POLITICAL PARTIES.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10746, 28 August 1900, Page 3

POLITICAL PARTIES.

THE SPUT IN THE LIBERAL CAMP.

OLD ASD NEW "BOXERS."

THE LIBERAL PROTECTIONISTS.

{BT orß SPECIAL REPORTER.) References to the "Boxers" in connection with the proceedings of the House of Representatives have been of frequent occurrence recently. and as there apparently exists some doubt in the mind of the public as to what the party so referred to consists of, opportunkv was taken of the presence of ilr G. W." Russell, M.H.R. for Riccarton, in Christchurch to obtain some illumination on the subject.

THE OLD "BOXERS." "In tire first place, I am not a 'Boxer,'" was Mr Russell's first remark when the representative of "The Press' informed him of the nature of his business. At the beginning of the present session, Mr Russell proceeded to explain, the Ministerial party was solid and undivided; but out of th« discussions on the Bill dealing with the increase of Ministerial salaries arose a "party" known as "the Boxers"—a term, of course, borrowed from the Chinese situation, the real 3oxers "being apparently a section who were discontented with the ruling powers. The head of tbe Parliamentary Boxer party was Mr M. Gilfedder, the member for Wallace, who was humorously named Prince Tuan. The sole plank, apparently, of their platform, and their reason for being, was the advocacy of an increase of the "honoraria of members to £300 per annum, and the twenty-eight members who constituted Prince Titan's following (none of them, however, being Canterbury members, as far as Mr Russell knew) virtually threatened unless their demands were agreed to, to block the Ministerial Salaries and Allowances Bill. Personally, Mr Russell is opposed to the increase of members' honorarium, but lie understands that the Government have so far admitted the claims of the "Boxers" as to agree to their proposal, but the increase will not be in the matter of honorarium, but will be managed in a similar manner as in New South Wales—by a payment for sessional expenses, and will, in all probability, appear on the Supplementary Estimates. It is further understood! that the number of members of the House is to be increa-sed to eighty. Having so far accomplished their purpose, the "Boxer" faction, as originally constituted, has dropped out of existence. THE INDUSTRIAL PARTY. The party referred to as the "Boxers" in connection with the Government's tariff proposals, should,* according to Mr Russell, •be styled' the "Liberal Protectionists," or the "Industrial Party." By what name they may be called, however, their programme may have an important bearing on the future politics of the colony. "When the Government proposals respecting the remissions on Customs duties becamo known," Mr Russell said, "it was at once seen that several local industries were attacked by the changes, and this gave rise to an entirely j fresh combination compo\ed of Labour re- ! presei.tnti\-es and what I would call | 'Liberal Protectionists.' Had the Budget j prop-.:_l. been satisfactory to the Liberal | party the 'Boxers' would never have been ! heard of. 'The 'Liberal Protectionists' . were entirely in far. our of the penny pos- j tage, ar.d the reduction of Customs duties j to the amount of £160,000, but they never i contemplated that in making tlie remissions j the protection which has existed in oonnec- j tion with several industries should be re- | moved. Consequently, a day or two after j the proposal. had been announced Mr J. A. Millar, senior member for Dunedin, and my- j self came to an a,greem_nt to hold a meeting of those members of the Liberal party who were interested in local industries to consider th. question of united action. It was re-;olve<i to act in unison, and a resolution was passed that the remissions of Customs duties should be so arranged that no existing industry should be prejudicially affected, and at the same time it was agreed that, as far as possible, the aiteraative proposals to those of the Budget should be confined to dutiable articles dealt with in the Budget. For instance, it was agreed' to support tlie remission of half the duty on tea, the whole of the dut- on kerosene and rice, the proposal to decrease the duty on drugs by, say, 25 per cent.; but to object to any interference with the duties on the following: matches, cocoa, coffee, candles/, patent medicines, as the industries affected were labour-employing in-du-trie, established under the protection of the existing tariff, and that the labour employed in them would be thrown on the market if the duties were reduced or taken off. The alternatives proposed by the industrial, or Liberal Protectionist, party was that, instead of 'half the duty being taken off currants and raisins, which' cannot ba produced in the eolonv, the whole duty should be taken off, which would mean a direct remission of £ .2,000 instead of £21.000. The dividing line between the ! proposals of the Budget and those of the Liberal Protectionists was a clear one—the , Protectionists believing in the maintenance ; of existing industries o_a protected by law, and in which large sums of money have been invested. At present, for instance, 160 persons are employed in connection with, the manufacture of mat-hes, and although it was probably inadvisable -in 1895 to encouraga the starting of these factories, yet there "can be no doubt that, having been started, it would, be an unfair thing to i sweep away tlie small amount of protection ' given. It is altogether different to encourage an industry to start and to sweep it out of existence after it has been started nnder protection provided by the colony. Resids-!, the want of security that would be ! engendered by such a proceeding would pro- ! bably prevent the starting of other industries* in the colony in the future." WHAT MAY HAPPEN. What position tbe Premier may take up in view of this clear division in his own party —between the industrial and the country parties—remains to be seen. Probably. Mr Russell thinks, he will seek a modus vi- - endi in his usual policy of "split, ing the d fference"; but whether this will please both parties or either is problematical. II c proposals to remit 25 per cent, of the mortgage tax, and to give Crown tenants ten per cent, remission for punctual payment of rents will both be hotly debated by a large I section of the Liberal party. These proposals and the remarks of the Premier in unnecessarily declaring that the Government will not support any increase in the graduated land tax are regarded by a large number of Mr Seddon's supporters as a decadence from the Liberal policy of 1891. The feeling is growing in Parliament that the Premier is gradually lessening the difference between himself and Captain Russell; "and," continued the member for Riccar- '' ton, "without giving away any lobby sec- ■ rets, I believe it is a fact that one prominent member of the Opposition has said that if Mr Seddon will 'stick' to the policy | enunciated in the budget he would be pre- ■ pared to follow him." Mr Russell's opinion is that sooner or later there will be a line | of cleavage within the existing Liberal party ; and in future Parliamentary parties will consist of Radicals and Moderates—the former standing by the policy of the late Hon. John Ballance, whose memory is regarded with the greatest affection by a large section of the present Liberals. The Opposition, confronted by a party prepared to go further than Mr Seddon is prepared to go in social, land and fiscal legislation, may prefer to rank themselves under his banner. With regard | to the numerical strength of the "Liberal i Protectionists," Mr Russell thinks they can rely on between 22 and 25 members of the j House.