of States, and that our legislation should, as far as possible, be in the interests of the whole of Australia, and not of any one State only. I do not say that we should not pass a law because it would give greater benefit to one State than to another.

Senator Trenwith - That cannot always be avoided.

Senator DRAKE - That is so; but, still, the interests pf the whole of the States ought to be fairly considered. There is no doubt that this Bill - and I do not say this with any feeling of unfriendliness - is really in the interests of the people of Victoria, because that State is at present the manufacturing centre.

Senator Pulsford - In the interests of one man in Victoria

Senator DRAKE - T shall not discuss that point. It is nearly a year since the cry was raised about the " strangled industries ' ' of Victoria, and we were told that measures were necessary for their rescue. The Bill before us is, I think, intended to come to the relief of some industry, which is said to be not so prosperous as those engaged in it would like it to be, but which is certainly not in an unprosperous condition. One honorable senator, in the course of the debate, has quoted statistics showing the increased number of hands employed in the factories of Victoria since Federation. I am very glad to hear off that success, because it affords a justification of our Federal conditions, and the Tariff we all assisted to pass. But it must be remembered that this great prosperity in Victoria has to a great extent been obtained at the cost of some of the other States. I have not the figures here, but there has been a continual falling off in the number of hands employed in manufacturing; in Queensland from the time of Federation.

Senator Playford - The Federal Tariff is much lower than the State Tariff was.

Senator DRAKE - We had a very high Tariff in Queensland prior to Federation.

Senator Trenwith - It was the next highest to that of South Australia.

Senator DRAKE - Quite so; and the result in Queensland has been that the importations from the south, more particularly from Victoria, have taken the place of goods which previously were imported from oversea. This hits Queensland in two ways. In the first place, it restricts our manufacturing operations and closes our factories ; and, in the second place, it deprives the State Treasurer of the revenue which formerly resulted from the duties on the imported goods. I am not stating these facts by way of complaint, and I do' not believe that my constituents would complain, because what is disclosed is the natural operation of a uniform Tariff. We consented to that Tariff for the benefit of the whole of Australia, without taking into consideration the effect it might have in Queensland. But is it not strange that, under these circumstances, the State that has derived most advantage from the Tariff should now be crying, out about strangled industries," and urging for a Bill of this kind, which confers such extraordinary powers? This is a Bill which ostensibly has a general application, but which is clearly intended to have a partial one.

Senator Playford - I think the honorable senator was a member of a Ministry which agreed to bring in such a Bill.

Senator DRAKE - No ; never !

Senator Playford - I fancy that such a Bill was mentioned in the Governor's speech when he was a member of the Government.

Senator DRAKE - That was an AntiTrust Bill.

Senator Playford - This in an AntiTrust Bill.

Senator DRAKE - There were no such provisions in that Bill as we find in the Bill before us. I have never been a party to a Bill of this kind. This measure will never be used in order to assist an industry in any of the outside States.

Senator Trenwith - What does the honorable senator mean by "outside States"?

Senator DRAKE - I mean such States as Queensland and Western Australia, which, in a manufacturing sense, are outside; that is, they are away from the centre. Supposing, there were a growing industry in Queensland, and that it was in some danger in consequence of dumping, would there be the slightest chance of getting any assistance under this 'Bill at the hands of the Minister of Trade and Customs ?

Senator Trenwith - Why not?

Senator DRAKE - I know very well why not. If, for instance, there was a coffee-growing industry in Queensland carried on by means of white labour-

Senator Playford - Then there would be a bonus.

Senator DRAKE - Yes ; a bonus of a whole id. per lb., given on condition that white labour was employed at the usual wages, and on the usual conditions.

Senator Trenwith - That bonus would represent about one-sixth of the value.

Senator DRAKE - Not nearly.

Senator Millen - That would be equivalent to a duty of 15 per cent. ; compare it with the duties advocated by Senator Trenwith !

Senator Trenwith - But the id. per lb. would be a bonus and not a duty.

Senator DRAKE - I do not desire now to discuss the merits of such a case; but assuming that the importation of coffee had made it impossible to carry on the industry in Queensland, even with the bonus of id., does any one suppose that the importation of coffee into Victoria and New South Wales would be stopped ?

Senator Trenwith - Yes, if good cause could be shown as in any other case.

Senator DRAKE - ,1 am strongly of opinion that if the people of Queensland made any such application, the answer would be that the question of coffee growing had been before Parliament, that a duty had been imposed on imported coffee, that a tonus had been granted, and that that was sufficient.

Senator Best - There has been no ungenerous treatment of Queensland so far as the sugar industry is concerned.

Senator DRAKE - I never said there had been. What is the use of introducing that question, which has been dealt with by Parliament by means of an Excise duty and a bonus?

Senator Trenwith - And now we propose to deal with that industry by means of another legislative act.

Senator DRAKE - By prohibition.

Senator Trenwith - No.

Senator DRAKE - The Bill means prohibition, and it is unreasonable to suppose that any Government would stop the importation of such an article as coffee into the southern States of Australia because that importation was interfering with an industry in Northern Queensland.

Senator Trenwith - We have stopped the importation of sugar, subject to certain conditions.

Senator DRAKE - No, there is only the duty.

Senator Trenwith - Subject to certain conditions; and that is all that would be done in the case of other trades.

Senator DRAKE - As a protectionist, I was in favour of higher duties, which I have always voted for, because I consider they represent the proper method of dealing with these matters. I have no desire to discuss fiscalism more than I can help, but I must say that this Bill means prohibition if it means anything; if it operates at all, it must operate by prohibition. I do not quite appreciate Senator Best's nice distinction between stopping an article and preventing it from passing the Customs until security has been given for the whole of its value.

Senator Best - These are the terms of the Bill.

Senator DRAKE - The question to be decided by the Justice would be whether, for certain reasons, an article should be declared prohibited ; and, if such a declaration were made, then all the consequences would follow. If the article had gone into consumption, then the persons who had given the security would lose their money.

Senator Best - What are the findings of the Justice to be first?

Senator DRAKE - What I said was that if the Bill operates at all it means prohibition.

Senator Best - In certain circumstances, yes.

Senator DRAKE - It is of no use to interrupt me by saying that the Justice may find that it is not " unfair competition. Now, I want to say something on the question of protection. I have always held that protection means the adoption of a scale of duties that will insure fair competition, having regard to the rate of wages that we pay and our standard of living. But I have never understood protection to mean such duties as will absolutely exclude competition from outside. That is a very important point. I think that protectionists in supporting a measure of this kind are giving up one of the most powerful arguments they have. If one reads Carey, who is the most philosophical writer on protection that America has produced - though he is now considered, perhaps, a little out of date - one finds that he, and almost all the other, writers of his school, argue that protection does not raise prices to the consumer. I dare say that my honorable friend Senator Trenwith has often used that argument.

Senator Trenwith - Hear, hear ! I go further, and say that it reduces prices to the consumer.

Senator DRAKE - In what way ? What is the safeguard which the consumer has? It is that the adoption of a system of protection in a country creates competition between the goods produced outside and those produced by the local manufacturers.

Senator Trenwith - No ; it creates internal competition, which is more effective than any external competition can be.

Senator DRAKE - I differ from the honorable senator, and the great protectionist writers differ from him also in that respect. Their argument is that the competition which insures cheapness for the consumer is that which arises between the goods manufactured' outside and the goods locally produced. It is that competition which insures that prices will not be unduly raised to the consumer. This Bill, so far as it operates at all, will deprive us of that advantage altogether. The protectionists are losing the very argument that Senator Trenwith and others have often put before the public to convince them of the soundness of their policy. The Bill means keeping foreign goods out of the country altogether when thev appear to injure an internal industry. That means, consequently, doing away with the competition upon which the consumer has mainly to depend to insure that prices will not be unduly raised against him. I should like to point out that sub-clause 3 of clause 18 is distinctly ambiguous. I was very doubtful as to its meaning when I first read it, and I notice that some speakers have interpreted it in one way and some in another. The subclause reads -

In determining whether the competition is unfair, regard shall be had to the efficiency of the management, the processes, the plant, and the machinery employed or adopted in the Australian industry affected by the competition.

I understand that the position of the Government is that that provision means that it shall not be deemed that there is "unfair competition " if the local factories are not up-to-date,. If that is what the clause is intended to convey the meaning should be made clear. It is so ambiguous in its present form that it might be read to mean that especial tenderness is to be shown to an industry that is working under very different conditions.

Senator Trenwith - Is not that a question for settlement in Committee?

Senator DRAKE - It is a question for Committee : but we range through a Bill on the motion for the second reading, and generally direct attention to matters that are not clear. It seems to me that the subclause ought to be made to read that there shall be no unfair competition unless the industry is carried on under the most modern conditions. If that is what is really meant, I have no objection' to the subclause. Otherwise, the prohibition spoken of in the Bill would be most injurious. It would be running protection up to the extreme of prohibition in such a way as to enable a local factory to be carried on under conditions that -were out-of-date. Protection should never be carried to that extent, or a distinct premium would be given to factories to work with old machinery, and to use out-of-date processes. No nation at the present day can afford to do that. The world is growing smaller and smaller, and we should soon drop behind entirely in the race if we did not adopt the most modern appliances and the most uptodate machinery. The provision will operate most unfairly, if it operates at all, in regard to a State like Queensland. Suppose that we wanted foreign coffee to be prohibited for the benefit of a small coffee industry in Queensland.

Senator Playford - If it were a small industry it could not supply the whole of the wants of the Commonwealth. The importation of coffee would not be prohibited for the benefit of a small industry like that. It would be absurd. We should stop all coffee drinking if we did that.

Senator DRAKE - Then, is this Bill only going to affect manufacturing industries that are prepared to supply the whole of the wants of Australia?

Senator Playford - In a question of food like that, I should say so.

Senator DRAKE - If that be soothe Bill can only be intended for the benefit of some manufacturing industries in Victoria that consider themselves capable of supplying all Australia. The small man may struggle on and perish. This Bill will not help him. It will only affect industries that are capable of supplying the trade of the whole Commonwealth. Yet this is a Bill to suppress monopolies ! If that" be so, my objection to the Bill is even stronger than ever. Let me show how it will operate. Take the case of galvanized iron. I believe that there is a galvanized ironmaking industry in New South Wales. There may be such an industry in Victoria. I will assume that there is a local combination or ring which is prepared to supply the wants of all Australia under certain conditions. '

Senator Best - The Bill does not say anything about that.

Senator DRAKE - That is what the Minister says.

Senator Best - He did not mean it literally.

Senator DRAKE - We will suppose that the Bill is intended to assist concerns that are small at. the present time, but which may grow until they are able to supply the wants of all Australia. Galvanized iron is an article that is largely used as a roofing material in Northern Queensland. Suppose that the people engaged in making galvanized iron complained to the Minister that the importations were preventing them from carrying on their industry at the rate of wages they were paying, and under the conditions they were maintaining; and suppose that they asked the Minister to prohibit those importations. If the Minister took any action he would have to put a notice in the Gazette. From the time it was inserted the importation of galvanized iron practically stopped. It could only go into consumption if the person importing gave security practically to the value of his importations. What that amounts to is this : The factory that is manufacturing galvanized iron is not able at present to supply the whole of Australia. It merely hopes to be able to do so, if it gets a monopoly. But the people in Northern Queensland want this material for building purposes. They have entered into building contracts. They want roofs to cover their heads. They, however, cannot get the material they require, because a little factory, say in Victoria, finds that it cannot stand the competition from outside, and has .asked the Minister to put this Bill into operation. The Minister cannot put it into operation partially and stop the importation of galvanized iron into Victoria, so as to give the Victorian factory a start at the expense of the people of this State. If he acts at all, he has to prohibit the importation into the whole Commonweal th .

Senator Playford - He has to act under clause 17.

Senator DRAKE - If there is a manufacturer who is paying ordinary Australian rates of wages, and working under ordinary conditions, but finds that he cannot carry on in the face of the foreign competition, can he not apply to the Minister ?

Senator Playford - The consumers have to be considered; and the Minister would know that the consumers in Queensland would be affected. All that has to be taken into consideration. The honorable sena tor is arguing as though the interests of the consumers would not be considered.

Senator DRAKE - What are the consumers' interests? According to Senator Trenwith, galvanized iron would become cheaper if the one factory secured a monopoly of the trade. The argument of those interested in the industry would be, " Give us prohibition now, and eventually our article will be cheaper to the consumer than it is at present." The point which I ' am dealing with is : What is going to happen after the notification is put in the Gazette? Will the one factory be able to supply all the demands of the States? Certainly it will not be able to supply them except at prohibitive rates for a long time. In the meantime the people will be put to the greatest possible inconvenience. If that is the way the Bill is to operate it is not fair, equitable, and reasonable to all the States of the Commonwealth, and, seeing that Victoria, of all the States, has benefited most from our protective Tariff, I think it comes with a very bad grace that she should ask for a Bill that gives her absolute prohibition. It is a very unfortunate thing from the protectionist point of view that this should be done. If there were a particular reason for prohibiting the importation of an article the matter could certainLy be dealt with by Parliament. There is the case of the Harvester Trust, which has been before the country for twelve months, and Parliament is now in session- The second part of my definition of dumping is, where a big ring or organization outside deliberately sets itself to destroy an industry, and to do that sends in its goods, probably at less than cost price ; and then, having obtained a command of the market-

Senator Playford - That is what the Bill is intended to meet.

Senator DRAKE - If that is all that the Bill is intended to meet, there is no reason why a case of that kind should not be brought before Parliament.

Senator Playford - After the mischief is done !

Senator DRAKE - In the very matter of harvesters, we hear now that probably an application will be made by the Government to Parliament to deal with it in another way. The managers of the biggest organization which could be named could not, by sending in one, two, three, or four shipments, crush a local industry. They have a capital amounting to millions sterling. They know that they would have to carry on the business of sending in their goods at a lower price for, perhaps, three or four years before they could destroy a local industry. If so, why cannot a case of that kind be dealt with by Parliament?

Senator Trenwith - Will not this Bill deal with it?

Senator DRAKE - No; it will allow the Minister and a Judge to deal with such a case, and that is where the mischief comes in. If the Government could come down and prove that such an attempt was being made, Parliament could, if it liked, deal with the case efficiently. Thereason why the subject is dealt with in the form of a Bill is because the protectionists think that by that means they will be able to get the Minister to do what Parliament itself would not do.

Senator Guthrie - But the Minister would be responsible to Parliament.

Senator DRAKE - We have heard that statement over and over again. But Ministers do a number of things of which Parliament does not approve. I must remind honorable senators that, although the unwritten law in regard to impeachment has never been repealed, it has fallen into desuetude.

Senator Trenwith - It is practically dead, because there is a more effective method available.

Senator Guthrie - We have another power, that of turning Ministers out of office.

Senator DRAKE - I think that, in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole, the prohibition of goods should be left to Parliament, and . not in any case to the Minister of Trade and Customs. Only one case, and that a hypothetical case, has been brought before Parliament; and there is no reason why it should not say exactly what course it considers justifiable. If it can be shown that there is an effort on the part of manufacturers in any country to deliberately destroy one of our industries, then it should be met by the ordinary method of increasing the protective duty. I see no reason to provide for prohibition of imports. I have given a reason which I think will justify me in voting against the Bill.

Senator Playford - Against the whole of the Bill?

Senator DRAKE - I shall vote against the second reading of the Bill.

Senator Trenwith - The first part is reallyanAnti-Trust Bill.

Senator DRAKE - It does not touch the case which I consider ought to be dealt withby the Government. It does not deal with combinations to raise prices against the consumers.

Senator Dobson - Surely it does.

Senator Playford - Undoubtedly it does.

Senator DRAKE - Not within a State. I have gone all through the Bill. A combination to raise prices to the consumers in the retail market must almost of necessity be formed within a State. It is almost impossible to conceive of a case of merchants or owners in more States than one coming together to raise prices to the consumers. In every case where an effort was made to raise prices, it would be made by a local combination acting on a local market.

Senator Dobson - It would be just the reverse. I do not think that a combination within one State could do much damage to the consumer.

Senator DRAKE - The honorable senator was not here when I commenced my remarks.

Senator Dobson - Yes, I was.

Senator DRAKE - I cannot conceive of a combination extending over several States for the purpose of raising the prices of the necessaries of life to the consumers.

Senator Dobson - It is done all over America.

Senator DRAKE - Perhaps the honorable senator will be able to tell us how he would deal with a combination that arose within a State ? Because, if the law could touch men in several States who combined together, we may be perfectly sure that they would not form a combination which would bring them under its provisions.

Senator Dobson - I believe that the honorable senator is right as to the law, but I do not think that a combination within a State would do the damage which he fears.

Senator DRAKE - A combination formed within a State to raise the prices of articles, especially, necessaries of life, to the consumer, would certainly be operative however injurious it might be. These are the combinations which I want to see touched by the Bill. There is a further reason why I should vote against its second reading, but it does not apply to honorable senators generally. When the first Deakin Government went to the country at the end of 1903 we did so on a policy of fiscal peace. I addressed perhaps a dozen meetings, more particularly in New South Wales, at which I advocated fiscal peace. I do not know whether I went beyond the views of the Government, but I told the audiences that fiscal peace meant a period of rest from fiscal toil for the duration of the Parliament then about to be. elected.

Senator Playford - Yet that Government appointed a Royal Commission to open up the subject.

Senator DRAKE - That was a most proper thing to do. The policy of the Government, as announced, was a policy of fiscal peace - that during a period of three years there shouldbeno re-opening of the fiscal question, and that during that time the people of Australia should have an opportunity of seeing how the Tariff would work.

Senator Trenwith - Does not the honorable senator think that the act of appointing the Royal Commission was a re-opening of the fiscal question ?

Senator DRAKE - No.

Senator Trenwith - It has not only reopened the fiscal question, but a report is now before Parliament in consequence of such action.

Senator DRAKE - How can the honorable senator say that? Has the harvester matter anything to do with the inquiries of the Tariff Commission ?

Senator Trenwith - Yes.

Senator DRAKE - The Government would not wait for the report of the Tariff Commission before proceeding to deal with the importation of harvesters.

Senator Keating - What Senator Trenwith said was that the report of the Tariff Commission is now before Parliament.

Senator DRAKE - The Government distinctly declined to delay this Bill until the report of the Commission on that question was forthcoming.

Senator Keating -The point is that the report of the Commission is before Parliament before the expiry of the three years of fiscal peace.

Senator DRAKE - Yes, but that does not necessarily break the fiscal peace.

Senator Playford - Of course it does. What is it before Parliament for?

Senator DRAKE - The object of the three years of fiscal peace was to make inquiries as to the effect of the Tariff, and to find out whether there were any anomalies and hardships which ought to be dealt with. But whatever the late or any other Government may or may not have done, it will not alter the effect of what was promised to the constituents. I told the electors that " fiscal peace " meant that for a period of three years the Tariff would not be disturbed ;in other words, ' that it would not be disturbed until the time came for the members of the other House to go before the electors again and ask them what was their will as to the future. It seems to me, therefore, that to consent to that which is not a protectionist measure, but which apparently is designed to carry out the purpose of protection in another way, as I think the Minister of Defence himself said-

Senator Playford - No.

Senator DRAKE - It goes further than protection, because it really authorizes prohibition, and in that respect. I think, it cannot be said to be in accordance with the promise of fiscal peace. For these reasons, I think that I for one would not be justified, during the continuance of this Parliament, in voting for any measure which would disturb the promised fiscal peace. I do notsay that it is for that reason only that I shall vote against the second reading of the Bill, because there are other reasons which I have given, perhaps at somewhat too great length. If I felt that I could pass over my first reason for objecting to the Bill. I should still feel some doubt as to whether I ought to vote for the second reading ; but I have no doubt on any ground as tomyduty to vote against the motion.

Suggest corrections