THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 5031, 31 July 1903, Page 3

THE IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

Pill'll I 'Ki\!C'\Tl AL TRADE.(Jrcui Our Concsnoiiclcut.) 1.0-MJOX, Juno 12. _ae rca;->a- übluy; c.t J’arlAaiucut hast Monday wu.-, l-.oked forward u> with ia-r preacer ia. e.T;>!,. ti;:;a is irsuallv tho ca.-.w During tho recces all sorts cf wild tales were afloat concerning the cc-raaeg re ug-;:u:cn of tills or that prominent memeer cu tlio alinistry, end Hioi’v v 'e:ai pie k.v of prnphotvS wiio pr«dieted au immedir.lm ckssoluHon. L’ut, uve days have cda.paed *md noilting has jvippe-ned. v e a-e just as wAc to-cUiv as wo were a jk.v! nig!it ago so far as co ncerns o in tiic Cabinet on tho qursMoii oi iu‘oferoutial laHus, rad the Oppositions endeavour to iuvcdgle tho Govoi-nmcut further royoaitioiis of puLcy iiavc* bcou lriL.Ucess. dho may thmgo we are clear about iu - o ihab the wiiancelior of tho .Exchequer and iiir .Michael Kickjy-Boach. L;s predcce.oor in otticc, a:o opposed to tho policy cf preicrcaco, and tiiak JMr .Calicur -still preserves “au open mind” on t!io i-abjoct. As for jir Chamborhiiii, iio lias tor tilo present apparently oaid U;s say, and for the time boiu- iiiicuds to copy Urcr llabbit’s osumlo in tho House. At any rate, ho took no part in tiio debate on Mr Chaplin’s rcsolut ion condemning tho Goverum>?ut for tile corn tar:; and left -dr .onlfour to declare that this matter cf vtas one lor tong 01.sonssion, not 10 Do decided in tins or next year s bungee. I, mt tho dcoato would Jiavo brought forth had it not been for tho .-UKaaero ruling that iVir Ciiauibeflaiu’s scheme canid not bo .iioee.--'Ce.. ono cannot toil. That, ruling placed a curb on the tongues or ail vrno took part in tho debate, but. did not entirety stifle discussion, and Sir iUichoal illcks-iieacii, Mr iiitclue. Sir Henry liWlor. Sir John Gorst. Air Bryce and several other , lesser lights contrived to have their fling at Mr Chamberlain's proposals Tho ox-Chan-ccllor had to be called to order twice in tho course of jus speech, bub still managed to tell the House that year after year, acting with the full author r ity of ids colleagues, he had opposed colonial preference, iirsb, with regard to wine, though pressed by the Australian colonics- secondly, with regard to tea; thirdly, with regard to sugar; and only last year, with regard to corn and flour, and to declare that Mr Chamberlain's proposal had united tho Opposition and divided tho Unionist party, and if persisted in would destroy the Unionist party. Ho appealed to tho Prime Minister and the Colonial Secretary to consider not what is desirable (n tnelr own ■ minds, but what is possible. and not to proceed in a com so which would split tho party, and which, in his opinion, was wrong. Mr Ritchie as “a convinced freetrader,” also evaded the ruling of the chair, and transgressed tho laws of the House by deliberately reading a written statement with reference to colonial preference. Ho said: “Though I may not bo allowed to enter Into details. I must be permitted. In one or two sentences to express my own opinion, and the opinion of mv colleagues, ppon this important subject. At present those members of the Government who have spoken have stated clearly that they have spoken only for themselves, and not for tho Government. My night hon. friend, tho Colonial Secretary, upiou whoso speeches I imagine tho minds of tho public aro most directly fixed, expressly in, X think, the first of ins speeches, stated that ho spoke only for himself. Of course, it is impossible for the Government not to express their view of the situation also. So far as tho members of tho Government who have spoken on tho matter aro concerned, all that lias been said has been that tho Question cf preferential treatment of tho colonies should bo discussed and inquired into. For my part. X feel bound to say that I should bo surprised if intpiiry should show any' practical means of carrying out such a policy. I avow myself a convinced freetrader, and I do not share tho views ot those who think that any practical means can bo devised for overcoming tho difficulties which present themselves to mo in connection with these proposals. And as at present advised, I could not bo a party to a policy which, in my opinion, would ho detrimental both to tho country and to the colonies.”

Tho Government was challenged by Sir H. H. Fowler to have a policy on tins question, to declare it, ajid to go to tho country upon it. Thiis question cf free trade and protection was n<Jt a shuttlecock for tho game of political battledore. Sir John Gorst also opposed any colonial preference to be based on raising the price of food. Nothing, he said, would persuade lam to bo a party to a tax which would materially raise t.bo price of food—ho would rather leave Parliament. Mr Bryce, -Mr Robson, .Mr Crooks and others denounced tho Chamberlain proposal. A ParUamontnry situation more protesquo and indecent, Mr Asquith declared on the morrow, had not boon created within tho memory of tho oldest member. Ho wants tho Government to say whether tho corn tax was dropped or only hung up. He declared it unprecedented that Ministers should peso in public as propagandists of two wholly irreconcilable views of public policy, which one of them declared ho would make a cardinal issue at the general oleciton. But will Mr Chamberlain make preferential trade "a cardinal assne’’ when tho time comes for an appeal to the country f Many people doubt it, and there seems to bo a growing idea that the Coloaial Secretary has merely been “flying a kite,” a-’.d'luu no intention whatever of forcing the pace in llio direction of preferential trading.