BRITISH POLITICS.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 1032, 27 October 1903, Page 2

BRITISH POLITICS.

THE FREE FOOD MANIFESTO.

By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright

London, Oct. 25. iho Times says Ibore are grave omissions in the Unionist Free Food manifesto which detract really from the argumentati\ e value of it. It omits to take any heed to trade difficulties. Tho country does not recognise the stagnation of effort of trade, except the colonies, or the increasing invasion of the Homo market by foreigners, and consequent groat loss of employment’ and tbo manifesto does not deal with the fact that tho colonies are anxious for commercial union.

Iho Hon, Geo. Wyndhaui, speaking at Dover, said England ought to have liberty for negotiation in regard to tho tariff question, so as to ba enabled to bit back if hit, and to protect wage-earners at Home and the colonies abroad. Whiio England was freetrade, with a population of 43 millions, her three principal competitors bad populations of 60, 100, and 120 million respectively.

Mr Asquith, speaking at Newcastle, declared that retaliation was summed up in Mr Gladstone’s phrase, “If someone smites you on one chock, you smite yourself on tbo other.” Ho added : Think of tho rivalry and competition that would result in chaos. At Mr Chamberlain's conference the trades would each bo putting forward minimum preference views, evolving a tariff establishing even preference for ail the colonies. It was vile. This was a gigautic experiment of political vivisection of tbo complex organisation of British trade of tho Empire.

SPEECH BY MR BRODRICKy

By Telegraph—Press AssociationCopyright. Received 11-59 pan., Oct. 26. LONDON, Oct. 26. Mr Brotlrick, speaking at Guilford, said that Britain was negotiating with tied hands, foreigners being able to disregard suggestions on behalf of herself or the colonics. He favored imposing whatever duty was necessary upon imports from any particular country treating Britain unfairly. Tho colonies would thereby benefit. He urged caution regarding Mr Chamberlain’s proposals, lest workmen and people of small means should nterpret ‘them as increasing the burdens. It was requisite also -to know what the colonies' would give in return, and whether if preference were offered them it would be effective from a colonial standpoint. He justified the improvements in the army he had effected in conjunction with Lord Roberts. He declared that Ilic reserves were complete for whatever force might he sent abroad. The Committee of National Defence had prepared schemes for all possible emergencies. The scheme would prevent a recurrence of the conditions prevailing iit 1866. Lord Salisbury,, when offering him the post of Secretary of War, remarked that he would he satisfied if he succeeded in laying tho foundation. He challenged impartial and thorough examination of his work for the past three years, and claimed that he had laid a substantial foundation whereon his successor could build.

Received 12 4 a.m,, Oct. 27., London, Oct. 26. Correction : Mr Wyudbam stated that while England had freetrade with 42 millions her three principal competitors had froetrade with 80 millions, 100 millions, and 120 millions of peoplo respectively. Received 12.05 a.m., Oet, 27 London, Oot. 26. Mr Broderick, continuing, said the public demanded a change not in regard to the army, but tho machinery whereby army reform aud administration wore conducted. Ho felt it would be bettor that a change should be effect-id by somebody untramellod by past traditions. Hence he quitted ttf e War Office, but would give his able successor 1 evory ' assistance jn his power. The Times, commenting on the speech, says that a fundamental alteration of details is wanted. Until we have a Minister realising that the defensive frontier lies abroad, we will nover have a satisfaetory military policy.