BRITISH POLITICS.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 1041, 6 November 1903, Page 2

BRITISH POLITICS.

MORE OPINIONS. By Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright London, Nov. 4. Mr John Morley, in a speech at tingham, said it was time tho Ministerialfiscal masquerade was ended. Ho was confident the country would reject revolutionary proposals. The workers who wero tho most comfortably off in Europe lived in Britain, Denmark, and Holland, all practically Frcttrr.de countries. There was no finality in the policy of retaliation, and he was certain it would laud us in the bogs and quicksands of protection. He declined to be misled by the phantasmagoria of Empire. He denied that Cobden dosired disruption of the colonies. Tho policy of the early Radicals savod tho colonies by government on the principle of freedom instead of principles of power and coercion. The result secured was a nobler and moro durable allegiance, based on spontaneous attachmoDt and national affection by big-hearted, loyal men. Mr Austen Chamberlain, speaking at Aberdeen, said stagnant trade was not due to defective education, but was almost wholly attributable to foreign tariffs. The favored nation clause was no real defence.

The Times says foreigners havo been warned that unless fair play was shown Britain will withdraw her unparalleled hospitality.

Mr Marcus Dormant, in a letter to tho Times, says the census returns reveal that the numbers of employed in nine important industries decreased 314,080 in twenty years, principally in agriculture, silk, nails, tin plates. The rate of progress in others variously declined in the last decade.

Received 3.52 p.m., Nov. 5. London, Nov. 4. Tho Board of Trade, St. Johns, Newfoundland, warmly supports Mr Chamberlain’s profercnco as far-seeing, couragoous statesmanship.

Earl Beauchamp, speaking at Kelee. owon, Worcestershire, said that what was needed was a little mor'o cnorgy on tho part of the manufacturers, and greater readiness to throw obsolete machinery on the scrap heap. Above all, tho needs was tho host possible education.

CHAMBERLAIN’S SPEECH. By Telegraph—Press Association- Copyright Received 11.25 p.m., Nov. 5 London, Nov. 5. Mr Chamberlain addressed 10,000 pooplo at Bingley Hall, Birmingham. Four guineas wore paid for many seats. Thousands were disappointed. Mr Chamberlain, who was accorded an immense reception, said ho was greatful that many recognised his ideals wero not a delusion. He was convinced workers would keep an open mind, and not necessarily consider it blasphemous to re adopt a polioy fifty years old to modern requirements. His opponents declared that iu tho days of protection the country was iu a state of unexampled misery and destitution owing to the corn laws and protection, and whon they were repealod thero was a magical change, with choap food and universal prosperity, nil resulting from fiscal changes. That was the popular delusion. If his opponents view was correct, how did they account for protected countries progressing much more rapidly than ourselves ? He then entered into a long historical argument to show that years of great prosperity under protection placed England in tho foremost rank of nations with tho absoluto commercial supremacy of the world. The crisis of 1841 was not due to protection or the dear loaf, but to bad trade and over production. Broad was much cheaper than it had been many times since the repeal of the corn laws.

Received 12.31 a.m., Nov. 6. London, Nov. 5.

Mr Chamberlain, continuing, said the Chartists instigated riots to secure electoral reforms, but the leaders opposed the Corn Law repealers. Froetrade was a manufacturers’ not a workers' movement. Quoting from Cobden and Mongredien regarding the unparalelled prosperity* in the next quarter of a century, ha declared it was due to gold discoveries and developments of railways and steamers stimulating trade. Previously protection enabled England to take advanfago of the boom apart from the non-fulfilment of Cobden’s expectation of free exchange between nations. A great change occurred ovor political and commercial relations of the colonies. The trade of the colonies increased by leaps and bounds, conooaling the deficiency in foreign trade. It was to our interests to stimulate the prosperity of the colonies, apart from considerations of affection and gratitude. At present emigrants chiefly settled under a foroign flag, the Empire losing their suppdrt, If they settled in Canada they buy JE2 worth of British goods yearly, if in Australia £5 worth, if in South Africa more. It was better to develop colonial trade than pick up foreign crumbs. Everything contributing to the increase of the prosperity of the colonies, and to fill up their waste lands, would reaot favorably on the Motherland.

Received 12.57 a.m., Nov. fi.

Mr Chamberlain/continuing, saic}: If you do not sympathise with, and do not listen to tho colonies, because they adopted a policy different to yourselves; if you reject their patriotic offers, partly inspired by a desiro to co-operate in the task of sustaining the Empire, the opportunity may never recur. Without a bond of commercial unity we 'will never secure Imperial federation. Freetrade leaders in 1846 were not enthusiastic towards the colonies. Oobden and a large ftfsty hoped the ties would be loosened. Now tfircumstances were changed. Ho sbmetimea questioned if modern freetraders had abandoned their antiquated views, and they really desired closer relations with the colonies. Sir W. Harcourt’s and Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman’s courteous speeches did not reveal true appreciation of what the Empire means, or any sympathy with this great ideal of the British people. The speaker added : I cannot see that they care a brass-button about' Imperial Union, but only about the Union of tho Radical party. Ido not attribute similar views to Mr Ritchie, Lord Goschen, the Duke of Devonshire, or Sir Michael Hicks-Peach, though I am totally unable to understand their position, They seen; to be Imperialists in theory and ljttle Englanders in practise. They wish to see Imperial UnioD, and refuse to do anything to secure it. Sir M. Hioks-Beach refused preference to Australian wines, also tea and sugar. Again he refused to do little hotter for brothers than strangers. That was not an Imperialist policy. The Free, Food League at first professed themselvg(3 determined freetraders, not supporters of a Government pledged to stop unfair foreign competition and dumping. Free fooders protest less against protection than preference for the colonies.