Imperial Fiscal Question.

Southland Times, Issue 19232, 19 December 1903, Page 2

Imperial Fiscal Question.

xo sooTiim; syrup. Per United Press Association. By Electric Telegraph— Copyright. LOXDON, Dec. 17. Speaking at Leeds, Mr Chamber* lain said : " 1 reiterate that preference to the colonies will not add ta tin; cost oi" living. r Charles Booth one of the greatest living authorities' on everything, touching the poor, supports me. '.Replying to my que> tions if the fiscal proposals would add l<> the cost of living of the poor* est, he replied : ' If carried out with reasonable prudence and circumspection, your proposals seem to me liko* ly to add to national and Imperial prosperity. 1 do not think they will add to the cost of living.' Even 1/ they did it would not affect my opinion, since the well-being of tho poorer classes depends much more on general conditions of prosperity and fluctuations of employment than on changes in the level of prices. In spite 01 proof before their eyes, our opponents say there is no evidence of a colonial demand. That is really a monstrous misrepresentation. It" is childish to want me to produce evidence after the indication tho Colonial Conference alTorded of tho desiro <■>( the colonies to negotiate with us. If negotiations are needed let them send me as ambassador to tho colo-» nies with mil power. I am perfectly willing to risk m.v reputation on being able, not merely to satisfy tho colonies that we have something to give worth their acceptance, but als*o to secure I'roni tin- colonies an equal measure in return. Air Fielding, tho Caiuuliiiii Finance Minister, has just nritler. me that both great political Parties 111 the dominion, cordially en. dorse the position Canadian Minister!) took at the last Colonial Conferenco in regard to Imperial preferential trade. If the principle be approved British and colonial public men might he trusted to overcome diflV cullios aud give the project practical fovm." Mr Chamberlain scathingly attacked the Free Food League, who, he said, swallowed, retaliation with wry faces and choking .throats. They were willing to imposo a duty provided it only injured foreigners, butr if designed to benefit their friends and brothers, tlwn their orthodoxy became rigid— they wore Imperialists to the core and backbone. " Thcv invoke Imperialism," he observed, " in niter-dinner platitudes, l}ut are. willing to hound from politics their colleagues and former friends who seek to draw the Empire closer by doing something the colonies desiro The • free-fooders • have been too lone on an inclined plane— they have now got to the bottom «ith the Htomo Ruleis. and Little Engenders, whom they profess to oppose. I wish them joy 01 their* company. Kecent events have shown that the Duke of Devonshire s encyclical did not possess- pontijical authority. They are trying to tnghten the country with inHniteximul possibilities of an imperceptible saendee. Are- wo s o mean as to ucc ccpt the colonies' assistance in « time 01. trial, and then, with a sneer to lell them, when they want to move tt step nearer to politic^

union, that such sentiment will cost ] us a farthing on the four pound loaf ?" Mr Chamberlain recalled the prediction of Baron Playflair in 1890 that the McKinley tariff would prove 'an utter failure, and was only a temporary measure, and that if the Americans were right our commercial policy was founded on a giganticerror, which would result in outruin. . Mr Chamberlain spcike ovor iwo hours, and, at the conclusion, tliu meeting adopted a resolution m labour of his policy. There was a great influx to Leeds from all parts oi Yorkshire, and many guineas were spent on seats. " FINANCE " TAKKS A HAND. Received 19th, 0.43 a.m. Mr Felix Schurter. vice-president of "the Industrial Bankers, addressing a n influential gathering of city bankel's and financiers on the fiscal question, advocated a ltoyal Commission to conduct an exhaustive enquiry into all the great industries as compared" with similar industries in other countries. Nevertheless, tho time was singularly inopportune, because the dislocation produced by the war still continues. .When told that the unity of the Empire was invol.vy ed he thought it strange that the interests of London, where the Imperial sontiruent was so strong, wero hardly mentioned, though it was the financial centre of the. world. ]f British trade was restricted to narrow channels, then those gaining; our trade would oust us from our supreme position in the international money market. Hu doubted the efllcacy of preference and retaliation. Protection favoured the fewest possible. Restrictions of trade would Ikthe inevitable consequence of preference. In foodstuffs* there would bo an absence of all competition and prices Would consequently rise to an extent greater than the duty. What would happen in the event of war, with only a colonial source of supply ? If, wages rose the cost of all productions would rise, and the taxation of foreign manufactures would further raise prices and increase the cost of living. II the ccst #f manufacture was increasing, our exports to our naitural markets iwould decrease and the colonies would derive no benefit because they would pay more for our manufactures. Their protectionist , systems would, be to stimulate to tho further exclusion of British goods. ! Another result would be fewer chances of employment. "■ We, were unable t o risk our foreign, trade and Imperial shipping industry. Experience showed that protective systems had a constant tendency to grow. Retaliation was entirely a matter of application and degree, and Britain ought to. negotiate treaties' minimising the effect of hostile tariffs. He strongly favoured the creation of a special Government department of commerce, which would consult with exports and take tho 'country into its confidence before making changes in the commercial policy of the Empire. Lord Hillingdon said America was great, not because of fiscal heresies, but in spite of them. English workers were not ready to change places with Germans. Sir Robert Giffen advised a special enquiry into the earnings of shipping and said the figures would astonish those who described invisible exports as exports neyjer could become visible. Mr Schurter declared that so many Government departments dealt iii business that it would be difficult to create a" Minister of Commerce.. It would be 'better to secure that each member of the Cabinet wnx bettor acquainted with commerce. Mr R. B. Martin, M.P., doubted if a scheme for fighting hostile tariff* would diminish London's trade. Professor Marshall said the union of the race was a higher ideal than union of the Empire. If they wished to retain their hold on the Pacific they must have America's friendship. He advocated a big Anglo-Saxonism. Professor Armitage Smith thought Mr Schurter's economics excellent. It (would be impossible to make a good exchange by building a barricade to keep goods out. Most of the unemployed were unable to work and ought to be taught to work. It was a false notion that a tariff could be fought by a tariff. LACKS J.C.'a INCISIVENESS. Received 19th, 1.24 a.m. Mr Asquith, speaking at Ipswich. said the freetrade campaign was going very well. It was very significant that the majorities in two great Tory strongholds had been substantially reduced. Whatever Britain might suffer from trade depression. her people, were better oT than tho population of protected countries. The colonies were entitled to fiscal autonomy. While ready to welcome any contribution their patriotism offei'ed to the common, burden of our defence, we could not claim it when they had no voice in determining the Imperial policy and taxation. It w a .s with facts to treat the Empire as if it could apply to its members the same system as the United States and Germany applied to parts wherever they had sovereignty.