THE FISCAL CONTROVERSY.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 11730, 3 November 1903, Page 5

THE FISCAL CONTROVERSY.

SECESSION FROM THE "FREE FOODERS." THE GOVERNMENT'S DIFFICULT POSITION. SPEECH BY LORD MORLEY. United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright LONDON. November 1. Mr lan Malcolm, member for Stow : market, has seceuVd from the "free fooders" because their manifesto does not support- Mr Balfour to the full extent cf the vote at the Sheffield Conference. Mr E. W. Beckett, M.P. for Whitby, m a speech at Scarborough, in which he supported the Government within the limits of Mr Balfour's Sheflh Id speech, believed that the country which "dumped' goods into another country was in greater danger than the country into which the goods were dumped. If the Government accepted Mr Chamberlain's policy it would split the party. Lord Motley, spanking at Plympton, said that though he differed from Mr Chamberlain's proposals in some respects, yet he differed with great diffidence. The Government's position was somewhat difficult. He confessed that if the seed sown by Mr Chamberlain ripened, they were prepared to reap the crop. Free trade was one of the conditions whereunder Britain s prosperity had been created. He maintained that the difficulty was to disentangle cause and effect. It might be that in some cases retaliation was advisable, but he would like to know what mandate the Government wanted. A mandate to impose duties whenever they thought fit was impossible constitutionally. If the Government produced a concrete ease, doubtless the House of Commons would sanction it. He did not believe that "dumping'' had seriously injured the Home trade, and he had no belief whatever that the taxation of food would raise wages.

SPEECH BY SHI W. V. HARCOURT.

ATTACK ON MR CHAMBERLAIN'S SCHEME.

"SHALLOW, HOLLOW, INDEFENSIBLE," (Received November 2nd, 10.48 p.m.) LONDON. November 2. Sir W. V. Harcourt addressed a crowded and enthusiastic meeting at Rawtenstall. It was a mere pretence, he declared, to allege that the policies of Mr Balfour and Mr Chamberlain were separate. They were a joint stock concern. Though they were skilful card-players, they would not score the odd trick, and would certainly not gain honours. It was a mere two card game, " whichever you back, you lose." Retaliation was not really meant. but was a mere device for feeble folk, who did not like taxed food. The real wolf was the food tax, disguised in the sheep's clothing of retaliation. It was a shallow, hollow, indefensible scheme, rotten before it was ripe, like a medlar. The speaker ridiculed Mr Chamberlain's statement that he understood the opinions cf trade unionists better than their leaders, who opposed him. Wages in free trade England were the highest in Europe, despite Mr Chamberlain's contention that protection raises wages. The cost of living in Germany had fallen much less than in the United Kingdom. Much nonsense was talked about dumping, and that high protection was likely to afford Greut Britain similar opportunities-. The largest British iron magnates ridiculed the assertions that the iron trades were being destroyed. Statistics showed that the iron exports were increasing largely, and the Welsh tin plate trade had entirely revived. Every country envied British shipping. The importation of watches was ' declining. There was no truth in the alleged decay of British trade. He contrasted tho condition of trade at the close of the protectionist, era. with the present condition. Referring to Mr Balfour's pamphlet, lie said it was a fallacy to suppose the foreigner pays. If the price of corn were not raised the colonial and British farmers would not be benefited. Though his party had been lectured on Imperialism, Liberals had their own views as to what was good for the consolidation of the Empire, and also what was bad. They would never unite the Empire by putting a tux on British food, and leaving the rest of the Empire untaxed. Such a policy was utterly unsustainable by Mr Chamberlain's fallacious arguments, supported by baseless alarms, unproved statements, inaccurate figures, and perverted facts. His contentions were contrary to common-sense, experience, and the ordinary practice of mankind. There was no evidence that we were living on our capital, though perhaps it was badly invested. It was impossible to say anything new. The old answer must suffice for tho old fallacies. Mr Chamberlain's contention that exports were a test of the nation's wealth was a blunder. Our exports were only one-sixth of our whole manufactures. Naturally other nations' exports grew proportionately more rapidly, because their trade was in its infancy. Mr Seddon seemed the only professor of economy supporting Mr Chamberlain. A tux of six millions on food would increase prices at Homa and in tho colonies, to the extent of nine millions more. The public were entitled to a remission of the taxes on sugar and tea, without any new tax. The proposed tax of nine millions on manufactures would enormously increase the price of every manufacture.

MR ASQUTTH AT PAISLEY, ANOTHER DEFENCE OF BRITISH TRADE. Mr Asquith addressed a great meeting at Paisley. He said that Mr Chamberlain had utterly failed to prove that British trade was in a parlous state. Taken a.s a whole it was healthy and steadily increasing in value and volums. No trade flourished more under free trade than shipping, none stood to lose more by change. Birmingham, the Mecca of fiscal orthodoxy, had just followed London's example by ordering tram rails from Belgium. The nerve-shaking topic of "dumping" was the Protectionist.'-' nightmare. ''Dumping" was suicidal, and would provoke a strong reaction among German consumers. He denied! That "dumping" had caused any substantial displacement of British capital. Interference with the fiscal autonomy of the colonies would destroy the Empire. The colonies had not shown the slightest inclination to respond to the appeal not to start new industries. The utmost they offered waa preference against foreign im-

CABLE NEWS.

ports. Such lop-sided preference must lead to heart-burning in the colonies and bitter resentment among Home operatives. The gradual wearing away of the Imperial tie must be whole-heartedly and untiringly resisted.