PREFERENTIAL TRADE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 12800, 22 October 1903, Page 7

PREFERENTIAL TRADE

MR JOHN MORLEY.IN MAXCHESTER,

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON TARIFFS. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, October 20. (Received Oct. 21, at 8.5 a.m.) Mr John Morloy had a great and enthusiastic meeting in the Freetrade Hall, Manchester. He declared that the whole weight of authority, practical and theoretical, was against Mr •Chamberlain's crude, raw, and unthought-out proposals. Mr Balfour was the mere shadow of a Premier. It was unworthy to resort to a policy of intellectual shuffling. Cobiicn and Bright had been proved to be right too often to be overthrown. Anyone acquainted with the Lancashire days of Protection would know that it was idiotic to declare Freetrade had proved a failure.

Instead of ruining agriculture, it had enabled the fanner to hold up his head, audi bad raised the position of the labourer. He pointed to tho enormous increase in income tax, savings bank deposits, and shipping. While the average price of food had fallen 30 per cent., wages bad risen 15 per cent. Ho denied that there was any real displacement in trado by our principal foreign competitors, and even if there, were cause for anxiety, it was unwise to seize the first remedy. Free imports were the true and only key to national prosperity. Mr Balfour, in wishing to gain liberty, was offered a choice of fetters or manacles. The nation must refuse to be bullied into accepting tho difficult and dangerous policy of a retaliation tariff. The present jingoism was a backwash of the war. SUGGESTED IMPERIAL COUNCIL. (Received Oct, 21, at 8.50 a.m.) Sir R. B. Finlay, Attorney-general, sneaking at Inverness, protested that tariffs would probably disintegrate the Empire instead of cementing it. The admission of the colonies into an Imperial Council, with a- share in the affairs of the Empire, would be a better means of securing consolidation,

MR CHAMBERLAIN. Mr Chambenain was accorded an enthusiastic ovation on his journey from Birmingham to Newcastle.

1111 CHAMBERLAIN AT NEWCASTLE. REPLY TO CRITICS. LONDON, October 21. (Received Oct. 21, at 11.6 p.m.) Mr Chamberlain received an ovation on arrival at Newcastle. lie addressed an audience of 0000 at -the Olympia Hall and an equal number at St. George's Hull. Applications for tickets of admission exceeded by fivefold the capacity of the hall. Earl Urey presided. After, tremendous cheering, Mr Chamberlain said he was amazed that one whoso efforts were thc=o of so-called electioneering quacks had excited so much interest. Despite Gosehen's, Fowler's, Asquith's, and Rosebcry's heavy artillery, the execution was not terrible. Britain had net retained the position of industrial supremacy which she enjoyed for the first quarter of a century after Cobden! She was now exporting more coal and importing foreign manufactures. Her whole prosperity depended on maintaining an increasing colonial trade, and this could only bo done by accepting the offer of reciprocal preference. A vast majority in the colonies were prepared to give more than they received. A proposal from 11,000,000 of their follow citizens was hotter worth considering than the views of mast politicians. "Without their strong hands and loyal hearts," lie continued, "you cannot hope to keep the Empire. Neither would it he good taste or wisdom to refuse to consider their offer, which was unselfish <vnd patriotic, recognising they were united with the Motherland. They would make an Empire such as the world had never seen." Continuing, he said: "I am prepared to make some sacrifice to ensure permanence. I do not ask.my countrymen to submit to additional burdens, only to transfer the taxation from one article to another, ft does not matter to the consumer a brass farthing if sixpence a week taxation conies out of his waistcoat or tail pocket. The transfer of taxation from tea- to bread would benefit our colonial kinsmen, who were customers, brother helpers, and the buttress of the Empire. The colonies were not called upon to make a sacrifice. They would give preference over foreigners, and see if, without injuring manufactures, they were able to revise their tariffs so as to open their markets to us more widely. We, in return, would take more of their productions, and they would also benefit by emigrants. Every interest would be enlarged and improved. They, at auylvte, were willing to negotiate respecting a policy de-signed for the well-being of the Empire. By this means tho bonds of affection would bo increased. The appeals of Mr Morley And others to the wonderful prosperity under Free-trade were beside the question. Some of liis opponents declared that 13,000,000 in the United Kingdom, were on tho verge of starvation. Though .doubtless an exaggeration, yet a vast number were underfed, not because corn was not cheap, hut because employment was scarce. Admitting that the country was prosperous under free imports, yet protective countries were advancing even more quickly. Even admitting that in tho TJnited States the circumstuces were exceptional, what about Germany, France, and Sweden. Men who were unable to see the difference between the present state of things and those of 3C years ago ought not to call themselves Liberals, hut Troglodytes, and they should live in caves. He challenged Lord Gosehen's contention that the whole tax on bread and meat would bo paid l>y the consumer. Economists had not supported that. It was not certain that consumers would pay any of these small taxes. What the workmen had to foa-r was shortage of supplies, not the duty on con:. T!m only remedy was to increase the source of supply, calling on tho colonies to redress the balance. For very little encouragement they would give a never-failing supply. Ho was convinced the consumer would not pay more than half the now taxes, so workmen would probably gain to the extent of 2d to 3d per week, besides having more constant employment and helping to weld the Empire. (Received Oct. 22, at 1 a.m.) Mr Chamberlain continued: "Our prosperity is duo to our great industrial start in railway construction and go-Id discoveries, not to Freetrade. More backward protective countries took 30 years to come up to us, but now wore much larger exporters of manufactures to us than we were to them." He thought they ought to be in the depths of uespair. In 30 years our imports of foreign manufactures, which could just as well have been made here, had increased by 8G millions, while the total exports had decreased by sis millions, so" that 82 millions of trade we might have done here had gone to the foreigner. We lost 30 millions a year in wages, which would have .employed 600,000 men at 30s per week, and provided subsistence for three millions. Our opponents had offered do alternative, It was oply po>

sible to weld the Empire by means of some form of curamercial union. An Imperial Council and Imperial defence must follow closer commercial relations. Lord Rosebery had declared there was not a tittle of proof to support the amazing assertion that without preference we would be unable to keep the Empire together. "Ho made the assertion himself at Leeds in 1888, hut now runs away because of some difficulties and some political risks. It is unwise, unpatriotic, and untrue to say I am trying to bribe the colonies. In the same hreath we arc told I am offering the colonies a benefit which would ruin Britain, and in the next breath that the advantage is so small the colonies would despise it. I never threatened immediate disruption, bub I believe we cannot keep together except on the Hues of a commercial agreement adopted by the United States and Germany. Our Empire is greater, more populous, moro universal in the products, and more homogeneous as regards tho white population, with all its growth, than before; therefore auy advantage resulting to tho raco by the policy would yield greater results in the future. "He appealed to the nation not to ho dismayed at the bogies of dear food, foreign retaliation, or the terrible consequences of a policy which every other country found profitable.

A resolution was carried, almost unanimously, supporting Messrs Balfour and Chamberlain.