BRITISH POLITICS.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 1038, 3 November 1903, Page 2

BRITISH POLITICS.

lord diorley differs with DIFFIDENCE. By Telegraph—Press Association— Copyright.) LONDON, November H

Mr lan Malcolm, member for Stowmarket, has seceded from the Freetraders because their manifesto does not support Mr Balfour to the full extent of the vote at the Sheffield commence. Sir Beckett, in a speech at Scarborough, supporting the Government within the limits of the faheffienld speech, said he believed that the country dumping in was in a greater danger than the country dumped upon. If the Government accepted Mr Chamberlain s policy, it .would split the party. Lord Morlev, speaking at Plympton, though he differed with Mr Chamberlain's proposals in some respects, said that he differed with the greatest diffidence. .The Government’s position was somewnat difficult. He confessed that ir the seed sown by Mr Chamberlain ripened, they were prepared to reap the crop. . , ~ Freetrade, lie said, was one of the conditions wliereunder prosperity had been created, lie maintained that the difficulty was to disentangle cause and effect. It might Ire that in some cases retaliation was advisable but he would like to know what mandate the Government wanted. A mandate to impose duties wherever they thought fit was impossible constitutionally* If the Government produced a concrete case doubtless the House of Commons would sanction it. He did not believe that dumping had seriously injured Home trade. He had no belief whatever that taxation of food .would raise wages*

ADDRESS BY SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT. CHAMBERLAIN AND BALFOUR’S POLICIES WERE IDENTICAL. By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright Received 10.48 p.m., Nov. 2. London, Nov. 2.

Sir William Harcourt addressed a crowded and enthusiastic meeting at Rawtenatall. It was a more pretence to allege that Balfour and Chamberlain’s policies were separate. It was a joint stock concern. Though skilful cardplayers they would not score the odd trick. They would certainly not gain honors. It was a more two card game, and whichever you back you lose. Retaliation was really meant, but it was a mere device for feeble folk who did not like taxed food. The real wolf was tho food tax, which was disguisod in sheep’s clothing of retaliation. It was a shallow, hollow, and indefensible scheme, rotten before ripe, like a medlar. He ridiculed Mr Chamberlain’s proposal. He understood the opinion of trade unionists better than their leaders, who opposed him. The wages in freetrade England were the highest in Europe. Despite Mr Chamberlain’s contention that protection raises wages and cost of living, Germany had fallen much less than tho United Kingdom. It was nonsense to talk about the dumping, and that high protection was likely to afford to Britain similar opportunities. The largest British iron magnates ridiculed the assertion of the iron trades being destroyed. Statistics showed that exports were increasing largely. The Welsh tin plates had entirely revived, and every country envied British shipping. The importation o! watches was declining. There was no truth in the alleged decay of British trade. He contrasted the condition of the trade of tho close protectionist era with tho pre-. sent condition as described in Mr Balfour’s pamphlet. It was a fallacy to suppose the foreigner pays. If the price of corn is not raised colonial and British farmers would not be benefited. Though his party had been lectured on Imperialism the Liberals had their own views as to what was good for the consolidation of the Empire, also what was bad. They would never unite the Empire by putting a tax on British food, leaving the rest of the Empire untaxed. Such a policy was utterly unsustainable by Mr Chamberlain’s fallacious arguments, which were supported by baseless alarms, unproved statements, inaccurate figures, and perverted facts. Contentions were contentions which were contrary to the commonsense and experience and ordinary practice of mankind.

There was no evidence that we were living on capital, though perhaps it was badly invested. It was impossible to say anything new. The old answer must suffice for the old fallacies. Mr Chamberlain’s contention that exports were the test of the nation’s wealth was a blunder. The exports were only one-sixth of the whole manufactures, and the projectors of the Home market were larger than over. Naturally other nations’ exports grow proportionally more rapidly because their trade was in its infancy. Mr Seddon seemed the only professor of economy supporting Mr Chamberlain. A six million tax on food would increase the prioes at Home and in the Colonies to tho extent of nine millions more. The public were entitled to remissions on taxes in sugar and tea without any now tax being proposed. The nine millions tax on manufacturers enormously inoreaßed the price of every manufacture.

ASQUITH’S SPEECH,; By .Telegraph—Press Association-* .Copyright. Received 11,42 p.m., Noyj 2LONDON,; Nov. 2.

Mr Asquith, at a great meeting at Paisley, said that Mr Climber lain utterly failed to prove that British trade was in a parlous state again. As a whole, it .was healthily, and steadily, increasing in value and volume. No trade flourished more under free trade than shipping. None stood to lose more by change., Birmingham, the Mecca of fiscal orthodoxy, had just followed London’s example by ordering tram-rails from Belgium, The nerve-shaking tonic of dumping was a Protectionist nightmare. Dumping was suicidal, and would provoke a strong reaction amongst German consumers. He denied that dumping had caused any substantial displacement of Britith capitai-i Interference with the colonies’ fiscal autonomy would destroy the empire. Tho colonies had not shown the slightest inclination to respond. For the colonies not to start new industries as they offer was a (preference against' foreign imports. Such lop-sided preference must lead to heart-burning in the colonies, and bitter resentment among Home operatives;, The gradual wearing away of Imperial tie's must be wholeheartedly, and untiringly resisted.