Tuapeka Times AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. "MEASURES NOT MEN." LAWRENCE; SATURDAY. SEPT. 26th 1903. PREFERENTIAL TRADE.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 5100, 26 September 1903, Page 2

Tuapeka Times AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. "MEASURES NOT MEN." LA WRENCE ; SATURDAY. SEPT. 26th 1903. PREFERENTIAL TRADE.

Mr Chamberlain's resignation, though it can be hardly said, oat here at all events, to have made the issues more clear or less obscure, has precipitated the historic straggle in preparation for which the two great parties in Britain are now putting on their armor and making ready on a scale and with a determination probably unknown in England since the repeal of the Corn Laws. Irrespective of those other considerations which he refers to in his letter to Mr Balfour, the dissensions existing amongst his colleagues in the Cabinet left him no other alternative bat resignation. Of the 18 members of which the Cabinet is comprised three — Mr Chamberlain, Mr Ritchie, and Lord George Hamilton — have resigned, six others, it is thought, are undecided, and Mr Balfour himself, judging by his reply to Mr Chamberlain, most be in a similar state of mind. This is the second occasion on which Mr Chamberlain has succeeded in wrecking a Cabinet, and on this occasion it is not at all improbable that he may yet reach the Bupreaae goal of his ambition —-a consummation impossible of realisation in tbo ordinary course of events as a member of a Tory Administration. It may be, however, as the London Daily News says, that " he has met his Waterloo," and that instead of carrying the country with him he may go down in the conflict he has created and witness, at the same time, the defeat and disorganisation of the Unionist Party with the same completeness that followed his secession from the Liberal Party under Mr Gladstone. Something like this is suggested in Mr Chamberlain's letter to the Premier when he says "the Unionist Party's organisation is paralysed and our opponents are in full possession of the field." Already we see (hat he recognises the formidable nature of the opposition of organised labor at Home. Meeting after meeting of workingmen's unions and associations have carried resolutions in favor of Freetr&de and og&uufc ib 6 proposal to tax the people's food. And the Labor members' in the House of Commons have appealed to the workers of the self-governing colonies not to lend their aid in imposing those hardens on their brethren in the Old Country. A tax on food, they declare, would be "a profound injustice to us, and would never mean the cementing of the relations between the colonies and the Mother Country." The re. Bponse to this appeal has yet to come, but meanwhile the offer made by Mr Chamberlain to give the working

classes a pension when they reach the age of 65, on condition that they will themselves provide it by paying more for their bread and meat, has apparently been withdrawn. Judging by recent cables, it has been replaced by a proposal to meet too extra coat of meat and bread by a reduction in the duty on tea and tobacco which, it may be pointed out, are not absolutely necessaries, so that this alternative bribe is not likely to produce much effect. It is estimated that a duty of 7 per cent, in Britain on necessary eatables imported from abroad would bring in about nine millions to the revenue. But it would . increase the price of each articles by about 18 millions to the I consumer, the protected producers of the taxed food at Home getting the additional nine millions. It is the same in every protectionist oountry f including our own. The fact ib that for every penny the revenue gains by % protective tax the consumer has to paj twopence, Consumers in every conntry now have sufficient intelligence to understand this, and no doubt the working classes in Eogland are not in ignorance of the time when Protection and low wages and dear food were in close company. Mr Chamberlain may no doubt be able to rally to his banner the Urge landed proprietors who hope for higher rents, the farmers who are ready to support any policy that promises higher prices, and many manufacturers who want to shut out foreign competition and thus be placed in a secure position to increase their prices* We have had a fairly extensive experience of Protection in this colony and everybody knows how .unfairly it presses on the poorer classes. Mr Chamberlain's policy would bring about an infinitely worse state of things in England.

Of course, there is a fine patriotic and imperialistic ring about Mr Cham* berlain's proposals which must gain for him large accessions of strength from many quarters. His object, as de> Bcribed by himself, is to expand trade within tbe Empire and to break down the barriers erected by foreign powers against British commerce. This sounds very well, but the question is at what cost can it be done and whether, if accomplished, the consequences may not lead to disappointment and disaster* But it is strongly contended by some of the highest: authorities in England that there is nothing to warrant the statement that Great Britain's trade is declining or that there is any necessity for the new departure proposed by Mr Chamberlain. Mr Fuller, member for West Wilta in the House of Commons, has recently published some remarkable facts as to the material progress of Great Britain during the last 15 years. He shows that the value of the external trade of the country h*a increased by 258| millions of potmda in the period mentioned. The value of the internal trade has also increased to an unascertained extent. The total tonnage of British ships entered and cleared shows an increase of 16f million tons. The increase in the number of ships (other than war vessels) built in the United Kingdom was 694, with an increase in tonnage of 602,749 tons. The amounts due to depositors in the post office savings banks shows an in* crease of £84,675,308. Industrial and provident societies have increased their membership by 943,867, and their capital by 250 per cent. Pauperism and crime have decreased, notwithstanding an increase of 5_- million* in the population. Nothing can prove with the force such facts as these do that Britain's trade supremacy cannot have departed, and that all statements to the contrary are entirely illusory* There is no cause for pessimism in re* gard to British trade, and as long as her industrial and commercial supremacy remains, there need be no fear of the decay of the Empire itself. But it is just as well to remember the facts juat quoted when so many are at the present moment prophesying national disaster chiefly because of some particular advantage which Borne trade rival has managed to secure. The position of the colonies Ib tbat they take goods from other countries simply because Great Britain cannot BUpply them say* with sugar or with kerosene OF with patented articles, -which can only be obtained from Germany or the United States. By placing 10 per cent, or any higher duty on Buch articles we should be simply taxing ourselveß and thereby making a comfortable standard of liv» ing impossible to people of small means. The freer our ports are the better for the masses of the people, and if there is to be any interference with our tariff it should be in the direction of whittling down protective dudes and opening our ports to the nations of the world.