The Imperial Parliament

Waihi Daily Telegraph, Volume V, Issue 1254, 18 February 1905, Page 2

The Imperial Parliament

li;i' Asqifith's funamlmsnt

Defeated By Sixty Three Votes

Question of Colonial Reciprocity

Presa Association.—Copyright. London, Fob. 27 Speaking to tho amondinent on the Address-in-Reply, Lord Hugh Cecil, son of tho late Marquis of Salisbury, said he was convinced tho nation would novel' accopt a preferential arraii<>oniont with the Colonies based on tho taxation of food, The very idea of bargaining with tho Colonies was disruptive, Tho Government's failuro to discloso its wholo mind was osuisting to drive froo tradors from Parliament, Ho did not' beliovo tho presont was a favourable tirno to slight that tho Colonies should raako great commercial or financial concessions to tho Motherland or was the best way to projjoto Imperial unity. Froo trado was not threatened by tho continuiwoo of tho Government in office. Tho freo trado defence boon suprisingiy successful. Ho thought if the Government spent another session shirking tho opportunity for Parliamentary debate, freo trado would not suffer.

Mr Joseph Chamberlain thought tho sooner thero was a dissolution the bettor, but ho denied tho l ight of tho minority to demand a dissolution for childish and fautastic reasons, which, if in office, they would never recognise themselves, He liopod tho Govornmeiit would nevor abandon their trust bocatiso the Opposition desired office, It was ii new doctrine to ask for a dissolution bicanso tho unofficial proposals of a private member woro not fully discussed, On no point of principle did ho differ from Mr Balfour. Tim Colonial Conference must meet without restraint. Ho was confidont the colonies had a great deal to oiler, Ho never protended to ollor concessions unless tlioy could return reciprocal treatment. Speaking to tho amondmont tho Right Hon, Campbell Bannorman spid dospito Mr Balfour's evasions, lie was committed up to tho hilt to the Birmingham polioy, Tho Opposition objected to tho Colonial Conference, because it would have the effect oi committing tho country to aotion the country would not willingly accopt. The real issue was not robulous retaliation but Chamberlain's full-bloodod policv, i

Mrßi'lfou; iwiil umil tho Government wore amid villi full pmvor of negotiation, attempts wun'il bo uudo against Britain's commerce. which would novor bo raado under i.lm i/iiur eiraumatauoes. Ho catochiscd ihoso opposing respooting tlioir policy in tlio ovont of being rotuniod to powor, If they woro willing permanently to submit to national and imperial dis' nbilitiop. they would disohargo their duties inefficiently. Whether we were pomitted, to talio largo and p:irmanont share in tho commercial developments of the rapidly growing coloniei might depend upou the country'n decision in tlio near future. Mr Asqui'h'a amendment was negatived by 311 10 248 Five Unionists voted against .the Government, and four abstained from voting, including Lord Cecil and Sir John Gocst. I

Sixty fivo Nationalists voted with tho minority.

Tlio opinion in tlio lobbies is that the Government is rmfo.ibis session.

Many Radio ils blame their leaders for laok ot tactics over Mr, Asquith's amendments, which was eminently calculated to unite the the outset of the Billion.