BRITISH POLITICS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVIII, Issue 81918, 23 February 1907, Page 3

BRITISH POLITICS.

THE DEBATE ON PREFERENCE

MK. HILL'S AMENDMENT NEGATIVED.

London, February 21. Mr Hill's amendment was negatived i by 353 to 98.

Mr Balfour, in supporting it, addressed himself to the practical points of the amendment. He said the Government should enter the Conference with an open mind and ask !iow they mean to keep intact ihe bonds uniting tin- ' Motherland and colonies. A /olive-

rein was impossible and an imperal Council impracticable. Meamvlrle. the colonies merely asked us to mafec a beginning w.tli our pioent liseu'l system. He believed fiscal and industrial necessities would compel lis to widen the basis of taxation in order to gain admittance to foreign markets to meet thi! needs of poorer classes, and >ecure u"preferential basis and closer connection with the colonies.

Speaking to Mr 11:11s amendment. Mr Rupert Isaacs (L beral) and others largely dealt with the question of taxing the food of the people, which Mr Austin Chamberlain (ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer) answered. Sir Gilbert Parker (Conservative! urged; a fehilliijg registration tax on torn would give Australia and Canada all the advantage* needed. He declared that Mr Kamsay MaeDonald's stateiment that Australia was going to prevent the export of raw material was the most monstrous travesty of Labor priHeiples he had ever heard. If Australiac Labor peop'ie meant that—and he did-Bot believe they did—then Australia's'doom was certain. The production of raw material was the only production of a new country in an initial stage which could poseibly give work to the worker. Mr MaeDonald's argument was absolutely contrary to all prneiples of Labor. They knew as well as anything that Australia should not put an export tax; on anything she produced. He instanced the United States, under whose constitution it was impossible to do so,: tile democracy knowing that their whole salvation was dependent on the production of the sou. Australian wool eoinniandcS our markets, and did not need preference, but Australian development lay in the direction of dairy products, and sooner Or later the Motherland must accept a policy of preference, no niatte>- how email, aa the basis of a lajger prosperity and a, healthier condition of trade within the Empire. Ihe Times complains of Mr Balfour merely negatively declaring himself opposed to- high protective duties on food gtuffs. By not speaking clearly in relation to preference, Mr Balfour had exposed liunsdf to the raillery of his opponents. • I

Mr speaking ,tof Mr Hills' amendment, denied tliat the colonies need our preference. ADDRESS AGREED TO. London, February 21.

3B Will Thome's (Libor) amepdment to the Address-in-Reply regretting the question of unemployment was aot mentioned was rejected by 207 to 47, the Right Hon. J. Burns (President of the Local Government Board- protesting against any attempt to add a link to the pauperising chain. j The address was then agreed to. LORDS' EBFOKM BILL.

NKW QUALIFICATION BASIS,

Received 22nd, 10.55 p.m. London, February 22.

In the House of Lords, Loid Newton's Lords' Reform Bill, as cabled on the Bth, was read a first time. It withholds the writ to summons a Peer unless he has held certain high polticul, civil, naval, or military offices, or been elected twice before succeeding to the X'eerage, or unless elected as a representative Peer. Al l hereditary Peers without a seat would elect one-fourth of their number as representative Peers for one Parliament. The Bill confers on the Crown the power to appoint life Peers to represent the interest of those unrepresented hitherto, and reduces the number of Bishops sitting] in the House.

The second reading was lixel for sth March.