DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVI, Issue 42, 18 February 1905, Page 5

DEBATE ON THE ADDRESS.

li ■ FISCAL AIrfjENPMENT r r ■' BY 63 VOTES. Fable —Press Association.—Copyright.) py Vtt f : LONDON, February 17. V> Asquith's amendment on the fiscal *i.pstion was negatived in the House of Sons last flight by 311 votes to 248. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain said personally he thought the sooner there was a ..dksotation-the better. He denied the right of the minority to demand a dissolution for childish and fantastic reasons, which, if tnev were "* office they would never 'recognise themselves. Hβ hoped the Government would never abandon their trust because the Opposition desired office. It was a new doctrine to ask for a dissolution because the unofficial proposals of a private member had been fully discussed. On no point of principle did he differ from Mr. Balfour. The Colonial Conference must meet without restraint. He was confident the colonies had a great deal to offer, and he had never pretended to offer concessions unless there were reciprocal treatment. Speaking to the amendment. Lord Hugh Cecil said he was convinced the nation would never accept a preferential arrangement with the colonies, based on the taxation of food. The very idea of bargaining with the colonies was disruptive. The Government's failure to disclose its whole mind was assisting to drive freetraders from Parliament. Tie did not beJjeve the present was a favourable time to suggest that the colonies should make great commercial and financial concessions tto the Motherland, or that it was tfe best way to promote Imperial unity. The free trade cause was not threatened ]w the continuance of the Government in office, for the defence of free trade had been surprisingly successful. He thought if the Government spent another session in shirking the opportunity of a Parliamentary debate on the fiscal question, free trade would not suffer. Five Unionists' voted against the Government in the division, and four abstained from voting. The latter included Lord Hugh Cecil and Sir John Gorst. Sixty-five of the Irish Nationalists voted with the Liberals. The opinion in the lobbies is that the division shows the Government is «afe for the session. — SPEECHES BY LEADERS. ; ~ 0.-B. AND MR. BALFOTTH. (Received 7.20 a.m.) " LONDON, February 17. Speaking to the amendment, Sir Henry Campbeli-Bannerman said that despite ilr. Balfour's evasions it was clear that he was committed up to the hilt to the Eirminghßia policy. The Opposition objected to a Colonial Conference because it.would have the effect of committing the country to definite action, which the country would not willingly accept. The real issue was not a nebulous retaliation, hut Mr. Chamberlain's full-blooded policy. Mr. Balfour said that until the Government was armed with the free power of negotiation attempts would be made against British commerce which would never be made in other circumstances. He catechised those opposing the Government policy with respect to their policy in J tne"event of their being returned to power. If they were willing permanently to submit to national and Imperial disabilities, they would discharge their duties inefficiently. Whether they were permitted, said Mr. Balfour, to take a large and permanent share in the commercial developments of rapidly-growing colonies might dβpend on the country's decision in the near future.

RADICALS REPROACH THEIR LEADERS. (Received 8.5G ma.) LONDON, February 17. Many of the Radicals blame their leaders for lack of tactics over Mr. AFquith'e amendment, which, they held, were eminently calculated to unite the Unionists «t the outset of the session.