IMPERIAL POLITICS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVIII, Issue 2703, 6 January 1910, Page 5

IMPERIAL POLITICS.

. LORDS DISPLAY UN WONTED ACTIVITY. United Puess Association— Coryniairr. LONDON, Jan. 4. The Peers address 115 meetings this ■week. Mr. John Burns, speaking at Battersea, favored adult suffrage. He deelared that if it was not embodied in In's election address, the ladies themselves were blameable. Lord Claud Hamilton stands as a Conservative candidate for South Kensington. Mr. Winston Churchill, in a letter, declared that the 10 per cent, duty on imported leather which the tariflites promised in order to win the Bermondsey seat., meant an additional burden upon Leicester manufacturers of £20,000 per year, equivalent to about 3s a -week on the wages of an ordinary operative. While the industry would thus be greatly injured through a protective duty designed to raise the price of the material, it stood to gain nothing from protecting itself. Lord Rayleigh, speaking at Witliam, favored making foreigners contribute to national expenditure. There might be some doubt regarding who would pay export and import duties, but there would be no dispute regarding who would receive them. He therefore strongly supported, tariff reform. THE POSITION OF THE UPPER HOUSE. The ‘‘Times,” discussing the future of the House of Lords, said that Mr. Asquith had definitely disclaimed a desire for ending it, and the party had sufficiently indicated its objection to amending, which meant altering and improving its composition. ‘‘There remains bending,” state s the “Times.” “which s eems to be curtailing the powers of the House of Lords while leaving its composition alone. This alternative. which jurists consider the worst, is that chosen by the Government.” Sir William Anson Lord Rose-' bery’s request for information respecting the future of the House of Lords. Several politicians and newspapers are urging Mr. Asquith and Mr. Balfour to give similar information. Sir H. Norman, M.P. for Wolverhampton, ,ha s been appointed assistant postmaster-general. The office was created under the Act of 1909. SPEECH BY THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION. (Received January 5, 9.30 p.m.) LONDON, Jan. 5. Mr. Balfour, speaking at Hanley, said that the crisis had revealed the fact that different ideals were growing -up, and were separating the community into two great sections, widely divergent, affecting, not matters of detail, but the whole foundation whereon the Empire rested and the whole future of its development. The issues were of such magnitude that he must reserve for future discussion the constitution and reform of the second chamber, Homo Rule, parental freedom in selecting the form of religious teaching for children, and other questions. Ho proceeded to consider the question of defence, and rebutted the accusation of -making party capital out of the navy. INADEQUACY OF NAVAL PREPARATIONS. The adequacy of naval preparations, he said, was only questioned after Ministerial statements on the subject. He contended that when the Unionists left office, Britain’s strength in battleships was overwhelming, and that there were ample naval stores. A STRONG INDICTMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT. (Received January 5, 10.50 p.m.) Mr. Balfour continued: The Government, since then, had been living on those’ battleships and consuming those stores. Referring to Mr. Mulinncr’s revelations, he remarked that not until the truth leaked out, or was extracted almost by a process of torture, had the country begun to realise the unprecedented position—that its’ naval supremacy on l its own seas was- threatenedin the near future. He observed: “Everything depends on the navy. We exist as an Empire only on sufferance unless the navy be supreme,” and added, “I do not believe that there H going, to bo any war between Britain and any great Power, hut the only way you can secure peace is to be sure of victory if war occurs.” He proceeded to urge tariff reform as the -,best way of raising - revenue, giving . security to our products, and increasing the productive’ capacity of the ■country. He looked also to its effects overseas. MR, BALFOUR ON THE UNION OF THE EMPIRE. <Received January 6, 12.5 a.m.) Mr. Balfour added: “We must workout- our Imperial salvation by wisdom, moderation, mutual understanding, and -comprehension between the various equal self-governing democracies of the Empire. The welding into closer unity of so curiously formed a body will.require the labors of successive generations of statesmen. '"Let-us take a step at a time, as it commends itself to"our ■common sense and that .of our follow •citizens Across the seas.” He added •that he would never associate himself with the-party which, when invited by the children of the Motherland to take a plain step in reference to promoting closer unity, repudiated the invitation with scorn. .

CABLE NEWS.

[ldle above reference is to the action of the Asquith Government in declining to favorably consider the suggestions of the colonial delegates at the Premiers’ Conference on behalf of preferential Customs duties.]

CAPITAL INVESTED ABROAD. Speaking at Manchester on November 17, Sir Geo. Kemp, the Liberal candidate for North-West Manchester sajd: Another argument they met with was that the Socialistic financo of the Government was driving capital out of the country. It would be a bad thing for British capital to go abroad if our homo industries were being stinted, but that was not the ease. During the last ten years the amount assessable for incometax had increased from 762 millions to 1,040 millions, and it was known that only 79 millions of that came from securities invested abroad. Therefore the great bulk of that increase of 278 millions was due to the increase of investments at home. Still Tariff “Reformers” complained of the very large sum invested .abroad. It was estimated that we had 3,000 millions invested in foreign enterprises. But Germany also was investing an average of 45 millions a year outside- Germany. Therefore foreign investments were not a feature pe_ euliar to Free-trade England. The capital that went abroad was used to develop younger countries. And how do we send capital abroad?—(Cheers.) We send it in the form of this country’s products, and if you object to our engaging iii foreign enterprises you are putting an obstacle in the way of the employment of British labor. And how does the revenue from those foreign investments come hack to this country ? I know the Protectionists say that is just the blot on our argument and that the interest comes back in the form of manufactured articles ; that a man gets a cheque from Canada and invests it in a motor-car from France. Unfortunate. ]y for the Tariff “Reformers” the figures show that is not so in the great majority of cases. Out of the 3,000 millions invested abroad no less than 2,300 millions are invested in countries which supply us with, food and raw materials, the necessities of onr trade.—(Cheers.) So it is not only good for the capitalist who invests abroad; it is good for the country at large. We get as a consequence more abundant food and cheaper raw materials. 'What, further, is the effect of these investments on the country in which they are made? Those countries become better producers of tile goods we want. From Canada and Argentina, where we haye invested something like 560 millions, we got 17£ millions’ worth of imports in. 1893, and in 1907 no less than 54 millions 7, worth. —(Cheers.) And they are not only better producers for our requirements, hut they are better consumers too. In 1893 they took 13 millions’ worth of our products. in 1907 the amount had grown to 37 millions’ worth. —(Cheers.)