THE FISCAL QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2664, 5 April 1905, Page 25

THE FISCAL QUESTION.

LONDON, March 29

The Daily Chronicle reminds Mr Chamberlain that his speeches show that he trenchantly denounced Lord Salisbury's ilirtation with retaliation and preference in 1885.

March. 30.

Sir M. Hicks-Beach, in a letter to The Times, says that while the late Lord Salisbury was doubtless aware of Mr Chamberlain's views on colonial preference, yet he (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) is confident neither Lord Salisbury nor the Cabinet ever authorised Mr Chamberlain to propose or accept at the Colonial Conference the. principle of preference, especially in food)stuffs.

The Times says Lord Salisbury's objections to Mr Chamberlain's proposals must have been founded on tactical considerations rather than on th,e question of principle.

Lord Hugh Cecil, speaking at Greenwich, asserted that he was resolutely certain that his father had opposed to the end of his life Mr Chamberlain's taxation on food proposals.

March 31

Mr Chamberlain states that the late Lord) Salisbury in 1902 was perfectly aware that Canada desired that advantage should be taken of the tly?n existing corn tax to give preference on imported wheat. Lord Salisbury made no objection to the discussion of the question.

Apiil 2

Sir M. _ Hicks-Beach, in a letter to The Times, -says, in proof of Lord Salisbury's views, that in 1902 he. ns a member of Mr Jialfour's and Lord Sahbbuiy'h Government, was permitted to assure the House of Commons that it was not intended 1 to use the corn tax for the purpose of colonial preference.