THE FISCAL REFORM CAMPAIGN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XL, Issue 12408, 22 October 1903, Page 5

THE FISCAL REFORM CAMPAIGN.

MS. CHAMBERLAIN'S POPULARITY. STIERBTG ADDRESS AT NEWCASTLE. ENTHUSIASTIC RECEPTION. By Telegraph.—Press Association.— Copyright. London, October 20. Mr. Chamber-lain was accorded an enthusiastic ovation on his journey from Birmingham to Newcastle.

(Received October 21, 11.6 p.m.) ! London, October 21- \ Mr. Chamberlain received an ova- ! tion on his arrival at Newcastle, where be addressed 5000 people in the Olympia Hall aad an equal number at St. George's Hall. The applications for tickets of admission exceeded fivefold "the capacity of the halls. "Earl Grey presided. Mr. Chamberlain, on rising to speaV, was greeted with tremendous cheering. He said he was amassed i that one whose efforts were those of so-called electioneering quacks had excited so much interest. Despite the heavy artillery of Lord Goschen, Sir H. Fowler, Mr. Asquith and Lord Rosebery, their execution was not terrible. Britain had not retained the position of industrial supremacy which she enjoyed during the first quarter of a century after. Cobden. She was now exporting more coal and importing more foreign manufactures. Her whole prosperity depended on maintaining the increasing colonial trade, and this could only be done by accepting the offer of reciprocal preference. The vastmajority in the colonies were prepared to give more than they would receive. A proposal from 11 millions of fellow citizens was better worth considering than the views of most politicians. Without their strong hands and loyal hearts Britain could not hope to keep the Empire. Neither would it be good taste nor wisdom to refuse to consider their offer, which was unselfish and patriotic. They recognised that, united with the Motherland, they would make an empire such as the world had never seen. Continuing, Mr. Chamberlain said : " I am prepared to make some sacrifice to ensure permanence. I do not ask my countrymen to submit to additional burdens, but only to transfer taxation from one article to another. It does not matter to the consumer a brass farthing if sixpence a week for taxation comes from his waistcoat or tail pocket. The transfer of taxation from tea to bread would benefit our colonial kinsmen who are customers, brothers, helpers, and buttresses of the Empire. The colonies are not called upon to make a sacrifice. They can give preference over the foreigners and see if, without injuring their manufactures, they are able to revise their tariffs so as to open their

j markets to us more -widely. We, in I return, can take more of their pro- | auctions. They would also benefit |by emigrants and every interest I would be enlarged and improved. They, at any rate, were willing to negotiate respecting a policy designed to weld the Empire together by means of -bonds of increased affection.", ■ ' , Mr. Chamberlain went on to say that Mr. Morley's and others' appeals to the wonderful prosperity ; under free trade were beside the ; question. Some of his opponents | declared 13 millions in the United 1 Kingdom were on the verge of star- | vation. Though doubtless this was i an exaggeration, yet a vast number were underfed, not because corn was not cheap, but because employment was scarce. Admitting the country was prosperous under free imports, yet protective countries were adi vancing even more quickly. Even | admitting that in the 'United States the circumstances were exceptional; ! what about Germany, France, and ; Sweden ? Men unable to see the difI ference between the present state of things and those of 36 years ago ought not to call themselves Liber-

lis" but troglodytes, and should liv< m caves. He challenged Lord Gos chen's contention that the whole oi the tax on bread and meat was paic by the consumer. The economist? had not supported that, and it was not certain that the consumers would pay any of these small taxes. What the workmen had to fear was shortage of supplies, not a duty on torn. The only remedy was an increase of the sources of supply by calling on the colonies to redress the balance. For very little encouragement they would give a never-failing supply. He was convinced the consumer would not pay move than half the new taxes. The workmen would probably gain to the extent of twopence or threepence a week, besides having more constant employment and helping to weld the Empire. Mr. Chamberlain proceeded: " Our prosperity is due to our great industrial start in railway construction and gold discoveries, and not to free trade. The more backward protec- j tive countries took 30 years to come up, but they now were much larger exporters of manufactures to us than we to them, though they ought to be in the depths of despair. In 30 years our imports of foreign manufactures, which could just as well have been made here, had increased by eightysix millions, while our total exports had decreased by six millions, so that eighty-six millions of trade we might have done here had gone to foreigners. We lost forty-six millions" a; year in wages, which would have employed six hundred thousand men at 30s a week, providing subsistence for three millions. My opponents have offered no alternatives. It is only possible to weld the Empire by means of some form of commercial union. An Imperial Council and Imperial defence must follow closer commercial relations. Lord Rosebery j declared that there is not a tittle of j proof in support of the amazing assertion that without preference we | would be unable to keep the Empire ■ together. He made the assertion himself at Leeds in 1888, and now J

runs away because of -gome; difacu.lties and some political risks. It is unwise, unpatriotic, and untrue to say that I am trying to bribe the colonies. In one breath we are told that I am offering the colonies a bensftt which would mm Britain, and in the next breath that advantage so small that the colonics would despise it. I never threatened immediate disruption, but I believe we cannot keep together except on the lines of a commercial agreement such as that adopted bj the United States and Germany. Our Empire was greater, more populous, more universal in its products, and more homogeneous in regard to its white population. With all its growth before, any advantage resulting from a race policy would yield greater results in the future. 1 appeal to the nation not to be dismayed at the I bogies of dear food, foreign retaliation, or the terrible consequences of | tine policy which every other country has found profitable." A resolution was carried almost unanimously supporting Mr. Balfour and Mr. Chamberlain.

SPEECH BY MS* JOHN MORLEY. FREE TRADE AND NATIONAL PROSPERITY. London, October 20. Mr. John Morley spoke' at a great and enthusiastic meeting at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester. He declared that the whole weight of authority, both practical and theoretical, was against Mr. Chamberlain's crude, raw and unthought-out proposals. Mr. Balfour, said Mr. Morley, was the mere shadow of a Premier. It was unworthy of him to resort to a policy of intellectual shuttling. Cobden and Bright had proved that they were right too often to be overthrown. Anyone acquainted with Lancashire in the days of Protection, would know that it was idiotic to declare freetrade a failure. In- ■ stead of ruining agriculture it had enabled the farmer to hold up his j head, and had raised the position of the labourers. He pointed to the enormous increase in the income tax and in savings banks deposits, and the increase in shipping. While the average price of food. had fallen 30 per cent., wages had risen by 5 per cent. He denied that there was any real displacement of trade by the principal foreign competitors. And even if it was a cause for anxiety it was unwise to seize the first remedy. Free imports were the true and only key to national prosperity. Mr. Balfour, wishing to gain liberty, was offered a choice of fetters! or manacles. The nation must, however, refuse to be bullied inter accepting a difficult and dangerous policy of retaliation. Tariff jingoism was the backwash of the war.

Sir Boberfc Finlay, Attorney-Gene-ral, speaking at Inverness, protested that the tariff proposals would probably disintegrate the Empire instead of cementing it. The admission of the colonies into an Imperial Council, with a share in Imperial -affairs, would be a better means to secure consolidation.