BUDGET PROPOSALS.

Gisborne Times, Volume IX, Issue 913, 11 June 1903, Page 2

BUDGET PROPOSALS.

CLEAVAGE IN THE CABINET.

CHAMBERLAIN V. RITCHIE

By Telegraph—Press Association-Copyright Received 12.2 n.m., June 11. London, June 10. In the Houso of Commons Mr Chaplin moved an amendment to the Budget that a remission of the corn tux is needless, and will injudiciously disturb trade, and that it is preferable to reduce the duty on tea.

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach regretted the repeal nf the tux, which was fiscal, not protectionist. If the Cabinet and House hud received his proposals for reducing the enormous increase of expenditure with less indifference, he would still have been Chancellor of the Exchequer. The repeal of the corn tux appealed directly to bar Mr Chamberlain's proposals. Year after year, without a whisper of disagreement from his coliengues, lie opposed colonial preference in regard to wines, tea, sugar, corn, and flour. If Mr Chamberlain persisted he would destroy the Unionist party. Mr Ritchie doubted if enquiry would show any practical means of carrying out preferential treatment. He did not support the policy, which was detrimental to the Motherland and the colonies. Hitherto members of the Government, referring to preferential tariffs, had spoken only for themselves. Mr liitchie intimated his intention to remove the duty on molasses under fifty degrees. Received 12.25 a.m., June 11 London, June 10. There was a dramatic debate in the House of Commons on Mr Chaplin's amendment (that the remission of the corn tax is needless and will injuriously disturb trade, and that it is preferable to reduce the duty on tea.) Despite the Speaker's ruling there were many animated references to preferential tariffs. Much excitement and bewilderment prevailed in the lobbies, some predicting Mr Ritchie’s resignation ; others that Mr Chamberlain would resign. In official circles it is believed that Mr Balfour will endeavor to postpone a dissolution uDtil the Legislative effect has been given to pending domestic reforms. Some fear that the Cabinet dissensions will cause Unionist luke warmness over the Irish Land Bill. Government is confident that the Nationalists’ assistance will [ render the passing of the Bill Bafe. The situation is singularly interesting, comparable to 1886, when Mr Gladstone was defeated over the Irish land policy. The Standard says that Mr Ritchie’s direct challenge to Mr Chamberlain created a profound impression, and disclosed a wide cleavage in the Cabinet. It is anticipated that a crisis will not arise until the issue has been submitted to the country in e. more definite form. Received 12.46 a.m., June 11. The debate on Mr Chaplin’s amendment was adjourned. Sir H. H. Fowler during the discussion said that the country would certainly repudiate a scheme to revolutionise the fiscal policy. Mr A. R. D. Elliott, the new Financial Secretary of the Treasury, endorsed Mr Ritchie's opinions,