NEW PISCAL POLICY.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 910, 8 June 1903, Page 2

NEW PISCAL POLICY.

I-'AKTY ATTACK ON UOYERNMHXT. LAW i'll \i A X AVOIDS SUBJECT. AND ADOPTS BANTER. Till-i OLD CUTTLE-ELSII STORY. lit- Telegraph—Press Association— Copyright.

LONDON, .lime 7. Sir II A. Campbell Ummerman. in a speech at Perth, declared that the tlou-rmr.i-ni. with the view of eludin'- criticisms, and escaping liie diii mm.; o! dilliciiiucs wholly or in pan of their own creation, had borrowed tin- cut l le-ii-di tactics of flint - ling an inky tin id in confuse their pursuers Mr Chamberlain's fiscal ~i heme was intended to cement the

Empire in bonds ot .self-interest. I haV-. never,’’ said the speaker. *• heen an e'ovp! ioi:ai!y anient or effusive imperialist, hut i yield to no man in my admiral mu lot loyalty to and pride m the Empire. i• 111 Ido not rate my pride and loyalty so low as to believe that squalid bonds are meessary to maintain it.’’ Sir li. Campbell-Bannerman next appealed to half a century's testimony o' the blessings of free trade, and eon it mb (1 that protect ion meant that the cost of food would be raised to give colonial producers larger profits, amt land owners better rents.

'tin- speaker went on to say that on the heels of tariffs came trusts, leading lu demoralisation. According to Charles Booth, formerly Prc-

saleitl of the Statistical Society, there were twelve millions in Bin am underfed and on liie verge ot liungti. Therefore, (or everyone in the (oioiiies lintt Air Chamberlain's polity was intended to benefit, one head in Britain would be shoved under

wafer. Coveniuieiit were engaged in the grand diversion of making a lioitJtii: of free trade, consigning to the flatties their past mistakes. Let them he careful that they did not-set tin- Empire ablaze and have its prosperity reduced'ln aslu-s. The Liberals must, enlighten the country, recalling bow low wages, starvation, despair, turbulence, and rioting obtained ii. Britain when it was hound by protection. LONDON, June .">. Earl Spencer, in an article in the Liberal .Magazine for June, asserts that flic country cannot, run the terrible risk of crippling her manufacturers and lessening her food supplies Tin- new policy cannot lie left undefined. We are bound to demand that ii he s>n ii tn 1 1 led to I lie country willionl unnecessary delay.

Sir W. I lareotirl. in a let ter to a friend, strongly denounced Mr Cliambu lain's colonial preferential schcnii as a shallow mask lo reinstate protection.

The Imperial Federal ion Committee declined to participate in the fiscal controversy, believing that mutual defence is tlie most effective basis of Imperial Federal-ion. Lord Kipou considers that Mi Chamberlain's policy ' will ereati gteal difficulty in the colonies, delea 1 ing il ; own ohjiel,. Earl Urey asserts that it, will mean ruin to (Deal, Britain’s prosperity, and will lead to the break-up of the Empire. Lord Tweedmoulli said that a gau-dily-dressed Imperial programme would fail lo attract the electors.

THE TIMES ON CAMPBELLBAN NEK MAN.

By Telegraph. Press Association. Copyright Received 12.51 a.m., June 8. London, June 7. The Times says that in thu absence oi Mr Chamberlain's concrete pioposais Sir H. A. Campbell-Bannerman furnishes him with monstrous proposals, accusing him of a deliberate return to the worst abuses of indiscriminate, irrational protection.

The Times adds : His denunciation of bonds of material interests as squuiid deserves to rank with ail expression of the methods of barbarism.

(N.X, Herald.)

We cannot imagine that a man of Cubden's genius and character, when sixty years of experience showed him nation still set against nation, commercial rivalry

still edging national animosities and Ins country struggling alone to uphold a liscai principle which has absolutely failed to cross a single national frontier on the face oi the carta, would refuse to reconsider Ins dog mas or would deny the possibility of the inherent truth they contain, being omy expressible for the time being in terms ul fiscal reciprocity. The doctrines of Cub-dc-n are the doctrines of Britain, lie was too completely an Englishman in spite of bis noble belief in the dawning brotherhood of all men and nations, to conceive any policy tor bis country which be thought might injure her or which could be strange to the national ideal. As she may modify these doctrines, he would have modified them, if it could be shown that they wrought lor her injury and nut for her highest good. This is the position assumed by Mr Chamberlain, and so far wc may all most heartily agree with him.

Therein is contained the essence of the whole contention. Is Britain bettered or injured by keeping an open door to trade rivals who reluse open duur to her, by separating herself completely from liscai reciprocity with her children and allowing any attempt they may make to encourage her trade to be smothered by Foreign Rowers ? Is Greater Britain wise to muke no fiscal difference between the peoples who fight side by side in common quarrel and those who at worst are bitter enemies and at best arc only neutral ’? ,1s the Empire soundly advised if the makes no national attempt to do what every other nation under the sun persistently and openly does to encouroge inter-Staie trade rather than foreign trade ? Possibly reciprocity may be cosily. It is very certain that whatever the ultimate resuits might be such a policy would hate to be paid for. But is it worth it '! Would tne gam counterbalance tlie loss:' And on tills score we may say at once that every other nation, and every local group of oat- own people, believes and acis on the belief that commercial federation i s as necessary to unity of political purpose as military federation. Whenever Germany acquires territory, the Gorman Custom wall rises around it. Similarly with France, with the United States, with Russia, with everyone. Only Britain persists in allowing within her heterogeneous Empire, as within her own borders, the sauia trading rights to ail other nations as she claims for herself. This would be well enough

if as a result the manufactories of exclusive nations Languished while her own Nourished like the green bay tree. But this is not so. We do not make any debatab.e statement when we point out that American and German rivals, sheltered from her competition within their own lands, have emerged to contest her manufacturing supremacy, not oniy in the markets of the foreign world, but in her own colonies and in her own manufacturing cities. If we are so different to all other peoples that rules which apply to them do not apply to us, well and good. But if we are there is at the very least good reason for coosidering whether Imperial reciprocity would benefit the Empire as a whole. If it would Mr Chamberlain’s policy is a patriotic one and worthy of hearty support.