MR CHAMBERLAIN’S SPEECH.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 1028, 22 October 1903, Page 2

MR CHAMBERLAIN’S SPEECH.

HARD KNOCK FOR THE TROGLODYTES.

By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright Received 11 6 p.m. Oct. 21 London, Oct. 21. Mr Chamberlain rccoived an ovation on arrival at Newcastle. He addressed five thousand at tho Olympia Hall and an equal number at St. George’s Hall. Applications lor tickets of admission exceeded five-fold the capacity. Earl Grey prosided. After tremendous cheering Mr Chamberlain said he was amazed that on'o whoso efforts were those of so-called electioneering quacks had excited so much interest. Despite Goschen’s, Fowler’s, Asquith's and Rosebery’s heavy artillery, the execution was not terrible. Britain had not retained the position ot industrial supremacy which she enjoyed in the first quarter of the century after Cobden. She was now exporting more coal and importing more manufactures. Her whole prosperity depended on maintaining and increasing colonial trade, and this could only be done by accepting the offer of reciprocal preference. A vast majority in the colouies wero prepared to give more than they received. A proposal from eleven million of fellowcitizens was better worth considering than the views of most politicians. Without their strong hands and loyal hearts, he said, we cannot hope to keep tho Empire, neither would it be good taste or wisdom to refuse to consider tho offer, which is unselfish and patriotic, recognising that if united with tho Motherland they would make the Empire such as the world had never eeen. Continuing, he said : 11 1 am propared to make some sacrifice to ensure permanence. Ido not ask the couutry to submit to an additional burden, only to transfer taxation from one article to another. It does not matter to the consumer a brass farthing if sixpence a week taxation comes out of his waist coat or tail pocket. Tho transfer of taxation from tea to bread would benefit our colonial kinsmen, who aro customers, brother heipors, and a buttress of the Empire. Tho colonies will not bo called upon to make a sacrifice. They gtvo preference over foreigners, sooiug that if without injuring manufactures they aro able to revise tariffs so as to open markets to us more widely. We in return take more of their productions. They also benefit by every interest being enlarged and improved. They, at any rate, were willing to negotiate respecting a policy designed to weld the Einpiro by meaus of bonds of increased affection. Motley’s anl other appeals to the great prosperity under freetrade were beside the question, borne of his opponents declared that 13 millions in the United Kingdom were on the verge of starvation. Though doubtless an exaggeration, yet a vast number were underfed, not because corn was not cheap, but because employment was scarce. Admitting that the country was prosperous under free imports, yet protective countries were advancing even more quickly. Even admitting in the United States circumstances exceptional, what about Germany, France, and Sweden ? Men unable to see the difference between the present state of things and those of 36 years ago ought not to call themselves Liberals, but troglodytes, and should live in caves. He challenged Lord Goschen’s contention that the whole tax on bread and meat was paid by the consumer. Economists had not supported that. It was not oertain that consumers pay any of these small taxes. What the workman had to fear was a shortage of supplies, not the duty on corn only. The remedy was to increase the sources of supply, calling on the oclonies to redress tho balance. For very little encouragement they would give a never-falling supply. He was convinced the consumer would not pay more than half tho new tax. If so, workmen would probably gain to the extent of twopence to threepence per week, besides having more oonstant employment and helping to swell the Empire. Received 1 a.m., Oet. 22. Mr Chamberlain continued Our prosperity is due to our great industrial start, our construction, and gold discoveries, not iso, freetrade. More backward protective countries took 30 years to come up, but now they are much larger exporters of manufactures to us than we to them, though they ought to be in' the depths of despair. In 30 years our imports of foreign manufactures, which could just as well be made here, had increased 86 millions, while the total exports had decreased 6 millions, so that 82 millions of trade we might have done here had gone to foreigners. We lost 46 millions a year in wages, which would have employed six hundred thousand men at 30s a week, providing subsistence for three millions. Opponents had offered no alternatives. It was only possible to wold the Empire by means of some fair commercial union. An Imperial council and Imperial defence must follow closer commercial relations. Lord Rosebery declares thoro would not be a tittle of proof in support of the amazing assertion that with preference we would be unable to keep the Empire together. He made the assertion himself at Leods in 1888. Now he runs away bee mse of sumo difficulties, some political risk. It was unwise, unpatriotic, and untrue to say that I was trying to bribe the colonies. In tho same breath we are told I was offering the colonies a benefit that would ruin Britain ; in the next breath that the advantage is so small the colonies would despise it. I never threatened immediate Uisruption, but I believe we cannot keep together except on the lines of a commercial agreement adopted by the United States and Germany. Our Empire is greater, more populous, more universal in products, and more homogeneous in regard to white population with all its growth before it. Therefore any advantage resulting from such policy will yield greater results in the future. I appeal to tho nation not to be dismayed at the bogies of 11 dear food,” “ foreign retaliation,” or the terrible consequences of a policy which every other country has found profitable. A resolution was carried almost unanimously supporting Messrs Balfour and Chamberlain.