BRITISH POLITICS.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 1057, 26 November 1903, Page 2

BRITISH POLITICS.

By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright

London, Nov. 24. . Sir Edward Gray, at Salisbury, said Mr Chamberlain’s contention that nis system would have prevented tbo McKinley tariff was unsound, sines protectionist countries were unable to prevent it. How much more would the farmer get from a 2s duty on corn 2 Tho cost of machinery and everything he used would be increased. Want of employment in towns under protection might send iha laborer back to the land, where lie would find no increase of wages. He urged his hearers to beware of passion ; let them stand up for their own interests, but not be led astray by envy, hatred, and prejudice. Britain was the heart of the Empire. Ho never believed that depressing tho vitality and vigor of the heart would be strengthening the limbs.

Mr C. B. Crisp, Conservative, who contested Oldham at last election, opposes Mr Ritchie at next election. He supports preferential trade.

A meeting of 400 Liberal Unionist delegates at Manchester endorsed Mr Chamberlain’s policy, only nine supporting the amendment favoring Mr Balfour’s policy exclusively. Mr Chamberlain, in his Cardiff speech, quoted a telegram from Mr B. R. Wise, the New South Wales Attorney General, regarding the trade of our rivals with Australia. This telegram went to show that the imports into Australia from Britain in 1891 were valued at 28'8 millions, and 1903 were valued at 21"6 millions. The imports from foreign countries in 1891 woro valued at 9'5 millions, and in 1903 valued at 13 - 6 millions.

The Westminster Gazetto says Mr Wise’s telegram is misleading, as 1891 was quite an exceptional year. Possibly thero would bo hereafter a temporary decliuo from the high average of recent years, inasmuch as colonial trade was undoubtedly inflated by the dotation of loans, which were conveyed to the colonies in the shapo of goods. Disraeli, member for Altringham, addressing tho Buckingham Chamber oi Agriculture, supports Mr Chamberlain because his policy would stop the decrease ot rural aud stop the increase oi urban population. Mr George Whitely, M.P., in an article in tho Daily Nows, says Germany aud Bolgium are Great Britain’s most dangerous rivals, owing tu superior education, 'over wages, and longor hours. The workers of Great Britain ure unab'o to compote with ihc-m while they retained their ability to buy cheaply. Norridgo, a Liberal candidate, who opposes Mr A. J. Balfour at tho forthcoming general election, speaking at Manchester, declared that the nine months’ oxport of the present year exceeded any previous twelve months' exports. Mr James Bryco, speaking at Walsall, said Mr Chamberlain’s scheme was vaguo and changing, based on figures often monstrously wrong. It was a sort of dissolving view, never the same for two weeks together: a scheme of fallacies and rhetoric. His facts were fancies, figuros, and fiction.

Mr Walter McLaren, in a letter in the Times, asserts that Canada is a most flagrant dumper of bounty-fed pig iron, and sent to England 103,200 tons in 1902, He asks will Mr Balfour and Sir M. Hicks Beach apply thoir principles to colonial produce.

Sydney, Nov. 25. Mr Wise states that tho figures supplied by the Government statistician in tho cable to Mr Chamberlain, which was sont a few days ago, pointed out that during tho last twelve years tho British imports into Australia decreased £2,200,000, or 9.3 per cent, while the foreign imports increased £4,100,000, or 43 per cent. In 1891 tho imports of British produco were 63 per cent; in 1902 they had sunk to 52 per cent of the total imports of Australia, while foreign imports for tho same poriod increased from 25 to 33 per cent. He added that what happened in Canada before 1897 is happening here. England is losing the Australian market, as previous to 1897 she was losing the Canadian.

Received 11.45 p.m.-, Nov. 25, LONDON, Nov. 25

The Duke of Devonshire presided at a crowded and enthusiastic meeting of the Unionist Free Food League in the Queen’s Hall. Admission was 'by ticket. Sir Michael llicks-Beach, Lord George Hamilton, Mr Ritchie, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh were present. Sir Michael llicks-Beach did not speak. He sat at the Chairman’s left and listened, not unmoved to the Duke of Devonshire’s blunt 'declaration that whatever others mightjlo, he himself was not prepared to tender an expression of confidence in a Government policy whereof lie had no adequate knowledge and about which he entertained some grave misgivings.

A handful of Mr Chamberlain’s supporters secured seats, and the mention of Mr Chamberlain was frequently greeted with rounds- of applause, mingled with a few groans and hisses,- but the Duke’s tribute to Mr Chamberlain’s high motives in making his proposals evoked a manifestation of the heartiest commendat on. The Duke urged that the fiscal question must sooner or later become a party question. It Was not yet so, but lie thought Liberals had quickly availed themselves of the advantage of identifying themselves with tbe maintenance of the fiscal system as it stands. Continuing, the Duke said there was nothing the Opposition would like better than an election turning on the question of free imports versus protection, especially free food against taxed food, but it was not -yet certain that they would have this advantage.- Mr Chamberlain’s policy was unsupported in its full strength by any other prominent statesman, ‘but it was Mr Chamberlain’s, not the Government policy, which was before the country. The public would like -a clear issue, and a clear issue was presented by Mr Chamberlain. The Government's poliev must be more clearly defined. The country resembled a jury in a great, complicated cause, hearing counsel for both sides, but not privileged to hoar the summing up.

“ I do not know,” said the Duke. “ where to look for that summing up. _ It is not upon the results of enquiry the Government’s policy has been framed.” The speeches made at Sheffield and Bristol alone afforded people the necessary material to form an opinion. They contained the most positive declaration Mr Balfour had made. Government sought a mandate to retaliate so as to mitigate hostile tariffs. That might mean much or little. It could not be intended to confer discretionary powers- to. im pose taxation without the exnress consent of Parliament. (Cheers.) “ The countrv cannot,” he said, : c and will not abandon that power which is the foundation of all our liberties.” (Cheers.)

Received 12.55 a.m,. Nov. 26 London, Nov. 25

Tho Duke of Devonshire, continuing, said : I admit there is a good deal to be said in favor of reasonable, moderate retaliation, provided it is not regarded as a good thing in itself. The sugar convention showed there was no traditional fiscal policy to prevent any necessary retaliation upon outrageous tariffs against our trade. Could be have been assured precisely what was meant by the moderate use of retaliation, he might still have been in the Cabinet. Absence of freetrade all round would only injure ourselves, build tariff walls, and restrict importation of goods which we own is an advantage to take from other nations. The Duke was greatly cheered for uncompromisingly declaring that he would oppose to the utmost anything of the nature of a return to protection. He further hinted that if Mr Balfour went a step forward in the direction of Mr Chamberlain’s proposals they must part company. The Duke and most of his friends would be content to ba the drag on the wheel.