The Empire's Trade.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LX, Issue 7544, 18 May 1903, Page 2

The Empire's Trade.

CHAM23ERLAIN v, BALFOUR

(I er Press Associatics-Copyri-ht \ ' Tho ir , i ONro». Saturdar ) lie R.ght Kon. a, BaliOllr,-re-ni^, a ?'" Oat deputation agdmst the remission of the Tax on on Corn, denied it was eve? intended to bo a permanent part of the i.seal system, but was a War lax and must be connected with -V great national need or a ffre at change of national policy. Protection could not bo introduced m.ietly or accidentally, but on the impulse of the whole people. He favoured, universal Free Trade. The Protection iv other countries ffave wnh Un liyr a? VaUtagoS' but "Son with the Golon.e.s would be dillicult It migat some day be possible, but fiscal union could not come from one or two industries, but from the m, ;V? d, illt(- iloct of thG People. lie lught Hon. .Air Joseph Chambct lam addressed his constituents in the Birmingham Town Hall, and \>as given a tremendous ovation Dealing with the question of South Africa, he emphasised the hopes he had expressed o r its unification upon Ins return from South Africa He found not Imperial but local questions filling tho minds of the public Our Imperial policy was vital to tho colonies, and vital to us. Referring to trade preference oucred by Canada and Australasia no said [ 10 was not a Protectionist; but n the narrow interpretation of I'l-eetrade current in Home circlesprevailed, the Motherland would iose the advantage of that further reduction in duty which Canada was now oiTering. Germany's action in penalising Canada for making an oiler of preferential trade relations was intended to deter others from giving the Motherland a similar advantage. It was a threat against South Africa and Australasia. This policy of dictation and interinren-je was justified by the belief that we wore .so wedded to the i fiscal system that we could not in- j terfore to befriend the colonies, and that anyone attempting to establish special relations with us must near the brunt of foreign hostility. This was a humiliating position, whereof it wa.s easy to predict the consequence. How could we ask the colonies to bear their share of the Empire's burden, along with their share of the privileges ? They would say, what privileges ? We treat you as relations and friends by giving- you preference, you reap the benefit and leave us to light our own battles. Mr Chamberlain asked was that free trade ? to which there were cries of "No!" Continuing, lie said it was an absolutoly new situation, not contemplated by the authors. Freetrade Cobdon did not hesitate to make a treaty of preierence and reciprocity with France, and .John Bright approved of it. Both of them to-day would make a similar treaty with our children. This statement was greeted with prolonged cheering. Mr Chamberlain added : "The people of the Empire have got to consider this situation. I do not want to hasten the decision. The first al- i ternative is the wrong interpretation mentioned before ; the second is that we should insist not to be bound by any technical definition ol ireetrade, and while we seek free interchange of trade with other nations would we recover freedom and power of negotiation, if necessary, by retaliation whenever our interests or the relations of the coJomes and ourselves are threaten- j ed ? . (Loud cheers). ]\i,- Chamberlam concluded his speech with a peroration in favour of a self-sus-taining, self - sufficient Emnire I Here is a concensus of opinion amongst Unionists that the speech is meant as an earnest, frank and loyal warning to Chamberlain's colleagues. The Standard predicts that the speech will be remembered as the starting point of a new development in party relations. Sir H. Campbell-banncrman speaking at Scarborough, said that if prelerential claims of the autonomous Colonies must follow, then there would be a' Chinese wall round the Empire, Britishers iron the. battlement shouting defiance to ed th'° -f l'. 0! 1 ap °licy contl»A" be™r vitabie seeds °f *—-