It may be said, “We do not blame you for keeping your promise, but for making the pledge.”  But what did the Leader of the Opposition promise?  He promised most emphatically before the election that if he were in power as Prime Minister when this Colonial Conference took place, he would not grant preference to the Colonies.  On many occasions the right hon. gentleman said that not one, but two elections would be necessary before he would be entitled to take that tremendous step.  I have the right hon. gentleman’s words here.  Speaking at Manchester in January 1905, the right hon. gentleman said:  “If that scheme were carried out, I do not see that we could be called on to decide the colonial aspect of this question until not only one, but two elections have passed.”  Yet the right hon. gentleman is prepared, I presume, to join in a vote of censure on his Majesty’s Government for not granting that preference which he himself was prohibited from granting by the most precise and particular engagement.

Is it a vote of censure on the Government at all?  Is it not really a vote of censure on the general election?  Is it not a cry of petulant vexation at the natural, ordinary, long-expected sequence of events?

The right hon. gentleman[4] who moved the Resolution made a very mild and conciliatory speech.  But he confined himself to generalities.  He avoided anything like a statement of concrete proposals which he thinks the Government ought to adopt.  Those who take part in this controversy nowadays avoid any statement of the concrete proposals that would follow if their view were adopted.  We are told what a splendid thing preference is, what noble results it would achieve, what inexpressible happiness and joy it would bring to all parts of the Empire and to all parts of the earth, what wealth would be created, how the Exchequer would gain, and how the food of the people would cheapen in price.  But, though the Government is blamed for not acting on these suggestions, we are never told what is the schedule of taxes which it is proposed to introduce to give effect to these splendid and glittering aspirations.

It is perfectly impossible to discuss colonial preference apart from the schedule of duties on which it is to be based.  It is idle to attempt to discuss it without a definite proposal as to the subjects of taxation and as to the degree to which those different subjects are to be taxed.  And the right hon. gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, when he dealt with this question, felt that in common fairness he must be precise and definite.  We know what he proposed in the way of taxation on corn, meat, fruit, and dairy produce.  What we want to know is this.  Is that tariff before us now?  Do the Opposition stand by the right hon.  Member for West Birmingham, or do they abandon him?  That is what the House and the Government want to know—­and that is what the Colonies want to know.  It is indispensable to the discussion of this question that there should be a clear statement from the Leader of the Opposition whether or not we are to regard the Glasgow preferential tariff of the right hon.  Member for West Birmingham as still current as a practical policy.