BRITISH POLITICS

Gisborne Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1382, 17 February 1905, Page 2

BRITISH POLITICS

By Telegraph—Proas Association —Copyright London. Fob 15. In the House of Lords, tho Addross-in-Reply was agreed to after a brief debato. Lord Bpouoor complimented tho Marquis of Laudowno on hiß'prudence and patience in dea'ing with questions arising out of tho war. Ho criticised adversely tho proposals for a Minister of Commerce and Industry and Redistribution. Tho postponement of tho dissolution was IndCfonsiblo, and was intended to prolong tho Government’s life. Lord Landowno paid tho Government weto anxious to avail themsolvos of any opportunity to end tho war, but intervention might bo fraught with worse possible consequences, retarding the dosired consummation. Ho reforred to tho North Sea incident when Britain was in danger of being drawn into the vortox of war. Tho Powors had agreed to introduce wider reforms in Macedonia. Tho Redistribution Bill might pass noxt session. Lord Goschon complained that there was no reference to the fiscal polioy. He indicated his intention to valso the question himself.

Mr Balfour oulogised Sir W. V. Haroourt. He denied that the Government were pursuing a provocative polioy in Afghanistan. Tho Chinese labour experiment bad boon carefully watobecl. If evil rosultod.it would not bo extended. Up to tho present both white and Kaffir labor had increased since the importation of Chinese. Ho twitted the Opposition with entertaining views of sugar bounties irreconcilable to freetrado: Ho ridiouled the contention that they ought to appeal to the oountry while the Government were quite strong enough to bo effective. Mr Gladstone bad affirmed that it was a bad precedent to resign because bye-elections were unfavorable. Mr Balfour declared that ho had honestly tried to explicitly define his fiscal position.. Had the Opposition honestly tried to tell the country their policy on education, licensing, Chinese labor, and the Home Rule questions ? The Times says the Government will probably submit resolutions relative to the advisability of redistribution, and appoint a Commission to submit a scheme of new boundaries as the basis of a Bill for next session.

Received 9.9 p.m., Feb 16.

There are forty amendments to the address in reply. It is expected that the dedate will end on the 28th. Received 11.10 p.ml, Feb 16. Mr Austin Chamberlain twitted Mr Asquith with disclosing no remedy for the existing fiscal evils exoept to “do nothing, change nothing, shut your eyes and cling to traditions of fifty years ago.” The Govornmont desired to obtain fair terms for British industries, greater liborty for British industries, greater liberty of action in rOßpoet of taxes, power to negotiate effoetivly on fisoal matters, liborty to promote closer union of the colonies and tho Motherland. It must be madness to refuse to consider suggestions for unions, and absurd to exolude preference from the consideration of the colonial, conference. Both British and colonial representatives most go to tho conference with their hands untied. Mr Elliot, he, and not a few other unionists would cross the House if Mr Balfour declared that his and Mr Chamberlain’s policy was identical. Earl Grey stated that Mr Chamberlain’s propaganda caused unfortunate misunderstandings with tho colonies. If a conference were summoned it ought to be unmuzzled, and open to each to plainly express his opinions. Noxt to force, the foundation of taxes was on a most insecure basis for the union of the Empire. A division is expected to-night. Mr Asquith moved an amendment to Mr Balfour's determination to' defer the general election, which, he aaid, was astonishing since Party Government and tho policy of 1900 had all gone, and the bye elections had expressed the epuntry’s discontent. He urged Mr Balfour to abandon an opportunity for taoillirmty and Btate clearly whether there "was any difference in principle between his polioy and Mr Chamborlain’s, and what was meant exactly by the doctrine of retaliation. If a colonial conference met would the tho British representatives be empowered to eDtertain a scheme involving taxation of food? The existing intolerable confusion was menacing the Empire’s industry, and could only be removed by a prompt appeal to the people. The controversy could not go on simmering. The real issue was between preference and non-preforenoe, between taxation and free admission of earn, flour and meat. Let the people decide. ’ •