THE FREETRADE REPLY.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXV, Issue 5098, 17 October 1903, Page 4

THE FREE TRADE REPLY.

Sir Henry Fowler’s recent Glasgow speech on the fiscal issuo now agitating tho British constituencies has not received tho notice it deserves, because of the omission of die cable agent to record tho fact that this address is the official reply of the Frec-trado Liberals to Sir Chamberlain. This circumstance, of course, adds immensely to the significance of tho speech in question; and there are other conditions, ail of which should tend to ralso Sir Henry Fowler’s utterances above the vast volume of time-worn criticisms and ungracious personalities in which the great number of Homo speakers have up to tho present time indulged. Sir Henry is one of tho few remaining older colleagues of Mr Gladstone, and though ho may lack tho culture and -debating power of men like Mr Asquith, he must be regarded as a fair, an able and a judicious exponent of tho older school of Liberalism. Lord Kosebery once went tho length of declaring, in one of those letters without which no Liberal gathering is complete, that “Sir Henry Fowler was a past-master in tho business of statecraft and finance. - ’ The selection of Sir Henry by the Liberal leaders to controvert Mr Chamberlain’s arguments was made, Homo papers report, soon after Glasgow' was fixed upon for tho opening of the campaign, and Sir Henry had about a week to assimilate Mr Chamberlain’s speech. This second Glasgow* deliverance must, therefore, be regarded as tho formal pronouncement of tho free-trado—sect ion of Liberals on tho newly-outlined fiscal policy. Sir Henry Fowler, being a past master of statecraft and finance has, wo presume, made himself familiar with tho facts and arguments with which, hy the aid of millions of pamphlets, Mr Chamberlain and bis friends- aro educating the country. In spite of his equipment of acknowledged ability and undoubted knowledge of his rival’s case, tho general verdict we beliovo, will bo that Sir Henry, judging by tho cabled summary of his speech has failed conspicuously in his answer to Mr Chamberlain. He barely succeeds in reaching tho . arguments ho was expected to demolish, or tho facts that bo would set in another light. So far as pointed fact and ansrvering argument aro concerned, Sir Henry might have remained ignorant of tho speech to which ho replied. While Mr Chamberlain’s address was alive with figures that spoke, and frith, reasons and suggestions that appealed l to tho intellect, Sir Henry Fowler’s rejoinder is a defence of prcsenCday Cobdenism —that and nothing more. We should bo sorry to think that the British elector will be guided in tho year 1903, -as Sir Henry thinks ho will bo, by what a majority of tho House of Commons did half a century ago. Inquiry, Sir Henry declared, free-traders did not shrink from, and ho admitted tiro palpably evident truth thqt 'free-trade would stand or fall by experience. But while he seemed to court inquiry, and was even ready to sacrifice free-trade iho showed that behind those declarations lay, deeply embedded, immovable convictipus and a determination to uphold free-trade in all its antiquity. “The Liberals,” as be phrased! it, “were not going to change tho old lamp for a new ono. for tho old lamp was shining brightly, carrying peace, comfort, and prosperity to numberless homes.” Apparently Sir Henry made no valid and convincing explanation of British exports increasing by only 71- per cent., while population bad been added to by ,30 per cent; neither had ho any proposal for meeting the gigantic augmentation of the imports into Great Britain from the United States and Germany ; nor -did ho see impending disaster in the fortytwo and a half millions decline in British’ exports to Hurope and America-. Instead of tackling items such as these in Mr Chamberlain’s indictment of the present fiscal creed, Sir Henry favoured his audience with soothing statements relative to improved wages, growth of savings banks, and the elevation of the scalo of living. True, indeed, is Air Chamberlain’s dictum that free-trade is the policy of tho peaceful. Lord Ji-osebery, speaking at Sheffield, ■did condescend to deal with some of the details of Air Chamberlain’s scheme. His treatment, essentially hostile, did not, however, supply much light, and the burden of bis remarks was that the new proposals would provoke complications with foreign countries, and “involve a battle with tho civilised world, compared with which Armageddon would be a jest.” But the “little Minister” —we might say, the'disappearing Alinister—has lately been a bit of a cosmic jest himself, and to that unfortunate circumstance must bo dpe his appallingly contorted and extravagant view of what would be the result of Great Britain treating foreign countries in oven a kindlier spirit and manner than these countries treat Great Britain, if Sir Henry Fowler’s reply and Lord Kosebery’s voluntary expression of opinion are taken as criteria, tho fact is indisputable that Ala - Chamberlain to date triumphantly holds the field.