Unique Position.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 11057, 19 September 1903, Page 5

Unique Position.

Imperial Cabinet Crisis.

Chamberlain, Ritchie, and Hamilton Resign,

Press Association . —Telegraph .—Copyright. Received September 18, 9.58 p.m. LONDON* September 18. Official .-^-His -Majesty the King has accepted the resignations of the Rt. Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies; the Rt. Hon. Chas. Thomson Ritchie, Chancellor of the Exchequer; and the Rt. Hon.' Lord George Hamilton, Secretary of State for India. Received September. 18,, 10.58 p.m. LONDON, September 18; Mr Chamberlain, in a letter to Mr Balfour on 'tlie-9tii, anticipating ; Monday's* Cabinet meeting, said: — "I have most carefully -considered • the situation as it affects the Government, and the great question of fiscal * re- 1 form. When you, in , replying ,to a deputation with reference *to the corn „ tax,i and I, at? Birmingham, called attention to the changes in the commer-cial:-position during 'the [last half cen- ,•>

•tury and suggested'; an • inquiry- into the subject, I do: 'not' think either of us intended to provoke a purely party controversy. We raised, not for the first time» a,, ', question -of the. greatest. ' national and Imperial importance, in the hope that it would* be impartially ' discussed by friends and opponents, and an inquiry initiated which would lead to conclusions - accepted by the majority of people, and represented accordingly by results at the .next general elections. Whether this, view %vas reasonable or not, it was certainly not shared by the Liberal leaders,

who scouted the idea that a system generally accepted in 1846 could possibly require any modification in 1903, .their .whole party organisation being directed against an attempt to,, .alter, or even inquire into the foundation of the fiscal policy. • The advocates of reconsideration,,, meanwhile, have to grant them an advantage, owing to admitted differences, of. opinion in the Unionist party, the party's, organisa^tions being paralysed, and our opponents in full ' possession of the field. They placed in the forefront" -of their arguments their objections to: taxation of food, and even any readjustment* of , existing taxation, towards the mutual advantage of ourselves" and colonies , and the Empire's closer, union. UnBcrupulous use "was made* of the old - cry of "a dear loaf,''; "and, in the absence of full > • -» discussion, . serious prejudice has been created. The people aTe^genetimy aliVe to the danger of unrestricted competition on the part of foreigners, who close their markets against us while they find in" ours an dlitlet ior their surplus productions. Stjll^hey do not appreci- ; j ate the importance 'of the colonial markets to our trade, nor the danger of losing them unless we meet in some •■ way their natural patriotic desire for preference. The result, for the present at. any rate, is that preference to colonies, involving any new duty, however small, on articles of food, even if accompanied by reduction of taxation on other articles of • food of equally universal consumption, is not acceptable to. the majority of the con- , stituencies. However ? fregrettable or , ' mistaken this decision, no Government

of a democratic country can ignore it':. Therefore, I feel, as an immediate" .. practical policy of preference cannot be pressed hopefully at present, al-' though there is a very strong feeling in favour of $ho other branch. of .the , policy — that of giving fuller discretion to the Government to negotiate with foreigners for a freer exchange — enabling us to retaliate, in the absence . of concessions, by a just claim to greater reciprocity; and as I believe > . you share with me these views, it seems to me you would be absolutely justified in adopting them as the policy of your Government, although they would involve some changes in its constitution* As Secretary of State • ' for the Colonies; -I • -have 'been -in an • especial sense the representative of the policy of closer imr&n.' I believe • ' i# possible to-day — it may be impossible" to-morrow — to mak^e ■ arrange■i roents for such a union. ~*t have had ' unexampled opportunities of watching" the trend of events, and appreciating the feeling of our kinsmen beyond the seas. I stand in a 1 different position '<• to my colleagues, and I would be justly blaineable if I .remained in ■ office and accepted the exclusion of so important a' part of my programmed I think, with absolute loyalty to the Government and its general policy, with nq fear of embarrassing it, -I can best promote the' cause outside. I can- • not but hope that in an independent position my arguments may meet with less prejudice than from a party leader. Accordingly I suggest you limit the Governments- present policy ■ to the assertion of our freedom in . connection with all commercial relations with foreigners, and agree to my resigning. I will devote myself to "explaining and popularising the Imperial union which, experience has convinced me is essential to our future welfare and prosperity." Received September 19, 1.20 a.m. • . LONDON, September 18. Mr Balfour, replied on the 16th instant: — . t "I agree with you that the time has come for a change in the fiscal canons whereby we bound ourselves in our dealings with other Governments. It seems paradoxical for you to leave the Cabinet at a moment when others are leaving, disagreeing on this very point, yet I reluctantly admit there is , • some force in the. arguments based on

your special personal relaticins to preference. You have done ;more s than any man living or dead to bring home to the citizens of- t'ae Empire, a consciousness of Imperial obligations and the interdependence, of the! fragments whexeinto -the E;mpire is divided. I believe you ate {right in) hold- ' ing that interdependence should be ' , expressed by commercial, eguallly. with -, political and military relations. .J. believe with you that closer fiscal union . between the Motherland and the 1 colonies would be good for both*- and, • based on fitting terms, the advantages will increase as the colonies girow in wealth and population. If ever, there _. • -were any- differences between, us, they ' merely related- to the practicability of . a .proposal requiring colonial limitation in the all-round development pf ,. A . Protection," and, on the Motherland's part, tho establishment of preference . to (important colonial., produots. nothing about limitation, but with regard to preference involving taxa-'-tion, however light, upon foojdstuffs, J am convinced, with you, that opinion is not yet ripe. ' The reasons are dis- •: coverable, in past battles and in recent political misrepresentations. I'^.amj deeply concerned at your inability, under the very special circumstances, „to remain a Minister. Ido not yen- . ture to raise objection, and if you think you can best serve • the , interests • of Imperial unity by freely pressing •• < .your vie vs.' on., preference in an independent position, I will not criticise ' .your determination. The loss to the Goyernmenk-wilLbje great indeed, but _ the gain to the cause you have at heart may be greater still. If so, what can I 'do but acquiesce?"